CAR_Public/150930.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 30, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 195


                            Headlines


ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidation, Lead Plaintiff Bid Pending
ADVANCE BUILDING: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss in "Songer" Suit
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Avoids FCRA Claims in Data Breach Class Suit
ASSET MANAGEMENT: Appeals Court Overturns Counsel Fee Award

ATHENAHEALTH INC: Removes St. Louis Class Suit to E.D. Missouri
AVON PRODUCTS: Dec. 1 Fairness Hearing on $62MM Settlement
B&D TAYLOR: Faces "Zambrano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BARRY S. COHEN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Investors Assets
BECTON DICKINSON: Settlement Hearing Held in Delaware Case

BECTON DICKINSON: Glynn-Brunswick Filed Class Action
BLOOMFIELD CONDOMINIUM: Class Suit Deal Allows Sale of NJ Condos
BLUE CROSS: Plymouth Votes to Join Class Suit
BLUE CROSS: "Conway" Suit Transferred From New York to Alabama
BMW: Settles Racial Discrimination Class Suit for $1.6-Mil.

BRITISH PETROLEUM: Must Face Shareholders' Class Suit
CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Kessler Topaz Files Securiteis Class Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Court Stayed "Enea" Case
CAREER EDUCATION: Court Stayed "Surrett" Case
CHEETAH'S: Exotic Dancers File Misclassification Suits

CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Judge Allows "Bird" Suit to be Arbitrated
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Writ of Certiorari Filed in Stock Sale Action
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Still Defending Royalty Underpayment Actions
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Class Actions Filed in Pennsylvania and Ohio
CHICAGO, IL: Judge Allows Abused Citizen to Amend Complaint

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Removes "Hernandez" Suit to N.D. Indiana
CIGNA: Sued Over Refusal to Cover Depression Treatment
COALINGA, CA: Detainees Can't Join Suit v. Kramer, Judge Says
COMPUTER SCIENCES: "Plotnick" Suit Moved From N.J. to Virginia
CONFORMIS INC: Gilman Law Files Securities Class Suit

CONFORMIS INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
CONFORMIS INC: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Suit
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Appealed Class Certification Order
COOK CTY, IL: Faces "Oppenheimer" Suit Alleging Discrimination
COOK CTY, IL: Sued for Discriminating Against Hispanic Employee

CSX TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Derailment of Train Hauling Toxins
CYNOSURE INC: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Action
DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Seeks Approval of Agreement in Labor Suit
DEL MONTE: Removed "Sagastume" Suit to N.D. California
EDGEWATER HOMES: Home Buyers Sue Over False, Misleading Conduct

EL POLLO: October 23 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
EMSA: Agency Testifies at Hearing in Billing Suit
ENCORE REHABILITATION: Sued by OT Assistant for FMLA Violations
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Biometrics Slurpage
FAIRFIELD SENTRY: Nov. 20 Fairness Hearing on $125MM Settlement

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS: Prisoners Bypass Administrative Remedies
FIAT CHRYSLER: Asks Court to Dismiss Bad Transmission Suit
FIFTH THIRD: Late September 2015 Hearing in Case Appeal
FORD MOTOR: Judge Narrows Claims in MyFord Touch Consumer Suit
GARY POOLS: Faces "Lemmers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

GENERAL MOTORS: Ruling Offers Fodder For Franchise Class Suit
GERON CORPORATION: Filed Answer to Consolidated Amended Complaint
GOLDMAN SACHS: Cleared from Investors Suit Over Toxic MBS
GOOGLE INC: Faces "Matera" Suit Over Gmail Privacy Violations
GROOME TRANSPORTATION: Nov. 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

GURLEY MOTOR: Bid to File Second Amended Complaint Rejected
H & L FOODS: Faces "Gonzales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HASEKO: Ordered to Pay $20-Mil. to Homeowners in Ewa Beach
HELIX ENERGY: Levy & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit
HONEST CO: $5MM Class Suit Baseless, Jessica Alba Says

HOOT WINC: NLRB Rules in Favor of Workers
HRG GROUP: FGL, Company and OM Group Reached Global Settlement
HRG GROUP: Joint Motion to Dismiss Class Action Fully Briefed
HYDRO ONE: Faces Class Suit Over Billing Practices
ILLINOIS LOTTERY: Faces Class Suit for Withholding Winnings

INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Three Stockholder Class Actions Filed
INSURANCE CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Discount Policy
INTEGRA CLAIMS: Faces "Gamez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
INTEGRYS HOLDING: Preliminary Approval Hearing Held
JACKSONVILLE, FL: Judge Says Ruling v. Class Claims Final

JC PENNEY: Judge Denies Motions in Suit Over Vacation Policy
JS EMPLOYMENT: Sued by Muslim Woman of Religious Discrimination
K MART CORP: Faces "Persuad" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
KEURIG GREEN: 3 Securities Fraud Class Actions Presently Pending
KEURIG GREEN: Oral Argument This Week in JBR Case Appeal

KEURIG GREEN: No Court Decision Yet on Motion to Dismiss
KEURIG GREEN: Intends to Defend Against Alvaro Sanchez Complaint
KOSTMAYER CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
KRUGER INC: Lawyer Ready to Prosecute Deer Lake Suit
LABOR READY: Employees' Bid to Intervene in "Allen" Case Denied

LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Made All Payments in Jefferies Case Settlement
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Executed Settlement in Sykes v. Mel Harris
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Court Tossed Settlement in Haverhill v. Asali
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Set in Securities Case
LOUIS STOBER: Accused of Fraud, Bribery and Legal Malpractice

LUBBOCK, TX: Faces Class Suit Over 'Illegal' Storm Water Fee
LUFTHANSA: Supreme Court Stays Penalty Order
MAGGIANO'S INC: Judge Held Suit in Abeyance Pending Arbitration
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Boyd" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Cobblah" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Jakes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Rich" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Soukoury" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MCCORMICK & CO: Faces Class Suit Over "Unlawful Slack Filling"

METLIFE INC: To Defend Against Westland Police Case
METLIFE INC: To Defend Birmingham Retirement Case
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Keife" Action
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Owens" Action
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Robainas" Action

METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Intoccia" Action
METLIFE INC: Sun Life Says MLIC Obligated to Indemnify
METLIFE INC: Settlement Objector Filed Notice to Appeal
METLIFE INC: To Defend "Voshall" Case
METROHEALTH SYSTEM: Suit Alleges Sexual Harassment & Retaliation

NEVADA: New Voucher Law Unconstitutional, Suit Claims
NEW NATIONAL: "Jean" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEW ZEALAND: Homeowners File Class Suit Against EQC
NVIDIA CORPORATION: "Palagano" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
O-TEX PUMPING: "Crescenzo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

OILFIELD EQUIPMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
OM GROUP: Six Class Actions Filed in Court of Chancery
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Class Action Related to Merger Now Concluded
OMNI HOTELS: Judge Approves Bid to Modify Class Definition
ONSTAR LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Duchene" Suit Claims

ONTARIO: Suit Calls for End to Claw-Back of Child Support
OPKO HEALTH: Stipulated Consent Order in Shareholder Case
OREGON: Settles Disability Discrimination Class Suit
OWENS-ILLINOIS INC: Faces Suit Over Injuries Caused by Asbestos
PALMS ADMINISTRATIVE: Judge Issues Protective Order in FLSA Suit

PEARSON EDUCATION: Judge Narrows Claims in "Gitman" Suit
PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGIES: Parties Proceed to Status Conference
PIER1 IMPORTS: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit
PIER1 IMPORTS: Briscoe Law Files Securities Class Suit
POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: Filed Reply Brief in Securities Action

PREFERRED ACQUISITIONS: Removes "Michiels" Suit to M.D. Florida
PREMIER HOME: "Barimah" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Granted, Expert Report Okayed
RESPOND POWER: Judge Denies Class Cert. Bid in "Gillis" Suit
QBE: Faces $200-Mil. Shareholders' Class Suit

SALT RIVER: Customers Sue Over $3 Increase in Service Charge
SOCIAL SECURITY: Court Trims Claims by Refugees, Migrants
SOLO CUP: Accused of Discrimination by Female Hispanic Packer
STANDARD INSURANCE: Faces "De Leon" Suit Over Benefits Reduction
STANDARD INSURANCE: Faces 2nd "De Leon" Suit Over Benefits

SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Says Claimants May End Up Empty Handed
SUPER MICRO: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Suit
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Court Considering Damages in Drywall Suit
TAKATA CORP: Automakers Want Defective Airbag Suit Stayed
TIME WARNER: Sued Over Keeping Ex-Customer's Personal Info

TRINET GROUP: October 6 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
TURBO MACHINING: Former Employee Files Class Suit Over OT Pay
TYRONE GRIFFITH: Sued Over Refusal to Renew Gun Licenses
TYSON FOODS: 8th Cir. Reversed Wage Payment Law Judgments
U.S. NONWOVENS: Motion to Decertify Sent to Magistrate Judge

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued for Violating Disabilities Act in N.Y.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Text Messages
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Filed Reply Brief in Class Action Appeal
UNITED STATES: D.C. Judge Denies County's Application for Fees
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Healthcare Providers Suit Goes to Arbitration

UNIVERSAL STUDIOS: Faces Class suit Over FCRA Violations
UTAH: State Hospital Sued Over Delay in Inmate Treatment
VECTREN CORPORATION: Denied Class Action Allegations
VEMMA NUTRITION: FTC Obtains Injunction for Temporary Shut Down
VERMONT: State Attorney Defends Budget Cut in Federal Court

VISIONPRO COMMUNICATIONS: Cert. Bid Denied; Oct. 13 Hearing Set
WASHINGTON: DOT's New Toll Program Faces Class Suit
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Discrimination Class Suit Finally Settled
WELLS FARGO: Illegally Uses Automatic Dialing System, Suit Claims
WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Gov't Sued Over Stolen Wages Scheme

WESTERN CORRECTIONAL: Judge Dismisses Disabled Prisoner's Suit
WESTERN RANGE: Former Shepherds Sue Over Wage Conspiracy
WHOLE FOODS: Accused of Discrimination Targeting Older Workers
XOMA CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Third Circuit Has Not Ruled on Appeal


                            *********


ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidation, Lead Plaintiff Bid Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Court has not
yet issued an order on consolidation and lead plaintiff.

In March 2015, following the Company's announcement of the update
to the timing of its planned New Drug Application ("NDA")
submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID for the treatment of
Parkinson's disease psychosis and the subsequent decline of the
price of its common stock, two putative securities class action
complaints (captioned Rihn v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case
No. 15-cv-0575-BTM-DHB and Wright v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Case No. 15-cv-0593- BTM-DHB) were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, or the Court,
against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers. The complaints generally allege that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements
regarding the timing of the Company's planned NDA submission to
the FDA for NUPLAZID, thereby artificially inflating the price of
its common stock. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages
and other relief.

On April 10 and June 1, 2015, the Court entered orders deferring
the defendants' response to the Rihn and Wright complaints until
after the Court appoints a lead plaintiff and assigns lead
counsel. On May 12, 2015, several putative stockholders filed
separate motions to consolidate the two actions and be appointed
lead plaintiff. The Court has not yet issued an order on
consolidation and lead plaintiff.

The Company has assessed such legal proceedings, and given the
unpredictability inherent in litigation, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of these matters. At this time, the Company is
unable to estimate possible losses or ranges of losses that may
result from such legal proceedings, and it has not accrued any
amounts in connection with such legal proceedings other than
ongoing attorneys' fees.


ADVANCE BUILDING: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss in "Songer" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the Southern District of Texas
denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case DARRECK SONGER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED BUILDING SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, CIVIL
ACTION NO. H-14-3154 (S.D. Tex.)

Defendant, Advanced Building Services, LLC (ABS), provides mobile
accommodations for workers in the oil-and-gas industry. Plaintiffs
are ABS service technicians, whose job is constructing,
maintaining, and dismantling the mobile units.

Darreck Songer sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated employees. The complaint alleged that ABS
violated the FLSA by misclassifying the service technicians as
exempt and employing them for workweeks longer than 40 hours
without compensating them for their employment in excess of 40
hours per week at rates no less than one and one half the regular
rates for which they were employed.

ABS moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.

Judge Rosenthal denied defendant's motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Rosenthal's memorandum and opinion dated September
2, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/oQoPyzfrom Leagle.com.

Darreck Songer, Plaintiff, represented by:

Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
Michael A Josephson, Esq.
1150 Bissonnet Street
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: 713-751-0025

     - and -

Richard J Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza # 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-877-8788

Advanced Building Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kindall
C James -- kjames@liskow.com -- Alma Gomez -- afgomez@liskow.com
-- Thomas J McGoey, II -- tjmcgoey@liskow.com -- at Liskow & Lewis


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who
purchased Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. securities between
September 5, 2014 and July 14, 2015.

Click here to learn about the case:
http://docs.wongesq.com/WMS-Info-Request-Form-883

There is no cost or obligation to you.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Advanced Drainage's inventory
values and cost of sales were misstated; (2) Advanced Drainage's
transportation and equipment leases should be recorded as capital
leases; and (3) as a result, Advanced Drainage's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you suffered a loss in Advanced Drainage you have until
September 28, 2015 to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. To obtain additional
information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit
http://docs.wongesq.com/WMS-Info-Request-Form-883.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Vincent Wong, Esq.
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong
39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: www.wongesq.com


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Avoids FCRA Claims in Data Breach Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alessandra V. Swanson, Esq. -- aswanson@winston.com -- at Winston
Strawn LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the Seventh
Circuit recently rejected the argument that Advocate Health and
Hospitals Corporation qualifies as a consumer reporting agency
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The suit, stemming
from a July 2013 data breach, hinged on the plaintiffs' ability to
satisfactorily plead that Advocate was a consumer reporting agency
and that it was distributing consumer reports.

The Seventh Circuit recently rejected the argument that Advocate
Health and Hospitals Corporation qualifies as a consumer reporting
agency under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The suit,
stemming from a July 2013 data breach, hinged on the plaintiffs'
ability to satisfactorily plead that Advocate was a consumer
reporting agency and that it was distributing consumer reports.

The plaintiffs claimed that Advocate violated the FCRA by
willfully and negligently failing to maintain reasonable
procedures to ensure that it did not furnish their consumer
reports to unauthorized third parties. The court was brief in
explaining that the information compiled by Advocate does not
constitute a consumer report, noting the FCRA's definition
expressly excludes reports that solely contain information about a
consumer's experiences or transactions with the entity.
Information Advocate sends to third parties such as medical
diagnoses is limited to its experiences with the consumer, so it
falls under the exception, the court held. That decision alone was
enough to affirm the dismissal of the plaintiff's FCRA
allegations. However, the court opted to provide an in-depth
discussion of why Advocate, a healthcare provider, is not a
consumer reporting agency.

Under FCRA, an entity is a consumer reporting agency if it
compiles information about consumers for the purpose of furnishing
consumer reports to third parties either for fees or on a non-
profit basis. The Seventh Circuit agreed that Advocate compiles
information about consumers, but found the plaintiffs failed to
sufficiently plead that Advocate is compensated for the purpose of
compiling the information and distributing it as a consumer
report. Nor was it doing it for non-profit purposes. Instead, the
court noted, Advocate collects and transmits patient information
to third parties so Advocate can obtain payment for its health
care providers.


ASSET MANAGEMENT: Appeals Court Overturns Counsel Fee Award
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justice Richard M. Mosk of the Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, Division Five, reversed the trial court's
postjudgment order in the appealed case entitled PRISCILLA AHERN
et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ASSET MANAGEMENT
CONSULTANTS, INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. B258030
(Cal. Ct. App.)

Ahern et al. appeal from the trial court's postjudgment order
awarding attorney fees to the defendants. Plaintiffs contend that
the trial court erred when it found that defendants had prevailed
on a contract claim and when it determined that defendants were
entitled to enforce the attorney fees provision in the purchase
agreement in issue.

Defendants contend that the issue of whether they are parties to
the purchase agreement entitled to enforce its attorney fees
provision has been decided in their favor by the trial court in a
related action between the same parties. They also contend that
they have a right, even as nonsignatories, to enforce the attorney
fees provision under Civil Code section 1717.

Justice Mosk reversed the trial court' postjudgment order awarding
attorney's fees to defendants and awarded plaintiffs costs on
appeal.

A copy of Justice Mosk's unpublished opinion dated September 3,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/8nKTO3from Leagle.com.

Kenneth J. Catanzarite -- kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com -- Nicole
M. Catanzarite-Woodward -- ncatanzarite@catanzarite.com -- Eric V.
Anderton -- eanderton@catanzarite.com -- atCatanzarite Law
Corporation, for Plaintiffs and Appellants

M. Alim Malik -- amalik@jdtplaw.com -- Charles M. Clark --
cclark@jdtplaw.com -- at Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus & Peckenpaugh,
for Defendants and Respondents

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Five
panel consist of Presiding Justice Paul Turner and Justices Sandy
R. Kriegler and Richard M. Mosk.


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Removes St. Louis Class Suit to E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v.
Athenahealth, Inc., et al., Case No. 15SL-CC01757, was removed
from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01215-AGF to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons, who were sent
telephone facsimile messages of material advertising healthcare
seminars or how to become more profitable by or on behalf of the
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max G. Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          28 Old Belle Monte Rd.
          Chesterfield, MO 63017
          Telephone: (636) 536-7022
          Facsimile: (636) 536-6652
          E-mail: maxmargulis@margulislaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON AND WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gerald P. Greiman, Esq.
          Patrick T. McLaughlin, Esq.
          Ryan C. Hardy, Esq.
          SPENCER AND FANE, LLP
          1 N. Brentwood Boulevard, Suite 1000
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-7733
          Facsimile: (314) 862-4656
          E-mail: ggreiman@spencerfane.com
                  pmclaughlin@spencerfane.com
                  rhardy@spencerfane.com


AVON PRODUCTS: Dec. 1 Fairness Hearing on $62MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
A summary notice was filed on In re: CITY OF BROCKTON RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. AVON PRODUCTS, INC., ANDREA JUNG, and
CHARLES W. CRAMB, Defendants, Civil Action No. 11 Civ. 4665 (PGG):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
ANY AVON PRODUCTS, INC. ("AVON" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK
FROM JULY 31, 2006, THROUGH AND INCLUDING OCTOBER 26, 2011 (THE
"CLASS PERIOD"), AND WHO WERE DAMAGED AS TO ANY SHARES PURCHASED
OR ACQUIRED DURING ANY PORTION OF THE CLASS PERIOD (THE "CLASS")

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 action has been certified as a class action for purposes
of settlement only and that a settlement for $62,000,000 has been
proposed.  A hearing will be held on December 1, 2015 at 10:00
a.m., before the Honorable Paul G. Gardephe at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood
Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 705,
New York, NY 10007 for the purpose of determining:  (1) whether
the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the Final Judgment and Order
of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court
dismissing the Action with prejudice, and the releases specified
and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
July 22, 2015, should be granted; (3) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved; and (4) whether the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel
for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses in
connection with this Action should be approved.  The Court has
reserved the right to reschedule the hearing without further
notice.

If you are a member of the Class described above, your rights may
be affected by this Action and the proposed Settlement thereof.
If you have not received the detailed Notice of (i) Pendency of
Class Action, Certification of Class, and Proposed Settlement,
(ii) Settlement Fairness Hearing, and (iii)  Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice") and
Proof of Claim form, you may obtain them by contacting the Claims
Administrator:

AVON SECURITIES SETTLEMENT c/o KCC Class Action Services P.O. Box
43369 Providence, RI  02940-3369 Info@AvonSecuritiesSettlement.com
AvonSecuritiesSettlement.com (866) 887-6046

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel:

MOTLEY RICE LLC Gregg S. Levin, Esq.William S. Norton, Esq. 28
Bridgeside Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC  29464 (843) 216-9000
www.motleyrice.com

Further information may also be obtained by directing your inquiry
in writing to the Claims Administrator, KCC Class Action Services,
at the address listed above.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked
no later than January 19, 2016, establishing that you are entitled
to recovery.  As further described in the Notice, you will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether
you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in
the Notice, no later than November 10, 2015.  Any objections to
the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's
request for attorney's fees and litigation expenses must be filed
and served, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the
Notice, such that they are received no later than November 10,
2015.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE ABOUT THIS
NOTICE.

DATED: August 21, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


B&D TAYLOR: Faces "Zambrano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Antonio Garcia Zambrano, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. B&D Taylor, Inc., Billie Gene Taylor and
Diana L. Taylor, Case No. 1:15-cv-02856-ELH (D. Md., September 22,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a McDonald's restaurant franchise
located at 3423 Eastern Blvd, Baltimore, MD 21220.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto N. Allen, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ALLEN, LLC
      11002 Veirs Mill Rd., Suite 700
      Wheaton, MD 20902
      Telephone: (301) 861-0202
      Facsimile: (301) 861-4395
      E-mail: rallen@robertoallenlaw.com


BARRY S. COHEN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Investors Assets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry J. Bluefeld, on his own behalf and derivatively as a
Shareholder of Annuity Associates, Inc., 6000 Executive Blvd. #700
Rockville, MD 20852 v. Barry S. Cohen, Joel S. Meisel, and David
H. Cohen, Case No. 8:15-cv-02857-GJH (D. Md., September 22, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a scheme to defraud
money and property of the Plaintiff and other Class B minority
non-voting shareholders of Annuity, specifically by  intentionally
and recklessly causing the devaluation of the Plaintiff's and
other investors interests in Annuity which owns an industrial
warehouse property in the Baltimore Maryland area and secretly
causing the assets of Annuity to be used by the  Defendants to pay
personal expenses and expenses of other companies in which the
Defendants control and own.

The Defendants own buildings in Baltimore, Maryland, office
buildings and large townhouses in Washington D.C. and other
commercial and industrial properties in other states, including
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barry J. Bluefeld
      PROSE


BECTON DICKINSON: Settlement Hearing Held in Delaware Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Delaware Court
of Chancery scheduled a hearing for September 17, 2015 to consider
the settlement in a class action lawsuit.

On October 5, 2014, CareFusion and the Company entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (which we refer to as the merger
agreement) that provides for the acquisition of CareFusion by the
Company. Under the terms of the merger agreement, a subsidiary of
the Company ("the merger subsidiary") merged with and into
CareFusion on March 17, 2015, with CareFusion surviving the merger
as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. Several putative
class action lawsuits have been filed against CareFusion, its
directors, the Company and the merger subsidiary in the Delaware
Court of Chancery and in the Superior Court of California, San
Diego County. These lawsuits generally allege that the members of
the board of directors of CareFusion breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the merger by, among other things,
carrying out a process that plaintiffs allege did not ensure
adequate and fair consideration to CareFusion stockholders. The
plaintiffs in these actions further allege that CareFusion and the
Company aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches of
their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek, among other things,
equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the merger, rescission
of the merger and/or rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On December 30, 2014, the parties to the actions filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Actions") entered into
an agreement in principle to settle the Delaware Actions on the
basis of additional disclosures made in a CareFusion Schedule 14A,
filed with the SEC on January 5, 2015. The settlement terms are
reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU").

On December 31, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel notified the Delaware
Court of Chancery of the settlement and MOU. The parties to the
Delaware Actions have entered into a stipulation and agreement of
compromise, settlement and release and presented the matter to the
Delaware Court of Chancery for approval. The Delaware Court of
Chancery scheduled a hearing for September 17, 2015 to consider
the matter.

The actions filed in the Superior Court of California are not part
of the proposed settlement and are still pending.


BECTON DICKINSON: Glynn-Brunswick Filed Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a class action
complaint was filed on July 17, 2015, against the Company in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. The
plaintiffs, Glynn-Brunswick Hospital Authority, trading as
Southeast Georgia Health System, and Southeast Georgia Health
System, Inc., seek to represent a class of acute care purchasers
of BD syringes and IV catheters. The complaint alleges that BD
monopolized the markets for syringes and IV catheters through
contracts, theft of technology, false advertising, acquisitions,
and other conduct. The complaint seeks treble damages but does not
specify the amount of alleged damages.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to each of
the above-mentioned suits pending against the Company and is
engaged in a vigorous defense of each of these matters.


BLOOMFIELD CONDOMINIUM: Class Suit Deal Allows Sale of NJ Condos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeannie O'sulliwan, writing for Law 360, reported that a New
Jersey judge has ruled that a class action settlement allowing a
group of homeowners to fetch above-market prices from their
condominiums' developer, in exchange for relinquishing their
voting rights, complies with state law because the plaintiffs
voluntarily returned control to the developer.

In a decision that ends a 15-year-long legal battle between the
developer and residents of Brookdale Gardens in Essex County,
Judge David B. Katz tackled "significant legal questions" as the
waivability of the Condominium Act's provision that when the
developer holds out on selling a portion of a complex's units, the
nondeveloper owners are entitled to elect the the members of the
association.

The Brookdale Gardens settlement terms would be lawful as long as
the developer's, or sponsor's, restrictions were spelled out in
the master deed, as set forth in the Superior Court of New
Jersey's decision in Amir v. D'Agostino in 1998, Judge Katz ruled.
That court held that a waiver would apply as long as the the
homeowners knew statutory protection was available, the judge
said.

"Thus, because it is not inconsistent with the Condominium Act to
allow the Sponsor to control to Board, the Court finds that as
long as the Sponsor amends the Master Deed of Brookdale Gardens to
reflect the changes to its governance structure, Class Members who
currently own a unit in Brookdale and future purchasers of a unit
may be bound by those changes," Katz said in a 59-page ruling
decided Aug. 28 and released.

Brookdale Gardens residents alleged they felt "stuck" because the
developer's control of the complex diminished the value of their
units, and banks refused to provide financing for a purchase
because the developer owned 80 percent of the units, according to
the decision. Two of the 75 class members opted out of the
settlement with plans to challenge the sponsor's exclusive control
over the association's board, the decision said, but Judge Katz
only permitted them to pursue initial claims for diminution of
value against the sponsor.

"The instant settlement agreement can be characterized as a
Herculean effort to reconcile a case that has been pending in the
Superior Court for at least 15 years with barely any progress as
to a settlement agreement, until now," the judge said. "Crucial
and integral to this settlement agreement was the Sponsor's
ability to maintain exclusive control over the Board in exchange
for its obligation to buy out any unit owners who wished to leave
Brookdale Gardens."

A "complex, contentious and protracted history" trailed the class
action, which evolved from an April 2000 state court complaint
accusing Bloomfield Condominium Associates of negligence, breach
of contract and fraud, the decision said. Three dozen nonsponsor
unit owners alleged the association allowed the property to fall
into a state of disrepair, executed a blanket mortgage on sponsor-
owned units that made it "impossible" for plaintiffs to sell their
units, ran afoul of municipal code requirements and racked up
Bureau of Housing Inspection violations, and failed to properly
reserve maintenance and upkeep funds.

The power struggle between the residents and the developer was
underscored by a 1987 public offering statement dictating that the
power of non-sponsor unit owners to vote on board members was
proportional to the amount of units sold, and those owners could
elect the entire board of trustees when by the time 75 percent of
the units were sold, according to the decision.

The litigation continued amid unsuccessful mediation attempts, and
the court in 2007 appointed a special fiscal agent who replaced
the Bloomfield Management Company with a  professional management
firm to operate, manage and maintain the condominium.

In ruling on the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion in July 2012,
the court held that the defendants sold some units but
intentionally prevented the sale of additional units, effectively
depriving nonsponsor unit owners control of the condominiums, and
therefore the plaintiffs were entitled to elect all members of the
board, the decision said.

Concerned that the board could still technically control voting
through its requirement that 51 percent of the members -- which
could include sponsors who don't have voting rights -- be present,
the plaintiffs filed another motion for summary judgment in April
2013, according to the decision.

The court held that 51 percent of the nonsponsor unit owners must
be present for a vote, but refused to enter a mandatory injunction
compelling the developer to sell units because of the
"inappropriate level of court supervision" it would warrant, and
also declined to enjoin defendants from leasing any of its
remaining units because such restrictions weren't included in the
master deed, required by the Condominium Act, the decision said.

The parties traded cross-claims and ultimately filed a class
action in May, agreeing "amongst themselves that a fair resolution
of the lawsuit would be for the nonsponsor unit owners to be
bought out at above-market rates, with control of the complex
returning to the defendants."

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Laurence H. Olive.

The defendants are represented by Philip R. Sellinger and Aaron
Van Nostrand of Greenberg Traurig LLP and E. Richard Kennedy of
Kennedy Wronko & Kennedy.

The case is Christine Gurriere et. al. v. Bloomfield Condominium
Associates LLC, case number  ESX-C-101-15, in the Superior Court
of New Jersey in Sussex County.


BLUE CROSS: Plymouth Votes to Join Class Suit
---------------------------------------------
Travis Kellar, writing for Times Ledger, reported that Plymouth
Borough council members voted to hire a part-time borough manager
at their meeting, while also voting to join a class-action lawsuit
against Blue Cross .

The borough council voted to hire Barbara Fairchild to the
position in a 6-1 vote. Councilman James Mahon cast the single
opposing vote and declined to comment on his reason.

Fairchild's employment is effective starting, and her salary is
$45,000 per year.

"I would like to assist this community with some changes to give
more positive outlook for enhancing the community in a lot of
areas that it needs some attention," Fairchild said. "I think that
we can do a lot with some grants, I think we can look for
opportunities through funding sources to help with many areas."

Fairchild has had previous experience in municipal management. She
said she worked with the supervisors in her hometown in Foster
Township, as well as with borough officials in Laflin, Pittston
Township and Forty Fort.

Council President Frank Coughlin called the borough hiring a
manager "long overdue." He explained that the decision was made to
hire a part-time manager because the borough could not afford to
hire a full-time borough manager with benefits.

Citing Fairchild's past experience, Coughlin said council members
felt that they "hit a home run" when they hired her.

"It's going to take a weight off all of our shoulders," he said,
adding that most council members have jobs outside of their
service on council. "We just feel we've been missing out on a
lot."

Borough council members also unanimously agreed to enter into a
class action lawsuit against Blue Cross of Northeastern
Pennsylvania.

According to the motion, Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania
recently gave away approximately $90 million in charitable
donations.

The motion indicated that it is the belief of council members that
those funds should have "benefited the premium payers" and "should
belong to the premium payers."

The borough will enter the active class action lawsuit in the
Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas and will retain Cefalo and
Associates of West Pittston as legal counsel.

Borough Solicitor Mike Kostelansky said that there will be no
upfront costs or fees, and that if fees are approved after a
settlement, they will be deducted from whatever settlement is
given to the borough.

Kostelansky called the process a "free ride" in terms of legal
fees. Coughlin agreed, saying that the borough has "everything to
gain and nothing to lose."

In other business, council members:

   * Appointed John Rhodes to the position of a full-time street
department worker at an hourly rate of $13 per hour, as wll as
other applicable benefits that apply to him under the current
collective bargaining agreement.

   * Hired Henrietta Price as a cross guard at the hourly rate of
$8.50.


BLUE CROSS: "Conway" Suit Transferred From New York to Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Conway, et al. v. Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Alabama, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05539, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama (Southern).  The Alabama District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:15-cv-01348-RDP to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are providers of healthcare services, equipment or
supplies, as well as facilities where medical or surgical
procedures are performed.  Many of Plaintiffs' patients are
insured by the Blues or are included in employee benefit plans
administered by the Blues.

The Defendants are the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and
the Blues, their owners and affiliated companies, as well as
companies through which they conduct their conspiracies.  The
Blues provide health insurance coverage for approximately 100
million people in the United States.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have agreed with each
other to carve the United States into "Service Areas" in which
only one Blue can sell insurance, administer employee benefit
plans or contract with healthcare providers.  The Defendants have
engaged in a horizontal market allocation, which is illegal under
a per se, quick look or rule of reason analysis.  The quid pro quo
for this illegal Market Allocation Conspiracy is a horizontal
Price-Fixing and Boycott Conspiracy under which every other Blue
gets the benefit of the artificially reduced prices that each Blue
pays to healthcare providers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447-7060
          Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
          E-mail: ekallas@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          W. Tucker Brown, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          2001 Park Place North
          1000 Park Place Tower
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 488-1200
          Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
          E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
                  tbrown@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          60 State Street, 7th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 573-5118
          Facsimile: (617) 371-2950
          E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          Deborah J. Winegard, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          1068 Virginia Avenue, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30306
          Telephone: (404) 607-8222
          Facsimile: (404) 607-8451
          E-mail: dwinegard@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          Henry C. Quillen, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          159 Middle Street, Suite 2C
          Portsmouth, NH 03801
          Telephone: (603) 294-1591
          Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
          E-mail: hquillen@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          E. Kirk Wood, Jr., Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM LLC
          P. O. Box 382434
          Birmingham, AL 35238
          Telephone: (205) 612-0243
          Facsimile: (205) 705-1223
          E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net

               - and -

          Debra B. Hayes, Esq.
          Charles Clinton Hunter, Esq.
          THE HAYES LAW FIRM
          700 Rockmead, Suite 210
          Kingwood, TX 77339
          Telephone: (281) 815-4963
          Facsimile: (832) 575-4759
          E-mail: dhayes@dhayeslaw.com
                  chunter@dhayeslaw.com

               - and -

          Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
          Peter Prieto, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
          E-mail: apodhurst@podhurst.com
                  pprieto@podhurst.com

               - and -

          Dennis Pantazis, Esq.
          Brian Clark, Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB
          The Kress Building
          301 Nineteenth Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0500
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          E-mail: dgp@wcqp.com
                  bclark@wcqp.com

               - and -

          U.W. Clemon, Esq.
          J. Mark White, Esq.
          Augusta S. Dowd, Esq.
          Linda G. Flippo, Esq.
          WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD, P.C.
          The Massey Building
          2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 500
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 323-1888
          Facsimile: (205) 323-8907
          E-mail: uwclemon@whitearnolddowd.com
                  adowd@whitearnolddowd.com
                  mwhite@whitearnolddowd.com
                  lflippo@whitearnolddowd.com

               - and -

          Dennis C. Reich, Esq.
          REICH & BINSTOCK, LLP
          4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: (713) 622-7271
          Facsimile: (713) 623-8724
          E-mail: dreich@rbfirm.net

               - and -

          Van Bunch, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: vbunch@bffb.com

               - and -

          Nicholas B. Roth, Esq.
          Julia Smeds Roth, Esq.
          EYSTER KEY TUBB ROTH MIDDLETON & ADAMS, LLP
          402 East Moulton Street, SE
          Decatur, AL 35602
          Telephone: (256) 353-6761
          Facsimile: (256) 353-6767
          E-mail: nroth@eysterkey.com
                  jroth@eysterkey.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Axelrod, Esq.
          AXELROD & DEAN LLP
          830 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (646) 448-5263
          Facsimile: (212) 840-8560
          E-mail: rjaxelrod@axelroddean.com

               - and -

          David A. Balto, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BALTO
          1350 I Street, N.W., Suite 850
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 789-5424
          Facsimile: (202) 589-1819
          E-mail: david.balto@dcantitrustlaw.com

               - and -

          W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS
          & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (800) 898-2034
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Joey K. James, Esq.
          BUNCH & JAMES
          P. O. Box 878
          Florence, AL 35631
          Telephone: (256) 764-0095
          Facsimile: (256) 767-5705
          E-mail: joey@bunchandjames.com

               - and -

          Richard S. Frankowski, Esq.
          THE FRANKOWSKI FIRM, LLC
          231 22nd Street South, Suite 203
          Birmingham, AL 35233
          Telephone: (205) 390-0399
          Facsimile: (205) 390-1001
          E-mail: richard@frankowskifirm.com

               - and -

          Peter H. Burke, Esq.
          J. Allen Schreiber, Esq.
          BURKE HARVEY, LLC
          3535 Grandview Parkway, Suite 100
          Birmingham, AL 35243
          Telephone: (205) 930-9091
          Facsimile: (205) 930-9054
          E-mail: pburke@burkeharvey.com
                  aschreiber@burkeharvey.com

               - and -

          John C. Davis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. DAVIS
          623 Beard Street
          Tallahassee, FL 32303
          Telephone: (850) 222-4770
          E-mail: john@johndavislaw.net

               - and -

          Michael C. Dodge, Esq.
          GLAST PHILLIPS & MURRAY, P.C.
          14801 Quorum Drive, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75254
          Telephone: (972) 419-7172
          E-mail: mdodge@gpm-law.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gray, Esq.
          GRAY & WHITE
          713 E. Market Street, Suite 200
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 805-1800
          Facsimile: (502) 618-4059
          E-mail: mgray@grayandwhitelaw.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Gurley, Jr., Esq.
          Attorney at Law
          24108 Portobello Road
          Birmingham, AL 35242
          Telephone: (205) 908-6512
          E-mail: Michael@gurleylaw.net

               - and -

          Stephen M. Hansen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN
          1821 Dock Street
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 302-5955
          Facsimile: (253) 301-1147
          E-mail: steve@stephenmhansenlaw.com

               - and -

          Lynn W. Jinks, III, Esq.
          Christina D. Crow, Esq.
          JINKS CROW & DICKSON, P.C.
          219 North Prairie Street
          Union Springs, AL 36089
          Telephone: (334) 738-4225
          Facsimile: (334) 738-4229
          E-mail: ljinks@jinkslaw.com
                  ccrow@jinkslaw.com

               - and -

          Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
          Javier A. Lopez, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, P.A.
          2525 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
          E-mail: hst@kttlaw.com
                  jal@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Myron C. Penn, Esq.
          PENN & SEABORN, LLC
          53 Highway 110
          Post Office Box 5335
          Union Springs, AL 36089
          Telephone: (334) 738-4486
          Facsimile: (334) 738-4432
          E-mail: myronpenn28@hotmail.com

               - and -

          C. Wes Pittman, Esq.
          THE PITTMAN FIRM, P.A.
          432 McKenzie Avenue
          Panama City, FL 32401
          Telephone: (850) 784-9000
          Facsimile: (850) 763-6787
          E-mail: wes@pittmanfirm.com

               - and -

          Troy A. Doles, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
          100 S. 4th Street, Suite 900
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-7151
          E-mail: tdoles@uselaws.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Roden, Esq.
          SHELBY RODEN, LLC
          2956 Rhodes Circle
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 933-8383
          Facsimile: (205) 933-8386
          E-mail: rroden@shelbyroden.com

               - and -

          J. Preston Strom, Jr., Esq.
          STROM LAW FIRM, LLC
          2110 N. Beltline Boulevard, Suite A
          Columbia, SC 29204-3905
          Telephone: (803) 252-4800
          Facsimile: (803) 252-4801
          E-mail: petestrom@stromlaw.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 605
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 640-1160
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
          WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, P.C.
          2500 City Center Square, 1100 Main
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 421-6620
          Facsimile: (816) 421-4747
          E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER LLP
          910 17th Street, NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Brian E. Wojtalewicz, Esq.
          WOJTALEWICZ LAW FIRM, LTD.
          139 N. Miles Street
          Appleton, MN 56208
          Telephone: (320) 289-2363
          Facsimile: (320) 289-2369
          E-mail: brian@wojtalewiczlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Lance Michael Sears, Esq.
          SEARS & SWANSON, P.C.
          First Bank Building
          2 North Cascade Avenue, Suite 1250
          Colorado Springs, CO 80903
          Telephone: (719) 471-1984
          Facsimile: (719) 577-4356
          E-mail: lance@searsandswanson.com

               - and -

          Archie C. Lamb, Jr.
          ARCHIE LAMB & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          2900 1st Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 352333
          Telephone: (205) 324-4644
          Facsimile: (205) 324-4649
          E-mail: alamb@archielamb.com

               - and -

          Jessica Dillon, Esq.
          Ray R. Brown, Esq.
          Molly Brown, Esq.
          DILLON & FINDLEY, P.C.
          1049 W. 5th Avenue, Suite 200
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          Telephone: (907) 277-5400
          Facsimile: (907) 277-9896
          E-mail: Jessica@dillonfindley.com
                  Ray@dillonfindley.com
                  Molly@dillonfindley.com

               - and -

          Paul Lundberg, Esq.
          LUNDBERG LAW, PLC
          600 4TH Street, Suite 906
          Sioux City, IA 51101
          Telephone: (712) 234-3030
          Facsimile: (712) 234-3034
          E-mail: paul@lundberglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Gwen Simons, Esq.
          SIMONS & ASSOCIATES LAW, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1238
          Scarborough, ME 04070-1238
          Telephone: (207) 205-2045
          Facsimile: (207) 883-7225
          E-mail: gwen@simonsassociateslaw.com

               - and -

          James Redmond, Esq.
          Cynthia C. Moser, Esq.
          HEIDMAN LAW FIRM
          1128 Historic 4th Street
          P. O. Box 3086
          Sioux City, IA 51101
          Telephone: (712) 255-8838
          Facsimile: (712) 258-6714
          E-mail: Jim.Redmond@heidmanlaw.com
                  Cynthia.Moser@heidmanlaw.com


BMW: Settles Racial Discrimination Class Suit for $1.6-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vishakha Sonawane, writing for International Business Times,
reported that BMW Manufacturing Co. LLC agreed to pay $1.6 million
and rehire 70 black employees settling a 2-year-old racial
discrimination lawsuit. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity sued
BMW in 2013 alleging the company's criminal background check
procedures to employ candidates for its Greer manufacturing
facility in South Carolina unequally affected blacks.

According to BMW's guidelines, no one with a criminal background
within the past seven years could be hired. However, after a new
contractor came on board, the company began a fresh round of
background checks and dismissed anyone with a criminal record from
any year, the Associated Press reported. The federal agency said
88 workers were fired, of whom 70 were black and some had worked
for the company for over 10 years.

BMW denied the allegations saying that it does not discriminate by
race "as evidenced by its large and highly diverse workforce,"
according to USA Today.

"We are pleased with BMW's agreement to resolve this disputed
matter by providing both monetary relief and employment
opportunities to the logistic workers who lost their jobs at the
facility," Lynette Barnes, regional attorney for the Charlotte
District Office, where the lawsuit was filed, reportedly said. "We
commend BMW for re-evaluating its criminal conviction records
guidelines that resulted in the discharge of these workers."

BMW, along with nine of the world's largest automakers, is
involved in another lawsuit that alleges the companies kept
customers in dark about the risk of keyless ignitions, which have
been available in the U.S. since at least 2003.

The lawsuit filed late August alleged that many users believed
that after taking their electronic key fobs with them, the engine
would shut down automatically, but the vehicle kept running. This
harmed the lives of people who inhaled the "deadly" carbon
monoxide, the plaintiffs reportedly said, adding that the defect
had claimed the lives of 13 people and injured several others.

The complainants also alleged that the defect reduced the resale
value of their cars. The suit, which seeks a class-action status,
calls for compensatory and punitive damages, and an injunction
requiring companies to install automatic shut-off features on
current and future vehicles with keyless ignitions.


BRITISH PETROLEUM: Must Face Shareholders' Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Upstream reported that a US appeals court said BP, which in July
reached a $18.7 billion settlement of federal, state and local
claims over the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, must face one of
two proposed class-action lawsuits claiming that the oil company
defrauded shareholders over the disaster, according to reports.

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said investors
who bought BP's American depositary shares in a 33-day period soon
after the spill may pursue group claims that BP initially
"lowballed" the oil flow rate, and that the share price tumbled as
the crisis' magnitude became known.

Wire service Reuters reported that Circuit Judge Patrick
Higginbotham, writing for a 3-0 panel, said the issue of whether
revelations of the spill's severity were linked to earlier BP
misrepresentations was "undeniably common to the class, and is
susceptible of a class-wide answer."

The court also said investors who bought BP shares in the two and
a half years before the spill, and said the company "lulled" them
into believing its ability to manage safety issues was better than
it was, cannot sue as a group, Reuters reported.

Higginbotham said some of these investors might have bought the
stock even knowing of the risk. These investors may still sue
London-based BP individually.

Decision upheld May 2014 rulings by US District Judge Keith
Ellison in Houston, which both sides appealed.

The decision could boost BP's costs over the April 20, 2010
explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig and subsequent spill. As of
late July, BP had taken $54.6 billion of pre-tax charges.  It can
be easier for investors to recover more money at lower cost by
suing as a group.

Russell Post, a lawyer for many plaintiffs, was quoted by Reuters
as saying: "We are disappointed with the decision, which we
believe erects additional hurdles to class certification that the
Supreme Court does not require."

BP spokesman Geoff Morrell said the company will continue to
defend against the plaintiffs' "meritless" securities claims,
according to Reuters.

The certified class period runs from April 26 to May 28, 2010.
BP's ADS price fell 37% from the start through the first trading
day after it ended.


CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Kessler Topaz Files Securiteis Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against
CaesarStone Sdot-Yam Ltd. on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities between March 25, 2013 and August 18, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

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

For additional information about this lawsuit, or to request
information about this action online, please visit
http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/caesarstone-sdot-yam-ltd.

CaesarStone manufactures and sells engineered quartz slabs, which
are typically utilized as kitchen countertops, under the
CaesarStone brand in the U.S. and internationally.

The complaint alleges that CaesarStone and certain of its
executive officers made a series of false and/or misleading
statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
the complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) that the
cost of quartz rose by approximately 20% in 2014 while the company
claimed in SEC filings the impact of the price increase was just
4%; (ii) independent lab tests demonstrate that CaesarStone's
samples contained less quartz than advertised; (iii) CaesarStone's
reported consolidated margins, gross margins, and EBITDA were
overstated; (iv) the extent of and risk posed by a growing number
of lawsuits for approximately 60 silicosis-related injuries or
deaths suffered by workers and fabricators of its product in
Israel was understated; (v) the impact recent OSHA warnings
regarding silicosis would have on the opening of a new U.S.
facility and associated costs;  (vi) recent inspection reports
revealed audit deficiencies related to revenue and inventory
controls; and (vii) as a result of the foregoing,  the defendants'
statements about CaesarStone's business, operations, and prospects
were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

On August 19, 2015, analyst firm Spruce Point Capital Management
published an in-depth report on CaesarStone, which the complaint
alleges summarized the aforementioned false and misleading
statements and failures of controls and disclosure. Following this
news, CaesarStone's securities significantly declined in value.

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.

CaesarStone shareholders who are members of the class may,no later
than October 26, 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
Email: info@ktmc.com


CAREER EDUCATION: Court Stayed "Enea" Case
------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Court has
stayed the case, Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation,
California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie
Mae, Inc., pending a ruling on the appeal.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Superior Court
State of California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27,
2013. Plaintiffs allege that CCA materially misrepresented the
placement rates of its graduates, falsely stated that admission to
the culinary school was competitive and that the school had an
excellent reputation among restaurants and other food service
providers, represented that the culinary schools were well-
regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who employers
eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the school
provided graduates with career placement services for life. The
class purports to consist of persons who executed Parent Plus
loans or co-signed loans for students who attended CCA at any time
between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2008. Plaintiffs seek
restitution, damages, civil penalties and attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action
allegations on October 31, 2013. A hearing on the motions was
conducted on March 14, 2014. Thereafter, the Court issued two
separate orders granting the motion to strike the class
allegations and the motion to dismiss without leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended
complaint and/or for reconsideration of the Court's orders.

On May 9, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider
its order striking the class allegations and granted plaintiffs
leave to file a third amended complaint as to some, but not all,
of plaintiffs' claims. On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the
Court's ruling with respect to the motion to strike the class
allegations. The Court has stayed the case pending a ruling on the
appeal.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise in
the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at
this point. Based on information available to us at present, we
cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for
this action because, among other things, our potential liability
depends on whether a class is certified and, if so, the
composition and size of any such class, as well as on an
assessment of the appropriate measure of damages if we were to be
found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability
associated with this action.


CAREER EDUCATION: Court Stayed "Surrett" Case
---------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case,
Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career
Education Corporation, all proceedings with the trial court have
been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County
naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") and the Company as
defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a
putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief:
violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and
unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which
added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract.
Plaintiffs allege WCI made a variety of misrepresentations to
them, relating generally to WCI's placement statistics, students'
employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and
quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students
could expect to pay as compared to salaries they could expect to
earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain
of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that motion was granted
on September 12, 2008.

On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting
class certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims
purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest
of those claims and denying certification of the breach of
contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of
students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1,
2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the
school for academic reasons.

Plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint on December 7, 2010,
which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett.
Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period
expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately
2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and
certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI.

On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of
claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment
agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court
issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. On August 6,
2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30,
2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion
to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the
case. The oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 9, 2014 and
we are awaiting the Court's decision. All proceedings with the
trial court have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal
proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range
of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the inherent
difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of damages and the
number of class members who might be entitled to recover damages,
if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized
any liability associated with this action," the Company said.


CHEETAH'S: Exotic Dancers File Misclassification Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Davis, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reported
that to perform at some San Diego strip clubs, exotic dancers must
first pay for the privilege to work there.

After dishing out a $30 to $80 "house fee," the dancers then spend
several hours on stage or with customers, working for tips only.

But they don't get to keep all their tips. Before leaving, 20
percent of their earnings go to the manager, bouncers and DJ.

That's according to current and former dancers who have filed
potential class-action lawsuits against at least three strip clubs
alleging wage theft. The lawsuits, filed this year in both San
Diego's federal and superior courts, accuse the clubs of
misclassifying the dancers as independent contractors rather than
employees, allowing the clubs to skirt minimum wage and overtime
pay, meal breaks and other benefits.

The cases mirror several others around the nation as a growing
amount of workers dispute what is sometimes seen as a legal
loophole in labor law that keeps costs down for businesses.

The arguments have been made by other strippers in cities such as
Atlanta, New York and Los Angeles, as well as workers in other
fields, from Uber and Lyft drivers to maids to NFL cheerleaders.

The IRS estimates employers misclassify millions of workers,
according to a 2013 audit by the U.S. Treasury Inspector General
for Tax Administration.

"We've seen it for some time growing in just about every low-wage
industry," said Steve Smith, communications director for the
California Labor Federation, a labor advocacy organization. "The
problem is with this issue expanding so rapidly, it makes it very
tough to police."

At least 10 million workers nationwide are classified as
independent contractors, according to state officials.

To help determine how to classify a worker, the IRS poses a 20-
question test on the employer-worker relationship. Among the
questions are what degree of control is exercised over the worker,
if the person can work for more than one company, if the employer
sets the worker's hours and whether the employer or worker
provides the tools to do the job.

"The bottom line is it becomes a factual kind of determination
focused on the degree of control over certain aspects of a job,"
said San Diego employment attorney Dave Carothers. "That's really
where the battle line is."

Lawyers in the San Diego cases argue that when applied to exotic
dancers, the test clearly points to employee status, not
independent contractors.

Judges nationwide have largely sided with dancers in similar
cases.

U.S. District Judge Paul Englemayer cited such cases in his 2013
summary judgment in a New York class-action lawsuit, noting
"nearly '[w]without exception, these courts have found an
employment relationship and required the nightclub to pay its
dancers a minimum wage.'"

That case resulted in a $10 million settlement to more than 2,000
former and current dancers of Rick's Cabaret International.

In the lawsuit against Cheetahs in Kearny Mesa, two women who used
to work there as dancers, Jasmine Hayes and Amber Moore, describe
a system that includes a $40 to $80 house fee that increases the
later the shift, long hours without breaks or overtime pay, and
threats of retaliation if the conditions are challenged.

And if a dancer can't pay the house fee, she is required to stay
after 2 a.m. closing to help clean the club, the suits allege.

The lawsuits also argue that the clubs are violating California
labor law, which states that tips are the property of the employee
they are given to.

Cheetahs' attorneys denied the claims, arguing in court papers
that the dancers "consented to the conduct about which they now
complain," that the dancers have been paid all wages owed to them,
that they've been treated fairly and in good faith, that they did
not suffer losses nor was the club unjustly enriched, and that the
dancers did not exhaust all administrative remedies before filing
suit.

Both women have also filed similar suits against Pacers Showgirls
International in the Midway District and Goldfingers Gentleman's
Club in Miramar.

Goldfingers is targeted in at least two other lawsuits, one by a
former dancer there, Brittany Spaulding, and another by a dancer
known only as Jane Doe, who decided to file under a pseudonym due
to the social stigma surrounding the profession and out of safety
concerns.

Jane Doe said she was first a waitress at Goldfingers, getting
paid $9-an-hour minimum wage. The rules changed when she became a
dancer there, according to her lawsuit.

Her lawsuit claims "Goldfingers placed tremendous pressure on all
of its dancers . . . to talk to, dance for and entertain as many
customers or patrons as possible," leading to long shifts. She
also alleges the club would charge dancers a $20-per-hour fee if
late for their shifts and $100 for missing a shift.

The dancers are asking to recover unpaid wages.

"Courts across the country are recognizing that dancers are
employees, and need to be paid as employees," the dancers'
attorneys, Craig Nicholas and Noam Glick, said in a statement.
"Clubs like Cheetahs and Goldfinger's treat them as independent
contractors and, as a result, avoid paying wages. These lawsuits
simply hold these clubs accountable for paying employees their
rightfully earned wages."

The lawyers for Goldfingers did not return requests for
interviews, and the general manager at Pacers could not be
reached.

Carothers, the employment attorney, who is not involved in the
cases, says part of the renewed debate over the classification of
workers has grown out of the so-called "gig economy" of freelance
work, such as an Uber driver who also prepares taxes and walks
dogs for a living.

"It looks like the economy is welcoming it as a way for people to
bring income in," he said. "The problem is we have this law in
California and the IRS has this regulation that says any time you
hire someone and you control how they do it, the manner of how
they do it and provide the tools and necessary implements for them
to do that, they are then an employee, and it triggers a host of
obligations, No. 1 being payroll taxes."

Experts say government regulators are cracking down more on the
issue, and companies that don't comply face potential penalties
and back taxes for years on misclassified workers. However, a 2012
report by the National Employment Law Project suggests states
typically only audit less than 2 percent of businesses each year
on this area.

The issue has also been the topic of high-profile lawsuits.

A San Francisco federal judge approved class-action status for a
lawsuit involving Uber drivers, who say they were mischaracterized
as independent contractors. The lawsuit could now include as many
as 160,000 California Uber drivers. Uber argues it is a tech
company that merely provides drivers the software and a platform
to do business and therefore should not consider drivers full
fledged employees.

Homejoy, the San Francisco-based home cleaning startup that relied
on a similar business model, closed its doors at the end of July,
saying it was having trouble raising funds in light of lawsuits
claiming improper employee classification.

Other industries that aren't as new -- from janitorial firms to
FedEx -- have also come under fire over the issue in recent years.

For instance, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, authored
a measure that gives NFL cheerleaders in California employee
status. The law, which goes into effect Jan. 1, follows several
lawsuits by cheerleaders throughout the nation.

Carothers, who largely represents employers, says many of the
cases he sees are small- to medium-sized businesses that are just
getting off the ground, and some don't know any better.

"They are starting a business and say, 'I can't afford to hire
employees. If I make them independent contractors, they'll be
responsible for their own tax burden and they'll lessen my
overhead,'" he said. ". . . They think they're being smart, when
they're not. There's a lot more analysis to be done than just
slapping a label on someone."


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Judge Allows "Bird" Suit to be Arbitrated
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. of the Northern District of
West Virginia granted defendants' motion to compel bilateral
arbitration in the case JOHN L. BIRD and JACQUELINE G. BIRD, his
wife, individually and on behalf of similarly situated West
Virginia citizens, Plaintiffs, v. CHRIS TURNER, individually and
as an agent and/or employee of Kenyon Energy, LLC, Chesapeake
Exploration, LLC, Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, and/or CHK Utica,
LLC, KENYON ENERGY, LLC, CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, LLC CHESAPEAKE
APPALACHIA, LLC, CHK UTICA, LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY
AMERICAS, P. NATHAN BOWLES, JR., ESQ. and JOHN DOES and any John
Doe individually or any entity acting in concert with these
defendants, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14CV97 (N.D. W.Va.)

John L. Bird and Jacqueline G. Bird executed a lease to defendant
Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC (Chesapeake) for oil and gas rights.
The lease contained an arbitration agreement.

Chesapeake assigned a portion of the lease to CHK Utica, LLC
("CHK"), which the lattern entered into a deed of trust using the
lease as collateral to secure a loan with defendants Deutsche Bank
Trust Company Americas and appointing P. Nathan Bowles, Jr., Esq.
as trustee. When the plaintiffs attempted to refinance their home,
their application was denied because the deed of trust constituted
a lien on the property.

Plaintiffs filed an action and alleges that the they and others
within West Virginia that are similarly situated were subject to
fraudulent common law liens in violation of West Virginia Code
Section 38-16-101. The plaintiffs also alleged claims regarding
the unlawful practice of law, breach of fiduciary duties,
intentional misrepresentation and fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, creation of a cloud on title, slander of title,
and civil conspiracy.

Chesapeake and CHK filed a motion to compel bilateral arbitration
under the lease's arbitration agreement and Section 4 of the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. Sections 1-14. Defendants
Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas,
P. Nathan Bowles, Jr., Esq., Chris Turner, and Kenyon Energy, LLC
filed a motion to stay this action pending the arbitration.

In response, the plaintiffs contest the arbitration defendants'
claims, argue that validity and enforceability must be reviewed by
the court, and assert that there are several problems with the
arbitration agreement that make it invalid.

The arbitration defendants moved to exceed the page limit in their
reply as the arbitration defendants had not covered
unconscionability in their initial motion and sought to address a
recent decision in the district bearing on the case. The
plaintiffs' motion to strike, they argue that the motion to exceed
the page limit should be stricken.

Judge Stamp granted defendants Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC and CHK
Utica, LLC's motion for leave to file excess pages and motion to
compel bilateral arbitration. The plaintiffs' motion to strike
defendants' motion for leave to file excess pages is denied; and
defendants Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas, P. Nathan Bowles, Jr., Chris Turner, and Kenyon
Energy, LLC's motion for stay pending arbitration is granted.

A copy of Judge Stamp's memorandum opinion and order dated
September 1, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/hm4XxRfrom
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Michael A. Adams, Esq.
Raymond A. Hinerman, Sr., Esq.
HINERMAN & ASSOCIATES
3203 Pennsylvania Ave
Weirton, WV 26062
Telephone: 304-723-7201

     - and -

Vincent S. Gurrera, Esq.
GURRERA LAW OFFICES, PLLC
3401 Pennsylvania Ave #1
Weirton, WV 26062
Telephone: 304-723-3861

Chris Turner and Kenyon Energy, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Christina S Terek -- cterek@spilmanlaw.com -- Sharon L. Potter --
spotter@spilmanlaw.com -- at Spilman Thomas & Battle PLLC

Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, CHK
Utica, LLC, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, P. Nathan
Bowles, Jr., Defendants, represented by Kevin C. Abbott --
kabbott@reedsmith.com -- Lucas Liben -- lliben@reedsmith.com -- at
Reed Smith LLP


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Writ of Certiorari Filed in Stock Sale Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the plaintiffs in
the July 2008 Common Stock Offering Litigation have filed a writ
of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

On February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors along with
certain underwriters of the Company's July 2008 common stock
offering. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September
11, 2009 alleging that the registration statement for the offering
contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an
unspecified amount and rescission.

The action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma on October 13, 2009. Chesapeake and
the officer and director defendants moved for summary judgment on
grounds of loss causation and materiality on December 28, 2011,
and the motion was granted as to all claims as a matter of law on
March 29, 2013.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal on August 8, 2014 and denied the
plaintiffs' petition for rehearing on November 12, 2014. On April
10, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a writ of certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court.

No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q
Report.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Still Defending Royalty Underpayment Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation is defending lawsuits alleging
royalty underpayment with respect to properties in Texas, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.

On April 8, 2015, Chesapeake obtained a transfer order from the
Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel to transfer a substantial
portion of these lawsuits filed since June 2014 to the 348th
District Court of Tarrant County for pre-trial purposes. These
lawsuits, which are primarily related to the Barnett Shale,
generally allege that Chesapeake underpaid royalties by making
improper deductions and using incorrect production volumes. In
addition to allegations of breach of contract, a number of these
lawsuits allege fraud, conspiracy, joint venture and antitrust
violations by Chesapeake.

Chesapeake expects that additional lawsuits will be filed by new
plaintiffs making similar allegations. The lawsuits seek direct
damages in varying amounts, together with exemplary damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and interest. Chesapeake believes its
royalty calculations and payment practices were appropriate, and
has not accrued a loss contingency with respect to the
multidistrict litigation.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Class Actions Filed in Pennsylvania and Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that putative statewide
class actions in Pennsylvania and Ohio and purported class
arbitrations in Pennsylvania have been filed on behalf of royalty
owners asserting various claims for damages related to alleged
underpayment of royalties as a result of the Company's divestiture
of substantially all of its midstream business and most of its
gathering assets in 2012 and 2013. These cases include claims for
violation of and conspiracy to violate the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and one of the cases
includes claims of intentional interference with contractual
relations and violations of antitrust laws.


CHICAGO, IL: Judge Allows Abused Citizen to Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted plaintiff's motion for leave
to amend in the case ANGEL PEREZ, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-4531 (N.D. Ill.)

Angel Perez alleges that the Chicago Police Department uses Homan
Square to hold citizens incommunicado so that police may
interrogate citizens and coerce them to cooperate with
investigations. According to the Plaintiff, at Homan Square he was
handcuffed to a bar and placed in leg shackles. Officers then
allegedly spent the next several hours torturing and threatening
Plaintiff to coerce him to contact an individual named Dwayne,
apparently a local drug dealer, to set up a drug purchase.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against the City of Chicago and
Officer Jorge L. Lopez, the only officer whose name he knew at the
time, on July 20, 2013. Plaintiff brought claims under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 for excessive force and failure to intervene, a claim
for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), a Monell
claim against the City for unconstitutional policies and practices
that allowed the alleged excessive force and abuse, and respondeat
superior and indemnification claims.

Magistrate Judge Rowland bifurcated the Monell claim and stayed
discovery on it. Plaintiff, then proceeding pro se, filed an
amended complaint that added five Chicago police officers as
defendants, as well as a new claim for tampering with a witness
under 18 U.S.C. Section 1512. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
the witness tampering claim.

Plaintiff seeks leave from the court to file a second amended
complaint to add Jose Martinez, Juanita Berry, Calvin Coffey, and
Estephanie Martinez as plaintiffs and to bring class claims. The
proposed plaintiffs also allegedly were held at Homan Square,
where they were interrogated and mistreated by Chicago police
offices.

Count I is styled as a Section 1983 secret arrests class claim
against the City of Chicago for alleged policies and practices,
including secretly detaining citizens at places like Homan Square,
interrogating citizens without Mirandizing them, attempting to
coerce false confessions, denying contact with attorneys or
family, and refusing access to food, water, and restrooms that
violate the First and Fourth Amendments. Count I includes two
proposed classes: (1) all persons detained by Chicago police where
no record of the detainment was created within a reasonable amount
of time and (2) all persons who may in the future be subject to
the alleged secret arrests. Count II is brought by proposed
plaintiffs Estephanie Martinez and Coffey against the City of
Chicago for deprivations of adequate accommodations in violation
of the Fourth Amendment. Martinez and Coffey allege that the City
has policies and practices of detaining citizens overnight without
providing them minimally adequate accommodations for sleeping.
Count II also includes two classes: (1) all persons who were
detained without public record of the detainment between the hours
of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., and (2) all persons who may in the future
be subject to unconstitutional overnight accommodations.
Plaintiffs also seek to bring individual Section 1983 claims
against the named and unknown defendant officers for excessive
force (Count III) and failure to intervene in excessive force
(Count IV), as well as state law IIED claims (Count V) and an
indemnification claim against the City pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-
102 (Count VI).

Judge Dow granted plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint.

A copy of Judge Dow's memorandum opinion and order dated September
2, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/vUqeoofrom Leagle.com.

Angel Perez, Plaintiff, represented by:

Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
James O. Latturner, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER& GOODWIN LLC
20 S Clark St #1500
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: 312-739-4200

     - and -

Jason R. Epstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JASON EPSTEIN
55 E Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: 312-869-2603

     - and -

Phillip Aaron Brigham, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP BRIGHAM, LLC
55 E Jackson Blvd #1050
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: 312-702-1857

     - and -

Scott T. Kamin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT T. KAMIN
55 E Jackson Blvd #1050
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: 312-322-0077

City of Chicago, Defendants, represented by:

Jason Michael Marx, Esq.
Lindsay Erin Wilson Gowin, Esq.
CITY OF CHICAGO
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
121 North LaSalle Street, Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: 312-744-0200
Facsimile: 312-744-5185

Edmund Zablocki, Joseph Wagner, Herbert Betancourt, Matthew Cline,
John Dolan Defendants, represented by:

Lindsay Erin Wilson Gowin, Esq.
CITY OF CHICAGO
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
121 North LaSalle Street, Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: 312-744-0200
Facsimile: 312-744-5185

Jorge L Lopez, Defendant, represented by:

Jason Michael Marx, Esq.
Lindsay Erin Wilson Gowin, Esq.
Matthew P Dixon, Esq.
CITY OF CHICAGO
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
121 North LaSalle Street, Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: 312-744-0200
Facsimile: 312-744-5185


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Removes "Hernandez" Suit to N.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., et
al., Case No. 71D05-1507-PL-000248, was removed from the County of
St. Joseph, Indiana, Superior Court, Mishawaka Division, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00347-PPS-JEM to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff has alleged claims of discrimination based upon sex,
including claims of sexual harassment and a hostile work
environment pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, a federal statute.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter J. Agostino, Esq.
          Stephanie L. Nemeth, Esq.
          ANDERSON AGOSTINO & KELLER PC
          131 S Taylor Street
          South Bend, IN 46601-1521
          Telephone: (574) 288-1510
          Facsimile: (574) 288-1650
          E-mail: agostino@aaklaw.com
                  nemeth@aaklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David J. Stein, Esq.
          MASUDA, FUNAI, EIFERT & MITCHELL, LTD.
          203 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2500
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 245-7474
          Facsimile: (312) 245-7467
          E-mail: dstein@masudafunai.com

               - and -

          Jacqueline R. Guesno, Esq.
          Allison Dodd, Esq.
          MESSNER REEVES LLP
          1430 Wynkoop St., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 623-1800
          Facsimile: (303) 623-0552
          E-mail: jguesno@messner.com
                  adodd@messner.com


CIGNA: Sued Over Refusal to Cover Depression Treatment
------------------------------------------------------
Digital Journal reported that a class-action lawsuit has been
filed against Cigna by Psych-Appeal, Inc., in conjunction with
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, on behalf of mental health patients
suffering from depression. The federal lawsuit alleges Cigna has
categorically refused to cover Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
(TMS), a safe and effective treatment approved by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

"Although Medicare and numerous commercial insurers routinely
cover TMS, Cigna has unjustifiably categorized this treatment as
'experimental and investigational,'" said Brian Hufford, partner
at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. "By denying coverage for TMS and
restricting patients from receiving potentially lifesaving
treatment, Cigna is improperly elevating its own interests above
the welfare of its members."

The suit involves a 61-year-old woman who has tried multiple
treatments for severe depression. In 2008, the FDA cleared TMS for
patients who have failed to respond to psychotropic medications.
TMS, unlike electroshock therapy, is performed on an outpatient
basis without sedation and does not typically result in side
effects such as memory loss.

The complaint also alleges that MCMC, LLC, an independent review
organization directly contracted with Cigna to evaluate external
appeals of the company's TMS denials, rubber-stamps the insurer by
relying on outdated clinical research.

"In California alone, at least 75 external appeals to other
independent review organizations have recognized TMS as a valid
evidence-based treatment for depression since 2011," said Meiram
Bendat, mental health attorney and founder of Psych-Appeal, Inc.
"We expect this case to highlight the conflicts of interest that
independent review organizations have when they are allowed to
contract directly with insurers to evaluate claim denials."

On Sept. 3, 2015, Psych-Appeal, Inc. and Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
filed a similar class action complaint against Aetna and MCMC.

Interested parties may contact Meiram Bendat at mbendat@psych-
appeal.com or Brian Hufford at dbhufford@zuckerman.com.

Brian Hufford, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
1800 M St NW #1000, Washington, DC 20036
Phone:+1 202-778-1800
Fax: 202.822.8106
www.zuckerman.com


COALINGA, CA: Detainees Can't Join Suit v. Kramer, Judge Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck of the Eastern District of
California dismisses plaintiffs' complaint with leave to amend in
the case WILLIAM STAFFORD, LAMAR JOHNSON, Plaintiffs, v. NORM
KRAMER, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:15-CV-00038-LJO-DLB PC
(E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs William Stafford and Lamar Johnson are currently
detained at Coalinga State Hospital (CSH) in Coalinga, California.
Plaintiffs are civil detainees proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action.  Plaintiffs are receiving
medical treatment for a disease. They state they are similarly
situated to the plaintiffs in Bartlett v. Kramer, et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-1932 LJO DLB PC; they request that they be permitted to
join the class action. Plaintiffs name Norm Kramer as defendant.

Magistrate Judge Beck has determined that each plaintiff should
proceed separately on his own claims, because the complaint fails
to state a claim, and gives plaintiffs an opportunity to amend.
Plaintiff Stafford shall proceed as the sole plaintiff in case
number 1:15-cv-00038-LJO DLB PC and the claims of plaintiff
Johnson are severed from the claims of plaintiff Stafford.

The Court directed each plaintiff to file an amended complaint in
his respective action and if a plaintiff fails to file an amended
complaint in compliance with the order, his action will be
dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

A copy of Judge Beck's order dated September 2, 2015, is available
at http://goo.gl/0uJ4vWfrom Leagle.com.

Lamar Johnson, Plaintiff, Pro Se


COMPUTER SCIENCES: "Plotnick" Suit Moved From N.J. to Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Plotnick v. Computer Sciences
Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Key Executives, et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00303, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria).  The Virginia
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01002-TSE-TCB to
the proceeding.

The action is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act on behalf of a class of participants in the Computer
Sciences Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Key
Executives, who retired from employment with CSC before Jan. 1,
2013, to establish their right to benefits under the CSC Plan as
it existed as of their retirement.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com

               - and -

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          Matthew A. Smith, Esq.
          Kira Layne-Schwabe Hettinger, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue NW
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005-3965
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: jbarton@cohenmilstein.com
                  msmith@cohenmilstein.com
                  khettinger@cohenmilstein.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas Anton Linthorst, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          502 Carnegie Center
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 919-6642
          Facsimile: (609) 919-6701
          E-mail: tlinthorst@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Andrew George Sakallaris, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS BOCKIUS LLP
          2020 K Streeet, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 739-3000
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
          E-mail: asakallaris@morganlewis.com


CONFORMIS INC: Gilman Law Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Gilman Law LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against ConforMIS, Inc. and certain of its officers
for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Complaint was brought on behalf of a class of shareholders who
purchased ConforMIS common stock pursuant to the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") on or about July 1,
2015, or on the open market between July 1, 2015 and August 28,
2015, and alleges that the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies in connection with the IPO and in filings with the SEC.
Specifically, the Complaint asserts that the Defendants violated
the Securities Act and the Exchange Act by making false and/or
misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (i) the
Company's manufacturing processes were flawed; (ii) as a result of
the flaws in the Company's manufacturing process, a number of the
Company's knee replacement product systems were defective; and
(iii) as a result of the foregoing, ConforMIS' public statements
were materially false and misleading.

ConforMIS, headquartered in Bedford, Massachusetts, is a medical
technology company that develops, manufactures, and sells
customized joint replacement implants.

If you are an investor who purchased ConforMIS common stock
pursuant to or in connection with the IPO or thereafter until
August 28, 2015, and suffered a loss then please contact Gilman
Law LLP, at 1-888-252-0048 or www.investment-losses.com, to ensure
your legal rights are not forfeited.

                    About Gilman Law LLP

Gilman Law LLP, a leading financial law firm, has been recognized
for delivering successful results to their clients across a broad
range of claims stemming from securities class actions and
derivative actions. For over 35 years, the Gilman Law LLP team of
highly experienced lawyers has earned renown for tireless work on
behalf of their clients on many of most challenging and important
legal issues.

Gilman Law LLP
6363 Highcroft Dr, Naples, FL 34119
Phone:+1 239-598-3541
www.gilmanlawllp.com


CONFORMIS INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announces that a
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers of
ConforMIS, Inc. securities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to the
ConforMIS's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the ConforMIS's initial public offering on or
about July 1, 2015; and/or (2) on the open market between July 1,
2015 and August 28, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover investors' losses under the
federal securities laws.

To join the ConforMIS class action, visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-712.html,or contact Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, Defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements and/or omitted material information,
including that: (1) ConforMIS's manufacturing processes were
flawed; (ii) due to the flaws in ConforMIS's manufacturing
process, a number of ConforMIS's knee replacement product systems
were defective; and (iii) as a result, ConforMIS's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 2, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-712.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm
toll-free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY  10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
       kchan@rosenlegal.com


CONFORMIS INC: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP (the "Firm") announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against ConforMIS, Inc. ("ConforMIS" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: CFMS). Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between July 1, 2015 and August 28, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm
immediately to discuss their legal options.

If you purchased shares of ConforMIS during the Class Period,
please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von
Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612; by telephone: 949-419-
3834; or by email at joon@khanglaw.com.

There has been no class certification in this case. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

According to the complaint, on August 31, 2015, ConforMIS
announced that it had initiated a voluntary recall of specific
serial numbers of patient-specific instrumentation for certain of
its knee replacement product systems in response to recent
complaints of moisture on the instrumentation. When the news of
this recall was revealed to the public, shares dropped over 17%,
causing investors harm.

If you purchased shares of ConforMIS during the Class Period you
have until November 2, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as
lead plaintiff. If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or
if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights,
please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two
decades, by telephone: 949-419-3834, or by email at
joon@khanglaw.com.

Joon M. Khang, Esq.
KHANG & KHANG LLP
18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: 949-419-3834
Facsimile: 949-225-4474
joon@khanglaw.com


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Appealed Class Certification Order
---------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has
appealed the trial court's class certification order.

In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and
Daniela A. Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on
behalf of other similarly situated parties against the Company
alleging the Company improperly deducted post-production costs
from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest
owners as categorized in the Petition from crude oil and natural
gas wells located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs alleged a number of
claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary
duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek recovery of
compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees
on behalf of the proposed class. In addition, plaintiffs filed an
Amended Petition that did not add any substantive claims, but
sought a "hybrid class action" in which they sought certification
of certain claims for injunctive relief, reserving the right to
seek a further class certification on money damages in the future.
Plaintiffs also filed an Amended Motion for Class Certification
that modified the proposed class to royalty owners in Oklahoma
production from July 1, 1993, to the present (instead of 1980 to
the present) and sought certification of over 45 separate "issues"
for injunctive or declaratory relief, again, reserving the right
to seek a further class certification of money damages in the
future.

The Company responded to the petition, its amendment, and the
motions for class certification denying the allegations and
raising a number of affirmative defenses to each of the claims and
filings. Certain discovery was undertaken and the "hybrid" motion
was briefed by plaintiffs and the Company. A hearing on the
"hybrid" class certification was held on June 1st and 2nd, 2015.

On June 11, 2015, the trial court certified a "hybrid" class as
requested by plaintiffs. The Company appealed the trial court's
class certification order, which will be reviewed de novo by the
appellate court.

The Company is not currently able to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the action
will have on its financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the
complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the
matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the
nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the
class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements
involved, the production years involved, and the ultimate
potential outcome of the matter.

Although not currently at issue in the "hybrid" certification,
plaintiffs have alleged underpayments in excess of $200 million
that they may claim as damages, which may increase with the
passage of time, a majority of which would be comprised of
interest. The Company disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes that
the case meets the requirements for a class action and is
vigorously defending the case. The Company will continue to assert
its defenses to the case as certified as well as any future
attempt to certify a money damages class.


COOK CTY, IL: Faces "Oppenheimer" Suit Alleging Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
John E. Oppenheimer v. Cook County Sherriff's Department, Case No.
2015-L-007906 (Ill. Cir. Ct., August 3, 2015) alleges that the
Plaintiff was rejected from employment by the Defendant due to his
Hispanic Ethnicity.

Mr. Oppenheimer is of Hispanic Ethnicity, Jewish, and has a strong
relationship with the gay community in Chicago.

The Defendant is a Government Department within Cook County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank Avila, Esq.
          6601 North Avondale, Suite 103
          Chicago, IL 60631
          Telephone: (773) 671-3480
          Facsimile: (773) 763-2301
          E-mail: Frank.AvilaLaw@GMail.com


COOK CTY, IL: Sued for Discriminating Against Hispanic Employee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Milbrandt v. Cook County, Illinois, a body Politic, and
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, a Division of
Cook County, Illinois, Case No. 2015-L-007907 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
August 3, 2015) is an action for national origin and ancestry
discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and
the Defendant's collective bargaining agreement.

Ms. Milbrandt is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.  She is of
Hispanic ancestry whose national origin is Mexico.

The Defendant has its principal place of business in Chicago,
Illinois.  The Defendant is a government agency that employs the
Plaintiff.  The Defendant is a court system and subdivision body
politic budgeted and operated by Cook County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nejla Lane, Esq.
          LANE LEGAL SERVICES, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          5901 N. Cicero Ave., Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (773) 777-4440
          E-mail: lanen@lanelegalservices.com


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Derailment of Train Hauling Toxins
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Hall, Christopher D. Morgan, Dustin L. Stevenson, Nathan
Payne, Brad Butler, Dustin Cook, Joseph Beasley, Justin
Vandergriff, Daniel Brooks, and Mark Tate v. CSX Transportation,
Inc., and Union Tank Car Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-00346-TAV-CCS
(E.D. Tenn., August 10, 2015) arises from a catastrophic
derailment of a train hauling toxic chemicals in Maryville, Blount
County, Tennessee, on July 1, 2015.

The Plaintiffs are law enforcement officers, who were sent to the
scene of the Train Derailment to evacuate residents in the two-
mile-radius evacuation zone around the Train Derailment.  While
performing their emergency service to the community, the
Plaintiffs contend that they were exposed to smoke and vapors
containing toxic chemicals, including acrylonitrile, a probable
human carcinogen, and hydrogen cyanide, a deadly poison, and were
hospitalized for more than 24 hours.

CSX is a Virginia for-profit corporation headquartered in
Jacksonville, Florida.  CSX operated the train that derailed in
Maryville, and owned the tracks upon which the train was operated
when it derailed.  Union Tank Car Company is a Delaware for-profit
corporation headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.  UTLX owned the
rail car that derailed and caught fire in Maryville.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary A. Davis, Esq.
          James S. Whitlock, Esq.
          DAVIS & WHITLOCK, P.C.
          21 Battery Park Ave., Suite 206
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 622-0044
          Facsimile: (828) 398-0435
          E-mail: gadavis@enviroattorney.com
                  jwhitlock@enviroattorney.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey E. Friedman, Esq.
          Matt D. Conn, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN, DAZZIO, ZULANAS & BOWLING, PC
          3800 Corporate Woods Drive
          Birmingham, AL 35242
          Telephone: (205) 278-7000
          Facsimile: (205) 278-7001
          E-mail: jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com
                  mconn@friedman-lawyers.com

               - and -

          L. Jeffrey Hagood, Esq.
          Todd J. Moody, Esq.
          HAGOOD MOODY HODGE PLC
          900 S. Gay St., Suite 2100
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 525-7313
          E-mail: JeffHagood@hagoodmoody.com
                  ToddMoody@hagoodmoody.com

               - and -

          Beecher A. Bartlett, Jr., Esq.
          KRAMER RAYSON LLP
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 2500
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 525-5134
          Facsimile: (865) 522-5723
          E-mail: bbartlett@kramer-rayson.com

               - and -

          Craig L. Garrett, Esq.
          CRAIG L. GARRETT ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC
          607 Smithview Dr.
          Maryville, TN 37803
          Telephone: (865) 984-8200
          Facsimile: (865) 981-2833
          E-mail: CGarrett@cgarrettlaw.com

Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. is represented by:

          Emily L. Herman-Thompson, Esq.
          John W Baker, Jr., Esq.
          BAKER, O'KANE, ATKINS & THOMPSON
          2607 Kingston Pike, Suite 200
          P O Box 1708
          Knoxville, TN 37901-1708
          Telephone: (865) 637-5600
          Facsimile: (865) 637-5608
          E-mail: ethompson@boatlf.com
                  jbaker@boatlf.com

               - and -

          Barbara Harding, Esq.
          William G. Laxton, Jr., Esq.
          JONES DAY
          51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-2113
          Telephone: (202) 879-4681
          Facsimile: (202) 626-1700
          E-mail: bharding@jonesday.com
                  wglaxton@jonesday.com

Defendant Union Tank Car Company is represented by:

          Joshua B. Fleming, Esq.
          QUARLES & BRADY, LLP
          135 N. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 2400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 399-2814
          Facsimile: (317) 957-5014
          E-mail: josh.fleming@quarles.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Kircher, Esq.
          QUARLES & BRADY, LLP
          411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2550
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 277-5000
          E-mail: mark.kircher@quarles.com

               - and -

          Michael J. King, Esq.
          W. Kyle Carpenter, Esq.
          April Adams Carr, Esq.
          WOOLF, MCCLANE, BRIGHT, ALLEN & CARPENTER, PLLC
          P O Box 900
          900 S. Gay Street
          Knoxville, TN 37901-0900
          Telephone: (865) 215-1000
          Facsimile: (865) 215-1001
          E-mail: kingm@wmbac.com
                  kylew@wmbac.com
                  acarr@wmbac.com


CYNOSURE INC: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Cynosure, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company continues
to defend the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation.

The Company said, "In 2005, a plaintiff, individually and as
putative representative of a purported class, filed a complaint
against us under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or
TCPA, in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County,
captioned Weitzner v. Cynosure, Inc., No. MICV2005-01778 (Superior
Court, Middlesex County), seeking monetary damages, injunctive
relief, costs and attorneys' fees. The complaint alleges that we
violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited advertisements by
facsimile to the plaintiff and other recipients without the prior
express invitation or permission of the recipients."

"Under the TCPA, recipients of unsolicited facsimile
advertisements are entitled to damages of up to $500 per facsimile
for inadvertent violations and up to $1,500 per facsimile for
knowing or willful violations.  Based on discovery in this matter,
the plaintiff alleges that approximately three million facsimiles
were sent on our behalf by a third party to approximately 100,000
individuals.

"In January 2012, the court denied the class certification motion.
In November 2012, the court issued the final judgment and awarded
the plaintiff $6,000 in damages and awarded us $3,495 in costs.
The plaintiff appealed this decision, and oral argument on the
appeal was held in October 2013 before the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Appeals Court. In March 2014, the appeals court
affirmed the lower court's ruling, and in April 2014 the plaintiff
filed a request for further appellate review by the Supreme
Judicial Court.

"On May 6, 2014, the Supreme Judicial Court issued a Notice of
Denial of Application for Further Appellate Review. No further
appeals are possible in Massachusetts. In addition, in July 2012,
the plaintiff filed a new purported class action, based on the
same operative facts and asserting the same claims as in the
Massachusetts action, in federal court in the Eastern District of
New York, captioned Weitzner, et al. v. Cynosure, Inc., No. 1:12-
cv-03668-MKB-RLM (U.S District Court, Eastern District of New
York).

"In February 2013, that court granted our motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims. In March 2013, the plaintiff drafted a motion
seeking reconsideration of the court's judgment and vacation of
the court's order of dismissal. In April 2013, we drafted a
response opposing the plaintiff's motion. In August 2013,
plaintiff filed its motion with the court, although the deadline
had been April 2013. We filed a letter with the court objecting to
this untimely motion and requesting sanctions.

"In February 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion and denied
our request for sanctions. On March 6, 2014, plaintiff filed an
appeal of the court's judgment entered on March 5, 2013. On July
23, 2014, the Second Circuit notified the parties that it will not
hear oral arguments and will decide the case based on the briefs.

No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q
Report.


DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Seeks Approval of Agreement in Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Davita Healthcare Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties in the
process of seeking approval of an agreement in principle.

A wage and hour claim, which has been styled as a class action, is
pending against the Company in the Superior Court of California.
The Company was served with the complaint in this lawsuit in April
2008, and it has been amended since that time. The complaint, as
amended, alleges that the Company failed to provide meal periods,
failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing rest or meal
periods, failed to pay overtime, and failed to comply with certain
other California Labor Code requirements. In September 2011, the
court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Plaintiffs appealed that decision.

In January 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's
decision on some claims, but remanded the case to the trial court
for clarification of its decision on one of the claims. The
Company reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the
claim that was remanded to the trial court, and that settlement
has been finalized. The amount of the settlement is not material
to the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements.

In June 2015, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
resolve the remainder of the claims in this litigation. The
settlement must be approved by the court, and the parties are in
the process of seeking that approval. The amount of the settlement
is not material to the Company's condensed consolidated financial
statements.


DEL MONTE: Removed "Sagastume" Suit to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Ronis Sagastume v. Del Monte
Fresh Produce (West Coast), Inc., Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A.,
Inc., Tricont Trucking Company, and Does 1 through 20, inclusive,
Case No. C15-01406, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-04350-EDL to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff has pled a claim for unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Gregory G. Iskander, Esq.
      Johanna R. Carney,
      LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
      Treat Towers
      3 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
      Walnut Creek, CA 94597
      Telephone: (925) 932-2468
      Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
      E-mail: giskander@littler.com
              jcarney@littler.com


EDGEWATER HOMES: Home Buyers Sue Over False, Misleading Conduct
---------------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reported that when Suraj Siddique bought a house-and-
land package 15 minutes from western Sydney's Penrith in July, he
thought it would be the ideal family home for his wife and two
young children.

The 37-year-old systems engineer purchased the pre-sale lots from
Henley Group's Edgewater Homes along with 14 other families, who
were promised they'd be moving into the Werrington development by
Christmas.

More than a year later, Mr Siddique is locked in a messy three-way
legal battle with Edgewater and the property developer,
Parramatta-based Settlers Estate Pty Ltd, facing mounting legal
costs, and the very real possibility of losing everything.

Settlers Estate, a private property development company, had pre-
sold 15 out of the planned 106 lots to Edgewater, which then sold
the house-and-land packages.

By February, the group were growing concerned that construction
had not even begun. Mr Siddique began to panic when he realised
his contract's March 31 sunset date was fast approaching.

Neither Mr Siddique nor Edgewater could get a straight answer from
Settlers Estate about the status of the subdivision. Frantic
emails to the local council revealed no subdivision plan had been
registered.

Mr Siddique and the other 14 families, who had purchased their
450sqm house-and-land packages for just under $620,000, were even
more alarmed to see new 220sqm lots in the subdivision being pre-
sold for $600,000-$700,000.

To all appearances, Settlers Estate was on a 'go slow'.

Fearing he would lose his family home, Mr Siddique launched urgent
legal action against Edgewater Homes and Settlers Estate in the
Supreme Court, alleging false and misleading conduct under the
Australian Consumer Law.

He was seeking an injunction, possible damages, but mainly what's
called 'specific performance' -- he just wants the home he paid
for in good faith.

The matter was complicated when not long after, Edgewater Homes
launched its own case against Settlers Estate to stop the
rescission of the contracts. Having made the sales, Edgewater has
just as much to lose if the contracts are torn up, but the Mr
Siddique now finds himself wedged in the middle.

"I'm in a situation where if I lose, I'll lose the property, I'll
lose the $24,000 I've paid to my solicitors, and I'll have to pay
costs for the other side," Mr Siddique told news.com.au.

To make things worse, he's sacked his solicitor, but was
instructed by the judge during a court appearance that he would
need to find a new one by October 9. Already mired in debt, he's
praying a lawyer will take on his case pro-bono.

Mr Siddique said the effect on his family and his health has been
devastating. "We are on fire, we don't know what to do. My wife is
taking sleeping medication, I'm depressed, my kids keep asking
when we will be moving into our new house," he said.

Settlers Estate has been contacted for comment. Edgewater Homes
declined to comment.

'DON'T BUY OFF-THE-PLAN, EVER'

One Sydney solicitor said the issue of property developers selling
off-the-plan and then reselling the properties at higher prices
has reached epidemic levels.

Sunset clauses allow either party to rescind a contract if certain
conditions are not met, but are increasingly being used by
developers, leaving buyers priced out of the market with their
original deposits. The clauses are standard in such contracts and
are perfectly legal.

"This is a major problem in the industry," said Leverage Group's
Bailey Compton, who is currently running a class action on behalf
of a separate group of families who purchased lots in a
subdivision in western Sydney's Kellyville in late 2013.

The group launched legal action against the developer, Parkview
Estate Pty Ltd, earlier after it informed them it would consider
extending the sunset date only if each purchaser agreed to pay an
additional 10 to 15 per cent on the original contract price to
make up for "cost blowouts".

The Kellyville buyers were asked for an additional $50,000 on top
of the initial $420,000. Some had sold their family homes to
finance the new venture, leaving them in the lurch and paying rent
for two years.

"I cannot understand how you can buy a property in good faith and
then find out down the line that you don't actually own it, and
that now you need to fight for it," one buyer, who did not wish to
be named, told news.com.au.

They allege the developer breached its contract by not using
"reasonable endeavours" to get the subdivision plan registered
before the sunset date.

"This is the second class action I've run and I've got another two
I could run," Mr Compton said. "Throughout Sydney developers have
been selling and dragging their feet."

Mr Compton said the problem had become so bad he would advise
people to never buy off-the-plan property anywhere in Australia,
but particularly Sydney and Melbourne.

"Even though I won the last case, the compensation wasn't
sufficient to get them back into the property market," he said.

The developer blamed the failure to register the plan for the
subdivision on "ongoing issues", including delays caused by the
local council relating to a stormwater drain needing to be
constructed through an adjacent development.

The council refuted this, telling buyers in a letter it had
"actively tried to facilitate an outcome" between the two parties
to get the easement built, and that the developer had not even
applied for a subdivision certificate.

"Our clients [sic] preliminary calculation is that the costs of
the project have increased by about 20 per cent," the letter from
the selling agent dated April 27 reads. "Our clients [sic] current
thoughts are that it may have no choice but to rescind the current
contracts as the current sale prices are unsustainable and unable
to meet the cost blowouts.

"It seems that at the very least, if our client is in a position .
. . to further extend the Sunset Date, it would be on condition
that there be an increase in the current contract price to be paid
by each purchaser of between 10 per cent to 15 per cent."

Other lots in the 29-lot subdivision are currently being sold for
offers over $630,000, and lots in an adjacent development have
appreciated by about $300,000 in the same period.

In June, the Supreme Court granted a temporary injunction to
prevent the Kellyville developer onselling the lots ahead of a
hearing date which has yet to be set.

Parkview Estate declined to comment.

It follows a separate class action launched by a group of 34
buyers who entered into off-the-plan contracts for units in a
luxury apartment complex in Sydney's Wolli Creek. That case
returned to the Supreme Court.

In an unrelated matter, a company connected with controversial
Auburn deputy mayor Salim Mehajer is also facing questions, with
one investor in Lidcombe's Sky Point Towers development claiming
the off-the-plan unit he paid nearly $600,000 for has been reduced
in size by 36 per cent.

The Daily Telegraph reported the company told him the price would
not be discounted but the investor was offered the option of
withdrawing from the contract.


EL POLLO: October 23 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. LOCO, +0.00% between
May 15, 2015 and August 13, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a class action has commenced in the
USDC for the Central District of California. To learn more go to
http://zlk.9nl.com/elpollo-loco-holdingsor contact Joseph E.
Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (877)
363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

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

On August 13, 2015, El Pollo Loco issued a release announcing its
second quarter 2015 results, disclosing that system-wide
comparable restaurant sales had grown only 1.3% and reporting
sales of just $89.5 million. Shares fell from a close of $18.36
per share on August 13, 2015, to a close of just $14.56 the
following day.

If you suffered a loss in El Pollo Loco you have until October 23,
2015to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you be a
lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in representing investors throughout the
nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
30 Broad St., 24th FL New York, NY 10004
Toll free. 877-363-5972
T. 212-363-7500
F. 212-363-7171
Email: jlevi@zlk.com


EMSA: Agency Testifies at Hearing in Billing Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Ariana Pickard, writing for Tulsa World, reported that a 2007
advertisement for EMSA's utility fee program falsely stated that
participants would "never pay a bill for emergency ambulance
care," the ambulance service's president acknowledged at a
hearing.

EMSA President Steve Williamson's testimony came during a Tulsa
County District Court hearing to determine class-action status for
a lawsuit alleging that the ambulance service wrongly billed some
of its patients who were participants in the utility bill fee
program.

Robert Pezold, an attorney who filed the lawsuit against EMSA in
2012, argued at the hearing that the advertisement, along with
other initial communication about the program, misrepresented that
participants would incur no out-of-pocket costs for emergency
ambulance service.

Williamson took the stand on the first day of the hearing and, in
response to questioning from Pezold, acknowledged that the
statement in that advertisement was not true.

The utility fee program, now called EMSAcare, covers out-of-pocket
expenses not paid by the program participant's insurance for
ambulance and emergency medical service provided by first-
responders from both EMSA and the Tulsa Fire Department.
Participants pay an extra $5.45 in their monthly utility bills, a
fee that originally was $3.64.

Pezold argued at the hearing that EMSA led the public to believe
that paying the fee with their utility bills was the only
requirement to receive the benefits of the program. What EMSA
didn't make clear, he argued, was that participants would also
have to provide insurance information.

EMSA attorneys and Williamson said at the hearing that the
ambulance service did publish information about the requirement
for insurance information in other public announcements and on
EMSA's website.

Kristopher Koepsel, an attorney for EMSA, said the ambulance
service also sent letters to the program's participants asking for
insurance information.

Williamson testified that the ambulance service would not have
been able to survive with the subscription program alone, without
the proceeds collected from participants' insurance.
Granting class-action status to the lawsuit would apply the ruling
on the plaintiffs' complaints to all subscribers who might have
been wrongly billed as a result of misunderstanding the program's
requirements.

Koepsel argued that each plaintiff's complaints are specific to
their cases and that therefore the lawsuit should not be granted
class-action status.

If District Judge Mary Fitzgerald grants class-action status to
the suit, Pezold said thousands of people throughout the state
would be affected by its outcome.

EMSA operates in Bixby, Jenks, Sand Springs and Tulsa, as well as
in Oklahoma City and several of its surrounding cities and towns.


ENCORE REHABILITATION: Sued by OT Assistant for FMLA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Smith v. Encore Rehabilitation Services, LLC, Case No. CV-
15-849086 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, July 31, 2015) is brought over
alleged retaliatory discharge, in violation of the Family and
Medical Leave Act.

Mr. Smith used to work as a Certified Occupational Therapy
Assistant at Encore.

Encore Rehabilitation Services, LLC, is a Michigan limited
liability company that conducts business within the state of Ohio.
The Company maintains a facility located in Cleveland, Cuyahoga
County, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
          Fred M. Bean, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290
          Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: Brian.Spitz@SpitzLawFirm.com
                  Fred.Bean@SpitzLawFirm.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Biometrics Slurpage
-------------------------------------------------------
Alexander J Martin, writing for The Register, reported that
Facebook has been hit with a class-action complaint over its
biometrics slurpage, with millions of possible plaintiffs who may
claim damages if the advertising giant is found to have acted
unlawfully.

The complaint states that "Facebook has created, collected and
stored over a billion 'face templates' (or 'face prints')", which,
ostensibly, are as uniquely identifiable as fingerprints. These
have been gathered "from over a billion individuals, millions of
whom reside in the State of Illinois".

It is alleged that in doing this, the ZuckerBorg is in violation
of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), which
was passed by the state legislature in 2008.

As noted in the complaint, under BIPA a private entity such as
Facebook is prohibited from obtaining or possessing an
individual's biometrics unless it achieves suitable consent, which
is constituted by:

Informing that person in writing that biometric identifiers or
information will be collected or stored

Informing that person in writing of the specific purpose and
length of term for which such biometric identifiers or biometric
information is being collected, stored and used

Receiving a written release from the person for the collection of
his or her biometric identifiers or information

Publishing publicly available written retention schedules and
guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and
biometric information

The complaint alleges that:

"In direct violation of. . . BIPA, Facebook is actively
collecting, storing, and using -- without providing notice,
obtaining informed written consent or publishing data retention
policies -- the biometrics of its users and unwitting non-users."

The plaintiff asserts that he does not have, and has never had, a
Facebook account, but notes that a Facebook user uploaded to
Facebook at least one photograph depicting him which has resulted
in the non-consensual creation of a biometric template of his
face. The action is brought on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, defined as:

"All non-Facebook users who, while residing in the State of
Illinois, had their biometric identifiers, including "face
templates" (or "face prints"), collected, captured, received, or
otherwise obtained by Facebook."

There's previous -- so we're told

Back in July 2012, a hearing was held before the United States
Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law,
specifically to address what facial recognition technology may
mean for privacy and civil liberties.

In the opening statement of the hearing to the subcommittee,
Senator Al Franken (D-MN) commented:

"In 2010, Facebook, the largest social network, began signing up
all of its then 800 million users in a programme called Tag
Suggestions. Tag Suggestions made it easier to tag friends in
photos, and that is a good thing."

But the feature did this by creating a unique faceprint for every
one of those friends. And in doing so, Facebook may have created
the world's largest privately held database of faceprints --
without the explicit consent of its users. To date, Tag
Suggestions is an opt-out program. Unless you have taken the time
to turn it off, it may have already been used to generate your
faceprint.

Similar concerns were raised by a German data protection authority
in 2011. At the time, a Facebook spokesperson said that the
ZuckerBorg "firmly reject any claim that we are not meeting our
obligations under European Union data protection law."

Facial recognition remains a key interest for the Facebook
Artificial-Intelligence Research Team (FART), however, which
presented a paper on "Web-Scale Training for Face Identification"
at the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
in June. The paper, notably, makes no mention of the words
"consent" or "legal".

More recently, an attempt to establish a voluntary code of conduct
for the commercial use of facial recognition technology on a
federal level in the US came to a practical halt in June when
privacy advocates withdrew from the talks en masse.

The advocates, including the ACLU and EFF, complained of failing
to get industry stakeholders "to agree on any concrete scenario
where companies should employ facial recognition only with a
consumer's permission."


FAIRFIELD SENTRY: Nov. 20 Fairness Hearing on $125MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A summary notice was filed on In re: Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York in Anwar v.
Fairfield Greenwich Limited, No. 09-cv-118.

TO: All beneficial owners of shares or limited partnership
interests in Fairfield Sentry Limited, Fairfield Sigma Limited,
Fairfield Lambda Limited, Greenwich Sentry, L.P. and Greenwich
Sentry Partners, L.P. (collectively, the "Funds") as of December
10, 2008 (whether as holders of record or traceable to a
shareholder or limited partner account of record) ("Beneficial
Owners"), who suffered a Net Loss of principal invested in the
Funds (collectively, the "Settlement Class").  If you meet the
above class definition, you could get a payment from a class
action settlement.

A federal court authorized this Notice.  This is not a
solicitation from a lawyer.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on November 20, 2015, at 11 a.m., before The
Honorable Victor Marrero, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York (the
"Court"), for the purpose of determining (1) whether the proposed
settlement of claims against the Citco Defendants in the above
Action for consideration of the sum of $125,000,000 in cash should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2)
whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as to the
Citco Defendants pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in
the Stipulation dated as of August 12, 2015; (3) whether the
proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds (the "Plan of
Allocation") is fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore should
be approved; and (4) whether the application of Plaintiffs' Lead
Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred
in connection with this Action should be approved.

If you were a Beneficial Owner of shares or limited partnership
interests in one or more of the Funds as of December 10, 2008 and
suffered a Net Loss in principal on your investment in those
shares or limited partnership interests, your rights may be
affected by this Settlement, including the release and
extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your
ownership interest in the Funds.  Net Loss means the total cash
investment made by a Beneficial Owner in a Fund, directly or
indirectly through one or more intermediaries, less the total
amount of any redemptions or withdrawals or recoveries from any
source by that Beneficial Owner from or with respect to the same
Fund.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Proof of Claim and Release form that is received no later than
December 28, 2015, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion that is received by October 16,
2015.  Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement must be filed
with the Court no later than October 16, 2015.

If you wish to receive a detailed Notice concerning the terms of
the Settlement or the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may
obtain copies by writing to Fairfield Greenwich Securities
Litigation, c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 2874, Faribault,
MN 55021-8674, or by visiting:
info@FairfieldGreenwichLitigation.com or
www.FairfieldGreenwichLitigation.com.

DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE OR ANY OF THE
DEFENDANTS OR COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: SEPTEMBER 9, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS: Prisoners Bypass Administrative Remedies
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Catherine C. Blake of District of Maryland granted
defendants' motion in the case COFIELD v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, CIVIL ACTION NO. CCB-14-2051 (D. Md.)

The Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
(DPSCS) and its telephone service provider Global Tel Link (GTL)
modified their contract in accordance with the FCC's September 26,
2013 Report and Order and Further Notice of Rulemaking. The
contract modification set all interstate prepaid rates at $0.21
per minute and all interstate collect calls at $0.25 per minute.

Plaintiffs Keenan Cofield, Michael Allen, and John Johnson filed a
complaint and alleges that they are being charged telephone rates
in excess of the amount permitted for outgoing interstate prison
telephone calls under the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC)
2013 Report and Order.

The defendants raise as defenses (1) sovereign immunity, (2)
failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), (3) lack of personal participation,
(4) failure to state a claim, (5) mootness, and (6) qualified
immunity.

In opposition, the plaintiffs argue that PLRA exhaustion is not
applicable, because the FCC has never passed a law or rule
requiring an inmate to file and exhaust administrative remedies
before challenging the enforcement of FCC rate law changes, and
the PLRA only applies to prison conditions, not prison telephone
rates. Moreover, plaintiff Cofield insists that he has placed
calls under the old N-Netix inmate phone system and GTL since the
rate law changes by the FCC, and all Department of Corrections
inmates who use the GTL system have a property interest in the
commissions paid to the Maryland.

On September 24, 2014, the complaint against FCC Chairman Wheeler
was dismissed. Remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss or,
in the alternative, motion for summary judgment.

Judge Blake takes the motion as a motion for summary judgment and
the same is granted and dismisses the complaint.

A copy of Judge Blake's memorandum dated September 2, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/GsXcPqfrom Leagle.com.

Keenan K. Cofield, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Michael Allen, Plaintiff, Pro Se

John Wesley Johnson, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Defendants, represented by Nichole' C Gatewood at Maryland Office
of the Attorney General


FIAT CHRYSLER: Asks Court to Dismiss Bad Transmission Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
WSB-TV2 News reported that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is asking a
federal judge to dismiss a class action lawsuit, which charges the
company with saddling Jeep owners with bad transmissions.  The
suit involves the nine-speed transmission in the 2014 Jeep
Cherokee.

Consumer investigator Jim Strickland found a southwest Atlanta
woman who found the same trouble in both the 2014 and 2015 models.

Heidi Houston says her 2014 transmission failed three times.  FCA
bought it back and replaced it with a 2015.  She was driving it to
North Carolina when the 2015 quit, with what was later diagnosed
as a transmission failure.

"Driving down the interstate, it decelerates. All of a sudden, it
stops," she said. "I'm very frustrated, and I'm scared ;Lo and
behold, thank goodness, a truck or any kind of vehicle didn't run
into the back of me."

Her dealer replaced the whole transmission in a car less than 6
months old.

"I don't want to be one to complain, but there's something going
on here and something needs to be done," Houston said.

A class action lawsuit filed in New Jersey over the 2014 model
accuses FCA of fraud for knowingly putting out a defective
product.  The company won't comment on court cases, but a motion
to dismiss the lawsuit says the suit contains "vague allegations,"
which are "legally insufficient."

Houston's not part of the lawsuit, but she wants her own justice.

"Take this back, and give me back my down payment," she said of
her demands.

Houston told Strickland rather than a buyback, FCA is offering an
extended warranty and one month's payment on her car note.
Houston says the risk is too great to stay in the Jeep.


FIFTH THIRD: Late September 2015 Hearing in Case Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that an appellate court has
scheduled a hearing on those appeals in late September 2015.

During April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a
consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed
against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial
institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The plaintiffs, merchants operating
commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations,
claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks
were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified
damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is
also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and
has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with
Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants.

In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a
settlement agreement. The court entered a Class Settlement
Preliminary Approval Order in November 2012. Pursuant to the terms
of the settlement agreement, the Bancorp paid $46 million into a
class settlement escrow account. Previously, the Bancorp paid an
additional $4 million in another settlement escrow in connection
with the settlement of claims from plaintiffs not included in the
class action. Approximately 8,000 merchants have requested
exclusion from the class settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the
settlement agreement, 25% of the funds paid into the class
settlement escrow account have been returned to the control of the
defendants through Class Exclusion Takedown Payments.

More than 460 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the
class have filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa,
MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust
violations. These "opt-out" federal lawsuits have been transferred
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York. The Bancorp was not named as a defendant in any of the
opt-out federal lawsuits, but may have obligations pursuant to
indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing
agreements.

In addition, one merchant filed a separate state court lawsuit
against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants, including
the Bancorp, alleging similar antitrust violations. The state
court lawsuit has been settled.

On January 14, 2014, the court entered a final order approving the
class settlement. A number of merchants have filed appeals from
that approval. The appellate court has scheduled a hearing on
those appeals in late September 2015.

On July 18, 2014, the court in which all but one of the opt-out
federal lawsuits have been consolidated denied defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaints. Approximately one third of the opt-out
federal lawsuits have been resolved as of June 30, 2015.


FORD MOTOR: Judge Narrows Claims in MyFord Touch Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion
to dismiss in the case entitled IN RE MYFORD TOUCH CONSUMER
LITIGATION, NO. C-13-3072 EMC (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs are 19 individuals and one organization residing in 12
different states. Plaintiffs each purchased at least one vehicle
from defendant Ford Motor Company (Ford) that was equipped by Ford
with an infotainment system known as MyFord Touch (MFT).

Plaintiffs allege that Ford sold plaintiffs and other putative
class members vehicles with defective MFT systems, despite Ford's
knowledge at the time of sale that the MFT system it had designed
was seriously unsound. Ford filed a motion to dismiss.

The court issued an order granting in part and denying in part
Ford's motion to dismiss.

On May 8, 2015, the last day of filing an amended complaint,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint and pleads various claims
under the law of the State of Washington, brought by newly-added
named plaintiff Leif Kirchoff and also alleges breach of contract
under the laws of each state where a named plaintiff resides.

Ford filed a second motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and
seeks dismissal on the allegations of breach of contract as well
as dismissal of previously unchallenged claims that plaintiffs re-
pleaded in the amended complaint.

Judge Chen granted in part and denied in part Ford's motion to
dismiss.

A copy of Judge Chen's order dated August 31, 2015, is available
at http://goo.gl/rXa4Ubfrom Leagle.com.

Jennifer Whalen, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., Cory Steven Fein, Craig Ripley Spiegel, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Cynthia B. Chapman, Caddell & Chapman,
Michael A. Caddell, Caddell & Chapman, Catherine Gannon, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro & Gregory Michael Travalio, Isaac, Wiles,
Burkholder Teetor, LLC

Jennifer Whalen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented byJames C Shah,
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller and Shah, LLP, Jason Allen Zweig,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeff A. Almeida, Grant and
Eisenhofer P.A., Jeff D Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Jeniphr A.E.
Breckenridge, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Joseph B. Kennedy, One
Harverford Centre,Joseph Bryce Kenney, Chimicles and Tikellis,
Joseph G. Sauder, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, Kyle J McGee, Grant
and Eisenhofer P.A., Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C., Mark
Hayden Troutman, Isaac Wiles Burkholder Teetor, Matthew David
Schelkopf, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP,Roland K. Tellis, Baron
Budd, P.C., Shelby Smith, Hagens Berman, Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Vincent Louis DiTommaso, DiTommaso
Lubin, P.C.

Thomas Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented byCraig Ripley Spiegel,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeff D Friedman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph B. Kennedy, One Harverford Centre, Kyle
J McGee, Grant and Eisenhofer P.A., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd,
P.C., Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP &Vincent
Louis DiTommaso, DiTommaso Lubin, P.C.

Joe D'Aguanno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented byAdam J. Levitt, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., Craig Ripley Spiegel, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Gregory
Michael Travalio, Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder Teetor, LLC, Jason
Allen Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeff A. Almeida,
Grant and Eisenhofer P.A., Jeff D Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Joseph B. Kennedy, One Harverford Centre, Kyle J
McGee, Grant and Eisenhofer P.A., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd,
P.C., Shelby Smith, Hagens Berman, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP & Vincent Louis DiTommaso, DiTommaso Lubin, P.C.

Deb Makowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented byAdam J. Levitt, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., Craig Ripley Spiegel, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Gregory
Michael Travalio, Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder Teetor, LLC, Jason
Allen Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeff A. Almeida,
Grant and Eisenhofer P.A., Jeff D Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Joseph B. Kennedy, One Harverford Centre, Kyle J
McGee, Grant and Eisenhofer P.A., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd,
P.C., Shelby Smith, Hagens Berman, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP & Vincent Louis DiTommaso, DiTommaso Lubin, P.C.

Jose Randy Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Craig Ripley Spiegel, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Gregory Michael Travalio, Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder Teetor, LLC,
Jason Allen Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeff A.
Almeida, Grant and Eisenhofer P.A., Jeff D Friedman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph B. Kennedy, One Harverford Centre, Kyle
J McGee, Grant and Eisenhofer P.A.,Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd,
P.C., Shelby Smith, Hagens Berman, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP & Vincent Louis DiTommaso, DiTommaso Lubin, P.C.

Michael Ervin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., Craig Ripley Spiegel, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Gregory
Michael Travalio, Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder Teetor, LLC, Jason
Allen Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeff A. Almeida,
Grant and Eisenhofer P.A., Jeff D Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Joseph B. Kennedy, One Harverford Centre, Kyle J
McGee, Grant and Eisenhofer P.A., Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd,
P.C., Shelby Smith, Hagens Berman, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP & Vincent Louis DiTommaso, DiTommaso Lubin, P.C.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Randall W. Edwards,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP,Brian Christopher Anderson, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, David Richard Dorey, OMelveny Myers LLP,Jaime Arturo
Saenz, Colvin Chaney Saenz Rodriguez LLP, Janet L. Conigliaro,
Dykema & Scott M Hammack, O'Melveny and Myers


GARY POOLS: Faces "Lemmers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Lemmers, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Gary Pools, Inc., and Leif A. Zars, Individually and
in his Official Capacity, Case No. 5:15-cv-00828 (W.D. Tex.,
September 22, 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 designing and building
custom pools.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glenn D. Levy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY
      906 Basse, Suite 100
      San Antonio, TX 78212
      Telephone: (210) 822-5666
      Facsimile: (210) 822-5650


GENERAL MOTORS: Ruling Offers Fodder For Franchise Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yamri Taddese, writing for Law Times, reported that if there's one
major takeaway from the first common issues trial in a franchise
class action, it's that the duty of good faith involves "an
extremely fact-sensitive and context-specific" analysis, says a
Toronto lawyer.

While there have been summary judgement motions in the franchise
context -- most notably the Fairview Donut Inc. v. The TDL Group
Corp. case -- Trillium Motor World Ltd. v. General Motors of
Canada Ltd. is the first full common issues class action trial
that involved matters of franchise law.

The GM case involved a live question of breach of good faith, a
major issue in franchising. What's clear from the case is the
courts will look at the question of good faith in the context in
which decisions were made in the franchising world before
ascribing liability to franchisors, says Adam Ship, Esq. --
aship@mccarthy.ca -- a partner at McCarthy Tetrault LLP.

"The court focused very heavily on some of the unique pressures
and time exigencies this franchisor was facing at that particular
point in time," says Ship.

In Trillium Motor World, the court was sympathetic to the unique
pressures GM was facing when it gave dealers wind-down agreements
in 2009. The dealers argued they were under pressure to sign those
agreements through "ambush, deception, and divide-and-conquer
tactics." They also argued GM gave them just six days to obtain
legal advice and sign the agreement when, as a franchisor, the law
required it to give them at least 14 days to mull it over.

But in rejecting their claims, the court put a lot of emphasis on
the gravity of the situation the automaker was in during the
financial crisis.

"The specific context of GMCL's conduct was that it was making
crucial business decisions very quickly during a time of
instability and flux for both GMCL and its dealers. When
considering each of the sub-issues below I will review the
statutory duty of fair dealing through the lens of commercial
reality -- that is, GMCL's conduct in that context," wrote Justice
Thomas McEwen.

He added: "In hindsight, it is arguable that it may have been
better for GMCL to give the dealers a few more days to make a
decision, but, as noted, the timeline was short and there is no
evidence that it would have affected the ability of the dealers to
protect themselves.

"In my view, such an argument requires too much of GMCL given the
time pressures it was facing, the threat to its continued
existence as a business enterprise, and the fact that, for the
most part, it was reacting to a worsening economic landscape,
GMCL's instructions, and the Canadian and U.S. Governments'
decisions."

The decision shows courts will look at questions of good faith and
fair dealing in the franchise context through the lens of
commercial reality, according to Ship. "It's an important
recognition of what I always understood to be the case, but this
is a great example of it with a full common issues trial," he
says.

"The court is . . . very, very focused on what the franchisor was
dealing with in real time on the ground and that context is going
to colour the entire analysis the court is going to do of the
good-faith issues," he adds.

"I think the court is saying that the facts that are going to be
most important for the court are the facts that informed the
decision-making context that was facing the franchisor at the
time."

The court expressed a concern about getting its facts straight
about exactly what the situation was like for GM at the time, Ship
notes.

"Once the court is prepared to accept the gravity of the context,
there's going to be a lot of deference shown, in my view, to the
ultimate decisions that were made and the dealings with the
franchisees."

Sotos LLP lawyer David Sterns, counsel for the dealers, says his
firm is appealing McEwen's finding that, under the circumstances,
GM's actions were "fair enough."

In the notice of appeal, Sotos claims the judge made an
"overriding error in principle that tainted his analysis of the
[Arthur Wishart Act] and his determination of the duties that GMCL
owed to the class members."

"He interpreted the [act] through the 'lens of commercial reality'
and by reference to the subjective business context in which GMCL
was operating in May, 2009 and found, as a result, that the duties
GMCL owed to its dealers were diminished," the notice of appeal
states.

"In so doing, the trial judge failed to give consideration to this
court's well-established jurisprudence adopting a purposive
approach to a franchisor's duties under the [act] which gives
effect to the statute's fundamental purposes of: (i) addressing
the power imbalance between franchisors and franchisees; and (ii)
protecting franchisees."

The notice of appeal also says the judge misapplied and
misinterpreted Bhasin v. Hrynew, a Supreme Court decision from

"Bhasin held that a context-specific understanding of a
contractual relationship is required to determine whether to
'invoke' the duty of good faith. Bhasin does not stand for the
proposition, adopted by the trial judge, that the scope and
content of the duty of good faith are determined by the degree of
solvency of one of the parties to the relationship (in this case,
GMCL's financial challenges in May, 2009), or by one party's
desire to access third-party funding (in this case, GMCL's desire
to access billions of dollars of government funding)."

The appeal notwithstanding, Ship notes it's hard to say how this
ruling will affect future decisions due to the case-specific
nature of the ruling.

"Try applying this case to a situation where there wasn't this
economic context and a potential [reorganization] and I think
you're going to have a very different outcome," he says.

On a more technical side, the GM case also clarified which events
trigger an obligation for franchisors to deliver disclosure
documents to franchisees. The dealers in the GM case had argued
the automaker owed them disclosure documents when it handed them
wind-down agreements in 2009.

The court, however, found that disclosures are only necessary
where there has been a grant of a franchise. "I agree with GMCL's
submission that Trillium's characterization of the dealers as
prospective franchisees prior to the execution of the [wind-down
agreement] is unfounded," wrote McEwen.

"I find it illogical that an existing franchisee entering into a
[wind-down agreement] could also be considered a prospective
franchisee." The dealers will also appeal that finding.

The other part of the GM class action dealt with a conflict of
interest claim against Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP. On that
issue, the court awarded $45 million in damages for breaching its
contractual and fiduciary duty to the class members. Cassels Brock
is appealing the finding against it.

Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
Suite 2100, Scotia Plaza
40 King Street West
Toronto, ON M5H 3C2
Telephone: 416 869 5300
Fax: 416 360 8877
http://www.casselsbrock.com


GERON CORPORATION: Filed Answer to Consolidated Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Geron Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has filed
its answer to the consolidated amended complaint in the Class
Action Lawsuits.

The Company said, "On March 14, 2014, a purported class action
securities lawsuit was commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, or the California
District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our
officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 2 trial of
imetelstat in patients with essential thrombocythemia, or ET, or
polycythemia vera, or PV. The plaintiff alleges, among other
things, that we failed to disclose facts related to the occurrence
of persistent low-grade liver function test, or LFT, abnormalities
observed in our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in ET or PV patients
and the potential risk of chronic liver injury following long-term
exposure to imetelstat. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award
of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

"On March 28, 2014, a second purported class action securities
lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, and on
June 6, 2014, a third securities lawsuit, not styled as a class
action, was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi, or the Mississippi District
Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. These
lawsuits, which are based on the same factual background as the
purported class action securities lawsuit that commenced on March
14, 2014, also allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees.

"On June 30, 2014, the California District Court consolidated both
of the purported class action securities lawsuits filed in the
California District Court, or the Class Action Lawsuits, and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent the
purported class. On July 21, 2014, the California District Court
ordered the lead plaintiff in the Class Action Lawsuits to file
its consolidated amended complaint, which was filed on September
19, 2014.

"On August 11, 2014, we filed a motion to transfer the securities
lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District Court to the California
District Court. On November 4, 2014, the Mississippi District
Court granted our motion and transferred the case to the
California District Court, which was thereafter consolidated with
the Class Action Lawsuits.

"On November 18, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits.

"On April 10, 2015, the California District Court granted our
motion to dismiss with respect to some of the allegedly false and
misleading statements made by us and denied our motion to dismiss
with respect to other allegedly false and misleading statements
made by us. On May 20, 2015, we filed our answer to the
consolidated amended complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits."

No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q
Report.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Cleared from Investors Suit Over Toxic MBS
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Honea, writing for DSNews, reported that Goldman Sachs
received a victory in a class action lawsuit accusing the
investment banking firm of knowingly selling toxic mortgage-backed
securities to hedge fund Dodona I and other investors in 2007
before the financial crisis, according to media reports.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York ruled that there was no evidence
that Goldman knew the securities would fail or that Goldman failed
to disclose any known risk to the securities.

Goldman Sachs spokesman Michael DuVally told DS News that the firm
is pleased with the court's decision. Attorneys for Dodona did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.

Verdict ended a five-year long battle that began in September 2010
when Dodona sued Goldman on behalf of investors over two offerings
of collateralized debt obligation (CDO) securities known as the
Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1 and Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-
2, which were sponsored by Goldman. According to Berger &
Montague, the firm that represented Dodona in this case, Dodona
alleged that, "in a classic case of 'heads we win, tails you
lose,' the defendants failed to disclose to investors both that
they structured the Hudson CDOs in late 2006 and early 2007 to
decrease Goldman's own then-existing exposures to subprime
mortgage-related financial instruments, and that Goldman would
profit from its own short positions when those securities lost
value." Dodona claimed that Goldman was in violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by selling securities that
were structured to fail.

An amended complaint filed by Dodona in 2011 stated that the
Hudson 1 CDO was comprised of a $837 million offering of
securities and a $1.2 billion senior swap transaction; the Hudson
2 CDO was comprised of a $407.9 million worth of securities.
Dodona's complaint states that by the fall of 2007, " both CDOs
had, in fact, declined in value significantly, saddling Plaintiff
and other investors with enormous losses."

In January 2014, Marrero rejected Goldman's bid to have the suit
dismissed on the grounds that the claims made by Dodona and
investors were too "rife with differences, idiosyncrasies, and
conflicts" to be pursued within the same complaint, according to a
report from Reuters. Goldman also lost a bid to have the suit
dismissed in March 2012.

In August 2015, Goldman told Marrero that it made no
misrepresentations to Dodona with regard to the two Hudson
securities.


GOOGLE INC: Faces "Matera" Suit Over Gmail Privacy Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reported that Google has been
hit with another lawsuit alleging that it violates people's
privacy by scanning Gmail messages in order to surround them with
ads.

This latest case was brought by San Francisco resident Daniel
Matera, who says he doesn't have a Gmail account, but is forced to
communicate with Gmail users due to the "ubiquity of Gmail, and
the fact that tens if not hundreds of millions of Gmail accounts
are presently in existence."

Like others who have challenged Google's Gmail ads, Matera alleges
that Google "intercepts" email messages and sells ads based on
their contents.

But his complaint also includes other allegations, including that
Google "catalogues" the data it extracted from messages in order
to create profiles of users, which the company allegedly stores
indefinitely. "The future purposes of this indefinitely stored
information are unclear and have not been disclosed," he alleges
in a complaint filed on in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Matera, who is seeking class-action status, alleges that Google is
violating a California privacy law and the federal wiretap law by
intercepting the messages without his consent.

Google declined to comment for this article.

Google's terms of service currently disclose that it analyzes the
contents of email messages for features including "tailored
advertising." But Matera says that as a non-Gmail user, he never
agreed to those terms.

Yahoo currently is facing a class-action alleging that it violates
the privacy of non-Yahoo account holders by scanning messages for
ad-targeting purposes.

In a blow to Yahoo, Koh recently rejected the company's argument
that the case doesn't lend itself to class-action treatment. Yahoo
contended that questions about whether Web users consented to the
email scans must be litigated on a user-by-user basis, but Koh
said the case posed the kinds of common questions that don't
require separate rulings for each consumer.

Google resolved a lawsuit brought by other Web users -- Gmail
account holders as well as non-Gmail users -- who accused the
company of violating their privacy by scanning Gmail messages. The
settlement terms were never disclosed.

Before agreeing to settle that matter, Google unsuccessfully
argued that the case should be dismissed on the grounds that the
consumers consented to the scans. U.S. District Court Judge Lucy
Koh in the Northern District of California rejected that argument,
ruling in 2013 that Google's terms didn't clearly explain to users
that the company might send ads based on email content. Google
subsequently revised its terms of service.


GROOME TRANSPORTATION: Nov. 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody of the Middle District of
Alabama, Eastern Division granted the parties joint motion for
preliminary approval of settlement agreement in the case NETTIE
CHAMBERS, et al., Plaintiff, v. GROOME TRANSPORTATION OF ALABAMA,
INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14CV237-CSC (M.D.
Ala.)

Plaintiffs Nettie Chambers and Cassandra Young asserted claims for
damages under the Worker's Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 2102 and 29 C.F.R. Section 639.

Before the court is the parties' Amended Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Amended Settlement Agreement and
Certification of Settlement Class that includes a request for
approval of the Settlement Agreement, certification of a
settlement class, approval of a notice plan, and setting of a
fairness hearing.

Magistrate Judge Cody granted the Amended Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement that includes
certification of a settlement class, approval of a notice plan,
and setting of a fairness hearing and certifies the following
class:

"All former employees of Groome Transportation of Alabama who were
employed as of May 31, 2013 including employees who signed an
arbitration agreement as a condition to employment, and who were
laid off from employment at Groome on July 31, 2013, and who were
not subsequently re-hired by Groome Transportation."

The court designates Mike Segrest of The Segrest Law Firm and
David Hughes of Hardin and Hughes LLP as class counsel with
respect to the settlement class and plaintiffs Nettie Chambers and
Cassandra Young are appointed as the representatives of the
settlement class.

A fairness hearing, pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 23(e), is scheduled
to be held before the court on November 17, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 4-B at the Frank M. Johnson, Jr. United States
Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama 36104.
The court approves the form and content of the class notice and
directs that the plaintiffs shall, no later than September 11,
2015, cause the mailed notice to be disseminated pursuant to the
agreement, to the last known address of each member of the
settlement class who can be identified by reasonable effort. No
later than November 10, 2015, class counsel shall file with the
court a proof of timely compliance with the foregoing mailing
requirements.

The defendants shall file with the court proof of compliance with
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, as specified in 28 U.S.C.
Section 1715 and Paragraph 11 of the Settlement Agreement no later
than September 8, 2015. Any application by class counsel for
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, for enhancement
awards to the named plaintiffs, and all papers in support thereof,
shall be filed with the court and served on all counsel of record
no later than October 20, 2015. Class counsel shall file with the
court a motion for entry of the final approval order and approval
of the plan of allocation no later than October 20, 2015.
A copy of Magistrate Judge Coody's memorandum opinion and order
dated September 1, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/uaO5Vofrom
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

David Alan Hughes, Esq.
HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP
2121 14th St.
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
Telephone: 205-344-6690

    - and -

John Michael Segrest, Esq.
THE SEGREST LAW FIRM
301 King Street
Tallahassee, AL 36078
Telephone: 334-252-0036
Facsimile: 334-252-0037

Defendants, represented by David Lee Brown, Jr. --
dbrown@huielaw.com -- Hugh Cannon Lawley -- Cannon@huielaw.com --
Martha Leach Thompson -- mthompson@huielaw.com -- at Huie
Fernambucq Stewart LLP


GURLEY MOTOR: Bid to File Second Amended Complaint Rejected
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James A. Parker denied the request of plaintiffs to
file a second amended complaint expanding the definition of
proposed Class B (which consists of individuals who purchased a
vehicle from Defendant Gurley Motor Co., which was later
repossessed by Defendant Red Rock Investment Co.) from individuals
who purchased their vehicle within the last four years to
individuals who purchased their vehicle within the last six years.

The Defendants oppose the Motion as untimely and futile.

The request was filed August 5, 2015, more than seven months after
the deadline to move to amend had passed.  The Court said the
Plaintiffs have not provided any justification for their delay in
moving to amend.

A copy of the Court's Sept. 21 Memorandum Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/x0Sscpfrom Leagle.com.

EUGENE YAZZIE and PHYLLIS YAZZIE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GURLEY MOTOR CO. and RED
ROCK INVESTMENT CO., Defendants, NO. CIV 14-555 JAP/SCY (D. N.M.)

Plaintiffs Eugene Yazzie and Phyllis Yazzie are represented by:

     Richard N. Feferman, Esq.
     Nicholas H. Mattison, Esq.
     FEFERMAN & WARREN
     300 Central Ave., SW Suite 2000 W
     Albuerque, NM Mexico 87102
     Tel: (505) 243-7773
     Fax: (505) 243-6663
     E-mail: NMATTISON@SWCP.COM

Defendants Gurley Motor Co., and Red Rock Investment Co, are
represented by:

     Mark D. Jarmie, Esq.
     JARMIE & ASSOCIATES
     514 Marble Ave NW
     Albuquerque, NM 87102
     Tel: 505-243-6727


H & L FOODS: Faces "Gonzales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymundo Jose Gonzalez, and all others similarly situated v. H & L
Foods, LLC d/b/a Hunan Gardens, Hon N. Quach, Lan N. Pho, Case No.
9:15-cv-81313-RLR (S.D. Fla., September 22, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Palm Beach County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HASEKO: Ordered to Pay $20-Mil. to Homeowners in Ewa Beach
----------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii News Now reported that a jury on ordered Haseko to pay $20
million in punitive damages to hundreds of homeowners in Ewa
Beach. The hefty penalty is over the Tokyo-based developer's
failure to build a marina for its Ocean Pointe and Hoakalei
subdivisions.

"You have a local jury sending out a message to a foreign
corporation that comes to Hawaii and rips off homeowners. That's
exactly what they did," plaintiffs' attorney Michael Green said.

The jury also awarded the 1,800 plaintiffs who sued Haseko $1,300
per household. Jurors said Haseko engaged in "unfair and deceptive
practices" when it scrapped the marina idea to build a lagoon
instead.

Haseko blamed permitting delays and difficulties for forcing it to
change its plans.

"They spent $32 million in 2008 lining it with armor stone,"
Haseko attorney Steven Chong said. "So there's no evidence that
they never intended to deliver the marina.  And all of the homes
were sold when the company fully intended to deliver the marina."

Plaintiffs in the class-action suit argued that they they bought
their homes in part because of the marina.

"This is a great victory for homeowners and consumers across the
state. It sends a clear message to developers that juries are not
going to let them use deceptive practices," Hoakalei resident Matt
Lopresti said.

But Chong said the $20 million ruling conflicts with court
instructions that punitive damages couldn't be awarded for an
unfair or deceptive act.

"It's probably going to be one of the things that we ask the court
to set aside the award of punitive damages as being inconsistent
with the law," he said.

Unless the court agrees, the 1,800 plaintiffs will split the $20
million. The $1,300 award per household will be tripled because
the class action lawsuit is a consumer protection case.

"It sends a very strong message to not only Haseko but all
developers to simply do what you say you're going to do. If you
say you're going to deliver a marina, deliver it," plaintiffs'
attorney Terrance Revere said.

Haseko can appeal the ruling, but would have to pay ten percent a
month in interest while an appeal moved through the court.

Tom Sagawa, President of Haseko Hawaii Inc., released this
statement following ruling:

"The jury returned a verdict, finding that Haseko had not
misrepresented any fact in selling homes to Ocean Pointe and
Hoakalei residents. The jury did find there was a violation of a
consumer protection statute, and did award the 1,874 members in
the class $1,300 per home. Under the consumer protection statute,
which trebles any actual damages, the total award will be
$7,308,600. Under the statute, plaintiffs will also be allowed any
legal fees and costs. While the jury awarded $20 million in
punitive damages, this award is not authorized by the facts or the
statute under which liability was found. Haseko is planning to
appeal and bond the judgment. The first step before appealing is
to move the court to set aside the entire verdict. We are
confident the $20 million punitive damages award will be set
aside."


HELIX ENERGY: Levy & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. ("Helix") HLX, -
4.23% between October 21, 2014 and July 21, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of Texas. If
you purchased or otherwise acquired Helix securities between
October 21, 2014 and July 21, 2015, inclusive, your rights may be
affected by this action. To get more information go to
http://zlk.9nl.com/helix-energy-hlxor contact Joseph E. Levi,
Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212)
363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material information. During an October 21, 2014 earnings
call CEO Owen Kratz stated that the Q4000 vessel would be out of
drydock for approximately "45 days and the H534 for about 30
days." Then on July 20, 2015, the Company announced disappointing
financial results for the second quarter of 2015. In the Company's
Form 10-Q filed two days later, Helix disclosed the Q4000 was in
dry dock for 75 of the 91 days in the second quarter, and that the
H534 was utilized for 50 days of that quarter. Upon this news,
shares of Helix stock fell almost 17% to close at $9.40 per share
on July 21, 2015.

If you suffered a loss in Helix you have until September 29,
2015to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
30 Broad St., 24th FL New York, NY 10004
Toll free. 877-363-5972
T. 212-363-7500
F. 212-363-7171
jlevi@zlk.com


HONEST CO: $5MM Class Suit Baseless, Jessica Alba Says
------------------------------------------------------
Philly.com, reported that Jessica Alba has fired back at a new
class action lawsuit filed against her successful The Honest
Company brand, insisting allegations the firm's products are not
as natural as advertised are "baseless and without merit."

The actress and her partners have turned The Honest Company into a
$1 billion-plus success story in recent years, producing household
items, beauty and cosmetics that so not include harmful
substances, but in his $5 million suit, one consumer, Jonathan D.
Rubin, insists Alba's company is anything but honest.  He claims
Honest's 'all natural' advertising is deceptive, because most of
the firm's items contain synthetic additives. Rubin also mentions
the ineffectiveness of the company's sunscreen, which was the
subject of a series of complaints earlier this summer.

Firing back against lawsuit, Alba has released a statement to The
Hollywood Reporter. It reads: "I started The Honest Company to
develop safe and effective products not just for my children, but
for families everywhere. I am very proud that we have built this
company into an industry leader focused on using natural
ingredients and developing products that people love."

"We believe that consumers deserve to know what's in their
products -- whether it's diapers for their children, cleaning
products for their families or beauty products for themselves. Our
formulations are made with integrity and strict standards of
safety, and we label each ingredient that goes into every product
-- not because we have to, but because it's the right thing to do.

"The allegations against us are baseless and without merit. We
strongly stand behind our products and the responsibility we have
to our consumers. We are steadfast in our commitment to
transparency and openness. "I know my children, Honor and Haven,
are growing up in a safer home because of our products."


HOOT WINC: NLRB Rules in Favor of Workers
-----------------------------------------
Bruce Vail, writing for In These Times, reported that the leading
workers' rights agency within the U.S. government has a tip for
the waitresses serving up beer and chicken wings at Hooters.

The tip from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is not an
extravagant one, nor is it exclusive to the wait staff at Hooters
restaurants. Instead, it is a re-affirmation of the labor board's
basic policy that employers cannot use mandatory arbitration
agreements to limit the labor rights of employees.

The action came in the form of a September 1 ruling on a series of
charges by female workers at a restaurant operated by Hoot Winc
LLC and Ontario Wings LLC, two companies that control a Hooters
franchise at the giant Ontario Mills mall near San Bernadino,
California. One of the workers, Alexis Hanson, complained to the
NLRB in 2013 that she had been unfairly fired for violating rules
laid out in the company's employee handbook, and that some of
those rules infringed on her labor rights. NLRB Administrative Law
Judge William Nelson Cates ruled in Hanson's favor in 2014, and a
three-member panel of the labor board affirmed the judge's ruling
in the September 1 decision.

The franchisee "required employees to sign an arbitration
agreement as a condition of employment. The arbitration agreement
requires that all 'claims' between the employee and [Hooters] . .
. shall exclusively be decided by arbitration. . . . Although the
arbitration agreement does not explicitly prohibit employees from
filing charges with the Board, we agree . . . that employees would
reasonably read it to do so," the NLRB decision states.

The case is similar to one reported at In These Times earlier, in
which the labor board slapped down an Applebee's franchisee in
Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, for enforcing its restrictive
arbitration policy. In both cases, the restaurants were not
unionized, and workers brought their complaints about their bosses
to the NLRB in their capacities as individual workers -- and won.

Commenting on the Applebee's case earlier, Catherine Ruckelshaus
of the New York-based National Employment Law Center stated that
broadly worded arbitration agreements illegally prevented many
workers from joining in class action lawsuits under the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act, which protects employees from abuses of
minimum wage and overtime laws. According to Ruckelshaus, such
abuses are endemic in the franchise restaurant sector.

Ruckelshaus noted that the Applebee's (and Hooters) ruling was
based on the NLRB's 2012 D.R. Horton decision, a controversial
case that favored workers over bosses in disputes involving
mandatory arbitration. The Horton decision has been challenged by
employers in federal courts, she stated, and that particular legal
battle is expected to continue for several more years.

The NLRB's Labor Day ruling applies specifically to the Ontario
Mills Hooters. But as a statement of policy it also applies to all
Hooters locations across the country, as well as to other
employers. The Hooters website lists about 330 locations in the
United States, although the site elsewhere states that there are a
total of 430, including some restaurants in foreign countries.


HRG GROUP: FGL, Company and OM Group Reached Global Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
HRG Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that during the third
quarter of 2015, Fidelity & Guaranty Life ("FGL"), the Company and
OM Group (UK) Limited ("OMGUK") reached a global settlement which
resolves all prior outstanding claims, including the Cressy
litigation, which resulted in FGL receiving $3.6 million of the
OMGUK settlement.

On July 5, 2013, a putative class action Complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the
"Court"), captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty Life
Insurance Company, et al. Case No. BC-514340. The state court
Complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of
the putative class relied on Defendants' advice in purchasing
unsuitable equity-indexed insurance policies.

On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, FGL Insurance and the other two
defendants signed a Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which FGL
Insurance has agreed to pay a total of $5.3 million to settle the
claims of a nationwide class consisting, with certain exclusions,
of all persons who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance
indexed universal life insurance policy issued from January 1,
2007 through March 31, 2014, inclusive. As part of the settlement,
FGL Insurance agreed to certification of the nationwide class for
settlement purposes only. An Amended Settlement Agreement was
filed with the Court on June 5, 2014.

On January 2, 2015, the Court entered the Final Judgment in
Cressy, certifying the class for settlement purposes, and
approving the class settlement. The implementation shall commence
on or about August 10, 2015. The parties will advise the Court
when the settlement is complete.

At June 30, 2015, FGL estimated the total cost for the settlement,
legal fees and other costs related to this class action would be
$8.6 million and with a liability for the unpaid portion of the
estimate of $2.7 million. FGL has incurred and paid $3.9 million
related to legal fees and other costs and $2.0 million related to
settlement costs as of June 30, 2015.

Based on the information currently available, FGL does not expect
the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs
to differ materially from the amount accrued. FGL has been seeking
indemnification from OMGUK under the First Amended and Restated
Stock Purchase Agreement (the "F&G Stock Purchase Agreement")
between FGL (formerly, Harbinger F&G, LLC) and OMGUK related to
the settlement and the costs and fees in defending the Cressy
litigation in both the federal and state courts. The settlement,
legal fees and other costs related to this class action and the
amount recoverable from OMGUK is presented net on the accompanying
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations in the caption
"Benefits and other changes in policy reserves."

During the third quarter of 2015, FGL, the Company and OMGUK
reached a global settlement which resolves all prior outstanding
claims, including the Cressy litigation, which resulted in FGL
receiving $3.6 million of the OMGUK settlement.


HRG GROUP: Joint Motion to Dismiss Class Action Fully Briefed
-------------------------------------------------------------
HRG Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a joint motion to
dismiss a class action complaint has been fully briefed and is
pending before the court.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri,
captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty
Life Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front
Street Re (Cayman) Ltd. ("Ludwick") and docked at 4:15-CV-00014-
DGK. The complaint asserts claims of violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") requests
injunctive and declaratory relief seeks unspecified compensatory
damages for the putative class in an amount not presently
determinable, treble damages, and other relief, and claims the
plaintiff overpaid at least $0.2 million for her annuity. FGL, HRG
and the other defendants believe that they have meritorious
defenses and intends to vigorously defend the litigation.

On April 13, 2015, the defendants joined in the filing of a joint
motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion has been fully briefed
and is pending before the Court.

As of June 30, 2015, FGL did not have sufficient information to
determine that FGL is exposed to any losses that would be either
probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense contingency
estimate of $0.9 million, which was accrued during the three
months ended June 30, 2015.


HYDRO ONE: Faces Class Suit Over Billing Practices
--------------------------------------------------
Liam Casey, writing for Global News, reported that a class action
lawsuit has been launched against Hydro One claiming customers
were victims of a new billing system brought in by the utility.

The statement of claim, filed in Ontario's Superior Court of
Justice, alleges widespread billing problems after Hydro One
introduced the new management system in May 2013.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

Bill Bennett, a Gravenhurst, Ont., resident is the proposed
plaintiff in the suit who allegedly experienced numerous billing
issues including unexplained increases in cost.

The claim says Bennett, for example, received an envelope from
Hydro One in April 2015 that contained nearly 40 revised bills for
a four-year period that represented about a 185 per cent increase
in the cost of his electricity bills.

Daffyd Roderick, the director of corporate affairs with Hydro One,
says he cannot comment as the matter is before the courts. The
suit is claiming damages for $125-million.


ILLINOIS LOTTERY: Faces Class Suit for Withholding Winnings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tina Sfondeles, writing for Chicago Sun-Times, reported that
Rhonda Rasche had a great plan for the $50,000 she won from a
scratch-off Illinois Lottery ticket.  She wanted to help her best
friend cope with the loss of her mother.

"I wanted to take her and her sister on a trip because they were
doing at-home hospice for her, and it was pretty tough on all of
them emotionally [and] physically," said Rasche, 48, of Homer
Glen.

She never made that trip. Instead, Rasche became one of two
plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit filed against the Illinois
Lottery. The suit accuses the Lottery of fraud for withholding
winnings over $25,000.

"They are still selling tickets. There's no signs posted
anywhere," Rasche said. "Many of my family and friends were
unaware of this. If you didn't catch the news that one night, you
pretty much didn't know about it."

On August 28, the Illinois Lottery confirmed payments over $25,000
would be delayed to winners, including scratch-off ticket wins.

"All winners will be paid in full as soon as the Lottery and the
Illinois Comptroller have the legislative authority to do so,"
Lottery spokesman Steve Rossi said at the time.

The suit is seeking a court order to prevent the Lottery from
selling tickets and games with potential wins over $25,000; to
stop making payments to finance the Lottery; to issue payments to
the plaintiffs and to inform people buying tickets that they won't
be getting their money if they win over $25,000.

It's also seeking any interest made on the winners' money, which
the state is now holding onto.

The suit claims there have been 29 winners since July 1, ranging
from $50,000 to a $262 million Mega Millions jackpot split by two
winners -- the second largest prize in the history of the Illinois
Lottery.

Attorney Thomas Zimmerman said the state's withholdings of
winnings is illegal.

"The Illinois Lottery Act requires a priority of payments. The
first priority is that prizewinners get paid. They get paid first.
After they're paid, then the money can be used to fund the
operations of the lottery," Zimmerman said. "The state is using
the money to fund the operation of the lottery and not paying the
prizewinners, and that's a violation of the law."

Danny Chasteen is the other plaintiff in the suit. He won $250,000
on a $5 Cool Cash scratch-off. Susan Rick, his girlfriend of seven
years, said she's upset the budget impasse is affecting jobs and
services for low-income state residents, including Lottery
players.

"Why is it always the lower income people, the ones that don't
have money that suffer whenever the state is having an issue?"
Rick, 48, of Oglesby, said.

Zimmerman said other winners have also reached out to join the
class-action suit.

The Illinois Lottery Department, Illinois Lottery Control Board
and Northstar Lottery Group are named as defendants.

The Illinois Lottery said it would not comment on the pending
litigation.


INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Three Stockholder Class Actions Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Informatica Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on April 16, 2015, two
stockholder class action complaints were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of a putative class of
the Company's stockholders: Luciano Scotto v. Sohaib Abbasi et
al., Case No. 10913 (filed April 16, 2015) and Janice Ridgeway v.
Informatica Corporation et al., Case No. 10917 (filed April 16,
2015).   The two complaints were then consolidated by court order
on May 5, 2015 and re-captioned as In re Informatica Corporation
Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10913-VCL (the
"Consolidated Complaint").

On May 13, 2015, a third complaint, Janet Daniels v. Informatica
Corp., et al., Case No. 11016, was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware (the "Daniels Complaint").  The
complaints generally allege that, in connection with the
acquisition of the Company by Newco, the Informatica directors
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company's stockholders
by agreeing to sell the company for purportedly inadequate
consideration, engaging in a flawed sales process, and agreeing to
a number of purportedly preclusive deal protection devices.  The
complaints further allege that Newco, Merger Sub, the Permira
Funds, CPPIB, and the Company aided and abetted the Board of
Directors in the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The Consolidated Complaint and the Daniels Complaint also allege
that the Informatica directors breached their fiduciary duties by
omitting material information necessary for stockholders to make
an informed vote. The complaints seek, among other things, an
order enjoining the close of the transaction or, in the event that
the transaction is consummated, an award of rescission and/or
rescissory damages.

The Company reviews the status of each matter and records a
provision for a liability when it is considered both probable that
a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be
reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed quarterly and
adjusted as additional information becomes available. If both of
the criteria are not met, the Company assesses whether there is at
least a reasonable possibility that a loss, or additional losses,
may be incurred. If there is a reasonable possibility that a
material loss may be incurred, the Company discloses the estimate
of the possible loss, range of loss, or a statement that such an
estimate cannot be made.


INSURANCE CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Discount Policy
-----------------------------------------------------
Business Vancouver reported that a young couple who moved to B.C.
from Ontario is suing the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia,
claiming in a proposed class action that the government-owned
company's discount policy for new residents violates the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms.

Matthew and Caley Hartley filed a notice of civil claim in BC
Supreme Court on August 27. The couple claims ICBC wrongfully
restricts the maximum discount level applied to new residents at
40% "regardless of the number of years of claim-free driving
history."

"This means that many new British Columbia residents (those with
nine years or more of claim-free driving history) pay more for
insurance than other ICBC customers with an equivalent claims
history," the lawsuit states.

The Hartleys claim they moved to B.C. in 2014 and settled in
Burnaby after leaving their home province of Ontario. After Caley
Hartley provided ICBC with documents proving her 11 years of
claim-free driving in both Ontario and Saskatchewan, the company
credited her for only eight years, which upped her premiums. When
she was in a minor rear-end accident, Caley Hartley claims her
discount dropped from 40% to 15%, and, if not for the arbitrary
cap, her discount would have dropped from 43% to 35%. The couple
claims that ICBC sets premiums "in a way that intentionally and
wilfully discriminated against" them and other members of the
proposed class.

The Hartleys seek class certification and damages for Business
Practices and Consumer Protection Act violations, charter
violations and breach of duty to good faith and fair dealing.

The allegations have not been tested or proven in court, and ICBC
had not filed a response by press time.


INTEGRA CLAIMS: Faces "Gamez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Gamez v. Integra Claims, Inc., and Stephen Hadhazi, Case No.
2:15-cv-00109 (W.D. Tex., September 22, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a public insurance adjusting firm operating
throughout the state of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTEGRYS HOLDING: Preliminary Approval Hearing Held
---------------------------------------------------
Integrys Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Court scheduled a
hearing for September 8, 2015, for preliminary approval of the
settlement in the lawsuit related to the WEC merger.

Since the announcement of the WEC Merger, we and our board of
directors, along with Wisconsin Energy, have been named as
defendants in ten separate purported class action lawsuits filed
in Brown County, Wisconsin (three of the cases - Rubin v. Integrys
Energy Group, Inc., et al.; Blachor v. Integrys Energy Group,
Inc., et al.; and Albera v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.),
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (two of the cases - Amo v. Integrys
Energy Group, Inc., et al. and Inman v. Integrys Energy Group,
Inc., et al.), Cook County, Illinois (two of the cases - Taxman v.
Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., and Curley v. Integrys Energy
Group, Inc., et al.), and the federal court for the Northern
District of Illinois (three of the cases - Steiner v. Integrys
Energy Group, Inc., et al., Tri-State Joint Fund v. Integrys
Energy Group, Inc., et al., and Collison v. Integrys Energy Group,
Inc., et al.).

In the Tri-State Joint Fund case, Wisconsin Energy's Chief
Executive Officer was also named as a defendant. The cases were
brought on behalf of proposed classes consisting of shareholders
of Integrys Energy Group. The complaints allege, among other
things, that our board members breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to maximize the value to be received by our shareholders,
that Wisconsin Energy aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary
duty, and that the joint proxy statement/prospectus contains
material misstatements and omissions.

The Brown County and Cook County cases have been dismissed in
favor of the Milwaukee County actions.

On November 12, 2014, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, which provides the basis for a complete settlement
of these actions. A Stipulation of Settlement was presented to the
Court in late July 2015. The Court scheduled a hearing for
September 8, 2015, for preliminary approval of the settlement.


JACKSONVILLE, FL: Judge Says Ruling v. Class Claims Final
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the Middle District of
Florida, Jacksonville Division entered a partial final judgment in
favor of defendants in the case SCOTT MONACO et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, Defendant, CASE NO. 3:09-CV-1169-J-32PDB
(M.D. Fla.)

On September 30, 2014, the court entered an order granting
defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment as to plaintiffs'
class action claims, and denying Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for
Summary Judgment. The court found that defendant City of
Jacksonville's process for admitting employees into its Retirement
System did not constitute a pattern or practice of intentional
disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) or the Vocational Rehabilitation
Act.

The court held that the class-wide claim failed on its merits and
the court did not revisit its class certification decision, and
did not decertify the class.

Upon granting summary judgment on the class-wide claim, the court
observed that the only claims remaining are those of the
individual plaintiffs. The court directed the parties to submit
briefs detailing their respective positions on how the remaining
claims should proceed. At the hearing, the court discussed with
the parties whether it would be appropriate to allow an appeal of
the court's September 30, 2014 order, and if so, the proper
mechanism for doing so. At the court's direction, the parties then
submitted additional briefing.

District Judge Corrigan held that the September 30, 2014 order
meets the requirements under Rule 54(b) with respect to the class
action claims and entered a partial final judgment in favor of
Defendant City of Jacksonville and against the Plaintiff Class on
the class action claim only.

A copy of Judge Corrigan's order dated August 31, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/vPjTlnfrom Leagle.com.

Scott Monaco, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D.
Abramowitz, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus
Braswell, Jr., Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector,
Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group,
PA, Mark S. Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Robert
A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary,
Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL, Willie Edward Gary, Gary,
Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL & Noah Scott Warman, Sugarman
& Susskind, PA

Brian Nicholson, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D.
Abramowitz, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus
Braswell, Jr., Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector,
Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group,
PA, Mark S. Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah
Scott Warman, Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL & Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Bruce Foisey, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D.
Abramowitz, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus
Braswell, Jr., Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector,
Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group,
PA, Mark S. Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah
Scott Warman, Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL & Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Valarie McCray, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D.
Abramowitz, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus
Braswell, Jr., Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector,
Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group,
PA, Mark S. Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah
Scott Warman, Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL & Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Stephen Foster, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D.
Abramowitz, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus
Braswell, Jr., Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector,
Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group,
PA, Mark S. Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah
Scott Warman, Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL & Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

George Carrasquillo, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by
Andrew D. Abramowitz, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D.
Marcus Braswell, Jr., Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law
Group, PA, Mark S. Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC,
Noah Scott Warman, Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL & Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Christy Sames, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D.
Abramowitz, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus
Braswell, Jr., Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector,
Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group,
PA, Mark S. Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah
Scott Warman, Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL & Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Amy Nichols, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D.
Abramowitz, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus
Braswell, Jr., Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector,
Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group,
PA, Mark S. Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah
Scott Warman, Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL & Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Ernest Haynes, Jr., Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew
D. Abramowitz, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC & D. Marcus
Braswell, Jr., Sugarman & Susskind, PA

Ernest Haynes, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Mirachi,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law
Group, PA, Mark S. Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC,
Noah Scott Warman, Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL & Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Bobby Haga, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA & Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Bobby Haga, Plaintiff, represented by Willie Edward Gary, Gary,
Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Steven Mixon, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Patrick Green, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC & D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA

Patrick Green Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Mirachi, Spector,
Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC,Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group,
PA, Mark S. Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC,Noah
Scott Warman, Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL & Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Thomas Collins Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Deshon Edgerton Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

James Thigpen Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Yvonne Wilson Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Kenneth Vaughn Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Jose Guerra Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Joshua Rabe Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Travell Thomas Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Joshua Oliver Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Chris Prohaska Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Donald Boston Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Tyler Baker Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

James Chafen Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

David Thies, Jr. Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Kenneth Tanner Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Lyle Nelson Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Marie Horton Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Jason Tranumn Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Daniel Hysler, IV Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

Martin Sattler, III Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D.
Abramowitz, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus
Braswell, Jr., Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector,
Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group,
PA, Mark S. Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah
Scott Warman, Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL &Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

George Knight Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Abramowitz,
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis PC, D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Daniel Mirachi, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff
& Willis PC, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S.
Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Noah Scott Warman,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Robert A. Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind,
PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL
&Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL

City of Jacksonville, Defendant, represented by Adina Teodorescu,
Office of General Counsel,Carol Mirando, City of Jacksonville,
Cindy A. Laquidara, Akerman LLP & William Wallace Deem, Office of
General Counsel

Lynette Clinch, Movant, represented by D. Marcus Braswell, Jr.,
Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law Group, PA,
Mark S. Willis, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC,Robert A.
Sugarman, Sugarman & Susskind, PA, Tanisha Nunn Gary, Gary,
Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL & Willie Edward Gary, Gary,
Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL


JC PENNEY: Judge Denies Motions in Suit Over Vacation Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the Southern District of
California denied the parties' motions in the case RAYMOND
TSCHUDY, individually, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. J.C.
PENNEY CORPORATION, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, CASE
NO. 11CV1011 JM (KSC) (S.D. Cal.)

Raymond Tschudy filed the initial complaint in San Diego Superior
Court in April 2011. Defendants removed the case in May 2011
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d).

In February 2012, Tschudy, joined by several other JCP employees,
filed a second amended complaint (SAC), and contended that J.C.
Penney's (JCP's) vacation policy, called My Time Off (MTO), causes
management associates and part-time non-management associates to
illegally forfeit vacation benefits if they are not employed on
the first day of the calendar month following the month or months
during which such paid vacation benefits were earned.

Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that JCP's MTO violates California
Labor Code Section 201 and 202 (timely payment of wages upon
employee's termination or resignation); Section 203 (waiting-time
penalties for failure to comply with Sections 201 and 202);
Section 204 (payment of all compensation earned within each pay
period); and Section 227.3 (prohibition on forfeiture of vested
vacation time upon termination); and that these violations also
constitute unlawful business practices within the meaning of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.
Plaintiffs seek damages, statutory penalties, interest, and costs
and fees.

JCP filed a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication,
which the court denied. In November 2013, JCP moved to strike the
class allegations from the SAC. In June 2014, plaintiffs moved to
certify the case as a class action. In December 2014, the court
denied JCP's motion and granted plaintiffs' motion, certifying the
class.

On March 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for approval of
notice to class members of class certification, noting that JCP
had retained new counsel as of mid-February, and the parties had
reached an impasse regarding the form and substance of the class
notice. Plaintiffs request an order (1) approving their version of
the proposed class notice; (2) requiring JCP to produce contact
information for all class members; (3) requiring JCP to deliver
the notice to all currently employed class members with their
paychecks or via internal delivery, and to provide a report
afterward attesting that delivery was completed; and (4) requiring
Plaintiffs' counsel to cause a class administrator to mail the
proposed notice to class members who are no longer employed at
JCP.

JCP responded on April 6, 2015, contending that the motion is
premature and that the present class definition makes it
impossible to identify class members. It proposes that, rather
than intervening, the court should order the parties to meet and
confer.

On March 24, 2015, JCP moved to require plaintiffs to submit a
trial plan. And on the following day plaintiffs moved for partial
summary judgment on the merits of their claims, leaving only the
remedies for later. On July 13, 2015, after preliminary review of
the filings, the court requested further briefing on how to
proceed.

The parties responded on August 5, 2015:

     -- JCP argued that plaintiffs' motions must be postponed
until after any class issues have been resolved, it presented
still more arguments regarding the inadequacy of the class, and it
posited that no prejudice will result from delaying plaintiff's
motions.

     -- Plaintiffs contend that the court should rule on their
motions now, that JCP waived its arbitration and waiver defenses
by litigating this case to this stage, that those defenses have
still not been properly raised and can be addressed in the notice
to class members, and that class members will be prejudiced by any
further delay because the prompt payment of wages is a fundamental
policy in California, and plaintiffs will incur unnecessary time
and expense.

Judge Miller denied all three motions without prejudice.  JCP is
given the opportunity to move to modify or decertify class.

A copy of Judge Miller's order dated August 28, 2015, is available
at http://goo.gl/Icc9eHfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Sheldon A Ostroff, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SHELDON A OSTROFF
1441 State St.
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-544-0881
Facsimile: 619-544-0892

     - and -

James C Kostas, Esq.
HUFFMAN AND KOSTAS
1441 State St.
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-544-0880
Facsimile: 619-544-0892

J.C. Penny Corporation, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Catherine A Conway -- cconway@gibsondunn.com --
Karl Gustave Nelson -- knelson@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP; Dominic J. Messiha -- dmessiha@littler.com -- Emily
Torralba Patajo -- epatajo@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson PC;
and Raoul Dion Kennedy, at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom


JS EMPLOYMENT: Sued by Muslim Woman of Religious Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ranya Haq v. JS Employment Services, Inc. dba Express Employment
Services; Express Services, Inc. dba Express Employment
Professionals; and James Sovacool, Case No. CV-15-849155 (Ohio
Comm. Pleas, August 3, 2015) alleges that throughout her
employment, the Defendants subjected the Plaintiff to frequent
religious-based discrimination.

Ms. Haq is a resident of Parma, Ohio.  She is a Muslim woman of
Middle-Eastern descent.  JS hired her as a staffing consultant in
May 2013.

JS Employment Services, Inc., doing business as Express Employment
Professionals, is a corporation registered and doing business in
the state of Ohio, whose principal place of business is located in
Lakewood, Ohio.  James P. Sovacool is a principal of JS.  Express
is an agent, franchisor, manager, shareholder, joint-venturer or
partner of JS.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ziad Tayeh, Esq.
          William Norman, Esq.
          NORMAN & TAYEH, LLC
          11509 Lorain Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44111
          Telephone: (440) 580-0365
          Facsimile: (440) 359-8755
          E-mail: ZiadTayeh@normantayeh.com
                  willnorman@normantayeh.com


K MART CORP: Faces "Persuad" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mishelle Persaud, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated who consent to their inclusion v. K Mart
Corporation, Case No. 9:15-cv-81315-RLR (S.D. Fla., September 22,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

K Mart Corporation is a for-profit corporation, which owns and
operates retail stores across the United States, with its
principle place of business at 3333 Beverly Road, Hoffman Estates,
Illinois 60179.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KEURIG GREEN: 3 Securities Fraud Class Actions Presently Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the thirteen weeks ended June 27, 2015, that three putative
securities fraud class actions are presently pending against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors, along with two
putative stockholder derivative actions.  The pending putative
securities fraud class actions were filed on November 29, 2011,
June 19, 2015 and July 23, 2015, respectively.  The first putative
stockholder derivative action is a consolidated action pending in
the United States District Court for the District of Vermont that
consists of five separate putative stockholder derivative
complaints, the first two were filed after the Company's
disclosure of the SEC inquiry on September 28, 2010, while the
others were filed on February 10, 2012, March 2, 2012, and July
23, 2012, respectively.  The second putative stockholder
derivative action is pending in the Superior Court of the State of
Vermont for Washington County and was commenced following the
Company's disclosure of the SEC inquiry on September 28, 2010.

The first putative securities fraud class action, captioned
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System
("LAMPERS") v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ.
No. 2:11-cv-00289, was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Vermont before the Honorable William K.
Sessions, III.  Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged violations
of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's
disclosures relating to its revenues and its inventory accounting
practices.  The amended complaint sought class certification,
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other
relief as the court should deem just and proper.  Plaintiffs
sought to represent all purchasers of the Company's securities
between February 2, 2011 and November 9, 2011.  The initial
complaint filed in the action on November 29, 2011 included counts
for alleged violations of (1) Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against the Company,
certain of its officers and directors, and the Company's
underwriters in connection with a May 2011 secondary common stock
offering; and (2) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
against the Company and the officer defendants, and for violation
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the officer
defendants.  Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs
had until January 30, 2012 to move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the putative class.  Competing applications were
filed and the Court appointed Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System, Sjunde AP-Fonden, Board of Trustees
of the City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement
System, Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the
Virgin Islands, and Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi as lead plaintiffs' counsel on April 27, 2012.

Pursuant to a schedule approved by the court, plaintiffs filed
their amended complaint on October 22, 2012, and plaintiffs filed
a corrected amended complaint on November 5, 2012.  Plaintiffs'
amended complaint did not allege any claims under the Securities
Act against the Company, its officers and directors, or the
Company's underwriters in connection with the May 2011 secondary
common stock offering.  Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on March 1, 2013 and on December 20, 2013, the court
issued an order dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice.
On January 21, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to appeal
the court's December 20, 2013 order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Pursuant to a schedule entered by
the appeals court, briefing on the appeal was completed on June
23, 2014.  The Second Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on
December 1, 2014.  On July 24, 2015, the Second Circuit issued an
opinion vacating the district court's dismissal of the amended
complaint and remanding the action to the district court.  The
underwriters previously named as defendants notified the Company
of their intent to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant
to their underwriting agreement dated May 5, 2011 in regard to the
claims asserted in this action.

The second and third putative securities fraud class actions are
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California and are captioned Blasco v. Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 3:15-cv-02766-VC and Jazlowiecki
v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 5:15-cv-03396-BLF.
The complaints in both actions allege violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's disclosures
relating to its forward guidance, as well as the Company's public
statements concerning the anticipated timing of the launch of
Keurig(R) Kold.  The complaints include counts for violation of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants, and for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the officer defendants.  The plaintiffs seek to represent
all purchasers of the Company's securities between February 4,
2015 and May 6, 2015 or May 14, 2015.  The plaintiffs seek class
certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and
such other relief as the court should deem just and proper.
Pursuant to the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3), stockholders
have until August 18, 2015 to move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the putative class.


KEURIG GREEN: Oral Argument This Week in JBR Case Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the thirteen weeks ended June 27, 2015, that the Court of Appeals
indicated that oral argument will be heard during the week of
September 28, 2015 in an appeal in the lawsuit by JBR.

On February 11, 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods,
LLC, and Sturm Foods, Inc. filed suit against Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Keurig, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et
al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-
00905-VSB).  The TreeHouse complaint asserts claims under the
federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that the
Company has monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee
brewers and single serve coffee pods, including through its
contracts with suppliers and distributors and in connection with
the launch of the Keurig(R) 2.0.  The TreeHouse complaint sought
monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees.

On March 13, 2014, JBR, Inc. (d/b/a Rogers Family Company) filed
suit against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (JBR, Inc. v. Keurig
Green Mountain, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00677-KJM-CKD).  The claims
asserted and relief sought in the JBR complaint were substantially
similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse
complaint.

Additionally, beginning on March 10, 2014, twenty-seven putative
class actions asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief
were filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers
of the Company's products in various federal district courts.  On
June 3, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted a motion to transfer these various actions, including the
TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial district for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.  The actions
are now pending before Judge Vernon S. Broderick in the Southern
District of New York (In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve
Coffee Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB).

On August 11, 2014, JBR filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction, which the Company opposed.  After a hearing, the Court
denied JBR's motion for a preliminary injunction by order dated
September 19, 2014.  JBR appealed the district court's denial of
the preliminary injunction; the appeal was fully briefed on March
3, 2015.  The Court of Appeals indicated that oral argument will
be heard during the week of September 28, 2015.


KEURIG GREEN: No Court Decision Yet on Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the thirteen weeks ended June 27, 2015, that a court has not yet
issued a decision on the motions to dismiss class action
complaints by direct purchaser and indirect purchaser plaintiffs.

Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser
and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed on July 24, 2014.
The Company filed motions to dismiss these complaints and the
complaints in the TreeHouse and JBR actions on October 6, 2014.
On November 25, 2014, all plaintiffs filed amended complaints and
on February 2, 2015 the Company again moved to dismiss.

Plaintiffs filed opposition briefs on April 10, 2015, and the
Company filed reply briefs on May 11, 2015.  Oral argument on the
Company's motions to dismiss was held on July 9, 2015.  The court
has not yet issued a decision on the motions to dismiss.


KEURIG GREEN: Intends to Defend Against Alvaro Sanchez Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the thirteen weeks ended June 27, 2015, that the Company intends
to vigorously defend itself against the Alvaro Sanchez complaint.

A putative employment class action, captioned Alvaro Sanchez v.
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. and Does 1 - 100, was filed against
Keurig in the Superior Court of California County of Monterey on
July 14, 2015.  The complaint alleges that the Company failed to
pay proper wages and provide certain breaks to non-exempt
employees of the Company's processing plant located in
Castroville, California during the class period (which is defined
as the period of time beginning four years before the commencement
of the action through the date on which judgment on the action
becomes final).  The complaint seeks alleged damages, attorneys'
fees, penalties, and injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of
the putative class.  The Company has not been served in this
matter, but intends to vigorously defend itself against this
complaint.


KOSTMAYER CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fabian Esparza, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated v. Kostmayer Construction, LLC and Hiram Investments, LLC
and James H. Kostmayer, Jr., Case No. 2:15-cv-04644 (E.D. Lo.,
September 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing full-service
marine fabrication facilities, performing extensive piping work in
petrochemical and industrial plants, building material handling
systems, and performing heavy civil construction work throughout
the Gulf Coast states, including Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 914-1048
      Facsimile: (504) 272-2956
      E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

         - and -

      William H. Beaumont
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 483-8008
      E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com


KRUGER INC: Lawyer Ready to Prosecute Deer Lake Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Diane Crocker, writing for The Western Star, reported that Bob
Buckingham said it would be "lovely" if there could be some
resolution to the damages residents around the canal in Deer Lake
have suffered due to years of seepage.  But if that doesn't
happen, the St. John's lawyer is prepared to "vigorously"
prosecute the class action lawsuit currently in motion over the
issue.

Buckingham's Bob Buckingham Law and Halifax-based Wagners Law Firm
jointly launched the class action on May 22 by filing a statement
of claim in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Corner Brook.  The lawsuit names Kruger Inc., and its Deer Lake
Power Company Ltd. and Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Ltd., the Town
of Deer Lake and the provincial government as defendants.

Buckingham and Ray Wagner were to hold an information session at
the Holiday Inn Express for those impacted by the seepage and
anyone interested in learning more about the class action.
Buckingham said during the meeting he and Wagner would explain the
class action, introduce lead plaintiff Richard Dewey, talk about a
possible expansion of the geographic area identified and explain
the anatomy of a class action and the time it could take.

Right now the defendants have seen the statement and are looking
for a timeframe to respond to it.

Buckingham said the next step is to have the action certified, so
that it can be heard by the court. To do that the lawyers must
show the court several things.

"One, we have triable issues, and then two, that we have
defendants that are proper defendants and three, that we have a
plaintiff who can represent the class and the interests of the
class."

Buckingham said the claim is the type that is more appropriately
handled by way of a class than individual claims.

As for possible settlement, Buckingham said his suggestion in
cases like this is for the defendants to accept responsibility.

"The best thing to do here is to meet with the plaintiffs, correct
the harm and then you guys decide how you're going to pay for it."

No court dates have been scheduled in the matter as of yet.

Bob Buckingham, Esq.
Bob Buckingham Law
81 Bond St, St. John's, NL A1C 1T2, CA
Phone:+1 709-739-6688
FAX:1-709-739-6686
www.buckinghamlaw.ca
bob@buckinghamlaw.ca


LABOR READY: Employees' Bid to Intervene in "Allen" Case Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the Central District of
California denied a motion filed by certain former employees of
Labor Read Southwest, Inc., to intervene in the case JEFFREY LEE
ALLEN, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, the
general public and as an "aggrieved employee" under the California
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff, v. LABOR
READY SOUTHWEST, INC., a Washington corporation doing business in
the State of California, Defendants, CASE NO. CV 09-04266 DDP
(AGRX) (C.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff filed an action against the defendant in the state court
alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
California wage and hour laws and California's unfair competition
law. Defendant filed a notice of removal of plaintiff's claim from
state court to the Central District of California. On September
16, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class but was
denied by the court.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment that was granted in
part by the court. The court declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims and remanded the case to
state court. The state court granted defendant's motion to compel
arbitration on all of plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff appealed the
court's decision to the Ninth Circuit and appealed the state
court's decision to the California Supreme Court.

In October 2012, while both appeals were pending, the parties
reached a settlement agreement and jointly moved in the Ninth
Circuit to remand the case to the present court for settlement.

Certain Labor Ready filed a motion to intervene, alleging that
defendant engaged in a reverse auction to find the weakest
plaintiff and settle with him, binding other potential class
members, including intervenors. The court denied the motion,
granting intervenors leave to timely object at the time of the
preliminary approval of settlement.

On March 11, 2013, plaintiff and defendant filed a joint motion
for preliminary settlement approval, and the motion was granted on
April 30, 2013. Intervenors objected to the preliminary settlement
approval. Defendant filed a motion for final approval of the
settlement agreement, and plaintiff filed a motion for approval of
attorney's fees and expenses. On August 27, 2013, the class action
settlement and attorney's fees and expenses were approved.
Intervenors filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit and in an opinion
issued on June 2, 2015, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision to
deny intervenors' motion to intervene because the motion was not
timely.

The Ninth Circuit vacated the final approval of the settlement and
remanded the case for the court to conduct a more searching
inquiry into the substantive fairness of the agreement.

Following the Ninth Circuit's decision, intervenors filed a second
motion to intervene and argued that there has been a change in
circumstances that renews the timeliness of their motion because
they were informed by plaintiff's attorney at a status conference
on June 25, 2015 that plaintiff has no intention of negotiating a
better settlement agreement in light of the recent Ninth Circuit
decision.

Judge Pregerson denied the motion to intervene.

A copy of Judge Pregerson's order dated September 2, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/1sN0jffrom Leagle.com.

Jeffrey Lee Allen, Plaintiff, represented by C Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- at Setareh Law Group; Mark R Thierman --
laborlawyer@pacbell.net -- at Thierman Law Firm; Joseph Cho --
jcho@aequitaslawgroup.com -- Ronald H Bae --
rbae@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- at Aequitas Law Group APLC; Louis
Max Benowitz -- louis@benowitzlaw.com -- at Louis Max Benowitz Law
Offices

Tyler Farmer, Movant, represented by Frank J Gatto --
frank.gatto@capstonelawyers.com -- Arnab Banerjee --
Arnab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com -- Glenn A Danas --
glenn.danas@capstonelawyers.com -- Melissa Grant --
melissa.grant@capstonelawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC

Labor Ready Southwest, Inc., Defendant, represented by David R
Ongaro at Ongaro PC; Kyann C Kalin at Thompson & Knight LLP


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Made All Payments in Jefferies Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has
made all payments on the $70.0 million aggregate settlement amount
in the class action related to the Jefferies Group Inc.
acquisition.

Seven class-action lawsuits had been filed in New York and
Delaware on behalf of a class consisting of Jefferies Group's
stockholders concerning the transaction through which Jefferies
Group Inc. became our wholly-owned subsidiary.  The class actions
named as defendants the Company, Jefferies Group, certain members
of our board of directors, certain members of Jefferies Group's
board of directors and, in certain of the actions, certain
transaction-related subsidiaries.

On October 31, 2014, the remaining defendants in the Delaware
litigation entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs
in the Delaware litigation. While the defendants continue to deny
each of the plaintiffs' claims and deny any liability, the
defendants entered into the settlement solely to settle and
resolve their disputes, to avoid the costs and risks of further
litigation and to avoid further distractions to our management.
The terms of that settlement agreement provide for an aggregate
payment of $70.0 million to certain former equity holders of
Jefferies Group Inc., other than the defendants and certain of
their affiliates, along with attorneys' fees that were determined
by the court to be $21.5 million. The settlement resolves all of
the class-action claims in Delaware, and releases the claims
brought in New York.

"We have made all payments on the $70.0 million aggregate
settlement amount, and our insurers have covered the majority of
the awarded attorneys' fees, all of which have been paid," the
Company said.


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Executed Settlement in Sykes v. Mel Harris
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company and
plaintiffs executed a settlement agreement in the case, Sykes v.
Mel Harris & Associates, LLC.

The Company said, "We and certain of our subsidiaries and officers
are named as defendants in a consumer class action captioned Sykes
v. Mel Harris & Associates, LLC, et al., 9 Civ. 8486 (DC), in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The named defendants also include the Mel Harris law firm,
certain individuals and members associated with the law firm, and
a process server, Samserv, Inc. and certain of its employees.  The
complaint alleges that default judgments obtained by the law firm
against approximately 124,000 individuals in New York courts with
respect to consumer debt purchased by our subsidiaries violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, the New York General Business Law
and the New York Judiciary Law (alleged only as to the law firm).
The complaint seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief and
damages on behalf of the named plaintiffs and others similarly
situated.  We asserted that we were an investor with respect to
the subject purchased consumer debt and were regularly informed of
the amounts received from debt collections, but otherwise had no
involvement in any alleged illegal debt collection activities."

"On December 29, 2010, the District Court denied defendants'
motions to dismiss in part (including as to the claims made
against us and our subsidiaries) and granted them in part
(including as to certain of the claims made against our officers).
On March 28, 2013, the Court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class and a
Rule 23(b)(3) class.  On February 10, 2015, the Second Circuit
affirmed the certification of these classes.  None of these
decisions addresses the ultimate merits of the case.

"On March 18, 2015, we and plaintiffs executed a settlement
agreement that provided additional detail regarding the terms of a
settlement set out in a December 14, 2014 binding term sheet
pursuant to which we expensed $3.2 million in the fourth quarter
of 2014.  This amount is in addition to the $20.0 million
previously accrued for this matter and the $22.8 million in
deferred revenue.  The settlement agreement will be submitted to
the District Court for its approval upon completion of the
drafting of related documents."


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Court Tossed Settlement in Haverhill v. Asali
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Court rejected
the settlement in Haverhill Retirement System v. Asali, et al.

On May 2, 2014, plaintiff Haverhill Retirement System
("Haverhill")  filed an amended putative class action and
derivative lawsuit (the "Complaint") entitled Haverhill Retirement
System v. Asali, et al. in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Court of Chancery") against Harbinger Capital
Partners LLC, Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd.,
Global Opportunities Breakaway Ltd., Harbinger Capital Partners
Special Situations Fund, L.P. (collectively, the "Harbinger
Funds"), the members of the board of directors of Harbinger Group,
Inc. ("Harbinger"), nominal defendant Harbinger, as well as
Leucadia. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
directors of Harbinger breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with Leucadia's March 2014 purchase of preferred
securities of subsidiaries of the Harbinger Funds that were
exchangeable into Harbinger common stock owned by the Harbinger
Funds, certain flaws in the process employed by the special
committee of directors appointed by the Harbinger board in
connection therewith, and that Leucadia aided and abetted the
Harbinger board's breaches of fiduciary, as well as a claim of
unjust enrichment against Leucadia.  On April 1, 2014, the
Chancery Court denied Haverhill's motion for expedited proceedings
associated with the complaint originally filed by Haverhill on
March 26, 2014.  Haverhill filed an amended complaint on May 2,
2014.  On July 2, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On August 12, 2014, Plaintiffs filed another
amended complaint. The amended complaint dropped Plaintiff's
unjust enrichment claim against Leucadia. With respect to remedies
sought, the amended complaint no longer sought an injunction
against installing Leucadia designees as Board members and no
longer sought rescission of Leucadia's right to select the
director class to which one of its designees would be appointed. A
term sheet reflecting a settlement among the parties, that did not
provide for any payment by the Company, was signed on October 15,
2014.  On December 19, 2014, final settlement papers were
submitted to the Court. On June 8, 2015, a settlement hearing took
place, at which the Court rejected the settlement.


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Set in Securities Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court
has set oral argument to be held in September in the Securities
Litigation.

On June 8, 2012, a federal securities class action and shareholder
derivative lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania alleging that the Company and its CEO aided and
abetted various breaches of fiduciary duties based on the
Company's purchase of a licensing interest in a development-stage
pharmaceutical program from the Genaera Liquidating Trust in May
2010 and the Company's subsequent sale of half of its interest in
the transaction to Biotechnology Value Fund, Inc. Plaintiff filed
a second amended complaint in February 2015, which the Company
moved to dismiss on March 20, 2015. The court has set oral
argument to be held in September.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the
claims against the Company and its CEO. Due to the complex nature
of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of
the matter is not presently determinable.


LOUIS STOBER: Accused of Fraud, Bribery and Legal Malpractice
-------------------------------------------------------------
R. S. Ragha Vendra a/k/a Randy S. Raghavendra, Founder, National
Association for Clients Against Dishonest Attorneys v. Louis D.
Stober, Jr., Individually and as Attorney at Law Offices of Louis
D. Stober, Jr. LLC, Law Office of Louis D. Stober, Jr. LLC, Edward
A. Brill, Individually and as Attorney/Partner at Proskauer Rose,
LLP, Susan D. Friedfel, Individually and as Attorney at Proskauer
Rose, LLP, Allison L. Martin, Individually and as Attorney at
Proskauer Rose, LLP, Proskauer Rose, LLP, Donna P. Fenn,
Individually and as Associate General Counsel of Columbia
University, Jane E. Booth, Individually and as General Counsel of
Columbia University, The Trustees of Columbia University, John &
Jane Doe 1-10 a Fictitious Designation for Presently Unknown
Defendants, Case No. 604419/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 31, 2015)
alleges fraud, bribery and legal malpractice by dishonest and
corrupt attorneys.

According to the complaint, Columbia University avoided a
potentially $150 million to $200 million Dollar Class Action for
Institutionalized (Coca Cola and TEXACO Style) racial
discrimination practices with the assistance of its
agents/attorneys at Defendant Proskauer Rose Firm.

Louis D. Stober, Jr. and Law Offices of Louis D. Stober, Jr.,
L.L.C., are located in Garden City, Nassau County, New York.  Law
Firm of Proskauer Rose, L.L.P, Edward A. Brill, Susan D. Friedfel,
and Allison L. Martin are located in New York City.  Edward A.
Brill, Susan D. Friedfel, and Allison L. Martin were admitted to
the practice of law in the state of New York and has his principal
place of business in New York City.  Donna P. Fenn has been an
Associate General Counsel of Columbia University at all relevant
times.  Jane E. Booth has been the General Counsel of Columbia
University at all relevant times.  Columbia University's annual
revenues is over $2.5 billion, out of which over $550 million is
from Federal and State Financial Aid and Grants and, thus,
mandating it to maintain some Affirmative Action programs.


LUBBOCK, TX: Faces Class Suit Over 'Illegal' Storm Water Fee
------------------------------------------------------------
EverythingLubbock reported that John Beck re-filed his lawsuit
against the City of Lubbock and changed it to a class action
lawsuit which seeks the refund of storm water rates to Lubbock
citizens.  The class action status is subject to a judge's
discretion.

As with the previous lawsuit, filed in August, the new lawsuit
also sought an injunction against the city for storm water fees
that Beck called "illegal" and unauthorized by state law.

A press release was also issued from Beck's representatives which
said in part, "Mr. Beck states that this matter is not about money
for him, it is about righting a wrong. Mr. Beck believes it is
every citizen's civic duty to stop an overzealous government from
illegally collecting funds contrary to state and local laws."

Among other things, the updated version of the lawsuit claimed
that storm water fees, by state law, can be used "solely to
provide drainage to real property located with the service area."

Among other things the city has used storm water money for street
maintenance.

The city is also accused of using the storm water money to pay
down debt that is not directly related to storm drainage system.

The lawsuit demanded a refund for "Plaintiffs and the class as a
whole for a refund of all Storm Water drainage charge revenues
that have been invoiced and collected by the city . . ."

The city has not yet filed its side of the story in court records.
In a letter to Beck's representatives, the city said its use of
storm water utility money is within compliance of the law.

A call has been placed to the city to offer comment.  This story
will be updated if the city accepts the offer.

The following is the text of a press release from Beck's
representatives related to the updated lawsuit:

September 8, 2015, John C. Beck and Beck Steel, Inc. amended their
lawsuit in Lubbock County State District Court against the City of
Lubbock, Texas (the "City"), asking the Court to certify a class
action in order to require the City to refund to the Lubbock Storm
Water Drainage Ratepayers all illegal Storm Water Drainage
overcharges they have been required to pay.

The amended lawsuit still requests a permanent injunction be
issued, preventing the City from continuing to overcharge and
illegally collect millions of dollars in excessive and
unreasonable drainage charges each year from the Storm Water rate
payers.

John C. Beck, the President of Beck Steel, Inc., said that he and
his company, like every other ratepayer, within the City of
Lubbock being charged a monthly Storm Water drainage fee, and have
been, and continue to be, unfairly overcharged by the City. Mr.
Beck, hoping to avoid litigation, tried on multiple occasions to
get the City to examine the legality of its Storm Water Drainage
charge practices and commit that it would cease overcharging the
illegal fees; but the City stonewalled every attempt, forcing
litigation as the only means of addressing this issue.

Mr. Beck believes that amending the lawsuit to seek refunds of the
illegal overcharges is the next logical step in trying to correct
the wrongful overcharging that is being perpetrated upon the Storm
Water Drainage Ratepayers. Mr. Beck likens the illegal and
excessive Storm Water Drainage Fee amounts to a hidden tax being
collected without any accountability to the Ratepayers. Mr. Beck
states that this matter is not about money for him, it is about
righting a wrong. Mr. Beck believes it is every citizen's civic
duty to stop an overzealous government from illegally collecting
funds contrary to state and local laws. As Mr. Beck previously has
said, if someone doesn't challenge the City's illegal actions, it
will continue unchecked.


LUFTHANSA: Supreme Court Stays Penalty Order
--------------------------------------------
Samanwaya Rautray, writing for The Economic Times, reported that
The Supreme Court (SC) has stayed a consumer court order
penalising German airline Lufthansa, which a business-class
passenger complained had misled him by advertising lie-flat seats
which weren't actually flat.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in April asked
the airline to pay the passenger, Vivek Talwar, Rs 50,000 as
compensation and deposit Rs 20 lakh with the Consumer Welfare
Fund. It had also asked Lufthansa to pay Rs 10,000 as the cost of
litigation.


MAGGIANO'S INC: Judge Held Suit in Abeyance Pending Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted defendants' motion to compel arbitration in
the case FABIO CAPARRA, Plaintiff, v. MAGGIANO'S INC. et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-05722 (E.D. Pa.)

Defendants hired plaintiff Fabio Caparra as a sous chef and in the
course of employment, plaintiff became an Executive Chef-Managing
Partner, making him one of the highest-level managers at his
location. On April 27, 2012, Caparra signed an agreement to
arbitrate with Brinker Payroll.

In November 2012, Caparra informed defendants that he needed to
take medical leave to undergo surgery for acute spinal stenosis.
Caparra began leave on January 21, 2013, the same day he underwent
back surgery. On February 27, 2013, Caparra sent defendants a
doctor's note stating that he was cleared to return to work if
defendants provided certain accommodations. Defendants received
the doctor's note, but did not discuss Caparra's requested
accommodations. While Caparra remained on leave, his supervisor
David Kososki terminated him. Caparra later learned that he had
been terminated for misconduct and behavior deemed detrimental,
but was provided no further explanation.

Plaintiff sued defendants alleging that defendants violated the
Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 2601 et seq.(FMLA),
the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et
seq. (ADA), and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S.
Section 951 et seq. (PHRA) by terminating him while he was on
medical leave.

Brinker Payroll seeks to enforce the arbitration agreement signed
by plaintiff and compel him to arbitrate his claims. Maggiano's
and Brinker International joined the motion to compel and also
moved to dismiss.

Judge Pappert compelled the parties to arbitrate and stayed the
proceedings while the parties arbitrate plaintiff's claims.

A copy of Judge Pappert's memorandum dated September 1, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/RAcQ4Sfrom Leagle.com.

FABIO CAPARRA, Plaintiff, represented by STEPHEN G. CONSOLE --
console@consolelaw.com -- CAREN N. GURMANKIN --
gurmankin@consolelaw.com -- at CONSOLE LAW OFFICES LLC

Defendants, represented by STEPHANIE JILL PEET --
stephanie.peet@jacksonlewis.com -- SAMANTHA SHERWOOD BONONNO --
Samantha.Bononno@jacksonlewis.com -- at JACKSON LEWIS LLP


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Boyd" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dian Boyd v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02844-JFM (D. Md., September 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

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:

      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 -

      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 -

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      Joshua McInerney, 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
              jmcinerney@barkanmeizlish.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 "Cobblah" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magdalene A. Cobblah v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02860 (D. Md., September 22, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

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:

      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 -

      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 -

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      Joshua McInerney, 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
              jmcinerney@barkanmeizlish.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 "Jakes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Takiyah Jakes v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02843-JFM (D. Md., September 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

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:

      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 -

      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 -

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      Joshua McInerney, 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
              jmcinerney@barkanmeizlish.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 "Kelly" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maxine Kelly v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02846 (D. Md., September 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

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:

      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 -

      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 -

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      Joshua McInerney, 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
              jmcinerney@barkanmeizlish.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 "Rich" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nelene Rich v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02847 (D. Md., September 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

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:

      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 -

      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 -

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      Joshua McInerney, 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
              jmcinerney@barkanmeizlish.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 "Soukoury" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Soukoury v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02859 (D. Md., September 22, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

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:

      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 -

      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 -

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      Joshua McInerney, 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
              jmcinerney@barkanmeizlish.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


MCCORMICK & CO: Faces Class Suit Over "Unlawful Slack Filling"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Record reported that spice maker McCormick & Co. reduced
the amount of pepper in tin containers by a fourth without
reducing the size of the tins, according to a class action
complaint in federal court.

Sean Cronin of the Donovan Rose Nester firm in Belleville sued
McCormick for Scott Bittle on Sept. 4, accusing it of "unlawful
slack filling."

Cronin identified Bittle as an Illinois citizen who bought pepper
in St. Clair County grocery stores.

"When plaintiff purchased the reduced product in the summer of
2015, he thought it contained the same amount of pepper as had
been in the full products because the tin was the same size it had
been in the past," Cronin wrote.

The complaint states that Bittle would not have purchased the
product had he known that it contained 25 percent less pepper than
products he purchased previously.

Cronin wrote that the change occurred early and consumers couldn't
see it because the tins are opaque.

"McCormick intentionally maintained the price of its standard
sized tins, notwithstanding the significant reduction in the
amount of ground black pepper contained in the traditional tin,
which had the effect of further adding to the perception that
nothing had changed," Cronin wrote.

"Although the tins note in small print the actual weight of ground
black pepper contained in the slack filled tins, consumers are not
otherwise told of the decrease in ground black pepper from the
traditional fill or that the tin contains a significant void.

"Consumers rely upon the traditional size of the tins as a basis
of making a purchasing decision and believe the tins are
effectively full, as they have been for decades.

"Under both federal and Illinois law, McCormick lacks any lawful
justification for reducing the amount of pepper leaving empty
space in the reduced products."

Cronin asked for an injunction against slack filling and an order
requiring McCormick to disgorge wrongful profits and make
restitution.

He asked for an order compelling McCormick to produce corrective
advertising. He also asked for punitive damages and attorney's
fees.

The suit may not stay long at district court, for McCormick has
asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation to
consolidate a group of similar suits.

The first suit came from competitor Watkins Inc., which alleged
business injury at district court in Minnesota, home of its
headquarters.

Consumers then filed class action complaints in three districts of
California and the eastern district of New York.

McCormick moved for consolidation on Aug. 10, asking the multi
district panel to centralize all five actions at district court in
Maryland, home of its headquarters.

David Bamberger of Washington wrote that all five actions alleged
similar conduct in a limited and identical time period.

"Given the similarity of issues, there is no need for at least
five separate federal courts to engage in substantially similar
pretrial proceedings," he wrote.

"Centralization will also conserve McCormick's resources and allow
it to properly focus on its defense during the pretrial process in
one forum."

On Aug. 31, Watkins opposed consolidation but pleaded that if the
panel judges grant it, they should centralize the actions in
Minnesota.

The other plaintiffs opposed consolidation but pleaded that if the
panel judges grant it, they should centralize the actions in
California's southern district.

Since then, Bamberger has notified the panel of Bittle's suit and
others in the southern district of New York and the eastern
district of Missouri.


METLIFE INC: To Defend Against Westland Police Case
---------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that defendants intend to
defend vigorously the case, City of Westland Police and Fire
Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed
January 12, 2012).

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011,
the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging that
MetLife, Inc. and several current and former directors and
executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of
1933 ("Securities Act"), as well as the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing
MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements
concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of
dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The defendants
intend to defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: To Defend Birmingham Retirement Case
-------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that defendants intend to
defend vigorously the case, City of Birmingham Retirement and
Relief System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, Alabama, filed July 5, 2012).

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in
March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife,
Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers
of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several
provisions of the Securities Act related to the filing of the
registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of
dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

On March 31, 2015, a federal court granted plaintiff's motion to
remand this action to state court. The defendants intend to defend
this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Keife" Action
-----------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that MLIC is a defendant in
lawsuits related to its use of retained asset accounts, known as
TCA, as a settlement option for death benefits.

Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev.,
filed in state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court
on September 7, 2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (D. Nev., filed November 3, 2011).  These putative class
action lawsuits, which have been consolidated, raise breach of
contract claims arising from MLIC's use of the TCA to pay life
insurance benefits under the Federal Employees' Group Life
Insurance program. On March 8, 2013, the court granted MLIC's
motion for summary judgment. On June 12, 2015, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the order granting
summary judgment to MLIC.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Owens" Action
-----------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend the action, Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014).

This putative class action lawsuit alleges that MLIC's use of the
TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under
some group life insurance policies violates MLIC's fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"). As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits
that MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the putative
class. The court denied MLIC's motion to dismiss the complaint.
The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Robainas" Action
--------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend the action, Robainas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
(S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014)

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance
policies issued by MLIC from 2009 through 2014 (the "Policies").
Two similar actions were subsequently filed, Yale v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015) and International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015). Both
of these actions have been consolidated with the Robainas action.
The consolidated complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately
disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain
reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies
were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and
thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the
adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuit seeks recovery under Section
4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the
amount of the premiums paid for the Policies. MetLife intends to
defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Intoccia" Action
--------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend the action, Intoccia v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
(S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015); and Weilert v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015)

Plaintiffs filed these putative class actions on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums for Guaranteed
Benefits Insurance Riders attached to variable annuity contracts
with MLIC from 2009 through 2015 (the "Annuities"). The complaints
allege that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its statutory annual
statements that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated
reinsurance companies were collateralized using "contractual
parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly misrepresented its
financial condition and the adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuits
seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of
a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums paid for
Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to the Annuities.
MetLife intends to defend these actions vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Sun Life Says MLIC Obligated to Indemnify
------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Sun Life contends that
MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the
claims in these lawsuits.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of MLIC's Canadian operations, filed a
lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains liable
for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual life
insurance policies sold by MLIC and that were transferred to Sun
Life. Sun Life had asked that the court require MLIC to indemnify
Sun Life for these claims pursuant to indemnity provisions in the
sale agreement for the sale of MLIC's Canadian operations entered
into in June of 1998.

In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely
notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that
Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted
MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Both parties appealed but
subsequently agreed to withdraw the appeal and consider the
indemnity claim through arbitration.

In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Fehr v. Sun
Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging
sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold
by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. An amended class action
complaint in that case was served on Sun Life in May 2013, again
without naming MLIC as a party.

On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, Alamwala
v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Sup. Ct., British Columbia, August
2011), alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the
same policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life.

Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for
some or all of the claims in these lawsuits. These sales practices
cases against Sun Life are ongoing, and the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising
from this litigation.


METLIFE INC: Settlement Objector Filed Notice to Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, C-Mart,
Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (S.D. Fla., January 10,
2013); Cadenasso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (N.D.
Cal., November 26, 2013, subsequently transferred to S.D. Fla.);
and Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (Circuit
Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill., July 3,
2014), an objector to the settlement has filed a notice to appeal
the approval order.

Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits against defendants, including MLIC
and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging
that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to
plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227. The C-Mart and Cadenasso cases were voluntarily
dismissed. In the Fauley case, the court in Illinois issued a
final order certifying a nationwide settlement class and approving
a settlement under which MLIC has agreed to pay up to $23 million
to resolve claims as to fax ads sent between August 23, 2008 and
August 7, 2014. An objector to the settlement has filed a notice
to appeal the approval order.


METLIFE INC: To Defend "Voshall" Case
-------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend the action, Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8,
2015)

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability
income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public entities in
California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff
alleges that MLIC improperly reduced benefits by including cost of
living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer
retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit
payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action
for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business &
Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.


METROHEALTH SYSTEM: Suit Alleges Sexual Harassment & Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Jones v. The Metrohealth System, Juanita Casteel and
Shondrea Pearson, Case No. CV-15-849344 (Ohio Comm. Pleas,
August 6, 2015) alleges sexual harassment and retaliation.

Ms. Jones is a resident of the City of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County,
Ohio.  She worked for the Defendants.

The Metrohealth System is an Ohio organization with a principal
place of business located in Cleveland, County of Cuyahoga, Ohio.
The Individual Defendants were supervisors for Metrohealth.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
          Chris P. Wido, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAw FIRM, LLC
          4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290
          Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: brian.spitz@spitzlawfirm.com
                  chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com


NEVADA: New Voucher Law Unconstitutional, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
On September 9, 2015, five parents whose children attend Nevada
public schools filed a lawsuit challenging the State's new voucher
law -- Senate Bill 302.  The lawsuit claims that the voucher law
violates the Nevada Constitution's explicit ban on using public
school funding for private schools.  The lawsuit also seeks to
permanently block the State Treasurer from implementing the
voucher program.

In enacting SB302, the Nevada Legislature authorized the most
expansive program of private school vouchers in the United States.
The voucher law directs the State Treasurer to deposit funds
appropriated by the Legislature for the operation of the Nevada
public schools into private accounts to pay for private school
tuition, online classes, home-based curriculums and related
expenses, tutoring, transportation to and from private schools,
and other private expenses.

The parents and students filed the lawsuit, Lopez v. Schwartz, in
the First Judicial District Court in Carson City.  More public
school parents and their children are expected to join the lawsuit
in the coming weeks.

Educate Nevada Now (ENN), a campaign of The Rogers Foundation,
assembled a team of experienced Nevada and national attorneys to
ensure that Nevada law protects and advances education
opportunities for all children.  ENN is supporting this lawsuit
because it addresses using public funding for private schools, an
issue of vital importance to all Nevada public school children and
taxpayers -- and one that must be resolved by the Nevada courts.

"The Nevada Constitution makes it crystal clear that the funding
provided for our public schools can only be used to operate those
schools, and not for any other purpose,"  said Justin Jones, an
attorney with Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin LLP,
Nevada-based pro bono counsel for the plaintiffs.  "The voucher
law, by taking funding out of the public schools to pay for
private school tuition and other private services, blatantly
violates this explicit mandate enshrined in our state
constitution."

The parents and students contend that the voucher law violates the
Education Article of the Nevada Constitution in three ways:

   -- The voucher law by its terms diverts funds earmarked by the
Legislature exclusively for the operation of the public schools to
pay for private schools and other private expenditures.

   -- The voucher law reduces State-guaranteed funding for the
public schools below the level determined to be sufficient by the
Legislature in the biennium budgets.

   -- The voucher law allows public school funding to pay for
private schools that do not have to comply with the "uniform" non-
discrimination, education performance and accountability standards
all Nevada public schools must follow.

The parents filed the lawsuit to prevent loss of funding from
their children's public schools to pay for private schools.  Under
SB302, even families who can readily afford to pay the full cost
of private school tuition are eligible to receive public funds.
The voucher law will reduce funding for the public schools while
at the same time requiring those schools to educate a higher
concentration of high needs children, including students with
disabilities, English language learners, and students at risk due
to family and neighborhood poverty, homelessness, transiency and
other disadvantages.

"The voucher law undermines our uniform system of public schools
which the Legislature is constitutionally obligated to maintain
and support with sufficient funding," said Sylvia Lazos, Policy
Director for Educate Nevada Now.  "This lawsuit does not challenge
the right of parents to choose a private or religious school for
their child.  But it does seek to ensure that public school
funding is not diverted and depleted by subsidizing that choice."

The complaint filed on Sept. 9 complements the lawsuit filed by
ACLU-Nevada last week to block the use of taxpayer funds for
religious schooling but raises a separate and independent basis
under the Nevada constitution for invalidating the voucher law.

In addition to the Wolf, Rifkin attorneys, David Sciarra and
Amanda Morgan of the non-profit Education Law Center (ELC) in
Newark, NJ, and Las Vegas, a partner in the ENN campaign, are
representing the students and parents.  They are also represented
pro bono by Tamerlin Godley, Litigation Partner, and associates
from Munger, Tolles and Olson in Los Angeles.


NEW NATIONAL: "Jean" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beatrice Jean, and other similarly situated individuals v. New
National LLC d/b/a National Hotel, Case No. 1:15-cv-23536-RNS
(S.D. Fla., September 21, 2015), seeks to recover money damages
for unpaid overtime wages and retaliatory discharge under the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

New National LLC owns and operates a hotel in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW ZEALAND: Homeowners File Class Suit Against EQC
---------------------------------------------------
Georgina Stylianou, writing for Radio NZ, reported that more than
100 Christchurch homeowners are launching a class action against
the Earthquake Commission (EQC), arguing the commission has failed
to meet its legal obligations.

Law firm Anthony Harper delivered a letter to the EQC outlining
the details of the group action.

If the EQC agrees to issue a joint press release confirming that
its position aligns with the declarations that the group is
seeking, the group says the case will not go to court.

The EQC received more than 160,000 building claims in the wake of
Canterbury's earthquakes in 2010 and 2011.

Lawyer Peter Woods, who is leading the class action on behalf of
107 homeowners, said the EQC had left many outstanding claims in
dispute and now-settled claims could also be in doubt.
He said many homeowners had been subject to multiple assessments
by EQC and each time the scope of repair works included less
damage.

"It's caused this real deep sense of suspicion that people are
getting ripped off by EQC."

Compliance with guidelines 'not enough'

Mr Woods said the group would seek three sets of declarations from
the High Court that covered the extent of EQC's liability.
He said the Canterbury earthquakes had been a learning curve.
"We need to have the Earthquake Commission operating properly
within the statutory framework so that, when the next big event
happens, people don't suffer what the people of Canterbury have
had to suffer."

The declarations will also argue that EQC's liability was not
covered merely by compliance with Ministry of Business, Innovation
and Employment (MBIE) guidelines for Canterbury.
"[EQC's] use of MBIE guidelines on floor levels, created after the
earthquakes, is an example of EQC avoiding structural repairs on
many homes," he said.

A recent MBIE report into some structural repairs, which were
exempt from a building consent, found more than a third of the
surveyed homes did not meet the Building Code.
Most non-compliant cases involved a method known as a 'jack and
pack', which involves packing material between the floor and
foundations to re-level houses.

MBIE officials said the defects identified with underfloor repairs
had nothing to do with the ministry's guidelines.
Mr Woods said EQC's reluctance to accept liability extended to
what it was willing to repair, not just the standards of its
repairs.

He said if carrying out earthquake repairs properly involved
having to do work on undamaged aspects of the building -- such as
disturbing old wiring -- then the EQC, not the homeowner, should
bear the cost.

"The cost of working on those other parts is simply part of the
cost of replacing or reinstating the earthquake-damaged parts," Mr
Woods said.

Homeowners 'waking up to problems'

A spokesman for the group, Redcliffs homeowner Warwick Schaffer,
said structural repairs to foundations had caused the most
problems in Canterbury, because the EQC seemed to "cut corners" to
save money.

"Homeowners have hammered away and hammered away and I think the
tide has sort of turned before the end of all the repairs, and
people are discovering all the problems now and waking up to it."
Anthony Harper is taking on the case at reduced rates and is
capping the fee at $2000 per property.

Grant Cameron of GCA Lawyers, launched a separate class action
against the Crown-owned insurer Southern Response.

Forty-seven homeowners are involved in the Southern Response class
action. They believe their insurer has underestimated the true
value of their earthquake claims.

Radio New Zealand has contacted EQC for comment.


NVIDIA CORPORATION: "Palagano" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted defendant's motion to transfer the case
FRANCIS PALAGANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Defendant,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-1248 (E.D. Pa.), to the Northern District of
California.

Francis Palagano purchased a GeForce GTX 970 (GTX 970), a computer
graphics chip, from NVIDIA Corporation (NVIDIA) in reliance on
NVIDIA's material misstatements about the GTX 970's capabilities.
Palagano claims on behalf of a class of Pennsylvania residents who
purchased the GTX 970 that NVIDIA is liable for (1) negligent
misrepresentation, (2) breach of an express warranty, (3) breach
of an implied warranty of merchantability, (4) assumpsit and
unjust enrichment, (5) breach of contract, and (6) violation of
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law, 73 Pa. Stat. Sections 201-1. Mr. Palagano's original
complaint purported to state claims on behalf of a nationwide
class, with a Pennsylvania subclass.

Twelve other class action lawsuits arising from NVIDIA's alleged
misrepresentations regarding the GTX 970 have been consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(the consolidated proceeding).

In April 2015, Mr. Palagano's counsel filed a declaration in the
consolidated proceeding in support of a Joint Motion for
Appointment of Interim Class Counsel. In that declaration, counsel
averred, that the case will be managed before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California by a relatively
small group of experienced consumer class action attorneys,
thereby assuring an effective and efficient prosecution.

But his counsel was not appointed as interim class counsel in the
consolidated proceeding, prompting Mr. Palagano not to transfer
his case to the Northern District of California, and, instead, he
amended his complaint to state claims only on behalf of
Pennsylvania residents who purchased the GTX 970.

NVIDIA moves to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California for inclusion in the
consolidated proceeding.

A copy of Judge Pratter's memorandum dated August 19, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/8knEagfrom Leagle.com.

Francis Palagano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin S. Branda
-- bbranda@wbmllp.com - Esfand Y. Nafisi -- enafisi@wbmllp.com --
Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- at Whitfield Bryson & Mason
LLP; Jonathan Shub -- info@kohnswift.com -- T Kohn, Swift & Graf,
P.C.; Charles E. Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- at Levin
Fishbein Sedran Berman; Scott A. George -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com
-- at SEEGER WEISS

NVIDIA Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bruce W. Kaufman --
bwk@elliottgreenleaf.com -- Aimee L. Kumer --
alk@elliottgreenleaf.com -- James C. Crumlish --
JCCrumlish@elliottgreenleaf.com -- at ELLIOTT, GREENLEAF &
SIEDZIKOWSKI, P.C.; Christine Marie Kosir -- ckosir@orrick.com --
James N Kramer -- jkramer@orrick.com -- Alexander K Talarides --
atalarides@orrick.com -- Robert P. Varian -- rvarian@orrick.com --
at ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP


O-TEX PUMPING: "Crescenzo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Crescenzo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. O-Tex Pumping, L.L.C., Case No. 2:15-cv-02851-ALM-NMK
(S.D. Ohio, September 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

O-Tex Pumping, L.L.C. is an oilfield service company that provides
concreting services to drilling companies throughout the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
              chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com

         - and -

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      John Anthony Neuman, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      711 W. Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com
              jneuman@kennedyhodges.com


OILFIELD EQUIPMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Coker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Oilfield Equipment Rental, LLC and Nancy Fuller, Case
No. 4:15-cv-00700-O (S.D. Tex., September 23, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide oil and gas well monitoring services to
energy companies nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      711 W. Alabama St.
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com

         - and -

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


OM GROUP: Six Class Actions Filed in Court of Chancery
------------------------------------------------------
OM Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that following the
announcement of the Merger and Carve-Out Transaction, six putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.  The actions subsequently were consolidated,
and the case is proceeding as In re OM Group, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation, C.A. No. 11216-VCN.  The operative complaint,
originally filed in one of the constituent actions (City of
Sarasota Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Apollo Global Management,
LLC, et al., C.A. No. 11249) generally alleges, among other
things, that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary
duties to OM Group stockholders by engaging in a flawed sales
process, agreeing to a price that does not adequately compensate
OM Group stockholders, agreeing to certain unfair deal protection
terms and failing to disclose certain information to investors.
Following expedited discovery, plaintiffs determined not to move
for a preliminary injunction.

"We believe that the allegations lack merit and we intend to
defend the lawsuit vigorously," the Company said.


OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Class Action Related to Merger Now Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that four
putative class actions were filed by purported stockholders of
Aviv against Aviv, its directors, the Company and Merger Sub
challenging the Aviv Merger and alleging that the disclosures in
the Form S-4 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Aviv Merger were inadequate to allow Aviv
shareholders to make an informed decision whether to approve the
Aviv Merger. On January 28, 2015, the court entered a stipulated
consolidation order consolidating the four lawsuits into a single
proceeding and on March 20, 2015, the court granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

"The time period for taking an appeal of the grant of the motions
to dismiss has now expired and, as a result, we believe these
matters are now concluded," the Company said.

Omega was formed as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") and
incorporated in the State of Maryland on March 31, 1992. In April
2015, Aviv REIT, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("Aviv"), merged
(the "Aviv Merger") with and into a wholly owned subsidiary of
Omega, pursuant to the terms of that certain Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of October 30, 2014 (the "Merger Agreement"), by
and among the Company, Aviv, OHI Healthcare Properties Holdco,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary
of Omega ("Merger Sub"), OHI Healthcare Properties Limited
Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership ("Omega OP"), and Aviv
Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited
partnership (the "Aviv OP").


OMNI HOTELS: Judge Approves Bid to Modify Class Definition
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christina A. Snyder of the Central District of
California granted plaintiffs' motion to modify the class
definition in the case against Omni Hotels Management Corporation.

The Plaintiffs proposed this class definition:

"All individuals who, between March 15, 2012 and March 22, 2013,
inclusive, while physically present in California, participated in
a telephone call with a live representative of Omni that was: (1)
placed to one of the following Omni numbers: (888) 444-6664 FREE,
(800) 843-6664 FREE, (877) 440-6664 FREE, (800) 788-6664 FREE, or
(800) 809-6664 FREE; (2) made from a telephone number that
includes a California area code (i.e., 209, 213, 310, 323, 408,
415, 424, 442, 510, 530, 559, 562, 619, 626, 650, 657, 661, 669,
707, 714, 747, 760, 805, 818, 831, 858, 909, 916, 925, 949, or
951); (3) was transmitted via cellular telephone on the network of
AT&T, Verizon Wireless, or Sprint; (4) based on Omni's business
records, resulted in a reservation and/or was made from a
telephone number that appears in Omni's records as the guest phone
number associated with a reservation; and (5) for which an audio
recording made by Omni is presently in existence. The class
excludes all employees of Defendant and Plaintiffs' counsel and
their employees."

The Defendants did not oppose this motion.

Plaintiffs filed this class action on March 15, 2013, in Los
Angeles County Superior Court. Omni removed the lawsuit to the
federal District Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction on
April 8, 2013.

The Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint asserts claims pursuant to
the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), California Penal
Code Sec. 630 et seq.  The Plaintiffs allege that they called
Omni's toll-free telephone numbers and, not having been apprised
as required by law that their calls would be recorded, provided
Omni representatives with personal information.  Plaintiffs allege
that Omni, at all relevant times, had a company-wide policy of
recording inbound telephone conversations with consumers without
seeking consent or informing consumers about the monitoring.

On September 8, 2015, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

The case is, STEVEN ADES & HART WOOLERY v. OMNI HOTELS MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, ET AL., NO. 2:13-CV-02468-CAS(MANX)(C.D. Cal.).  A
copy of the Court's September 21, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/5VHuYKfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James Hannink, Esq.
     Zev Zysman, Esq.
     15 DOSTART CLAPP HANNINK & COVENEY, LLP
     4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
     San Diego, CA 92122
     Tel: 858-623-4285
     Fax: 858-623-4299

Omni is represented by:

     David Farkas, Esq.
     LINER LLP
     1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90024.3518
     Tel: 310-500-3412
     E-mail: dfarkas@linerlaw.com

          - and -

     Robert Hoffman, Esq.
     ANDREWS KURTH LLP
     1717 Main Street, Suite 3700
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Tel: 214-659-4653
     Fax: 214-915-1483
     Cell: 214-632-1874
     E-mail: robhoffman@andrewskurth.com


ONSTAR LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Duchene" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Duchene, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OnStar, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-13337-DPH-APP (E.D.
Mich., September 22, 2015), seeks damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief resulting from the illegal actions of OnStar in
contacting the Plaintiff and Class members on their cellular
telephones for non-emergency purposes using a prerecorded message
or artificial voice in direct contravention of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

OnStar, LLC provides vehicle-integrated safety and security
solutions, mobility services, and information technology services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW, LLC
      1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor
      Stamford, CT 06905
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      Facsimile: (203) 653-3424


ONTARIO: Suit Calls for End to Claw-Back of Child Support
---------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Monsebraaten, writing for The Star, reported that Ottawa
father Anupam Kakkar says he is happy to pay child support for his
two children, ages 12 and 10.

But because the children's mother lives on social assistance, none
of Kakkar's $645 monthly payments go to the kids.  That is because
under provincial legislation, child support payments to single
parents on Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support
Program (ODSP) are clawed back by the government to compensate
taxpayers.

But as Kakkar notes, social assistance rates in Ontario are so low
they condemn families to poverty.

"What kind of society denies a parent the ability to support his
children?" says the 42-year-old businessman, whose own financial
difficulties forced him into bankruptcy. "This law discriminates
against my children and every other child living on social
welfare."

It also discriminates against parents who are trying to "do the
right thing by paying child support," he adds.

Ottawa family lawyer Eric Letts says the province's treatment of
parents like Kakkar violates Ontario's Human Rights Code and the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As a result, Letts has launched a class-action lawsuit seeking
$1.9 billion on behalf of Kakkar and other parents who have called
on the government to end the claw-back, and seeking compensation
for the "conflict, stigmatization, anguish and isolation" parents
have endured.

"Other jurisdictions, such as British Columbia, have recognized
the discriminatory nature of this historic practice and ended it,"
Letts argues in his application filed in Ontario Superior Court on
Aug. 27.

B. C. became the first Canadian province to make child-support
payments exempt from social assistance in its budget last winter.
The measure took effect.

A spokeswoman for Ontario's Minister of Community and Social
Services, which oversees child support and social assistance
legislation, was not able to comment on the specifics of Kakkar's
case, as it is before the courts. But Kristen Tedesco said the
province is aware of the changes in B.C.

"We are constantly gathering information from social assistance
systems in other jurisdictions, including looking at British
Columbia's experience with respect to child support payments," she
said in an email.

"The ministry has committed to reform social assistance in
Ontario, and in that conversation we will look at the way that an
individual's income is calculated, including child support
payments," she added.

Ontario's social assistance reform commission in 2012 recommended
the government treat child support like earned income, which would
exempt the first $200 before deducting 50 cents on every remaining
dollar of support.

In an open letter to the finance minister in advance of the 2014
provincial budget, anti-poverty activists and community legal
clinics also urged Queen's Park to make the change.

"Clearly we think this is a human rights issue for children and a
measure that would help the province fight child poverty," said
Anita Khanna, of Campaign 2000, which has been urging governments
for 25 years to end child poverty.

"We now have the example of B.C. doing the right thing, and we
think it is time that Ontario followed suit," she said.
A single parent with two children on the Ontario Works program
receives a maximum of $1,217 a month, including $223 in Ontario
Child Benefit payments, while a similar family on ODSP gets
$1,801.

Statistics Canada's Low Income Measure for a family of three in
2012 was $35,327 after taxes.

About 100,000 single-parent families receive social assistance in
Ontario. Anti-poverty activists say child support payments are
paid on behalf of more than 19,000 children in those families.


OPKO HEALTH: Stipulated Consent Order in Shareholder Case
---------------------------------------------------------
OPKO Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties executed a
stipulated consent order that the actions would be consolidated
for all purposes.

Following the announcement of entry into an agreement and plan of
merger with Bio-Reference, four putative class action complaints
challenging the merger were filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey in Bergen County. Two of the complaints were filed in the
Law Division, and two of the complaints were filed in the Chancery
Division. The complaints are captioned:  Naik v. Bio-Reference
Laboratories, Inc., et al., Docket No. C-180-15 filed in the
Chancery Division on June 11, 2015; Katcher v. Bio-Reference
Laboratories, Inc., et al., Docket No. C-207-15 filed in the
Chancery Division on July 16, 2015; Cohen v. Bio-Reference
Laboratories, Inc., et al., Docket No. L-5697-15 filed in the Law
Division on June 18, 2015; and Ertan v. Bio-Reference
Laboratories, Inc., et al., Docket No. L-5701-15 filed in the Law
Division on June 18, 2015.

The complaints name Bio-Reference, OPKO, a wholly-owned merger
subsidiary of OPKO ("Merger Sub") and members of the Bio-Reference
board as defendants. The complaints generally allege, among other
things, that members of the Bio-Reference board breached their
fiduciary duties to Bio-Reference's shareholders by agreeing to
sell Bio-Reference for an inadequate price and agreeing to
inappropriate deal protection provisions in the merger agreement
that may preclude Bio-Reference from soliciting any potential
acquirers and limit the ability of the Bio-Reference board to act
with respect to investigating and pursuing superior proposals and
alternatives. The complaints also allege that Bio-Reference, OPKO
and Merger Sub have aided and abetted the Bio-Reference board
members' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaints seek
injunctive relief enjoining Bio-Reference and OPKO from
consummating the merger at the agreed upon price unless and/or
until the defendants cure their breaches of fiduciary duty (or, in
the event the merger is consummated, rescinding the merger or
awarding rescissory damages). The complaints also seek to recover
costs and disbursement from the defendants, including attorneys'
fees and experts' fees.

After the complaints were filed, on July 24, 2015, the parties
executed a stipulated consent order that the actions would be
consolidated for all purposes, including trial, in the Chancery
Division under Docket No. C-207-15, bearing the caption In re Bio-
Reference Laboratories, Inc. Shareholder Litigation. The Company
denies the allegations and intends to defend the actions. It is
too early to assess the probability of a favorable or unfavorable
outcome or the loss or range of loss, if any.


OREGON: Settles Disability Discrimination Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Hayes, writing for Business Journal, reported that
Oregon has settled a lawsuit over employment services for
individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

The class action suit, Lane v. Kitzhaber (later Lane v. Brown),
was originally filed in 2012. The U.S. Department of Justice later
joined it. The plaintiffs are eight individuals with developmental
disabilities and the United Cerebral Palsy chapter of Oregon and
southwest Washington.

They contended they were segregated in "sheltered workshops,"
which afford little or no interaction with non-disabled workers
and the workers are given "mundane" tasks and compensated at well
below the minimum wage.

In 2013, the state, by executive order, committed to phasing out
sheltered workshops and replacing them with employment services
directed toward integrated workplaces.

With the settlement, the state agreed to carry out the executive
order and find 1,115 jobs in the community for individuals who
worked in the workshops. An independent monitor will supervise the
state's work.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum
announced the settlement.

"This is a big win for Oregonians. We are already on track to
provide integrated employment opportunities for people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities. This settlement
continues our commitment to ensure that all Oregonians are part of
the economic recovery," Brown said in a statement.


OWENS-ILLINOIS INC: Faces Suit Over Injuries Caused by Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Hoppe and Betty Hoppe v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.; CBS
Corporation, a Delaware corporation, formerly known as Viacom
Inc., successor by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania
corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation;
Foster Wheeler LLC; General Electric Company; J.T. Thorpe & Son,
Inc.; Metalclad Insulation, LLC, as successor in interest of
Metalclad Insulation Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company; Parker-Hannifin Corporation, individually and as
successor in interest to Sacomo Manufacturing Co. and Sacomo-
Sierra, Inc.; Sequoia Ventures, Inc., individually and as
successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of
Bechtel Corporation; Does One through Two Hundred Fifty, Case No.
RG15780172 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 31, 2015) alleges that Mr. Hoppe
was diagnosed with mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposures for
which the Defendants bear responsibility.

The Products Liability Defendants are liable for their negligent
design, manufacture, supply, installation, inspection, repair, and
leasing of their products, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin A. Bosl, Esq.
          Andrea Huston, Esq.
          KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          Jack London Market
          55 Harrison Street, Suite 400
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 302-1000
          Facsimile: (510) 835-4913
          E-mail: jbosl@kazanlaw.com
                  ahuston@kazanlaw.com


PALMS ADMINISTRATIVE: Judge Issues Protective Order in FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge David Alan Ezra of the Western District of
Texas, San Antonio Division, granted plaintiffs' motion in the
case BRENDA PACHECO, in her personal capacity, and Maximiliano
Lopez and Carol Buchanan, on Behalf of Themselves and a class of
Those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wessam Aldeeb; ERSAN
Aldeeb; SAADIA Rachik; PALMS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; THE
SUBWAY QUARRY, INC.; NORTH STAR MARBLE SLAB INC.; Great American
Cookies-N-CREAM, LLC; PYRAMIDS EXCHANGE, LLC; LEGACY Marble Slab,
INC.; WESTOVER Marble Slab, INC.; LEGACY SUBWAY, INC.; INGRAM PARK
Marble Slab, LLC; NORTH STAR and swirly, LLC, Defendants, C.V NO.
5:14-CV-121-DAE (W.D. Tex.)

On February 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting that defendants failed to pay employees for all hours
worked and for overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), 29 USC Sections 201-219. Plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on June 22, 2015. Plaintiffs seek unpaid
overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 31, 2015, the court conditionally entered an order
certifying the class, but found plaintiff Brenda Pacheco could not
represent the class and must proceed as an individual plaintiff.

On April 6, 2015, the Court entered an order providing for notice
to potential class members, setting a 60-day notice period and
giving 15 days following the expiration of the notice period to
file notices of consent to join the lawsuit.

On July 20, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for protective order,
corrective notice, and sanctions. Plaintiffs allege that
defendants have engaged in an improper campaign to frustrate the
court-supervised notice and to keep plaintiffs and class members
from participating in the lawsuit.

Senior District Judge Ezra granted plaintiffs' motion and
prohibited the defendants and their counsel from making any ex
parte communications to class members plaintiffs until the action
has concluded.

Plaintiffs' counsels are authorized to send by US mail a
corrective notice within 30 days of the entry of order.  Within
seven days of the date, plaintiffs' counsel shall provide
defendants' counsel with an invoice showing the cost of mailing.
Defendants shall post within three business days after the entry
of order, the corrective notice in English and Spanish, at each of
defendants' Subway, Marble Slab Creamery and Great American
Cookies stores in Bexar and Kendall Counties, including but not
limited to the locations at the Shops at La Cantera, North Star
Mall, Westover Hills Shopping Center, and Legacy Shopping Center.
Defendants shall post the notices in locations to which all
employees have access.

Within seven days of posting the corrective notices, defendants
shall certify to the court in writing that they have posted the
notices. Defendants may remove the notices posted 30 days after
the entry of order. All opt-in plaintiffs shall have until 45 days
after the entry of order to file notices of their consent to join
the suit.

A copy of Senior District Judge Ezra's order dated September 1,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/yuL20Afrom Leagle.com.

Brenda Pacheco, Plaintiff, Represented by Sarah E. Donaldson,
Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, Inc. & Philip Jonathan Moss, Equal
Justice Center

Rebecca Calvillo, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Carol Buchanan, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Maximiliano Lopez, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Miguel Robles, Plaintiff, Represented by Sarah E. Donaldson, Texas
RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc. & Philip Jonathan Moss, Equal Justice
Center

Amelly Rodriguez, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Enrique Rodriguez, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Randy Sorrels, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Karen Green, Plaintiff, Represented by Sarah E. Donaldson, Texas
RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc. &Philip Jonathan Moss, Equal Justice
Center

Amjad Saleh, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss, Equal
Justice Center

Joe Esquivel, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Katelyn Burchfield, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan
Moss, Equal Justice Center

Jennifer Vasquez, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Charles Buckley, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Tevin James Todd, Plaintiff, Represented by Sarah E. Donaldson,
Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc. & Philip Jonathan Moss, Equal
Justice Center

V. Foster Hall, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Marylou Jimenez, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Gabriella Oliva, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Charles Martinez, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Patricia Rizley, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Danielle Deoca, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Mercedes Boone, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Valerie Burk, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Hesham Hassan, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Melanie Thompson, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Tammie M. Hebert, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Taylor M. Nelson, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Jesus Sanchez, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Louise Robin Ward, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Richard Snyder, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Angel Salinas, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Veronica Rodriguez, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan
Moss, Equal Justice Center

Jessenia Gutierrez, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan
Moss, Equal Justice Center

Robert John Lopez, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Eva Orozco, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss, Equal
Justice Center

Jonathan Medina, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Kayla Straight, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Jermaine Bell, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Roberto Maldonado, Plaintiff, Represented by Sarah E. Donaldson,
Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc., Philip Jonathan Moss, Equal
Justice Center, Sarah E. Donaldson, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid,
Inc. & Philip Jonathan Moss, Equal Justice Center

Rachel Johnson, Plaintiff, Represented by Philip Jonathan Moss,
Equal Justice Center

Wessam Aldeeb, Defendant, Represented by Haroon Rafati, The Rafati
Law Firm, PLLC

Ersan Aldeeb, Defendant, Represented by Haroon Rafati, The Rafati
Law Firm, PLLC

Saadia Rachik, Defendant, Represented by Haroon Rafati, The Rafati
Law Firm, PLLC

Palms Administrative Services, LLC, Defendant, Represented by
Haroon Rafati, The Rafati Law Firm, PLLC

La Cantera Subway, Inc., Defendant, Represented by Haroon Rafati,
The Rafati Law Firm, PLLC

North Star Marble Slab, Inc., Defendant, Represented by Haroon
Rafati, The Rafati Law Firm, PLLC

Great American Cookies-N-Cream, LLC, Defendant, Represented by
Haroon Rafati, The Rafati Law Firm, PLLC

Pyramids Exchange, LLC, Defendant, Represented by Haroon Rafati,
The Rafati Law Firm, PLLC

Marble Slab Legacy, Inc., Defendant, Represented by Haroon Rafati,
The Rafati Law Firm, PLLC

Westover Marble Slab, Inc., Defendant, Represented by Haroon
Rafati, The Rafati Law Firm, PLLC.

Subway Legacy, Inc., Defendant, Represented by Haroon Rafati, The
Rafati Law Firm, PLLC

Ingram Park Marble Slab, Inc., Defendant, Represented by Haroon
Rafati, The Rafati Law Firm, PLLC

North Star Swirly, Inc., Defendant, Represented by Haroon Rafati,
The Rafati Law Firm, PLLC


PEARSON EDUCATION: Judge Narrows Claims in "Gitman" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New
York ruled on the parties' motions in the case LAWRENCE J. GITMAN
AND MICHAEL D. JOEHNK, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PEARSON EDUCATION, INC.,
PEARSON PLC, and PEARSON, INC., Defendants, NO. 14CIV 8626 (GBD)
(S.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiffs Lawrence J. Gitman and Michael D. Joehnk are emeritus
university professors who are the authors of widely used finance
textbooks. Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against their
publisher defendant Pearson Education, Inc. for breach of contract
and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Plaintiffs allege that Pearson Education breached the terms of
their publishing agreements by engaging in sale practices that
reduce the royalty payment owed to them.

Plaintiffs allege that these sale practices result in Pearson
Education owing more than $470,000 in additional royalties and
millions of dollars to the proposed class. Plaintiffs also sued
Pearson PLC, the parent company of Pearson Education, and Pearson,
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pearson PLC, for intentional
interference with contract.

Defendants moved to strike the class allegations in the complaint,
arguing that a class in this case could never be certified because
each publishing agreement that could possibly be in dispute is too
different to establish commonality. Defendants also moved to
dismiss for failure to state a claim all but one of plaintiffs'
allegations in support of plaintiffs' breach of contract claim,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendants
further moved to dismiss plaintiffs' breach of implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing claim against Pearson Education, and
their intentional interference with contract claim against Pearson
PLC and Pearson, Inc.

Judge Daniels denied defendants' motion to strike the class
allegation and also defendants' partial motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs' breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and intentional interference with contract claims are
dismissed. Defendants Pearson PLC and Pearson, Inc. are dismissed
from this case.

A copy of Judge Daniels's opinion and order dated August 31, 2015,
is available at http://goo.gl/uLUcn7from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs represented by Daniel Ethan Sobelsohn --
dsobelsohn@sobelsohnlaw.com -- at The Sobelsohn Law Firm; Leigh
Smith --lsmith@milberg.com -- Sanford P. Dumain --
sdumain@milberg.com -- at Milberg LLP; Robert Ian Lax -- at Lax
LLP

Pearson Education, Inc., Defendant, represented by Catherine Anne
Williams -- cawilliams@pbwt.com -- Jenny Ma -- jma@pbwt.com --
Peter Abraham Nelson -- pnelson@pbwt.com  -- Saul Benjamin Shapiro
-- sbshapiro@pbwt.com -- Steven Alan Zalesin -- sazalesin@pbwt.com
-- Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP


PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGIES: Parties Proceed to Status Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert L. Pitman of the Western District of Texas,
San Antonio Division, directed the parties to participate in a
status conference hearing in the case DANIEL LONA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, NO. 5:15-cv-279-RP (W.D.
Tex.)

Plaintiff Daniel Lona was employed by defendant Performance
Technologies, Inc. as an hourly-paid oilfield worker when his
employment was terminated without advance written notice.

Plaintiff brought an action under the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated employees of Performance. Plaintiff alleges
Performance, in failing to provide adequate prior notice of the
layoff of workers, violated the WARN Act's requirement that
employers provide written notice within 60 days in advance of any
mass layoff at a single site of employment.

Defendant moved to compel plaintiff to submit the dispute to
arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, and to stay
or dismiss the proceeding in favor of the arbitration.

The status conference was set for September 15.

A copy of Judge Pitman's order dated September 1, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/qDc1lLfrom Leagle.com.

Daniel Lona, Plaintiff, represented by:

Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
Baron and Budd PC
The Centrum
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: 214-521-3605
Facsimile: 214-520-1181

Performance Technologies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Cole B.
Ramey -- cramey@crouchfirm.com -- at Crouch & Ramey, LLP


PIER1 IMPORTS: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Pier 1 Imports, Inc., for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws. Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between December 19, 2013 and February 10, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until October 26, 2015 to
serve as lead plaintiff in the class action.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall,
of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del
Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without
cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com.

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the complaint, the Company made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose the truth regarding
"unplanned" expenses that had led the Company to lower its
financial guidance. When the truth was revealed to the public,
shares dropped causing investors harm.

If you have any questions concerning your legal rights in this
case, please immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401,
or visit our website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or email us
at info@goldberglawpc.com.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.

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


PIER1 IMPORTS: Briscoe Law Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Former United States Securities and Exchange Commission attorney
Willie Briscoe, founder of The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, and the
securities litigation firm of Powers Taylor LLP announce that a
federal class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Pier 1
Imports, Inc. ("Pier 1") (NYSE: PIR) and several officers and
directors for acts taken during the period of December 19, 2013 to
February 10, 2015 (the "Class Period").

Based upon the allegations in the class action, the firms are
investigating additional legal claims against the officers and
Board of Directors of Pier 1. If you are an affected Pier 1
shareholder and want to learn more about the lawsuit or join the
action, contact Willie Briscoe at The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC via
email at shareholders@thebriscoelawfirm.com, Patrick Powers at
Powers Taylor LLP via email at shareholder@powerstaylor.com, or
call toll free at (877) 728-9607. There is no cost or fee to you.

According to the complaint, the defendants are alleged to have
violated certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things,
that defendants issued false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. On February 10, 2015, Pier 1
reduced its financial guidance for the fiscal year ending February
28, 2015, blaming the sudden change in its outlook on softer than
expected sales in January and February 2015 and unplanned expenses
primarily related to incremental supply chain costs. Pier 1 also
announced that day that the Chief Financial Officer, a 23-year
veteran with Pier 1, had abruptly retired. Pier 1 stock dropped
approximately 25% immediately following this announcement.

The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC is a full service business litigation,
commercial transaction, and public advocacy firm with more than 20
years of experience in complex litigation and transactional
matters.

Powers Taylor LLP is a boutique litigation law firm that handles a
variety of complex business litigation matters, including claims
of investor and stockholder fraud, shareholder oppression,
shareholder derivative suits, and security class actions.

Willie Briscoe, Esq.
The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC
8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575 Dallas, Texas  75206
(214) 239-4568
(281) 254-7789
shareholders@thebriscoelawfirm.com


POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: Filed Reply Brief in Securities Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Powersecure International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has
filed its reply brief in the securities class action.

The Company said, "On May 22, 2014, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina. Subsequently, in May and in July 2014,
two additional purported securities class action lawsuits were
filed against the same defendants in the United States District
Courts, one in the Eastern District of North Carolina and the
other in the Western District of North Carolina."

"On October 10, 2014, these lawsuits were consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, and a lead plaintiff was appointed. As consolidated, the
lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased our common stock during a purported class period from
August 8, 2013 through May 7, 2014, which is the longer of the two
different purported class periods used in the pre-consolidation
lawsuits.

"A consolidated amended complaint was filed on December 29, 2014.
The action alleges that certain statements made by the defendants
during the class period violated federal securities laws and seeks
damages in an unspecified amount. We filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on February 26, 2015, to which plaintiffs
responded on April 30, 2015. We filed our reply brief on June 4,
2015.

"We cannot provide any assurance as to when or how the court will
rule on our motion to dismiss. We believe that the claims asserted
in this class action litigation are without merit, and we intend
to vigorously defend against all such allegations."


PREFERRED ACQUISITIONS: Removes "Michiels" Suit to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Michiels v. Preferred Acquisitions, LLC, et
al., Case No. 2015-CA-003518, was removed from the Twelfth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Sarasota County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-01837-JDW-JSS to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse Michael Tilden, Esq.
          TILDEN, PROHIDNEY & DIPASQUALE, PL
          431 Twelfth Street West, Suite 204
          Bradenton, FL 34205-7867
          Telephone: (941) 243-3959
          Facsimile: (800) 856-5332
          E-mail: jesse@tpdlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Benton N. Wood, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
          200 S Orange Avenue, Suite 1100
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 541-0851
          Facsimile: (407) 541-0887
          E-mail: bwood@laborlawyers.com


PREMIER HOME: "Barimah" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mabel Twum Barimah, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Premier Home Health Care Services Inc. and Arthur
Schwabe, Jr., individually, Case No. 2:15-cv-05499 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a home healthcare facility,
maintaining a place of business within Suffolk County New York at
3075 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 181, Ronkonkoma NY 11779.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jose G. Santiago, Esq.
      Shawn O. Cohen, Esq.
      THE SANTIAGO LAW FIRM, P.C.
      356 Middle Country Road, Suite 311
      Coram, NY 11727
      Telephone: (631) 240-4355
      E-mail: jose@santiagolawfirm.com
              shawn@santiagolawfirm.com


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Granted, Expert Report Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the District of New Jersey
granted lead plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denied
defendant's motion to exclude expert report in the case CITY OF
STERLING HEIGHTS GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., et al., Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-5275 (D.N.J.)

Prudential Financial, Inc. (Prudential), is a public corporation
headquartered in New Jersey.  Its common stock trades on the New
York Stock Exchange. Defendants John R. Strangfeld, Richard J.
Carbone, and Mark B. Grier are current and former high-level
executives of Prudential. Prudential is principally engaged in the
business of life insurance, annuities and retirement-related
services.

Lead plaintiffs National Shopmen Pension Fund, Heavy & General
Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Pension and Annuity Funds, and Roofers
Local No. 149 Pension Fund filed a putative class action suit
against Prudential alleging that Prudential violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between May
5, 2010 and November 4, 2011 (the class period), by making false
and misleading statements that overstated Prudential's income and
understated its expenses. Lead Plaintiffs are purchasers of
Prudential's common stock during the Class Period.

Lead Plaintiffs claim that Prudential knowingly or recklessly
failed to account for life insurance policies that were eligible
for payment to a beneficiary or escheatment to a state, which
falsely inflated Prudential's reported financial results during
the class period.

Plaintiff City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement
Systems instituted the action on August 22, 2012. Lead plaintiffs
and lead plaintiffs' counsel were appointed as lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel on March 21, 2013. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on May 6, 2013.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and the
Honorable Susan D. Wigenton, U.S.D.J., issued an order on February
6, 2014, granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion.

Lead plaintiffs now move for certification of a class consisting
of all purchasers of Prudential's common stock during the class
period, with the exception of defendants and various entities and
persons connected to defendants and appoint National Shopmen as
class representative, and appoint class counsel pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Defendants oppose class certification and move to exclude the
report and opinions of lead plaintiffs' expert, Professor Steven
P. Feinstein.

A copy of Judge Arleo's opinion dated August 31, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/hmc04bfrom Leagle.com.

Verus Financial LLC, Movant, represented by HOWARD MARK WEXLER --
hwexler@seyfarth.com -- at SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

John Chiang, in his official capacity as the Controller of the
State of California and the Office of the State Controller,
Movant, represented by LORI BLAKE LESKIN --
lori.leskin@kayescholer.com -- KAYE SCHOLER, LLP

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP, Movant, represented by A. ROSS
PEARLSON -- rpearlson@csglaw.com -- at Chiesa Shahinian &
Giantomasi PC

NATIONAL SHOPMEN PENSION FUND, Heavy & General Laborers Locals 472
& 172 Pension Annuity Funds, Roofers Local No. 149 Pension Fund,
Lead Plaintiffs, represented by PETER S. PEARLMAN --
psp@njlawfirm.com -- COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF,
LLP

CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Plaintiff, represented by PETER S. PEARLMAN -- psp@njlawfirm.com
-- COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP

Defendants, represented by DANIEL C. FLEMING --
dfleming@wongfleming.com -- at WONG FLEMING

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS, Amicus,
represented by FRANK F. VELOCCI, DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND INSURANCE, Amicus,
represented by RICHARD EDWARD WEGRYN, JR., STATE OF NEW JERSEY

NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC., Interested Party, represented by JACLYN
DILASCIO MALYK -- jmalyk@darcambal.com -- d'ARCAMBAL OUSLEY &
CUYLER BURK, LLP


RESPOND POWER: Judge Denies Class Cert. Bid in "Gillis" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Norma L. Shapiro of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
the case BARBARA GILLIS, THOMAS GILLIS, SCOTT R. McCLELLAND, and
KIMBERLY A. McCLELLAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RESPOND POWER, LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-3856
(E.D. Pa.)

Respond Power, LLC is an electric generation supplier in
Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs are all Pennsylvanian residents who
entered into variable rate contracts with Respond between November
2010 and June 2014.

Plaintiffs argue that the Disclosure Statement promised customers
a variable monthly rate capped at the rate charged by their local
utility. They allege that Respond breached its variable rate
contracts by failing to adhere to the alleged rate cap. Plaintiffs
further allege that Respond breached the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing by failing to disclose that its rates could
exceed local utility rates. Plaintiffs move to certify the
proposed class as to those two claims.

Judge Shapiro denied plaintiffs motion for class certification and
instructed plaintiffs to advance their action in their individual
capacities.

A copy of Judge Shapiro's memorandum dated August 31, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/mFSvzBfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by CHARLES J. KOCHER -- ckocher@smbb.com
-- PATRICK HOWARD -- phoward@smbb.com -- SIMON BAHNE PARIS --
sparis@smbb.com -- at SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY PC;
MICHAEL D. DONOVAN -- at DONOVAN AXLER LLC

RESPOND POWER, LLC, Defendant, represented by:

David R. King, Esq.
Kathleen H. Robinson, Esq.
Ronald J. Levine, Esq.
HERRICK FEINSTEIN LLP
210 Carnegie Center
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: 609-452-3800
Facsimile: 609-520-9095


QBE: Faces $200-Mil. Shareholders' Class Suit
---------------------------------------------
Michael Roddan, writing for The Australian, reported that Maurice
Blackburn Lawyers have filed the largest shareholder class action
suit against insurer QBE over the 2013 collapse in the company's
share price.

Around 700 shareholders registered for the class action seeking to
recoup more than $200 million in compensation for shares purchased
at allegedly inflated prices.

QBE's (QBE) share price posted its biggest fall in 12 years in
December 2013 after the company told the market it would be
logging a loss of around $250m after a string of asset writedowns
in its North American operations.

Maurice Blackburn says the market was "stunned" on December 9,
wiping around $4 billion off QBE's market value in one day. The
stock dropped 30 per cent over two days.

The reported loss of $254m was the first swing to the red for the
company since 2001.

Maurice Blackburn class actions principal Jacob Varghese said the
law firm had investigated the alleged breach of QBE's continuous
disclosure obligations and was prepared to take the matter to
trial on behalf of investors.

"We have been approached by shareholders concerned that QBE was
less than frank and timely in informing the market of the troubles
in its North American business, which were at the heart of the
2013 surprise loss," Mr Varghese said.

The lead plaintiff is the self managed super fund of 69-year old
Richard Bungey from Queensland. Mr Bungey, who is semiretired,
bought 1300 QBE shares in October 2013, just months before the
share price collapse.

Maurice Blackburn said the loss had taken a financial and
emotional toll on him and his family.

"I would never have bought the shares if I knew the extent of the
problems at QBE. This class action is about achieving justice for
shareholders," Mr Bungey said.

QBE chief executive John Neal has defended the company's
disclosure practices, insisting the insurer has complied with
regulations.

"We are very vigorous in terms of recognising our continuous
disclosure obligations, and I'm 100 per cent confident that we've
met those in every respect, especially through the December time
frame when we announced our profit downgrade,'' he said after
QBE's annual meeting in Sydney.


SALT RIVER: Customers Sue Over $3 Increase in Service Charge
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Randazzo, writing for The Arizona Republic, reported that
several Salt River Project customers have notified the utility
they plan to sue over a $3 increase in the basic service charge on
their April bills, saying the board of directors did not follow
proper procedures to approve the rate increase.

Many customers and even SRP board members were confused when April
bills included a jump in the basic service charge to $20 from $17.
It has since fallen back to $18.50 a month but will be $20 again,
according to SRP.

SRP's board of directors approved a 3.9 percent rate increase in
February, along with new fees for solar customers. Managers said
that they also approved the basic service fee increase of $3 for
April, but many people attending the meeting did not hear it that
way.

They heard SRP General Manager Mark Bonsall discuss a "phase-in"
of the increase, and were surprised when the $3 increase quickly
showed up on their bills.

"The current level is $17," Bonsall told the board at a public
meeting before it voted in February. "What we're suggesting is a
phase-in, if you will, is to go to $18.50 beginning in this summer
period, which is May through October of, and then when the winter
season starts later, going to the full $20. Beyond that point in
time, it would remain at $20."

But the utility charged the full $3 increase in April.

Customers represented by the Rose Law Group assert that because
the increase did not match Bonsall's description, the basic-
service-fee increase is unlawful.

Earlier, many customers complained about the increase. At least
one board member said the money should be refunded. SRP managers
said at the time they were not going to refund the money.

"Despite the fact that SRP could easily have refunded or credited
the $3 back to its customers' accounts, SRP insists on retaining
these wrongfully obtained funds," says the notice of claim from
attorney Kathryn Honecker.

Business customers saw an April increase in a demand charge that
also was supposed to be phased in. Bonsall made no mention that
the full increase would come in April.

SRP has declined to say how much money it collected from the early
implementation of the fee increase, But the notice of claim
estimates it was close to $3 million from April bills alone, based
on the nearly 1 million customers of SRP, and that the total is
approaching $9 million since then with the $1.50 increase in
place.

SRP officials stand behind the rate increase, and say they will
respond to the claims.

"Subject to final review, it appears that SRP acted properly when
it reduced the proposed monthly service charge for the 2015 summer
month period," SRP spokesman Scott Harelson said.

$150k to settle

Rose Law has given SRP notices of claim representing four customer
accounts. It calls for the money collected through the basic
service fee since April to be reimbursed to all customers, with
interest and attorney fees.

Notices of claim are required to include an amount in damages that
can be paid to avoid litigation, and the claims suggest $150,000
for the individuals filing claims would do that.

If SRP doesn't settle the case, the customers intend to file a
punitive class-action suit on behalf of all residential SRP
customers.

SRP also is being sued by SolarCity Corp. for the fees on solar
customers that were approved at the same board meeting.

Confusing meeting

The notice of claim says that the $1.50 increase that's been in
place since May is unlawful because the board "muddled" the voting
procedures.

Indeed, during the vote on the fee, one board member was confused
as to what was being voted upon and reversed his vote. That was
after a roll-call  vote, which audience members demanded by
shouting at the board after members conducted a simple voice vote.

The claim says that when that board member Fred Ash reversed his
vote, he reopened discussion of the matter, but no final vote was
taken.

"As a result of the confusing and muddled proceedings  . . . any
purported vote taken regarding the monthly service charge increase
at the Feb. 26 meeting is of no effect," it said.

The claim also says that the increase was unlawful because the
plan was proposed by SRP managers on the day of the vote on the
hike.

Originally, the managers wanted the full $3 increase to take
effect all at once. But some board members and customers were
concerned with that increase, particularly because there is no
action customers can take to mitigate the basic service fee.

So Bonsall revised the rate hike and presented the "phase-in" plan
the day of the vote.

Customers should have had more time to review and comment on the
revised plan, the claim says.

"Instead, hoodwinked by management's self-serving, yet incorrect
statement that the alternative proposal was the same as the
original proposal, the board allowed an alternative proposal that
customers had never seen to go to a vote," the claim says.

SRP managers dispute that their description to the board was
inconsistent. They said that people complaining about the rate
hike should ignore what Bonsall said to the board and focus on
what was written in hundreds of pages of documents given to the
board before the vote.

"As you can appreciate, whenever a portion of a large document is
summarized in an effort to emphasize a specific point, the summary
always must be taken in the context of the entire document so as
to not be read and interpreted out of context," Michael O'Connor,
SRP's chief legal executive, said in a letter earlier.

SRP maintained that position.

"There was a clear definition of the term summer, summer peak and
winter pricing periods, consistent with how SRP has always defined
those terms and periods," Harelson said. "As such, the pricing was
as presented, and there are no current plans to make any such
(refund)."


SOCIAL SECURITY: Court Trims Claims by Refugees, Migrants
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Q. Hayes of the Southern District of
California ruled on the parties' motions in the case MOHAMMAD
NASSIRI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of
Social Security, Social Security Administration; SSA AGENT NICK;
SSA-AGENT 2; and OTHER SSA ARMED AGENTS, Defendants, CASE NO.
15CV0583-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs are Vietnamese, Iranian and Somalian refugees and
immigrants in the United States that have been subjected of
intimidation by agents and employees of the Social Security
Administration (SSA). Plaintiffs allege that they are poor,
disabled and non-English speaking Vietnamese former prisoners of
war and refugees in the United States who have been or will be
applying for Disability Insurance benefits) and/or Supplemental
Security Income.

They allege that an administrative law judge initiated
administrative proceedings to suspend plaintiffs' attorney from
practice of Social Security law in retaliation for a 2011 lawsuit
that the plaintiffs' attorney filed. Plaintiffs asserted claims
for violations of the First and Fifth Amendments and
Administrative Procedures Act and sought declaratory and
injunctive relief.

On February 25, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing the
case without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The
court found that the case was not ripe because the SSA had not
taken final agency action against Alexandra Manbeck, the
plaintiffs' attorney.  The action is currently pending on appeal
before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Defendant Colvin moves to dismiss the majority of plaintiffs'
claims for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs oppose dismissal on
all grounds raised in the motion to dismiss and request leave to
amend.

Judge Hayes granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion
to dismiss the first amended class action complaint.
Specifically, the motion to dismiss is denied with respect to
Plaintiffs Thai, Nassiri, Diep Nguyen, Ha, Huynh, Doan, and Tommy
Nguyen's First Amendment claim and Plaintiff Thai's Fourth
Amendment unreasonable search claim. All other claims asserted in
the FAC against Defendant Colvin are dismissed without prejudice.
The motion to amend filed by the plaintiffs is denied without
prejudice.

A copy of Judge Hayes order dated August 31, 2015, is available at
http://goo.gl/rlPG4rfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Alexandra T. Manbeck
LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDRA T. MANBECK
P.O. Box 421
Waccabuc, NY 10597
Telephone: 914-763-2426

Social Security Administration, Defendant, represented by Daniel
Everett Butcher, U S Attorneys Office Southern District of
California


SOLO CUP: Accused of Discrimination by Female Hispanic Packer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Minerva Ortiz v. Solo Cup Operating Corp., a/k/a Dart Container
Corp., Case No. 2015-L-007890 (Ill. Cir. Ct., August 3, 2015) is
brought against the Defendant for national origin and ancestry
discrimination in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act.

Ms. Ortiz is Hispanic and was born in Mexico.  She has been
employed by the Defendant since January 21, 1990.  The Plaintiff's
current job title is as a Packer.  Prior to that, she was a Senior
Press Operator, and before that a Printing Press Operator.

Solo Cup Operating Corp., also known as Dart Container Corp.,
manufactures, markets and distributes plastic, paper, and foam
single-use products for eating and drinking.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mario E. Utreras, Esq.
          UTRERAS LAW OFFICES, INC.
          333 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1815
          Chicago, IL 6060 1
          Telephone: (312) 263-5580
          Facsimile: (888) 263-6148
          E-mail: mutreras@utreraslaw.com


STANDARD INSURANCE: Faces "De Leon" Suit Over Benefits Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela De Leon, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Standard Insurance Company and
StanCorp Financial Group, Inc., Case No. 2:15-mc-00252 (C.D. Cal.,
September 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
specifically by improperly reducing the amount of benefits paid to
claimants, failure to pay proper amounts of benefits to claimants,
investing money and profits which should have been paid to
claimants under ERISA-governed employee benefit plans insured by
Standard for Standard's own account, and by then failing to
account to the claimants for the profits Standard and its parent
corporation StanCorp, earned through such investments.

Standard Insurance Company is a life insurance company that
conducts business through its employees and agents in California
and throughout the United States.

StanCorp Financial Group, Inc. is Standard Insurance Company's
parent company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Rosati, Esq.
      Thornton Davidson, Esq.
      ERISA Law Group, LLP
      6485 N. Palm Ave., Ste. 105
      Telephone: (559)478-4119
      Facsimile: 559)478-5939
      E-mail: robert@erisalg.com
              thornton@erisalg.com


STANDARD INSURANCE: Faces 2nd "De Leon" Suit Over Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------
Angela De Leon, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Standard Insurance Company and
StanCorp Financial Group, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07419-ODW-JC
(C.D. Cal., September 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
specifically by improperly reducing the amount of benefits paid to
claimants, failure to pay proper amounts of benefits to claimants,
investing money and profits which should have been paid to
claimants under ERISA-governed employee benefit plans insured by
Standard for Standard's own account, and by then failing to
account to the claimants for the profits Standard and its parent
corporation StanCorp, earned through such investments.

Standard Insurance Company is a life insurance company that
conducts business through its employees and agents in California
and throughout the United States.

StanCorp Financial Group, Inc. is Standard Insurance Company's
parent company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Rosati, Esq.
      Thornton Davidson, Esq.
      ERISA Law Group, LLP
      6485 N. Palm Ave., Ste. 105
      Telephone: (559)478-4119
      Facsimile: 559)478-5939
      E-mail: robert@erisalg.com
              thornton@erisalg.com


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Says Claimants May End Up Empty Handed
---------------------------------------------------------
Cecile Meier, writing for Stuff.nz.co, reported that Southern
Response has taken aim at a class action lawsuit, saying customers
who signed up for it were likely to have their payouts delayed and
could end up worse off.

Disgruntled homeowners launched a class action against Southern
Response, seeking their policy's full entitlements and damages for
stress and costs.

GCA Lawyers, headed by Grant Cameron, filed the action against the
Crown-owned claims management company in Christchurch's High
Court.

Claimants joined the lawsuit on a "no win, no fee" basis thanks to
an international backer. If the action succeeds, the backer will
take up to 20 per cent of what homeowners get.

Southern Response said the class action had no merit and was
concerned customers were signing up "without being fully informed
of the risks and negative impacts".

It would likely take longer to resolve claims through the courts,
and customers might be left worse off having to give up 20 per
cent of their settlements , a spokeswoman said.

Southern Response has been offering customers free legal advice
about the class action.

"As far as we are aware, all customers who have made use of this
service so far. . . have decided to continue to move forward in
our programme, and none have signed up to the representative
action. To us, this speaks volumes."

Cameron said Southern Response concerns were "nonsense".

All policyholders were fully informed of the risks of the class
action, with a 14 day cooling off period to change their minds
after signing up.

"The insurer can't be serious about the 'negative impacts on
customers' when it has abjectly failed to perform its obligations
under its contracts with its customers over five years," Cameron
said.

Cameron said class action members would receive no less than any
detailed repair/rebuild analysis (DRA) dated before April 2015.
He believed Southern Response customers were only getting about 40
to 50 per cent of what they were entitled to according to their
policy.

Any class action member was free to accept a new payout offer from
the insurer instead of going to court, he said.  They would have
to pay up to 20 per cent in fees like other members of the action,
he said.  He believed the insurer had offered free legal advice to
find out who might be thinking of joining the action and make a
new offer to them.

"Listening to lawyers who are being paid by the insurer is hardly
independent," he said.

Richmond homeowner Cameron Preston, who will represent the 47
homeowners in court, said Southern Response increased the value of
his claim by more than $500,000 after it learned he was part of
the action. He said several other class action members had
received higher valuations after joining.

A Southern Response spokeswoman denied increasing offers as a
direct response to the action.

"Any increase which may have been offered to a customer involved
with the proposed representative action, is purely coincidental
with the action."

Insurance lawyer Duncan Webb's firm, Lane Neave, had provided
independent advice to Southern Response customers on the class
action.

He said giving up 20 per cent of their settlement could leave
homeowners with insufficient funds to repair or rebuild their
home.

Anyone seeking legal advice would have to pay for it, he said, but
a lawyer would not typically charge more than $10,000 to $20,000.

"It's possible that if homeowners just plugged away with their
claim, they would get a better settlement in due course [without
the class action]," he said.


SUPER MICRO: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP a Boston-based law firm whose attorneys have
recovered billions of dollars for investors affected by securities
fraud, announces that there has been a class action lawsuit filed
against Super Micro Computer, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The litigation filed against the Company is pending in United
States District Court for the Northern District of California and
is case number 15-cv-04049.  It was filed on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired SMCI securities between September 15, 2014 and August 31,
2015 inclusive (the "Class Period").

After the close of trading on August 31, 2015, SMCI filed a Form
12b-25 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") announcing that it was not going to be able to timely
file its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015.
According to the Company, the cause of the delay was recently
discovered irregularities regarding certain marketing expenses.
The Company was investigating the matter internally, and stated
that "additional time is required for [the Company] to complete
its investigation of the matter."

Since the August 31, 2015, announcement, the Company's stock has
fallen over 8%, representing a loss to investors of approximately
$100 million.

Block & Leviton's investigation seeks to determine whether SMCI or
its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws
through the underlying issues that caused the Company to miss its
filing deadlines with the SEC.  If you purchased or otherwise
acquired SMCI securities during the Class Period, and have
questions about your legal rights or possess information relevant
to this investigation, please contact attorney Steven P. Harte of
Block & Leviton LLP at (617) 398-5600 or email him at
Steven@blockesq.com.

Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with information
relevant to the lawsuit is assured.

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


TAISHAN GYPSUM: Court Considering Damages in Drywall Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Janet McConnaughey, writing for U.S. News, reported that more than
a year after suing the Cabinet agency that oversees China's
biggest state-owned companies, lawyers for people who say their
homes were ruined by drywall made in China are still trying to get
the lawsuit served on the State-Owned Assets Supervision and
Administration Commission.

And six other defendants -- sued, like the Cabinet agency, as
parents of the company that made the drywall -- say they're
shielded because they're Chinese government agencies.

U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon is considering damages for as
many as 4,000 homeowners who say sulfur emissions from drywall
made by Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. ruined their homes and belongings.
Damages could be well over $1 billion, say attorneys for
plaintiffs in Virginia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana
and Texas.

Earlier, Taishan paid seven Virginia homeowners and their
attorneys $2.7 million plus about $500,000 interest. Fallon heard
arguments earlier about whether those figures, with modifications
for costs in different areas, can form the basis for awards in a
class action lawsuit.

The judge scheduled arguments Dec. 8 about whether China New
Building Materials Group and five related companies should be
dropped from the suit.

He also recently ruled that the homeowners' attorneys may go
through diplomatic channels to serve the lawsuit on the Cabinet
agency, which supervises China's 117 biggest state-owned energy,
manufacturing and other enterprises, including China National
Petroleum Corp., China Mobile Ltd., and Air China Ltd.

Generally, foreign governments are immune from civil lawsuits.
However, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides nine
exemptions, including commercial activity -- the most litigated
exception, according to the Federal Judicial Center's 2013 guide
to the law for judges.

Diplomatic channels are the last option. An attempt to serve the
lawsuit under the Hague Convention was rejected. A copy sent by
Sandra Duggan, an attorney for the homeowners, showed the
commission's notation that it "is the Chinese central government
agency which shall enjoy sovereign immunity and not be subject to
foreign jurisdiction."

The Chinese government in Beijing also refused to accept a
registered mail package of the lawsuit, associated papers and
their translations into Chinese, Duggan said.

She said lawyers have given the U.S. District clerk of court in
New Orleans two copies of those papers to be sent through
diplomatic channels.

"Now we just have to wait a little bit more," she said.

She said she cannot comment about the motion to drop China New
Building Materials Group and related companies from the lawsuit
until plaintiffs' attorneys file their response, due Oct. 27.

In addition to claiming immunity, the companies say they shouldn't
be part of the lawsuit because they were just investors -- some of
them indirectly -- and have had nothing to do with either drywall
or business in the six states involved.

"In blunderbuss fashion, Plaintiffs have sued everyone under the
sun," their attorneys wrote. "All but explicitly invoking the
bogeyman of 'China, Inc.,' they have sued not just the companies
alleged to have engaged in wrongdoing -- specifically,
manufacturing and importing defective drywall -- but also
companies that merely invested in those principal defendants;
companies that invested in the companies that invested in the
principal defendants; and completely unrelated companies in which
those investors hold some stake."

If Fallon rules that they can be held liable, it could still be
difficult to get evidence.

"I think it'll be an uphill battle," said Dennis Shea, vice
chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
Commission.

The commission recently released a report about legal dealings
with Chinese banks and other businesses in the U.S. financial
services sector, titled "China's Great Legal Firewall."

China and the U.S. have signed the Hague conventions -- the
standard international protocols for serving legal papers and
getting evidence. But, policy analyst Kevin Rosier wrote, "China
interprets its obligations under these treaties in a manner that
effectively protects Chinese firms from U.S. litigation."

He said it can take more than a year to get any response to a
request for evidence.

"It is not unusual for no reply to be received or after
considerable time has elapsed, for Chinese authorities to request
clarification from the American court with no indication that the
request will eventually be executed," Rosier wrote.


TAKATA CORP: Automakers Want Defective Airbag Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosalie L. Donlon, writing for Property Casaulty360, reported that
auto manufacturers who had the misfortune of incorporating faulty
airbags made by Takata Corp. into their vehicles are facing
individual lawsuits as well as a consolidated class action. In an
interesting legal maneuver, the automakers have asked a federal
judge in the Southern District of Florida to halt the litigation
for at least six months. Their reason? The automakers are claiming
that the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) has "primary jurisdiction" over claims brought by
consumers.

The motion requesting the stay -- filed on July 17 -- pertains
only to the consolidated class action complaint filed by consumers
and not to lawsuits filed on behalf of those who were injured or
died. From a legal perspective, it represents an unusual strategy
in massive litigation involving an automotive defect, but it does
appear to be a practical argument. "A stay will avoid needless
waste of resources on discovery that cannot be effectively
conducted while there are so many questions about the root cause,"
the automakers said in the motion.

The stay could put on hold any potential compensation for
consumers, who are seeking damages for the diminished value of
their vehicles, including expenses they might have paid for
alternative modes of travel while waiting for their vehicles to be
repaired. And the wait for repairs may get even longer. Many
dealers say there's a delay of several months in getting parts to
replace or repair the faulty airbags.

As expected, plaintiffs' attorneys have objected to the stay.

The NHTSA, under pressure to be more aggressive in keeping safe
cars on the road, also has taken a more involved role in managing
the unprecedented Takata recalls and has teamed up with the
automakers to investigate the underlying cause behind why the
airbags suddenly explode, sending metal fragments at drivers.
According to the NHTSA, about four million vehicles have been
repaired.


TIME WARNER: Sued Over Keeping Ex-Customer's Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Vielmetti, writing for Journal Sentinel, reported that Derek
Gubala, formerly of Oak Creek, claims that Time Warner Cable keeps
personable identifiable information, like name and address, birth
date, Social Security number and credit card account, of former
customers in violation of the 30-year-old Cable Communications
Policy Act.

The CCPA provides for liquidated damages of $100 per day of
violation, plus punitive damages and attorney fees. TWC has been
losing customers for years. Multiply them all times the potential
pay out and "the amount in controversy easily exceeds $5,000,000,"
the compaint estimates, conservatively, given TWC' has about 20
million cable TV subscribers.

Of course, Gubala's attorneys say he represents a vast class of
such former customers, -- "similarly situated individuals" -- and
want his case given class action status.

Gubula, who now lives in Illinois, is represented by Joseph Siprut
of Chicago, who has previously filed similar lawsuits in
California against TWC and Comcast. At least one of those cases
wound up in arbitration, the preferred method among companies
looking to avoid pesky, and potentially pricey, class actions. The
firm has also settled class actions under the same law against a
satellite TV provider.

Mike Hogan, a TWC spokesman at the company's New York
headquarters, said the company was reviewing the suit and had no
comment

The lawsuit contends that, while TWC's privacy policy indicates
that subscribers' personal information is destroyed after it's no
longer needed, the company actually keeps it all indefinitely.

Gubala was a TWC subscriber from 2004 to 2006, according to his
suit, but when he called the company gain in 2014, he learned it
still had all his personally identifiable information on file.

"There are numerous serious and troubling privacy issues
implicated by TWC's practice of retaining and misusing their
former customers' personal information, including the risk of
identity theft and conversion of personal financial accounts," the
suit reads.

That kind of data "functions as a "new form of currency that
supports a $26 billion per year online advertising industry in the
United States," according to the suit, and has growing value to
each individual consumer.

Besides that, Siprut said in an interview, TWC and other TV
service providers become just another target for hackers behind
the kinds of personal information data breaches increasingly
making headlines.

"The (1984 cable act) is more powerful and time now than ever," he
said.

Siprut said he doesn't think TWC is any worse than most other TV
service providers who also keep old customer information. He said
he expects the providers use it to solict "cord cutters" to
resubscribe under special deals, or just want to save the expense
of regularly deleting the information as required by the CCPA.


TRINET GROUP: October 6 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP reminds investors of the upcoming
deadline in the class action lawsuit on behalf of investors of
TriNet Group, Inc who purchased TriNet shares between May 5, 2014
and August 3, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). TriNet
investors have until October 6, 2015 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

On August 3, 2015, after the market close, TriNet reported a
second-quarter loss of $1.3 million, after reporting a profit in
the same period a year earlier. TriNet, a human resources services
outsourcing company, said it had a loss of 2 cents per share
during the quarter, and earnings, adjusted for one-time gains and
costs, of 14 cents per share. The results missed Wall Street
analyst expectations where expectations were for earnings of 27
cents per share. On this news shares of TriNet dropped
significantly during after-hours trading on August 3, 2015.

The complaint alleges that TriNet misled investors by failing to
adequately disclose that (a) the Company's processes and
methodologies for analyzing and accruing claims failed to properly
account for historical claims trends; (b) the Company's
forecasting process failed to properly incorporate relevant
historical and current claims trends; and (c) the Company was
experiencing growing claims trends in medical and workers
compensation that negatively affected the Company's current and
future business prospects.

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

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


TURBO MACHINING: Former Employee Files Class Suit Over OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reportd
that a Harris County woman is suing over payroll violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and invites others similarly situated
against the employer to join in a class action.

Deidre Vargas filed the suit June 23 in the Houston Division of
the Southern District of Texas. She claims her former employer,
Turbo Machining Co. of Houston, did not pay overtime wages,
subtracted an hour for lunch even if she worked through the meal
and deducted a 1 percent fee from her pay for check cashing, even
though the defendant paid cash. Once that fee was deducted, the
plaintiff often earned less than the minimum wage.

She discovered that other employees customarily worked more than
eight hours a day and were not paid 1.5 times their regularly
hourly wage. As a production manager, plaintiff says she is a non-
exempt employee and therefore is owed overtime pay.

Business owner Ken Mitchell would threaten employees with
termination or turning them into Immigration and Naturalization
Services if they did not work through their lunch breaks, the
plaintiff further claims.

In addition to a jury trial, the plaintiff requests an order
designating this action as collective, payment of all unpaid
wages, attorney's fees, court costs and expenses under the FLSA.

Attorneys for the plaintiff are Terrence B. Robinson and Michelle
Mishoe Miller of Kennard, Blakenship, Robinson PC of Houston,
Texas.


TYRONE GRIFFITH: Sued Over Refusal to Renew Gun Licenses
--------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Joseph, writing for Barbados Today, reported that having
withdrawn their contempt of court charge against Acting
Commissioner of Police Tyrone Griffith, sport shooter Bernard
Chase and his colleagues have promised to continue a class action
suit against the top cop.

Through his attorney Wilfred Abrahams, Chase, a national champion
shooter, filed a class action suit against the commissioner for
unilaterally refusing to renew licenses in respect of firearms
used in sport shooting. After the Court granted an interim
injunction that ordered the top cop to renew the licenses pending
final determination of the substantive case, Chase then asked the
judge to cite the Commissioner for contempt because the Firearms
Department continued to breach the court order.

When the case was about to be heard, it was learnt that the
Commissioner had resumed licensing the guns. Abrahams told
Barbados TODAY that while his client had every right to continue
the contempt hearing it made no sense as the Commissioner had
since complied with the order. Chase will however, continue the
substantive matter for a final judgement.  "I am sorry it got to
the point where the contempt application had to be filed but no
one is above an order of the Court.  This was not about proving a
point. So when the Commissioner finally obeyed the order prior to
the contempt hearing there was no need to waste further time on
that part of it," Abrahams said.

The attorney explained the substantive matter was whether the top
cop had the right or authority in the first place, to
"unilaterally" refuse to renew the licences of the weapons used
for target shooting only.

Abrahams added that he was awaiting the case management order from
the registry "which will spell out exactly the time frame for
completing the pre trial procedures" like witness statements
before the matter goes to trial."


TYSON FOODS: 8th Cir. Reversed Wage Payment Law Judgments
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Wahlander, Esq. -- mwahlander@seyfarth.com -- and Noah
A. Finkel, Esq. -- nfinkel@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
wrote that it is not every day that multi-million dollar wage and
hour class action judgments get reversed. But that is exactly what
happened twice late in the Eighth Circuit in two cases against the
same employer involving similar issues. In one, the Court reversed
a judgment of more than $18.7 million, and in the other, it
reversed a judgment for just under $5 million.

In both cases, groups of workers at meat processing plants in
Nebraska brought class action claims under Nebraska state wage
payment law alleging that the employer owed them additional
compensation for pre- and post-shift activities. In both cases,
the district court certified the state law claims as class actions
under Rule 23, granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff-
employees, and held trials on damages only, both of which resulted
in multi-million dollar judgments.

For the most part, these claims were not brought under the FLSA or
even under a state overtime law. Rather, they were primarily
brought under Nebraska wage payment law with attendant FLSA
claims. State law wage payment claims are brought in many wage-
hour cases for two reasons. First, as with a state overtime claim
(provided one is available under applicable law), a state wage
payment claim usually can brought under an opt-out class action
procedure rather than under an opt-in collective action procedure.
Because opt-in rates often are not high, the former nearly always
results in a far higher number of claimants in a case than the
latter. Second, state wage payment laws often are a way for
plaintiff-employees to claim "gap time," that is, the hours for
which they claim they should have been paid that do not exceed 40
hours in a week and thus do not implicate the overtime provisions
of the FLSA or state overtime law.

But the Eighth Circuit reversed both wage payment law judgments.
It reasoned that an employee cannot use the FLSA to support a
claim under Nebraska wage payment law because that law allows
employees to recover only those wages that the employer previously
agreed to pay. The Court accordingly found that the employees'
state-law claims failed as a matter of law because their claims
were based solely on alleged FLSA violations and the evidence did
not show a prior agreement to pay the claimed wages. In one of the
cases, the employees based their wage payment claim on a
collective bargaining agreement between the employees' union and
the employer which the Eighth Circuit held, did not include a term
to pay the additional compensation claimed by the employees.

That these opinions concern Nebraska wage payment law -- a not
frequently invoked statute in wage-hour litigation -- should not
detract from their significance. Wage payment theories are often
invoked to try to obtain an opt-out class action as opposed to
merely an opt-in collective action and/or to claim relief for "gap
time." Nebraska law's requirement that there be an "agreement" to
pay those wages is not unique. Many state wage payment laws
contain a similar requirement to bring such a claim. The Eighth
Circuit decisions show that district courts should examine that
requirement carefully, especially since many plaintiffs in wage-
hour cases testify that they believe that their employer had a
policy to not pay wages for the time at issue in the case.


U.S. NONWOVENS: Motion to Decertify Sent to Magistrate Judge
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the Eastern District of New York
deferred ruling on a motion to decertify a collective action
against U.S. Nonwovens Corp., and said the matter should be before
Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke.

The case is, EFRAIN DANILO MENDEZ, also known as Efrain D. Mendez-
Rivera, ALDRAILY ALBERTO COISCOU, FERNANDO MOLINA, also known as
Jorge Luis Flores Larios, SIRYI NAYROBIK MELENDEZ, DANIEL SANTE,
RAMIRO CORDOVA, JUAN FLORES-LARIOS, and RENE ALEXANDER OLIVA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. U.S. NONWOVENS CORP., SAMUEL MEHDIZADEH, also known
as Solomon Mehdizadeh, SHERVIN MEHDIZADEH, and RODY MEHDIZADEH,
Defendants, NO. 12-CV-5583 (ADS)(SIL) (E.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs Efrain Danilo Mendez, also known as Efrain D.
Mendez-Rivera, Aldraily Alberto Coiscou, Fernando Molina, also
known as Jorge Luis Flores Larios, Siryi Nayrobik Melendez, and
Rene Alexander Oliva, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, commenced this action on November 13, 2012,
against Defendants Samuel Mehdizadeh, also known as Solomon
Mehdizadeh, Shervin Mehdizadeh, and Rody Mehdizadeh.  The original
Plaintiffs sought to recover unpaid overtime compensation
allegedly owed to them, and others similarly situated, by the
Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
Sections 207 and 216(b); New York Labor Law ("NYLL") Sections 190
et seq.; and 12 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR")
Sec. 144-2.2.

A copy of the Court's Sept. 19 Order is available at
http://is.gd/MzwFBhfrom Leagle.com.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued for Violating Disabilities Act in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kiran Vuppala, On behalf of himself and Kiran Vuppala, On behalf
of all persons similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc. d/b/a
Uber, A Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-06247-TPG
(S.D.N.Y., August 7, 2015) alleges violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ben-Zion Bradley Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          18305 Biscayne Boulevard
          Aventura, FL 33160
          Telephone: (305) 949-7777
          Facsimile: (305) 704-3877
          E-mail: BBW@weitzfirm.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Vergara, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case
No. 1:15-cv-06942 (N.D. Ill., August 7, 2015) is brought to stop
the Defendant's alleged practice of transmitting unsolicited text
messages to consumers' cellular telephones, and to obtain redress
for all persons injured by its conduct.

Uber is an international provider of its Internet-based, vehicle-
for-hire service.  Uber is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters located in California.  The Defendant provides taxi-
style transportation service to consumers throughout the nation by
permitting consumers to submit trip requests through the
Defendant's smart phone-based internet application or "app" to
Uber drivers, who then use their own cars to transport consumers
to their requested destinations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  eturin@mcgpc.com


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Filed Reply Brief in Class Action Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has
filed its reply brief in an appeal related to the dismissal of a
class action lawsuit.

The Company assumed, as successor-in-interest to Sterling
Financial Corporation or Sterling, the defense of litigation
matters pending against Sterling. Sterling previously reported
that on December 11, 2009, a putative securities class action
complaint captioned City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System
v. Sterling Financial Corp., et al., No. CV 09-00368-EFS, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Washington against Sterling and certain of its current and
former officers.

On June 18, 2010, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
alleging that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making
false and misleading statements concerning Sterling's business and
financial results. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to
dismiss the Complaint, and the court granted the motion to dismiss
without prejudice on August 5, 2013.

On October 11, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint with the same defendants, class period,
alleged violations, and relief sought. On January 24, 2014,
Sterling moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint, and
on September 17, 2014, the court entered an order dismissing the
amended consolidated complaint in its entirety with no further
leave to amend.

On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the district
court's order granting the motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint. Appellant filed its opening brief on April
3, 2015 and the Company filed its reply brief on June 17, 2015;
additional briefing may be filed in August 2015.


UNITED STATES: D.C. Judge Denies County's Application for Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith of the United States Court of
Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district
court's denial of the application of attorneys' fees filed by
Shelby County in the case SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, Appellant, v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., Appellees, NO. 14-5138 (D.C.)

Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) to get rid of
the country's racial discrimination in voting. The VRA contained
two principal provisions. Section 2 created a permanent,
nationwide replacement for earlier civil rights statutes and
authorized individual suits against any state or local
jurisdiction that adopted a voting practice that had a
discriminatory purpose or result. The second, section 5, imposes
on covered jurisdictions, the requirement of obtaining
preclearance for all changes in state election procedure from a
three-judge federal district court in Washington, D.C., or from
the Attorney General before they could take effect. The scope of
section 5 was set by a formula in section 4 of the Act that
covered any state or political subdivision that met certain
telltale criteria of discriminatory voting practices as of
November 1, 1964.

The coverage formula in section 4 and the preclearance regime in
section 5 of the VRA were both originally subject to five-year
sunset clauses, but because of series of reauthorizations in 1970,
1975, 1982 and in 2006 neither section 4 nor section 5 ever
expired. Congress made some changes to the provisions along the
way, twice altering the basic coverage formula in section 4 so
that it would include even more jurisdictions. In 1975, VRA was
amended to include a fee shifting provision at section 14(e) of
the act which provides that any action or proceeding to enforce
the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment,
the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party,
other than the United States, a reasonable attorneys' fee,
reasonable expert fees, and other reasonable litigation expenses
as part of the costs.

Shelby County, Alabama, was covered by the section 5 preclearance
regime under the formula set out in section 4 of the VRA and
challenged the constitutionality of both in a suit filed in
district court in the District of Columbia. After losing in the
district court and before the Court of Appeals, District of
Columbia, Shelby County ultimately prevailed when the Supreme
Court ruled the coverage formula unconstitutional.

On remand to the district court, Shelby County filed a motion for
attorneys' fees, seeking $2 million in fees and $10,000 in costs.
Shelby County insisted that it had prevailed in an action or
proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments and so should receive fees under section
14(e). The Government opposed. The district court sided with the
Government, Shelby County appealed.

Circuit Judge Griffith affirmed the district court's denial on
Shelby County's application for attorneys' fees

A copy of Circuit Judge Griffith's opinion dated September 1, 2015
is available at http://goo.gl/w4dpt2from Leagle.com.

Bert W. Rein -- brein@wileyrein.com -- Brendan J. Morrissey -- at
Wiley Rein LLP; J. Michael Connolly -- mike@consovoymccarthy.com
-- William S. Consovoy -- will@consovoymccarthy.com -- Thomas R.
McCarthy -- tom@consovoymccarthy.com -- at Consovoy McCarthy Park
PLLC, for appellant


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Healthcare Providers Suit Goes to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District of New York
ruled on the defendants' motions in the case TIMOTHY MERRICK, D.C.
d/b/a ALIVE & WELL CHIROPRACTIC, JOSHUA I. KANTOR, D.C., JASON
PIKEN, D.C. d/b/a INNATE CHIROPRACTIC OF MANHATTAN, and CRAIG
FISHEL, D.C., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED,
UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., OPTUM
INC., and OPTUMHEALTH, INC., Defendants, NO. 14 CIV 8071 (ER)
(S.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiffs Timothy Merrick, D.C., doing business as Alive & Well
Chiropractic, Joshua Kantor D.C., Jason Piken, D.C., doing
business as Innate Chiropractic of Manhattan, and Craig Fishel
D.C. are healthcare providers licensed to provide chiropractic
services in New York.

Defendant UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (United) is a health
company incorporated in Delaware. Defendants UnitedHealthcare,
Inc., UnitedHealthcare Services, Inc., Optum, Inc., and
OptumHealth, Inc., doing business as OptumHealth Care Solutions
Inc., are wholly owned subsidiaries of UnitedHealth Group
Incorporated.

Plaintiffs entered with United a provider agreement that
establishes the rights and obligations of the plaintiffs and
United to each other. It specifies how plaintiffs would submit,
bill, process and be paid for their services. In addition to
establishing the rights and obligations of plaintiffs and United,
the provider agreements also contain arbitration provisions for
any dispute arising out of or relating to the provider agreement
or any disputes about the parties' business relationship.

According to plaintiffs, patients routinely authorize them, as
providers, to receive payments from United. As a result,
plaintiffs bill directly to and receive payments directly from
United for services provided to covered patients.

Plaintiffs allege that United is a plan and/or claims
administrator as defined by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and is therefore, responsible for
determining whether a given claim is covered under the healthcare
plans and effectuating payment for any covered services.

Plaintiffs, including Merrick, allege that they are ERISA
beneficiaries asserting ERISA claims on behalf of their patients.
Pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B), plaintiffs request
declaratory relief that (a) defendants have no legal authority,
after the time set forth in the Claims Regulation, to reverse
benefit determinations it previously made, (b) cannot recoup
monies that have been previously paid and (c) future payments owed
by United for covered services shall not be reduced or offset by
any amounts past the time period allotted in the Claims
Regulation.

On February 27, 2015, United filed a motion to compel arbitration
and a motion to dismiss Merrick's claims.

Judge Ramos granted United's motion to compel arbitration on
Merrick's claims and the claims brought by Merrick are stayed as
against all defendants.  The motion to dismiss is denied.

A copy of Judge Ramos's order dated August 31, 2015, is available
at http://goo.gl/qVTTTsfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Peter R. Kahana -- pkahana@bm.net --
Russell David Paul -- rpaul@bm.net -- at Berger & Montague, P.C.;
Richard J. Quadrino -- rjq@quadrinolawgroup.com -- at Quadrino Law
Group P.C.; Steven Lawrence Bloch -- sbloch@baileyglasser.com --
at Bailey & Glasser, LLP

Defendants, represented by Brian David Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com --
Danielle Carim Gray -- dgray@omm.com -- Gregory Frederick Jacob --
gjac@omm.com -- Meaghan Vergow -- mvergow@omm.com -- Sloane
Ackerman -- sackerman@omm.com -- at O'Melveny & Myers LLP


UNIVERSAL STUDIOS: Faces Class suit Over FCRA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR Check, reported that a class action
lawsuit filed against Universal Studios Orlando alleges that the
Universal Inc. theme park violated the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) by not properly disclosing to job applicants
and current employees that the company used credit reports for
employment decisions, according to TopClassActions.com.

TopClassAction.com reports that the lead plaintiff in the case,
Eufemio Mendez, claims Universal allegedly illegally obtained and
used a consumer report in determining not to hire him, and that
Universal did not properly disclose its use of credit reports in
hiring decisions along with other violations of FCRA. The FCRA
class action lawsuit alleges:

Defendant routinely obtains and uses information in consumer
reports to conduct background checks on prospective and existing
employees, and frequently relies on such information, in whole or
in part, as a basis for adverse employment action, such as
termination, reduction of hours, change in position, failure to
hire, and failure to promote.

The FCRA class action lawsuit also claims Universal did not
provide a copy of a disclosure indicating the company would obtain
and use a credit report to current and prospective employees. The
FCRA requires this disclosure to not be included with other
information and given to the applicant before an employer obtains
a copy of the credit report.

TopClassAction.com reports the FCRA class action lawsuit also
alleges that current and prospective employees were not provided
with copies of their consumer reports obtained by Universal. The
FCRA allows employees and job applicants to address information
contained in consumer reports before an adverse employment action.
The lead plaintiff in the FCRA class action lawsuit seeks to
represent two classes: 1.) people who suffered an adverse
employment action as a result of the alleged illegal practices
within the past five years and 2.) people who were the subject of
a consumer report procured by Universal within the past five
years.

The case is Mendez v. Universal City Development Partners, Ltd.,
case number 6:15-cv-01422, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.


UTAH: State Hospital Sued Over Delay in Inmate Treatment
--------------------------------------------------------
Marjorie Cortez, writing for Deseret News, reported that a federal
class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of mentally ill inmates in
county jails alleges state agencies such as the Utah State
Hospital "unconstitutionally delay" treatment intended to restore
inmates' mental competency, thereby violating their due process
rights.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for Utah, says
waiting times for treatment have "reached a state of crisis."

The Utah State Hospital's waiting list has doubled each year for
the past three years, with wait times increasing from 30 days to
180 days, the lawsuit states. The state hospital, the lawsuit
notes, is the only facility statewide authorized to perform
competency restoration.

"For defendants with mental illness stuck in this jail 'limbo,'
these long delays result in needless suffering, including steadily
worsening symptoms, self-mutilation, suicide attempts, and
prolonged detention in solitary confinement. The Disability Law
Center and the other plaintiffs allege that warehousing these very
ill people in jail when they have not been convicted of any crime,
and are legally unable to stand trial for a crime, is both cruel
and unconstitutional," said Aaron Kinikini, legal director of the
law center, which filed the lawsuit along with plaintiffs'
attorneys.

The lawsuit names as defendants the state of Utah; the Utah
Department of Human Services and its executive director, Ann
Williamson; the Utah Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health
and its division director, Douglas Thomas; and the state hospital
and its superintendent, Dallas Earnshaw.

In a prepared statement, the Department of Human Services said the
Utah Attorney General's Office is reviewing the lawsuit.

"The Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health and the Utah
State Hospital promote health, treat illness and support recovery,
and we continuously review the quality of our care, prevention and
treatment services," the statement said.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three plaintiffs, who range in
age from 27 to 71. Two of the plaintiffs were ordered by courts to
receive competency restoration treatment.

The third, a 71-year-old man charged with shoplifting, was found
mentally ill by a state district court judge and ordered in May to
receive treatment, care, custody and security adequate and
appropriate to his conditions and needs. The man remains in the
custody of the Salt Lake County Jail, the lawsuit states.

One of the plaintiffs has been housed in the Utah County Jail for
nearly a year and committed to the state hospital for competency
restoration treatment in April. He has not been admitted to the
state hospital and remains in the jail where he has been housed in
solitary confinement, the lawsuit states.

"While the state's ongoing practice of placing incompetent
defendants on a perpetual wait list is due to a chronic shortage
of funding, beds and staff at the Utah State Hospital, such a
fiscal bind certainly does not excuse it. Our complaint argues
that fundamental constitutional rights cannot be honored or denied
based on the political will to make legislative appropriations,"
said plaintiffs attorney Jared Fields, a lawyer in private
practice and president of the Disability Law Center's board of
trustees.

The plaintiffs are seeking an order from the federal court that
declares by "requiring mentally incompetent defendants to remain
in city and county jails for protracted periods, and by failing to
provide restorative treatment in a reasonably, timely manner,
defendants are depriving class members of their due process rights
under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," the lawsuit
states.

While the number of inmates that could be part of the class action
fluctuates, the lawsuit states it "is believed to consist of 40 to
60 individuals at present."


VECTREN CORPORATION: Denied Class Action Allegations
----------------------------------------------------
Vectren Corporation denied the allegations set forth in a class
action complaint, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

During the third quarter of 2014, the Company was notified of
claims by a group of current and former SIGECO employees
("claimants") who participated in the Pension Plan for Salaried
Employees of SIGECO ("SIGECO Salaried Plan").  That plan was
merged into the Vectren Corporation Combined Non-Bargaining
Retirement Plan ("Vectren Combined Plan") effective July 1, 2000.
The claims relate to the claimants' election for benefits to be
calculated under the Vectren Combined Plan's cash-balance formula
rather than the SIGECO Salaried Plan formula in effect prior to
the formation of Vectren.

On March 12, 2015, certain claimants filed a Class Action
Complaint against the Vectren Combined Plan and the Company in
federal district court requesting that a class be certified and
for various relief including that the Combined Plan be reformed
and benefits thereunder be recalculated. The Company denied the
allegations set forth in the Complaint.


VEMMA NUTRITION: FTC Obtains Injunction for Temporary Shut Down
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Anglen and Amber Hunt, writing for AZ Central, reported
that Vemma Nutrition Company founder and CEO Benson Boreyko is
sitting at the top of a $221 million multi-level-marketing company
that he has built into one of Arizona's fastest-growing
enterprises.

Federal regulators, however, call Vemma an illegal pyramid scheme
and contend its revenue is based less on the sale of "health and
wellness drinks" than an army of student "affiliates" who buy
their way into the company and whose main job is recruiting
others.

The Federal Trade Commission sued Vemma and obtained a federal
court injunction to temporarily shut down the Tempe-based
operation, maker of the energy drink Verve and other products,
saying its unlawful business practices affected consumers
throughout the United States and 50 other countries,

The FTC accused Vemma of luring student recruits with marketing
materials showing "prosperous young people with luxury cars, jets,
and yachts" and false claims that they could earn as much as
$50,000 per week.

In addition to Verve, the company sells nutritional supplements
and vitamin drinks under the Vemma name. It also markets meal
replacement shakes and weight-loss products called Bod-e and a
nutrient blend for children called Next.

Neither Boreyko nor other Vemma officials could be reached for
comment. Phones at Vemma's headquarters were answered with a
recorded phone message saying, "The U.S. District Court has
appointed a temporary receiver to assume full control of the Vemma
companies" until a Sept. 15 injunction hearing in Phoenix.

But on social media, the force behind the company's explosive
growth and its go-to tool for connecting with recruits, Boreyko --
or BK, as he is known to followers -- vowed to fight the
injunction. His messages to the "Vemma faithful" include the
hashtag #IAmNotDone.

"I think we're gonna get a win September 15th!" Boreyko posted on
Twitter.

In a Sept. 2 Instagram post, Boreyko encouraged supporters to
"hold tight" while his legal team  prepared "to defend your right
to market the finest wellness products on the planet." He said the
case would provide him an opportunity to tell his story to the
world.

" Vemma was the number 1 trending story on Facebook. Not quite the
way I thought we'd get there, but an epic stage has been set for
us to defend Vemma, this amazing industry and the millions that
count on it along with myself," Boreyko wrote. "Thank you and
through all of this, I continue to give praise to God!"

Boreyko, 53, has invoked God's name and spiritual conscience to
sell products since the 1990s. Since that time, he has transformed
into a multimillionaire, minimizing federal enforcement actions,
lawsuits and media investigations, brushing off allegations of
wrongdoing and calling critics haters.

"Fifteen years ago, the FTC investigated my first company called
New Vision for some health claims made by some of the
distributors," Boreyko said in a 2013 YouTube video titled 'Vemma
CEO, BK Boreyko, addresses the scam accusations.'

"Here's what the FTC asked me not to do anymore: Don't make health
claims. And they didn't fine me," he said, adding that he isn't
trying to hide from his past. "Stop and think about it. I don't
think a guy running a scam would be that transparent."

The FTC tells a different story. In 1999, it accused Boreyko and
New Vision International of marketing a product called "God's
Recipe" as a cure for attention-deficit disorder and an
alternative to traditional medicine.

"The ads exploited parents' fears of prescription drugs like
Ritalin by making claims that God's Recipe was a natural, safer
alternative for treating ADD and ADHD," FTC officials said at the
time.

As part of the settlement, Boreyko was permanently barred from
making false claims about nutritional supplements. He also was
prohibited from using testimonials or product endorsements to
suggest results are typical and represent ordinary experiences.

The FTC lawsuit against Vemma accused the company of falsely
representing that affiliates were likely to earn hefty incomes.
Vemma told students they could make $50,000 per week and said
joining the company could help them bypass college.

In reality, more than 97 percent of Vemma's affiliates earned
$12,000 a year or less, according to the lawsuit.

"Rather than focusing on selling products, Vemma uses false
promises of high income potential to convince consumers to pay
money to join their organization," Jessica Rich, Director of the
FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection said in a statement.

In a pyramid scheme, money from new investors is used to pay those
who invested previously.

Despite Vemma's line of nutrition drinks, the FTC alleges the
company's primary source of revenue comes from the buy-in of new
affiliates.

"The defendants provide affiliates little guidance for selling
products, but instead teach them to give away products as samples
when recruiting new participants," according to the FTC lawsuit.
"Vemma offers no meaningful discounts or incentives to encourage
retail sales."

For years, Vemma flew under most people's radar. The line of
energy drinks was launched in 2004 and at first barely made a
blip, according to the company's own sales reports.

In 2008, Vemma heightened its profile by partnering with the
Phoenix Suns to sponsor a swanky lounge at the U.S. Airways
Center.

In 2011 and 2012 Vemma started zeroing in on college-age recruits
and launched its so-called Young People's Revolution; #YPR in
Twitter parlance.

Young adults were encouraged to leverage their social media
networks to become their own bosses and sell drinks to friends.
They also were told by the ever-upbeat Boreyko and other company
leaders that college was a waste of time.

"I read this article in Forbes magazine and they were calling the
college education system in this country a pyramid scheme,"
Boreyko said in one YouTube video. "Do you realize that 40 percent
of those college graduates that have found jobs work in jobs that
don't require a college degree, yet they're still stuck with the
debt?"

That message caught the attention of parents -- and the media.
Truth in Advertising, a nonprofit consumer protection agency in
Connecticut, began posting stories and gathering evidence that
later would help the FTC in its case.

Several national and local media outlets also launched
investigations into Vemma, including "Today Show," "Al Jazeera
America," and "Rolling Stone." The Cincinnati Enquirer published
an investigation about Vemma's growing presence on Cincinnati-area
campuses.

Other countries also cracked down on Vemma. The Italian government
declared Vemma a pyramid scheme in April 2014, and a spokesman for
Switzerland's State Secretariat for Economic Affairs confirmed
that prosecutors there are investigating the company. Consumer
protection agencies in Germany and Austria also issued warnings
about the company and advised young adults to steer clear.

The Phoenix Suns terminated their Vemma affiliation, Suns
spokeswoman Maria Baier said.

Lawsuit alleges false claims

The foundation of Vemma's success lies its "clinically studied,
single-formula product line," according to the company's website.

Vemma, or Vitamins Essential Minerals Mangosteen Aloe, takes its
name from an Asian fruit called Garcinia mangostana.

Veema in 2014 was the target of a class-action lawsuit in New York
accusing the company of false and misleading marketing,
advertising, and sale of their Vemma product line, including
Verve.

The federal lawsuit accuses Vemma of violating the 1999 FTC order
by claiming its products improve immune function, reduce protein
levels, increase blood levels, increase antioxidants in the blood
and increase health.

Veema countered in court documents that the case was brought by a
former affiliate who is contractually barred from filing a lawsuit
and broke his member agreement. It asked the court to dismiss the
case, which has since been transferred to Arizona and is ongoing.

Veema boasts that its core mission is "to help others by enhancing
their well-being, and offering an income stream to people who
introduce others to a product line they believe in."

Vemma's website said Boreyko started the company by leveraging 20-
plus years of "experience in the wellness industry with his
passion for creating unique ways to keep people healthy and
founded Vemma."

Boreyko, is the divorced father of six children and has homes in
Scottsdale and Southern California.  "Al Jazeera America" found he
made about $12 million in 2013, according to his divorce records.

Boreyko was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. According to Vemma's
website, his parents came from small rural communities but made
millions in the multi-level-marketing business.

Ben and Dottie Boreyko and their four children "built a
multimillion-dollar networking business with thousands of team
members spanning several countries," the website states, adding
that as an outgrowth of their success they supported "countless
charitable organizations."

Vemma also claims to be dedicated to charitable and improving "the
lives of children around the world." Through the Ben and Dottie
Boreyko Foundation, Vemma claims it works with deserving nonprofit
organizations to help the world's children live healthier lives.

But the foundation's most recently available tax returns show that
in 2011, 2012 and 2013 very little went to charities.

The foundation reported $34,819 total revenues in those years and
made three donations for $17,500.  Those included: $5,000 to the
Phoenix Children's Hospital and $2,500 to a Paradise Valley
foundation called Out of the Shadows in 2011; and $10,000 to the
Freedom Academy North in Scottsdale in 2013.

Wide implications

The FTC action could have broader implications for the
controversial industry, and it's sparked renewed calls for tighter
industry regulations -- even from people who support multilevel,
or "network," marketing.

"I have been pushing for more standards that lead to a more
predictable marketplace in network marketing," Kevin Thompson, a
lawyer who represents multilevel marketing companies, said in an
online video he posted on Vemma. "This is what happens when you
push for an environment of no standards, no regulation. When
there's no regulation, the regulators can sue anybody."

Multilevel marketing draws comparisons to pyramid schemes because
both rely on members recruiting other people to make money for
those above them. Some people try to boil the legality down to
whether a company sells a real product, but that's too simplistic,
said William Keep, a pyramid scheme expert and dean of the School
of Business at the College of New Jersey.

"The issue of product efficacy is by and large a non-issue in
court. It's a red herring," Keep said. "Real companies sell real
products, that's true. But so do schemes."

It's impossible for everyday people to determine whether a
business is a pyramid scheme because you'd need a complete
disclosure of the company's finances -- which companies aren't
required to provide the general public -- to accurately make the
call.

Shana Mueller, a spokeswoman for Truth in Advertising, said Vemma
is going to have a hard time recovering from the FTC action.

"This is not going away," she said. "Vemma could get the order
lifted, they could go back into operations, but it's never going
to be the same. . . . It's not blowing over."

'Cult-like' and pervasive

Some students describe Vemma affiliates as being "cult-like."

Austin Neff, a 23-year-old recent college graduate from Portland,
said it it's hard to describe to outsiders just how pervasive
Vemma became on campuses nationwide.

Neff and Rob Liggins said they invited to numerous college parties
that were Vemma sales pitches in disguise. They became so
frustrated they launched a Twitter account mocking Vemma and the
Young People's Revolution.

"It got to a point where we would tell people we weren't down with
the idea of the business, and people would be so pushy about it,"
said Liggins, 23, who described being driven to Vemma recruiters'
houses under the guise of going out to a friendly lunch.

"I'd say, 'Where are we going?' And they'd say, 'You should just
come to this meeting. It'll be, like, 30 minutes and then we'll go
do whatever.' I'd say, 'Let me out of the car.'"

It's unclear how many Arizona students the company had recruited
to sell its product.

When 21-year-old Scottsdale Community College student Chris Benson
signed up to sell Vemma juice drinks, he said something didn't
feel right.

He said he invested less than $50 to become an "affiliate" based
on promises of quick money and the possibility of a free car if he
sold enough. It was a huge mistake, he said.

"When they started talking about ranks, that's what really got me
as it's a little bit sketch in my opinion," he said. "I was like,
yeah, no one is going to give me a free BMW."

Benson said the company presentation was enticing and made people
want to be a part of the company.

"They use all these things like colorful words, helping people
retire early," he said. "You know, these things that make you kind
of what to join into it. And I have to admit it seems appealing,
which is probably what got me."

Benson said he didn't have a lot of money to spend at the time,
and he had just graduated from high school. He said some of his
friends invested up to $500 into the company.

Benson said he received no help in selling the product, and the
company emphasized recruiting new people.

"It's not right, you just gotta work hard and do what most people
do for money. There are no shortcuts in life," he said.

Arcadia High School senior Musthafa Mahmood, a former Vemma
affiliate, said he stands by the product.

"Maybe the setup is wrong "but the product itself is a good
product," he said.

Mahmood said even though he put $500 into it, he doesn't see it as
a loss. He did not recruit enough people to make his investment
back, but he views that as his own fault, not Vemma's. He said he
still has Vemma nutritional drinks and vitamins that he uses.

Other Vemma supporters also defended the products and criticized
federal regulators for cutting off access.

"The sad thing is that Vemma closed its doors so that those of us
who really liked the product now have no place to get it," an
unidentified person wrote on the FTC website.  "The marketing plan
may have been faulty, but the product was not."


VERMONT: State Attorney Defends Budget Cut in Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
April Burbank, writing for Burlington Free Press, reported that
the state Legislature acted fairly in cutting cash assistance for
about 860 poor Vermont families, an attorney argued in court.

The budget cut means lower benefits for families who receive Reach
Up cash assistance and have a parent or other adult with a
disability receiving Supplemental Security Income.

Facing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of impacted families, a
government attorney argued the change is "merely an accounting
mechanism" and does not discriminate against Vermonters with
disabilities.

Welfare benefits are subject to changes in the Legislature, said
Assistant Attorney General Danforth Cardozo III.

"It's settled precedent that what the Legislature can give, the
Legislature can take away," Cardozo said at a hearing at U.S.
District Court in Burlington.

Budget-writers expected to save about $1.66 million through the
change, which would count up to $125 of adult Supplemental
Security Income against a family's Reach Up benefits, House
Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Mitzi Johnson said earlier
this summer.

Christopher Curtis, the Vermont Legal Aid attorney leading the
lawsuit, has called the cut a "poor tax." He claimed that the cut
is unconstitutional, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act
and is pre-empted by federal law.

"This is a seismic shift in the way that Reach Up is administered
in the state of Vermont," Curtis said. "It's a big deal."

The lawsuit tells the stories of two plaintiffs, Robin Wheeler of
Williamstown, and a person referred to as "A.R." in Lyndonville,
whose families will lose Reach Up assistance.

"If I were to lose $125 per month it would immediately stop my
ability to pay to keep a roof over my daughter's head," Wheeler
said in an affidavit, writing that she is behind on property taxes
and has no money to repair her car or buy shoes for her 15-old-
daughter.

The defendants in the lawsuit are Hal Cohen, secretary of the
Vermont Agency of Human Services, and Ken Schatz, commissioner of
the Department for Children and Families. Neither Cohen nor Schatz
appeared in court.

U.S. District Court Judge William K. Sessions III agreed to allow
the case to continue as a class-action lawsuit.

The state has asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, and the
plaintiffs have asked Sessions to intervene to stop the cut from
taking effect.

Further delay?

Lower Reach Up benefits had been scheduled to take effect Aug. 1.
Instead, the state and plaintiffs agreed to keep benefits the same
for 60 days to allow lawyers time to file arguments in the case.

Judge Sessions suggested an additional 60-day delay because
scheduling court hearings will be difficult. Sessions plans to
attend a conference and travel to Ireland, he said.

The state has 48 hours to make a decision on another delay, and
Cardozo indicated that the state would be hesitant. If the two
sides in the case cannot agree on another extension, Judge
Sessions said he would schedule a temporary restraining order
hearing.


VISIONPRO COMMUNICATIONS: Cert. Bid Denied; Oct. 13 Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Leonard D. Wexler of the Eastern District of New
York ruled on the parties' motions in the case DAREN WATSON and
CYRIL LEWIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. VISIONPRO COMMUNICATIONS CORP., VISIONPRO
CORP., KEVIN SILVAR and JOSEPH ROMANO, Defendants, NO. CV-13-0684
(E.D.N.Y.)

Daren Watson and Cyril Lewis are cable installers/technicians
employed by defendants VisionPro Communications Corp., to provide
installation and services for Cablevision Systems Corporation's
customers at their homes and commercial locations. According to
plaintiffs, they were compensated on piece-rate basis, paid
according to the task or service performed, regardless of the
amount of time required.

According to defendants, plaintiffs were paid a commission, or a
percentage of the amount paid by Cablevision to VisionPro for that
service, which percentage was based on the service performed and
the skill level of the technician providing the service.
Defendants further state that they provided a minimum commission
payment period to ensure if the commission earned was too low on a
given week, the worker would receive a minimum of $8.10 per hour
for all hours worked up to 40, and $12.15 per hour for all hours
worked over 40 in a week.

Plaintiffs claim they worked additional unreported hours with
defendants' knowledge. Also, a technician's credits for
compensation were reduced if the technician received a parking
ticket or other moving violation, or lost any tools or equipment,
which plaintiffs claim are deductions unlawful under New York
Labor Law (NYLL). Plaintiffs also assert their compensation was
subject to additional unlawful deductions since plaintiffs were
required to fuel the vehicles with their own money and were never
properly reimbursed.

Plaintiffs move for class certification under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of their New York state law
claims. Also before the court is defendants' motion seeking
summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

Judge Wexler denied plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 class
certification without prejudice to renew, following a hearing on
October 13, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. The court also denied defendants'
motion for summary judgment in its entirety. Counsels are advised
that jury selection shall be held on January 11, 2016 at 9:30am.

A copy of Judge Wexler's memorandum and order dated September 2,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/sNUkvSfrom Leagle.com.

Peter A. Romero, Esq. -- promero@laborlaws.com -- at FRANK &
ASSOCIATES, P.C., for Plaintiffs

Jeffrey A. Meyer, Esq. -- jmeyer@kdvlaw.com -- Sanjay V. Nair,
Esq. -- snair@kdvlaw.com -- at KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP,
Attorneys for Defendants


WASHINGTON: DOT's New Toll Program Faces Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
King5 News reported that since the state of Washington debuted a
new toll-enforcement program in July, the state Department of
Transportation says it has dismissed 125,000 violations on 9,500
vehicles.

As of August 31, drivers who owed the state civil penalties for
unpaid tolls and who contacted the agency's customer service have
saved about $4.4 million in penalties.

The Seattle Times says people who waited to pay their civil
penalties are catching a break while those who paid earlier are
stuck with their losses.

The state isn't offering refunds, except for those who lost a
toll-court case between Feb. 19 and July 20. So some drivers who
previously paid are grumbling, and a class-action lawsuit against
WSDOT has been filed on their behalf, demanding their money be
given back.

The state's toll-operations director, Patty Rubstello says the
state needed to set some kind of cutoff period.


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Discrimination Class Suit Finally Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric D. Lawrence, writing for Detroit Free Press, reported that
five families are getting new homes in Hamtramck as part of a
commitment Wayne County made to help resolve a long-standing case
involving residents displaced in an unlawful urban renewal
program.

Wayne County Executive Warren Evans, Habitat for Humanity Detroit
Board President Bishop Edgar Vann, Hamtramck officials and others
in the community took part in a "passing of the keys" dedication
ceremony for two houses on Whalen Street, according to a news
release from Evans' office.

"Wayne County was not a part of the lawsuit, but the county used
$4.1 million of its (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development) funds to build 25 homes, which is helping to bring
closure to" a several decades-long "effort to build 200 new homes
for those affected by an unlawful urban renewal program that
displaced families," the release said.

The approximately 1,600-square-foot houses are two-story, single-
family structures with four bedrooms, two-car detached garages and
Energy Star appliances, the release said.

"I am pleased my administration has successfully helped fulfill a
promise Wayne County made many years ago to make these families
and decedents whole with these new homes," Evans said in the
release. "This initiative should serve as inspiration to other
cities that collaboration and putting the interests of the people
first can help breathe new life into communities."

One of those getting a new home, Diane Williams, whose mother,
Ruby Williams, was one of the original plaintiffs in the lawsuit,
said she was grateful for the experience and for the assistance of
those who had helped along the way.

"This home has been a long time coming, but it was worth the wait.
I'm most looking forward to celebrating the holidays in my new
home surrounded by family and friends," Williams said in the
release.

The case stemmed from a 1968 class-action that led Judge Damon
Keith, now with the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, to order
new housing be constructed for 144 plaintiffs, according to a 2012
Free Press report.

Sarah Sims Garrett and other plaintiffs alleged Hamtramck broke
the law when the city -- using federal funds -- cleared three
neighborhoods in the 1950s and '60s to make way for new housing
and the Chrysler Freeway, but didn't replace the housing. The suit
claimed the city violated the equal-protection clause of the 14th
Amendment because officials knew African Americans would be more
likely to lose their homes than whites. Keith, then a U.S.
district judge,  called Hamtramck's pattern of urban renewal
"Negro removal" because 74% of the people displaced from the three
neighborhoods were African Americans.

In 1971, Keith ordered the city to build new houses for the 144
plaintiffs. Many of those original plaintiffs have since died,
including Ruby Williams.

Vann, the Habitat Detroit board president, said in the release
that the project to build the housing was stalled for "all of the
wrong reasons" and he was "delighted that Habitat for Humanity
Detroit has been able to partner in the advancement of justice,
especially in view of the historical significance of this case."


WELLS FARGO: Illegally Uses Automatic Dialing System, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Jones, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-
08314 (N.D. Ill., September 22, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of making telephone calls and sending text
messages using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a California-based baking company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
      THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC
      1704 Maxwell Drive
      Wall, NJ 07719
      Telephone: (732) 455-9737
      Facsimile: (732) 709-5150
      E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com


WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Gov't Sued Over Stolen Wages Scheme
------------------------------------------------------
Chris Bullock, writing for ABC News, reported that up until the
1970s, generations of Aboriginal workers in WA had their wages
systematically stolen over decades, and only a small minority
received reparation -- just $2,000 in 2012. Sarah Dingle reveals
the secret calculations that recommended a much higher sum, and
government efforts to minimise payouts.

In Western Australia the government is facing a potential class
action over its controversial stolen wages reparations scheme,
which paid Aboriginal people a maximum of $2,000 each after
decades of wages withheld by government, child labour, and in some
cases slavery.

Now a Background Briefing investigation has uncovered secret
financial modelling, commissioned by government, on just how much
the state of Western Australia owes its Aboriginal workers.

At one workplace alone the documents put the amount of Aboriginal
wages kept by government at $63 million.

And a whistleblower says in initial discussions, state treasury
agreed that individual payouts would be as high as $78,000.

He believes the Barnett government kept the work of a stolen wages
taskforce quiet for four years, waiting for potential claimants to
die.

In her 80s, Mabel Juli is now a famous artist. But for decades
under a WA government system she laboured on an East Kimberley
pastoral station without ever being paid.

'We don't know the money,' she says. 'We [were] just working for
bread and tea and meat. We don't know the money; we never get the
money.'

Through a permit system, the government rented Aboriginal people
to pastoral stations as free labourers who didn't have to be paid,
only fed. Others had their wages stolen.

Until 1972, if an Aboriginal person earned a wage the state could
legally withhold up to 75 per cent in government trust accounts --
but that money has simply vanished.

Three years ago, WA conducted a stolen wages reparations scheme,
with a maximum payout of two thousand dollars each.

Dr Rosalind Kidd is a national expert on Aboriginal stolen wages.

'Can you imagine the CEO of Westpac or ANZ saying, "We got no idea
how much of your money is missing, we're offering $2,000?"' she
says.

Indigenous affairs minister Peter Collier told parliament a
government stolen wages taskforce had investigated, but there
wasn't enough evidence to prove people were owed any more than
$2,000 each.

'Unfortunately, due to the complexity of trust accounts in Western
Australia, the significant lack of surviving records and the
passage of time, the task force could not develop an actuarial
model that could illuminate the true value or full impact of any
compensation,' he says.

But there was detailed actuarial modelling done by Perth firm
Barton Consultancy for the taskforce, delivered to government and
obtained by Background Briefing.

At just one workplace alone, Moore River Native Settlement, the
actuaries estimate Aboriginal wages kept in trust by government at
more than $63 million.

niversity of Notre Dame researcher Steve Kinnane's grandmother
worked at Moore River.

'Their own actuarial studies have revealed that the potential
compensation that should have been paid would have been in the
vicinity of millions and millions of dollars, probably even
hundreds of millions of dollars,' he says.

And a whistleblower who worked with that taskforce, Howard Riley,
says state treasury initially agreed to individual payouts of
$78,000.

'The treasury at the time said, "Well, maybe we can handle
seventy-eight." That's when we said, "Well, leave it at $78,000."'

Background Briefing has also obtained calculations of the amount
of Commonwealth benefits stolen from Aboriginal people en masse
under a state government system.

The WA government gave Aboriginal pensions, maternity payments and
child endowments not to the Aboriginal beneficiaries themselves
but to pastoral stations and churches, sometimes sending entire
pensions to church headquarters interstate.

The actuaries calculated that in the 30s and 60s, $24.5 million
was stolen from Aboriginal pensioners in the Kimberley alone.

Confidential documents show the taskforce's final recommendations
to government in 2008 was a stolen wages reparation scheme costing
$71 million, with up to 3,000 workers thought to be still alive
who could make a claim. But the work of the taskforce was shelved
for four years, and Mr Riley believes the delay was deliberate.

'They waited for the people to die,' Mr Riley says.

'They wanted those people to die so that the state coffers weren't
being emptied out on black people whose wages they deserved to
have back.'

Mr Riley tells the story of an old uncle of his who lived at Tom
Price, in the Pilbara, and recently died of mesothelioma.

'He used to work at Wittenoom, he used to dig asbestos, blue
asbestos out of the ground,' he says.

'He was one of the first people that I thought might have got a
payout because I told them how sick he was.

'The thing that he wanted most was for a dialysis machine in his
house so he could stay home and die with his family. Never got
that.'

In 2012 the total amount paid out by the West Australian
government for decades of Aboriginal stolen wages was not $71
million, but just $2.5 million.

The state indigenous affairs minister refused an interview with
Background Briefing.

In a written response to questions he said it took time to 'assess
the report properly'.

The chief executive of the state's Aboriginal Legal Service,
Dennis Eggington, says what happened in WA was slavery.

'You've got people working for nothing. That is a fair definition
of slavery in my terms,' he says.

'You hear time and time again, "oh Aboriginal people wouldn't work
in an iron lung." Well, Aboriginal people did work . . . and they
never got paid for it.'

The Aboriginal Legal Service is now considering a potential class
action.


WESTERN CORRECTIONAL: Judge Dismisses Disabled Prisoner's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George L. Russell, III of the District of Maryland
granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case WAYNE LEO SAVOY,
Plaintiff, v. WARDEN FRANK BISHOP, et al., Defendants, CIVIL
ACTION NO. GLR-14-1853 (D. Md.)

In partnership with America's VetDog Veteran's K-9 Corps and Guide
Dogs Foundation, the Western Correctional Institution (WCI) offers
a program for prison inmates to raise, socialize and teach puppies
basic command skills. On May 29, 2013, plaintiff Wayne Leo Savoy
filed an administrative remedy procedure grievance (ARP) against
WCI's defendant Lieutenant J. McFarland after McFarland informed
Savoy that inmates in wheelchairs were excluded from participating
in the Vet Dog Program. The ARP was dismissed on June 10, 2015,
based upon Savoy's attempt to file a class action grievance on
behalf of other inmates.

Savoy submitted another ARP, contending that he was harassed and
intimidated by defendant COII B. McKenzie for submitting ARPs
written about defendant Sergeant John Shaver and McKenzie. On July
7, 2013, after again refusing to sign the ARP, Savoy was moved out
of his handicap cell to a WCI housing unit that does not comply
with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), in an effort to
free up single cell beds that were being designated for use by the
Vet Dog Program.

On July 13, 2013, he seriously burned himself when spilling a bowl
of hot water over his right thigh while heating his food in the
microwave. Savoy then filed an ARP, claiming he would not have
been injured if he had not been moved out of Housing Unit One or
the recreation hall had been in compliance with the ADA, as the
microwave and hot pot were up high and not readily accessible to
wheelchair-bound inmates. The ARP was investigated by Defendant
Jeff Nines, and found that the microwave table was mounted forty
inches from the floor and concluded that the height of the table
was in compliance with ADA standards and recommended that the ARP
be dismissed.

On July 13 and July 17, 2013, Savoy filed ARPs complaining about
being moved to Housing Unit Two on July 7, 2013, which he alleged
was in retaliation for filing earlier ARPs against McFarland. The
ARPs were dismissed on July 24 and July 25, 2013. On June 9, 2014,
Savoy initiated an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
(2012), requesting compensatory, punitive, and miscellaneous
damages.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,
motion for summary judgment.

Judge Russell construed defendants' motion as a motion for summary
judgment and grants the same.

A copy of Judge Russell's memorandum opinion dated September 2,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/NUYMTOfrom Leagle.com.

Wayne Leo Savoy, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Defendants, represented by Nichole' C Gatewood at Maryland Office
of the Attorney General


WESTERN RANGE: Former Shepherds Sue Over Wage Conspiracy
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Neary, writing for Magicvalley.com, reportd that two former
shepherds from Peru are accusing key players in the sheep industry
in the western U.S. of conspiring to keep wages low for foreign
workers.

Rodolfo Llacua and Esliper Huaman, represented by a Denver law
firm called Towards Justice, are seeking to have their lawsuit
treated as a class-action case seeking damages for current and
former shepherds across the West.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District court in Denver, targets the
Salt Lake City-based Western Range Association and Casper, Wyo.-
based Mountain Plains Agricultural Service. The companies place
foreign workers with sheep operations. The lawsuit also names
eight sheep-ranching operations around the West as defendants,
including the Ball Brothers Sheep Co. in Lewisville, north of
Idaho Falls.

When reached for comment, Ball Brothers Office Manager JoDee Davis
said the owners of the company were up in the mountains and hadn't
seen the lawsuit yet.

Davis refused to identify the owners of Ball Brothers, but
according to Environmental Working Group records, RJ Ball Jr.,
Carl Ball, Robert Ball and Lance Moss all own a percentage of the
company.

For decades, the federal government has endorsed ranchers bringing
in foreign shepherds to oversee vast herds in western states on
the grounds that U.S. citizens wouldn't take the jobs. They are
called "H2-A" workers after the federal labor program.

Between 2,000 and 2,500 H2-A workers are in the country, handling
nearly all of the shepherd work that sustains the roughly $275
million annual sheep industry in the West, the lawsuit states.

The herders, many from South American countries such as Peru, work
for wages as low as $750 a month. They commonly work seven days a
week and up to 12 hours a day for months on end. They live in
trailers or tents without plumbing or electricity, the lawsuit
states.

"The amount they paid us never seemed right," Huaman said in a
statement released by his lawyers. "Many fellow shepherds are
still suffering under these low wages, and I hope that I can help
benefit them through this complaint."

Llacua and Huaman say in their lawsuit that the Western Range
Association and Mountain Plains Agricultural Service, as well as
ranchers who hire foreign workers through them, violated anti-
trust laws by colluding to keep wages at the minimum levels
required by the federal government.

"We think that people working as shepherds should be fairly
compensated, pursuant to regular market forces," said Nina
DiSalvo, executive director of Towards Justice. Huaman is now
working in Utah, while Llacua is in Colorado, she said.

Stung into action recently by an earlier lawsuit brought by U.S.
sheepherders who claimed the foreign worker program was keeping
wages artificially low, the U.S. Department of Labor early
proposed a new rule that would ramp up pay for the herders up to
$2,400 a month by 2020.

In that earlier lawsuit, the U.S. herders argued that the Labor
Department for years had operated essentially in a closed-loop
system. They said the agency surveyed sheep ranchers to find out
how much they paid their herders, and then -- without seeking
comment from anybody else -- certified that it was appropriate for
ranchers to continue to pay foreign herders at those low rates
because no American workers were willing to take the jobs.

The federal agency's wage-hike proposal brought stiff criticism
from the grazing industry and politicians in the West, with many
asking to delay any change. Egan Reich, spokesman for the Labor
Department in Washington D.C., said that the agency intends to
publish its final rule Nov. 1.

Kelli Griffith, executive director of Mountain Plains Agricultural
Service, said that her company and its member ranchers have
participated in the H2-A program for more than 25 years.

"They're experienced and diligent about complying with all their
legal obligations," Griffith said of the ranchers who hire herders
through Mountain Plains. "They really appreciate the hard work and
all of the dedication of their employees. And these allegations --
they are just allegations -- they won't be taken lightly by the
association."

Ellen Winograd, a lawyer in Reno, Nevada, represents the Western
Range Association. She said the company also will investigate the
allegations of Llacua and Huaman.

"But because the Dept. of Labor and the H2-A visa program are so
highly regulated at both the state and federal levels, it's
difficult to imagine a scenario in which there can be any anti-
trust violations because prevailing wages within the H2-a visa
program are set by regulation and by statute," Winograd said.


WHOLE FOODS: Accused of Discrimination Targeting Older Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Wachs, an individual v. Whole Foods Market California,
Inc., a California corporation; Whole Foods Market, Inc. a Texas
corporation; Amanda Dowrelio, an individual; Kara Vella, an
individual; Chris Ross, an individual; Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. RG15780445 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 3, 2015)
alleges the during the last couple years of her employment with
the Defendants, the Plaintiff was subjected to an escalating
pattern of discriminatory conduct that was facilitated, condoned
and encouraged by a management team, who targeted older workers.

Ms. Wachs is a resident of the state of California.  She says she
devoted over 12 years of loyal and dedicated service to WFM.  She
worked for WFM from approximately June 2002 until she was fired on
October 17, 2014.  She is 66 years old and suffers from various
serious health conditions/disabilities.

Whole Foods Market California, Inc. is a corporation with its
principal places of business in the state of California, County of
Alameda.  Whole Foods Market, Inc. is a corporation authorized to
do business in the state of California, County of Los Angeles.
Whole Foods Market California, Inc. II and Whole Foods Market,
Inc. were the joint and integrated employer of the Plaintiff.  The
Individual Defendants are residents of California and are also
employees of the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gina Browne, Esq.
          FELDMAN BROWNE OLIVARES, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2490
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-7812
          Facsimile: (310) 552-7814
          E-mail: gina@fbo-law.com


XOMA CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of those who purchased shares of XOMA Corporation during the
period between November 6, 2014 and July 21, 2015 inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements that Xoma Corporation's
EYEGUARD-B clinical trial would succeed and/or surpass
expectations across the study's primary endpoint. On July 22,
2015, defendants revealed that the Phase 3 EYEGUARD-B study had
failed.

Following this news, the price of XOMA stock declined by $3.48 per
share, or over 79%, on extremely heavy trading volume.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number.  If you
suffered a loss in Xoma you have until September 22, 2015 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

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

Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Eitan Kimelman, Esq.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
144 N Beverwyck Rd, Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034
212-697-6484
info@bgandg.com


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Third Circuit Has Not Ruled on Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of June 30, 2015,
the Company was subject to a class action case, Reyes v. Zions
First National Bank, et al., which was brought in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in
early 2010.

The Company said, "This case relates to our banking relationships
with customers that allegedly engaged in wrongful telemarketing
practices. The plaintiff is seeking a trebled monetary award under
the federal RICO Act. In the third quarter of 2013, the District
Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the
Reyes case. The plaintiff appealed the District Court decision to
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Third Circuit had not
ruled on the appeals as of August 2015."


                            *********

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  * * *