CAR_Public/151007.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 200


                            Headlines


ACB RECEIVABLES: Bid to Dismiss "Rodriguez" Case Denied
ACOSTA TRACTORS: Faces Suit Over Overtime Wage Violation
AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Kelley" Securities Class Action
AGL RESOURCES: Faces "Halberstam" Suit Over Sale to Southern Co.
AGL RESOURCES: "Baker" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation

AMERICAN PIZZA: Court Denies Collective Action Settlement
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Fairness Hearing Held in DCG&T Case
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Motion to Dismiss "Moses" Complaint Pending
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Time to Appeal "Wenzel" Case Dismissal Expires
ARDOIN INC: "Greer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
BEST BUY: Faces "Watkins" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BOEING: Judge Approves $90MM Settlement for Ex-Boeing Workers
BOULDER BRANDS: Formal Settlement Being Prepared in Class Action

BOULDER BRANDS: Expects Two Class Actions to be Consolidated
BP PLC: 5th Cir. Affirms Decision in "Ludlow"
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
CHINA XD: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Scheduled for Oct. 22
CHINA XD: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Scheduled for Oct. 22

CINEMARK HOLDINGS: "Amey" Case in Pretrial Discovery
CORMEDIX INC: Faces "Li" Class Action
CVS HEALTH: "Podgorny" Suit Alleges Deceptive Pricing Scheme
DANZE INC: Judge Narrows Claims in Duncan Place Owners' Suit
DOT HILL: Faces "Ahmadi" Suit Over Seagate Tender Offer

ECOLAB INC: Remaining Claim in "Schneider" Suit Up for Trial
ENERGY RECOVERY: Securities Litigation in Early Stage
ENTERGY CORP: Mississippi AG Complaint Remains Pending
ETSY INC: Faces "Altayyar" Securities Class Action
ETSY INC: Faces "Cervantes" Securities Class Action

FIFTH THIRD: Sued Over Alleged Racial Discriminatory Practices
FLORIDA GAS: Court Denies Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
FLOWERS BAKING: Faces "Brownfield" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Trial Held in Pennsylvania Class Action
GCA SERVICES: Court Narrows Claims in "Anderson" Suit

GIGINO INC: "Torralba" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
GOOD SAMARITAN: "Amster" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
GOOGLE: Consumer Tech Companies Face Auto-Renewal Class Suits
GRADY COUNTY, GA: Plaintiffs' Motion for Payment of Fees Granted
GUITAR CENTER: 9th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Price Conspiracy Suit

HEALTHSTAR HOME: Faces "Clevenger" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HHGREGG INC: Faces "Underwood" Class Action
HSN INC: Case by David Shaev Profit Sharing Account Now Moot
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Judge Dismisses "Rottner" Suit in Consolidated MDL
KIA MOTORS: Judge Narrows Claim in "Robinson" Suit

KYTHERA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: "Lytle" Plaintiff Filed Amended Suit
LARGO FAMILY: "Knapp" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
MARS INC: "Cheslow" Suit Removed to N. Dist. Cal. Ct.
MARY KAY: Sued Over New Jersey Wage Payment Law Violation
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Sandlin" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MEDZID KOLENOVIC: Rikers Island Captain Charged for Beating Inmate
MERGE HEALTHCARE: Faces "Lozoya" Suit Over Proposed IBM Takeover
MILBERG LLP: CA Vacates Dismissal of Class Certification
OCWEN LOAN: Judge Approves Settlement in "Lee" Class Suit

ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Defendants Dropped from Cities of Columbia Case
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Agreement Reached in Stockholder Litigation
PRIME POTOMAC: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
QED ENVIRONMENTAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
QLOGIC CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports

RANGER FIRE: "Lucio" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: To Continue to Defend Wesley West Minerals Suit
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Claims v. Mississippian Trusts et al. Tossed
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Hart" Settlement Subject to Final Negotiations
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Court Tossed Surbaugh and Dakil Actions

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Action by Lanier Trust in Early Stages
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Lawsuit by "Gernandt" in Early Stages
SHELTER MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Distribute Net Profits
SMOB LLC: "Acosta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SUPERIOR HEALTHPLAN: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims

SWEPI LP: Class Certification Bid in "Walney" Suit Granted in Part
TREMONT SECURITIES: Settling Class' Plan Allocation Approved
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Faces Suits Pending in N.Y. and Calif. Courts
TWO HARBORS: Baltimore Court Preliminarily Approved Settlement
VILLAGE OF TINLEY: Sued Over Inaccurate Smart Meters

VISANU THAI: Faces "Aviles" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Edwards" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hall" Suit in Wis. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hill" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kaufman" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kim" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Klein" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Krieger" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Labudda" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Mesa" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Parsons" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Strayhorn" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Stolz" Suit in R.I. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Thompson" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Wenger" Suit in D.C. Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Willingham" Suit Over Defeat Devices
WARNER MUSIC: Reply Date Has Not Yet Been Set


                            *********


ACB RECEIVABLES: Bid to Dismiss "Rodriguez" Case Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the United States District
Court for District of New Jersey denied Defendant's motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, In re ACB RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT,
Case No. 14-6418 (FLW/LHG).

Plaintiffs Jose Rodriguez (Rodriguez) and Fortuna Manopla
(Manopla) brought separate putative class actions, i.e. Civ. No
14-6418 and Civ. No.15-0253, against Defendant ACB Receivables
Managements (Defendant), each alleging that Defendant violated the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C Sec.
1692f(8), by mailing letters which showed Plaintiffs' respective
account numbers through a glassine window in the envelope. This
Court consolidated the two cases. On or about March 6, 2014,
Defendant mailed Rodriguez a collection letter in an attempt to
collect the MBH debt.  The letter was mailed in a window envelope,
and Rodriguez asserts that his account number was visible through
the glassine window.

Plaintiffs aver that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692f(8) by
displaying their account numbers on the section of the debt
collection letter viewable through the glassine window of an
envelope. Plaintiffs assert that the display of an account number
not only violates this statute on its face, but has also been
found to be a violation of the statute by the Third Circuit.

In the motion, Defendants contend that the complaint failed to
state a claim.

In her Opinion dated September 9, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/9W0dZDfrom Leagle.com, Judge Wolfson concluded that
because the Third Circuit has held that the display of an account
number through the glassine window of an envelope is a violation
of Sec. 1692f(8) and that Defendants mailed letters displaying
account numbers through the glassine windows of the envelopes are
sufficient to state a claim.

Plaintiffs are represented by Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. --
ari@marcuszelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC

     - and -

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

ACB Receivables Management is represented by:

Mark D. Laderman, Esq.
Philip J. Cohen, Esq.
KAMENSKY-COHEN & ASSOCIATES
194 S Broad St
Trenton, NJ 08608
Tel: (609)394-8585


ACOSTA TRACTORS: Faces Suit Over Overtime Wage Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Julio Hernandez Hernandez, Euseblo Casanas Cordova, and all others
similarly situated v. Acosta Tractors Inc., Felix F. Acosta, and
Alex Ros, Case No. 1:15-cv-23486 (S.D. Fla., September 17, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for overtime wage violation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide general contracting services such as
constructing water and sewer mains.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167


AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Kelley" Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aerie 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 a putative
securities class action lawsuit captioned Kelley et al. v. Aerie
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03007, was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
April 29, 2015, on behalf of a purported class of persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
publicly traded securities between August 6, 2014 and April 23,
2015. The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and alleges that the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements or omitted allegedly material
information during that period related to, among other things, the
prospects of the Company's initial Phase 3 registration trial of
RhopressaTM, named "Rocket 1," and RhopressaTM.


AGL RESOURCES: Faces "Halberstam" Suit Over Sale to Southern Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Halberstam and Baruch Z. Halberstam (as custodian for
Benjamin Halberstam), individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AGL Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-03402-WSD (N.D. Ga., September 28, 2015) is brought on behalf
of all the holders of the common stock of AGL Resources, Inc. to
enjoin the proposed sale of the Company to The Southern Company
through its wholly-owned subsidiary, AMS Corp., following an
unfair process, in exchange for the inadequate consideration of
$66.00 per share, and without disclosing all material information
concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders.

AGL Resources, Inc. is an Atlanta-based energy services holding
company with operations in natural gas distribution, retail
operations, wholesale services and midstream operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Bain, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC
      1050 Promenade II
      1230 Peachtree St., NE
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 724-9990
      Facsimile: (404) 724-9986
      E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com

         - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
      E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
              mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
              kkeenan@weisslawllp.com


AGL RESOURCES: "Baker" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Baker, and all others similarly situated v. AGL Resources,
Inc., Sandra N. Bane, Thomas D. Bell, Jr.,
Norman R. Bobins, Charles R. Crisp, Brenda J. Gaines, Arthur E.
Johnson, Wyck A. Knox, Jr., Dennis M. Love, Dean R. O'Hare,
Armando J. Olivera, John E. Rau, James A. Rubright, John W.
Somerhalder II, Bettina M. Whyte, Henry C. Wolf, AMS Corp., and
The Southern Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-03265 (N.D. Ga., September
16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged material
omissions and false and misleading statements in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9.

This is a shareholder class action brought by plaintiff on behalf
of himself and the public shareholders of AGL Resources, Inc.
against AGL, the directors of AGL, The Southern Company and
Southern's affiliate, AMS Corp., arising out of their agreement to
sell AGL to Southern (the "Proposed Transaction").

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Proposed Transaction for
Defendants' violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

AGL is a Georgia corporation that maintains its principal
executive offices at Ten Peachtree Place NE, Atlanta, Georgia
30309. The Company's securities trade on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol "GAS." AGL is an energy services holding
company whose primary business is the distribution of natural gas
through its natural gas distribution utilities.

Southern is a Delaware corporation that maintains its
principal executive offices at 30 Ivan Allen Jr. Blvd, Atlanta,
Georgia 30308. Southern operates companies that supply electric
service in the states of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and
Mississippi.

Merger Sub is a Georgia corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Southern.

The Individual Defendants are directors of AGL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Bain, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC
      1050 Promenade II
      1230 Peachtree Street, NE
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Tel: (404) 724-9990
      Fax: (404) 724-9986
      E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com

          - and -

      James M. Ficaro, Esq.
      THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      22 Cassatt Ave.
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (610) 225-2677

          - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
      995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
      Wayne, PA 19087
      Tel: (484) 588-5516


AMERICAN PIZZA: Court Denies Collective Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the United States District
Court for District of Colorado denied Plaintiff's unopposed motion
to approve collective action settlement and application for fees,
costs and expenses in the case captioned, MIKE GASSEL,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN PIZZA PARTNERS, L.P., AMERICAN RESTAURANT
PARTNERS, L.P., RMC AMERICAN MANAGEMENT, INC., and HEART OF TEXAS
PIZZA LP, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-00291-PAB-NYW.

Defendants jointly operate a chain of 130 Pizza Hut stores in
eight states. Defendants employ delivery drivers, who use their
own vehicles to deliver food to defendants' customers. Between
July 2009 and September 2012, plaintiff worked for defendants as a
delivery driver at their Pizza Hut store in Greeley, Colorado.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' delivery reimbursement policy
does not accurately reflect the costs delivery drivers incur
because the policy fails to account for the miles actually driven.
Plaintiff argues that the "kick backs" effectively lowered
delivery drivers' net hourly wage to between $1.69 and $3.61. The
rates are below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

On January 31, 2014, plaintiff filed a collective case against
defendants, bringing a claim for violation of the FLSA and a claim
for violation of the Colorado Minimum Wage of Workers Act (CMWWA)
and eventlually deleted the CMWWA claim. On May 14, 2014, the
Court conditionally certified this case as a collective action
pursuant to the parties' Joint Motion to Approve Stipulated Form
of Notice of Collective Action. On October 1, 2014, after a day-
long in-person settlement meeting, the parties agreed to a
collective action settlement. The Agreement provides that
defendants will pay $975,000 towards the creation of the
Settlement Fund, approximately $324,967 as attorneys' fees and
$15,681.78 in expenses and costs. Mr Mike Gassel executed the
Agreement on behalf of himself and the Class Members.

In the motion, Defendant sought summary judgment in its favor on
all counts of the complaint and Count I of its counterclaim, and
Plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment seeking only
a declaration that its claim is not barred by Section V(A)(5) and
thus that Defendant cannot refuse coverage on that basis.

In his Order dated September 8, 2015, available at
http://is.gd/OF5HQGfrom Leagle.com, Judge Brimmer found that the
parties fail to address the FLSA class action issue and have not
otherwise moved for final collective action certification. The
fact that the Court conditionally certified the collective action
for notice purposes is insufficient to satisfy the FLSA class
requirement. Thus, there is no basis for the Court to issue a
final certification ruling, which is by itself a sufficient basis
for denying the present motion. The Plaintiff also failed to
provide sufficient facts upon which to conclude that the
settlement award will be distributed in a fair and reasonable
manner.

Mike Gassel is represented by Jack D. McInnes, Esq. -
mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com & Richard M. Paul, III, Esq. -
paul@paulmcinnes.com -- PAUL MCINNES, LLP & Mark A. Potashnick,
Esq. - markp@wp-attorneys.com -- WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK

Defendants are represented by Boyd Allan Byers, Esq. -
bbyers@foulston.com, Forrest Terence Rhodes, Jr., Esq. -
frhodes@foulston.com & Teresa Lynn Shulda, Esq. -
tshulda@foulston.com -- FOULSTON SIEFKIN, LLP


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Fairness Hearing Held in DCG&T Case
------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, 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 court had
scheduled a Fairness Hearing on September 14, 2015, in the
settlement in the case, DCG&T et al. v. Knight, et al.

On January 31, 2014, two shareholders of the Company commenced a
purported class action against the Company and its directors (the
"Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia (DCG&T, et al. v. Knight, et al., No.
3:14cv67, E.D. Va.).

On December 18, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia issued an order granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part.
Specifically, the court dismissed each of Plaintiffs' class action
claims, but held that Plaintiffs could bring derivative claims for
breach of fiduciary duties of care and loyalty (Count II) and for
conflicts of interest (Count IV).  On April 1, 2015, the Court
entered an agreed stipulation of dismissal, dismissing with
prejudice Count IV.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
remaining claims.  On July 30, 2015, the Court preliminarily
approved the settlement and ordered notice to be mailed to
shareholders by August 6, 2015.  The Court scheduled a Fairness
Hearing on September 14, 2015.  The settlement is among the
remaining Defendants (the former Apple REIT Nine, Inc. board of
directors) and certain former Apple REIT Nine, Inc. shareholders
and will not directly involve the Company.  The settlement as
proposed and preliminarily approved does not impact the Company's
financial position.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Motion to Dismiss "Moses" Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, 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 Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the case, Moses,
et al. v. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., et al., is pending.

On April 22, 2014, Plaintiff Susan Moses, purportedly a
shareholder of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, now part of the
Company, filed a class action against the Company and several
individual directors on behalf of all then-existing shareholders
and former shareholders of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, now part
of the Company, who purchased additional shares under the Apple
REITs' Dividend Reinvestment Plans between July 17, 2007 and
February 12, 2014 (Susan Moses, et al. v. Apple Hospitality REIT,
Inc., et al., 14-CV-3131 (DLI)(SMG)).

On March 9, 2015, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order
dismissing all claims.  On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second
Amended Class Action Complaint asserting a breach of contract
claim.  Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on April 29, 2015.

The Company believes that Plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intends to defend this case vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Time to Appeal "Wenzel" Case Dismissal Expires
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, 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 time for
Plaintiff to appeal the order granting dismissal of the case,
Wenzel v. Knight et al., has passed.

On June 16, 2014, Plaintiff Dorothy Wenzel, purportedly a
shareholder of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, now part of the
Company, filed a class action against Apple Seven Advisors, Inc.,
Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., Apple Fund Management, LLC and several
officers and directors of the Company on behalf of all then-
existing shareholders and former shareholders of Apple Seven and
Apple Eight, now part of the Company, who purchased additional
shares under the Apple REITs' Dividend Reinvestment Plans between
July 17, 2007 and June 30, 2013 (Wenzel v. Knight, et al., Case
No. 3:14-cv-00432, E.D. Va.).

On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against
the Company, Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., Apple Fund Management,
LLC, and several officers and directors of the Company alleging
breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, fraud,
negligence and violation of the Virginia Securities Act.  The
Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice all
claims on June 1, 2015.  The time for Plaintiff to appeal this
matter has passed.


ARDOIN INC: "Greer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Greer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ardoin, Inc. d/b/a Southern Technical Control, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00415 (S.D. Tex., September 28, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Ardoin, Inc. provides electrical, top drive, mechanical,
hydraulic, and HVAC services in the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 452-1279
      Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
      E-mail: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com
              aanderson@phippsandersondeacon.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Central Laborers' Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-07631 (S.D.N.Y., September 28, 2015) arises from the
Defendants' collusive manipulation of the market for U.S. Treasury
bills, notes, and bond, and derivative financial products based on
these Treasury securities, including Treasury futures and options
traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
      768 Plandome Road
      Manhasset, NY 11030
      Telephone: (516) 627-5610
      Facsimile: (212) 658-9685
      E-mail: p.whalen@paulwhalen.com

         - and -

      Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
      David Woodward, Esq.
      HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
      310 Clifton Avenue
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Telephone: (612) 338-4605
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
      E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com
              dwoodward@heinsmills.com

         - and -

      David P. McLafferty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. MCLAFFERTY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      923 Fayette Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Telephone: (610) 940-4000
      Facsimile: (610) 940-4007
      E-mail: dmclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Laborers Statewide Funds v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07642 (S.D.N.Y., September 28, 2015) arises
from the Defendants' collusive manipulation of the market for U.S.
Treasury bills, notes, and bond, and derivative financial products
based on these Treasury securities, including Treasury futures and
options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fred T. Isquith, Esq.
      Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
      Anita B. Kartalopoulos, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4601
      E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
              burt@whafh.com
              abk@whafh.com

         - and -

      Albert G. Kroll, Esq.
      KROLL HEINEMAN CARTON, LLC
      Metro Corporate Campus I
      99 Wood Avenue South, Suite 307
      Iselin, NJ 08830
      Telephone: (732) 491-2100
      E-mail: AKroll@krollfirm.com


BEST BUY: Faces "Watkins" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael R. Watkins, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00433 (E.D. Tenn., September 28, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Best Buy Stores, L.P. is a retailer of technology and
entertainment products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Russell, Esq.
      GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
      341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
      Franklin, TN 37061
      Telephone: (615) 354-1144
      E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com

         - and -

      Clinton H. Scott, Esq.
      GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
      101 North Highland
      Jackson, TN 38301
      Telephone: (731) 664-1340
      Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
      E-mail: cscott@gilbertfirm.com


BOEING: Judge Approves $90MM Settlement for Ex-Boeing Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that Boeing will pay $90 million to settle a
lawsuit filed by former Boeing workers over retirement and medical
benefits after the sale of the company's Wichita operations.

U.S. District Judge Monti Belot gave final approval to the
settlement agreement, ruling that the deal is "fair, reasonable,
and adequate," and was entered into in good faith. The settlement
includes a $4.2 million cut to the workers' attorneys to cover
legal fees and expenses.

The class-action lawsuit covers about 1,800 former Boeing workers
who were participants in the company's retirement plan in June
2005, had at least 10 years of vesting service and were between
the ages of 49 and 55 at the time they went to work at Spirit
AeroSystems or its predecessor Mid-Western Aircraft systems.

Boeing said in an emailed statement that it was "pleased that the
court found the settlement was fair and reasonable."

Under the settlement agreement, a claims administrator will
distribute the proceeds to workers under a formula that takes into
account each former employee's years of service and months of
pension loss. Part of the money is also earmarked to pay
reimbursement for out-of-pocket medical expenses incurred by the
workers.

Belot gave the settlement preliminary approval in May.


BOULDER BRANDS: Formal Settlement Being Prepared in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Brands, 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 formal settlement
agreement is being prepared in a class action lawsuit.

On July 28, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
claiming that the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance(R)
Butter & Canola Oil Blend products is false, misleading and
deceptive (the "California Case"). The plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint and substituted a new plaintiff. The Company
moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The court denied
the Company's motion to dismiss.

A substantially similar class action lawsuit related to the
labeling and marketing of Smart Balance(R) Butter & Canola Oil
Blend products was filed on August 9, 2012 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. In light of its
similarity to the California Case, the Southern District of New
York stayed all activity in that case pending a decision in the
California Case on class certification.

Without any admission of liability, the Company settled the case,
along with the similar case that was filed in New York, for a
total payment to the plaintiffs and their counsel of $0.7 million
in exchange for a full and final release of all claims. A formal
settlement agreement is being prepared.


BOULDER BRANDS: Expects Two Class Actions to be Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Brands, 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 expects two
class action lawsuits to be consolidated and that the plaintiffs
will thereafter file an amended complaint.

On April 1, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado against
the Company and three of its officers alleging violations of
federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that beginning in
December 2013, the Company made false or misleading statements in
its quarterly Securities and Exchange Commission filings and
analyst conference calls about its financial performance and
prospects, which supposedly were proven to have been untrue when
the Company pre-announced its anticipated financial results for
the third quarter of 2014.

A substantially similar lawsuit against the Company, and the same
three officers, was filed in the same federal district court on
May 18, 2015.

"We expect these two lawsuits to be consolidated and that the
plaintiffs will thereafter file an amended complaint. The Company
believes that the allegations in the complaints are without merit
and it intends to vigorously defend itself," the Company said.


BP PLC: 5th Cir. Affirms Decision in "Ludlow"
---------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham of the United States Court
of Appeals, Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment
in the appealed case of ROBERT LUDLOW, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-
Appellant, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, Comptroller of the State of New
York; OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, PETER D. LICHTMAN; LESLIE J. NAKAGIRI; PAUL HUYCK,
Movants-Appellees Cross-Appellants, v. BP, P.L.C.; ANTHONY
HAYWARD; DOUGLAS J. SUTTLES, Defendants-Appellants Cross-
Appellees, NO. 14-20420 (5th Cir.)

BP, P.L.C. (BP) was the co-owner and co-lessee of the Macondo
exploratory well, which was located in the Gulf of Mexico, about
fifty miles from the Louisiana coast. The well was drilled by the
Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling vessel. On April 20, 2010,
while the Deepwater Horizon was preparing to depart from the site
in anticipation of the permanent extraction operation, a
catastrophic blowout ensued.

Plaintiffs are all BP shareholders that brought suit, alleging
that BP's alleged misstatements violated section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. They
allege that BP made two distinct series of misrepresentations in
violation of federal securities law. One series regarding its pre-
spill safety procedures, and one regarding the flow rate of the
oil after the spill occurred.

The plaintiffs moved to certify two classes; one for the pre-spill
misrepresentations, and one for the post-spill misrepresentations.
The district court certified the post-spill class, concluding that
the plaintiffs had established a model of damages consistent with
their liability case and capable of measurement across the class,
as required by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Comcast
Corp. v. Behrend. It refused to certify the pre-spill class,
holding that the plaintiffs had not satisfied Comcast's common
damages burden.

Both parties petitioned for review pursuant to Rule 23(f). The
plaintiffs challenged the district court's refusal to certify the
pre-spill class, and the defendants appeal the court's
certification of the post-spill class. The appellate court granted
both petitions.

Judge Higginbotham affirmed the judgment of the district court.

A copy of Judge Higginbotham's opinion dated September 15, 2015,
is available at http://goo.gl/AvahBDfrom Leagle.com.

The Fifth Circuit panel consist Circuit Judges E. Grady Jolly,
Patrick E. Higginbotham and W. Eugene Davis.


CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Bush, and all others similarly-situated v. California
Physicians' Service, dba Blue Shield of California, Case No. 2:15-
cv-07313 (C.D. Calif., September 17, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for breach of fiduciary duty under an Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 Plan.

Plaintiff seeks an injunction compelling Blue Shield to retract
its categorical "investigational" denial basis of cervical ADR
surgery, provide notice of said determination in the form and
manner required by ERISA to all members who have had requests for
cervical ADR surgery denied; and provide for the re-review of all
improperly denied claims.

Blue Shield is a "health care service plan" licensed by the
California Department of Managed Health Care and subject to the
relevant provisions of the California Health & Safety Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
      GIANELLI & MORRIS
      550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 489-1600
      Fax: (213) 489-1611
      E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com


CHINA XD: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Scheduled for Oct. 22
------------------------------------------------------------
China XD Plastics Company Limited 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
hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss class action lawsuits
is scheduled to be heard by the Court on October 22, 2015.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors have been
named as defendants in two putative securities class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  These actions, which allege
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the United States
securities laws, were filed on July 15, 2014 and July 16, 2014 and
are captioned Yang v. Han, et al., No. 14-cv-5308 (GBD) and
Tompkins v. China XD Plastics Company Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-5359
(GBD), respectively.  On November 21, 2014, the Court consolidated
the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs.

On February 17, 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint on behalf of a class of all persons other
than the defendants who purchased the common stock of China XD
Plastics Company Limited between March 25, 2014 and July 10, 2014,
inclusive.  Specifically, the lead plaintiffs allege that the
Company and two of its officers made false or misleading
statements and/or omitted material facts in the Company's Form 10-
K for the year ended December 31, 2013 and the Company's Form 10-Q
for the first quarter ended March 31, 2014. They also assert that
the individual defendants are liable because they allegedly
controlled the Company during the time the allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions were made.  The lead
plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts.

On April 3, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
actions in their entirety.  The hearing on the Company's motion to
dismiss is scheduled to be heard by the Court on October 22, 2015.
Management continues to believe that the lawsuits are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.


CHINA XD: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Scheduled for Oct. 22
------------------------------------------------------------
China XD Plastics Company Limited 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
hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss class action lawsuits
is scheduled to be heard by the Court on October 22, 2015.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors have been
named as defendants in two putative securities class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  These actions, which allege
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the United States
securities laws, were filed on July 15, 2014 and July 16, 2014 and
are captioned Yang v. Han, et al., No. 14-cv-5308 (GBD) and
Tompkins v. China XD Plastics Company Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-5359
(GBD), respectively.  On November 21, 2014, the Court consolidated
the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs.

On February 17, 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint on behalf of a class of all persons other
than the defendants who purchased the common stock of China XD
Plastics Company Limited between March 25, 2014 and July 10, 2014,
inclusive.  Specifically, the lead plaintiffs allege that the
Company and two of its officers made false or misleading
statements and/or omitted material facts in the Company's Form 10-
K for the year ended December 31, 2013 and the Company's Form 10-Q
for the first quarter ended March 31, 2014. They also assert that
the individual defendants are liable because they allegedly
controlled the Company during the time the allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions were made.  The lead
plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts.

On April 3, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
actions in their entirety.  The hearing on the Company's motion to
dismiss is scheduled to be heard by the Court on October 22, 2015.
Management continues to believe that the lawsuits are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: "Amey" Case in Pretrial Discovery
----------------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holdings, 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 case, Joseph Amey,
et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., is in pretrial discovery and no
class action has been certified.

Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669,
In the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division. The case presents putative
class action claims for damages and attorney's fees arising from
employee wage and hour claims under California law for alleged
meal period, rest break, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, pay
upon termination, and wage statements violations. The claims are
also asserted as a representative action under the California
Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

The Company denies the claims, denies that class certification is
appropriate and denies that a PAGA representative action is
appropriate, and is vigorously defending against the claims. The
case is in pretrial discovery, no class action has been certified,
and no representative action has been quantified or recognized.
The Company denies any violation of law and plans to vigorously
defend against all claims. The Company is unable to predict the
outcome of the litigation or the range of potential loss, if any;
however, the Company believes that its potential liability with
respect to such proceeding is not material, in the aggregate, to
its financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Accordingly, the Company has not established a reserve for loss in
connection with this proceeding.


CORMEDIX INC: Faces "Li" Class Action
-------------------------------------
Cormedix 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 putative class action
lawsuit was commenced on July 7, 2015, against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Li v.
Cormedix Inc., et al., Case 3:15-cv-05264.  The complaint asserts
claims that the Company and the individual defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiff
alleges generally that the defendants made materially false or
misleading statements and omissions concerning, among other
things, the Company's Neutrolin product, the alleged use of stock
promoters and alleged sales of stock by Company insiders.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs.  The Company believes that it has substantial
legal and factual defenses to the claims in the class action and
intends to vigorously defend the case.


CVS HEALTH: "Podgorny" Suit Alleges Deceptive Pricing Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Podgorny, Kevin P. Cauley, and all others similarly-
situated v. CVS Health Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-08177 (N.D.
Ill., September 17, 2015), seeks damages and injunctive relief for
Defendant's alleged fraudulent and deceptive pricing scheme to
overcharge customers with third-party health care plans on
purchases of generic prescription drugs at CVS pharmacies.

Defendant CVS is a Delaware corporation headquartered at One CVS
Drive, Woonsocket, Rhode Island, 02895. CVS calls itself an
integrated pharmacy health care company. It currently operates
more than 7,800 retail pharmacies in the United States and Puerto
Rico, nearly 1,000 walk-in medical clinics, and a pharmacy
benefits manager with more than 70 million plan members.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
      KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      Civic Opera Building, Suite 1300
      20 North Wacker Drive
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 606-0500
      Fax: (312) 739-1098
      E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com

          - and -

      Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
      PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
      180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (415) 692-0772
      Fax: (415) 366-6110
      E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com


DANZE INC: Judge Narrows Claims in Duncan Place Owners' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edmond E. Chang of the Norther District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss in the case DUNCAN PLACE OWNERS
ASSOCIATION and PHYLLIS ZISSER, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DANZE, INC., f/k/a GLOBE
UNION AMERICA CORPORATION, and GLOBE UNION GROUP, INC.,
Defendants, NO. 15 C 01662 (N.D. Ill.)

Danze, Inc., (Danze) is a Delaware corporation with a principal
place of business in Woodridge, Illinois, and is a subsidiary of
Globe Union.  Danze markets and sells faucets around the world and
in all 50 states, through wholesalers as well as retail outlets in
physical showrooms and on the internet. Danze advertises its
faucets as safe and reliable, so that customers never have to
worry about a drip. Online, Danze touts the high levels of
craftsmanship of its faucets, which it describes as top-notch
without a top-notch price tag.

Duncan Place Owners Association and Phyllis Zisser brought a suit
against Danze in February 2015, on behalf of a proposed class of
"original consumer end-users of Danze brand faucets installed in
homes, residences, buildings, or other structures physically
located in the United States, in which Danze faucets are or have
been instanced since 2000."

The substantive claims alleged arise under state common-law causes
of action for breach of express and implied warranty, breach of
warranty of merchantability, negligence, strict-products
liability, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment;
additionally, a claim is raised for the New York subclass under
that State's deceptive-acts statute.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss against both named
plaintiffs.

Judge Chang granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
to dismiss. Plaintiffs may file a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint, assuming that Duncan Place will seek to
assert the claims of the individual unit owners assigned to it and
Zisser has a good faith basis to fix the deficiencies discussed.

The parties were expected to convene before the Court for a status
hearing on October 1, 2015.

A copy of Judge Chang's memorandum opinion and order dated
September 15, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/C3DS2Mfrom
Leagle.com.

Duncan Place Owners Association, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kyle Alan
Shamberg -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- Katrina Carroll --
kcarroll@litedepalma.com --  at Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC;
Andrew Charles Murphy -- amurphy@ditommasolaw.com -- Patrick Doyle
Austermuehle -- paustermuehle@ditommasolaw.com -- Peter Scott
Lubin -- psl@ditommasolaw.com -- Vincent Louis DiTommaso --
vdt@ditommasolaw.com -- at DiTommaso Lubin, P.C.; Anthony L Rafel
-- arafel@rafellawgroup.com -- Tyler B. Ellrodt --
tellrodt@rafellawgroup.com -- at Rafel Law Group PllC; Robert R
Ahdoot -- at Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC

Phyllis Zisser, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Charles Murphy --
amurphy@ditommasolaw.com -- Patrick Doyle Austermuehle --
paustermuehle@ditommasolaw.com -- Peter Scott Lubin --
psl@ditommasolaw.com -- Vincent Louis DiTommaso --
vdt@ditommasolaw.com -- at DiTommaso Lubin, P.C.; Carroll --
kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC; Robert R
Ahdoot -- at Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC

Danze, Inc., formerly known as Globe Union America Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Howard L. Lieber -- hlieber@ghlaw-
llp.com -- Joshua James Whiteside -- jwhiteside@ghlaw-llp.com --
at Grotefeld Hoffmann Schleiter Gordon & Ochoa

Globe Union Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Howard L.
Lieber -- hlieber@ghlaw-llp.com -- at Grotefeld Hoffmann Schleiter
Gordon & Ochoa


DOT HILL: Faces "Ahmadi" Suit Over Seagate Tender Offer
-------------------------------------------------------
Bahman Ahmadi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Dot Hill Systems Corp., Case No. 11432 (Del. Ch.,
August 26, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Dot Hill Systems Corp., to enjoin the tender offer
announced on August 18, 2015, pursuant to which Seagate Technology
PLC will commence an all-cash tender offer through Denali
Acquisition Sub Corp.

Dot Hill Systems Corporation is a Delaware corporation and
maintains its principal executive offices at 1351 S. Sunset
Street, Longmont, Colorado 80501. Dot Hill is a data storage
vendor.

Headquartered in Cupertino, California, Seagate Technology PLC
operates a data storage company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike
      Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 504-4967
      Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
      E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
              cspringer@andrewsspringer.com

         - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484


ECOLAB INC: Remaining Claim in "Schneider" Suit Up for Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edmond E. Chang of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division denied defendant's motion for summary
judgment in the case STEVEN SCHNEIDER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ECOLAB, INC.,
Defendant, NO. 14 C 01044 (N.D. Ill.)

Ecolab, Inc. leases sanitation equipment to commercial customers
like restaurants and hotels, to whom Ecolab then provides regular
maintenance and repair services. The company uses these upkeep
visits, carried out by route sales managers, as important
opportunities to keep abreast of customer needs and consult on
additional sales of Ecolab products.

Steven Schneider was employed by Ecolab as a route sales manager
between May 2008 and February 11, 2015. Schneider's job duties
included making regular calls on his assigned clients, during
which he visually inspected dishwashers, ran routine tests, and
provided required maintenance and repairs. Each visit could last
anywhere from 15 minutes to several hours.

All route sales managers received what Ecolab calls "commissions"
on any products their customers purchased, regardless of whether
the goods were delivered through Ecolab or not. Ecolab provides
compensation figures for Schneider suggesting that much more than
half his pay was in the form of these sales commissions.

Schneider filed a suit and earlier this year the court granted
summary judgment against Schneider's claim that his former
employer, Ecolab, Inc., did not pay him and other route sales
managers for overtime hours despite allegedly promising to do so,
in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
(IWCPA).

Ecolab moves for summary judgment against Schneider's remaining
claim that Ecolab was obligated to pay overtime anyway under the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq., which
unlike the IWCPA does not require proof that an employer actually
agreed to provide overtime wages. Instead the statute itself
requires overtime to be paid to qualifying employees. Ecolab
contends that Schneider never qualified for overtime pay because
he was an outside salesman or, alternatively, a commissioned
employee of a retail or service business, two categories that are
expressly exempted by the IMWL.

Judge Chang denied defendant's motion for summary judgment.

A copy of Judge Chang' memorandum opinion and order dated
September 3, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/2dlN4Tfrom
Leagle.com.

Judge Chang said, "Ecolab has failed to satisfy its burden of
showing that Schneider was not owed overtime pay as a matter of
law. First, on the question of the outside-salesman exemption
under the IMWL, for which the federal "primary duty" analysis
applies, there is conflicting evidence about the actual nature of
Schneider's work activities. Second, on the IMWL's commissioned-
employee exemption, although Ecolab has established that Schneider
was paid in bona fide commissions, there is a material issue of
fact about whether Ecolab was a qualifying retail or service
establishment (the governing standard for which is potentially
unsettled). Ecolab's motion for summary judgment is therefore
denied. At the next status hearing, the parties must be prepared
to state whether they want a settlement conference referral, or if
instead is it time to very promptly pursue class-certification
discovery."

Steven Schneider, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented byPeter Scott Lubin,
DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., Terrence Buehler, Touhy, Touhy & Buehler,
LLP,Andrew Charles Murphy, DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., Patrick Doyle
Austermuehle, DiTommaso Lubin, P.C. & Vincent Louis DiTommaso,
DiTommaso Lubin, P.C.

Ecolab Inc., Defendant, represented by John Anthony Ybarra,
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Amy Schaefer Ramsey, Littler Mendelson,
P.C., Angela Ivy Rochester, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Catherine
Sarah Lindemann, Littler Mendelson, P.c.


ENERGY RECOVERY: Securities Litigation in Early Stage
-----------------------------------------------------
Energy Recovery, 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 January 2015, two
stockholder class action complaints were filed against the Company
in the Northern District of California, on behalf of Energy
Recovery stockholders under the captions, Joseph Sabatino v.
Energy Recovery, Inc. et al. and Thomas C. Mowdy v. Energy
Recovery, Inc. et al. The complaints have now been consolidated
under the caption In Re Energy Recovery Inc. Securities
Litigation. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b),
Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and seeks the recovery of unspecified monetary damages.

"We are not able to estimate the possible loss, if any, due to the
early state of this matter," the Company said.


ENTERGY CORP: Mississippi AG Complaint Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Entergy 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 a complaint by the
Mississippi Attorney General remains pending in federal district
court, awaiting a ruling on the Entergy companies' motion for
judgment on the pleadings.

The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court
in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi,
Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things,
violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good
faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and
restitution.  The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs
and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not
generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand.  Entergy
believes the complaint is unfounded.

In December 2008 the defendant Entergy companies removed the
Attorney General's lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Jackson,
Mississippi.  The Mississippi attorney general moved to remand the
matter to state court.  In August 2012 the District Court issued
an opinion denying the Attorney General's motion for remand,
finding that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act.

The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a
counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public
Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act.  In May 2009 the
defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive
jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the Attorney
General's complaint.  In September 2012 the District Court heard
oral argument on Entergy's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which
it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole
plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered "mass actions"
under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal
subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General
renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court,
citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision. The defendant Entergy
companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional
grounds asserted for federal question jurisdiction, and the
District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand
in February 2014.

In April 2015 the District Court entered an order denying the
renewed motion to remand, holding that the District Court has
federal question subject matter jurisdiction. The Attorney General
appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the denial of
the motion to remand. In July 2015 the Fifth Circuit issued an
order denying the appeal, and the Attorney General subsequently
filed a petition for rehearing of the request for interlocutory
appeal. The case remains pending in federal district court,
awaiting a ruling on the Entergy companies' motion for judgment on
the pleadings.


ETSY INC: Faces "Altayyar" Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Etsy, 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 on May 13, 2015, a purported
securities class action complaint (Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc., et al.,
Docket No. 1:15-cv-02785) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and
certain officers. The complaint is brought on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common
stock from April 16, 2015 through and including May 10, 2015. The
complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other
things, merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement and
actions taken by third-party brands against Etsy sellers for
trademark or copyright infringement. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory
damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. The Company and the
named officers intend to defend themselves vigorously against this
action. In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount
or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable
outcome.


ETSY INC: Faces "Cervantes" Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Etsy, 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 on July 21, 2015, a purported
securities class action complaint (Cervantes v. Dickerson, et al.,
Case No. CIV 534768) was filed in the Superior Court of State of
California, County of San Mateo against the Company, certain
officers, directors and underwriters. The complaint asserts
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
As in the Altayyar litigation, the complaint alleges
misrepresentations in the Company's Prospectus with respect to,
among other things, merchandise for sale on the Company's website
that may be counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright
infringement.  The complaint seeks certification as a class action
and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys'
fees. The Company and the named officers and directors intend to
defend themselves vigorously against this action. In light of,
among other things, the early stage of the litigation, the Company
is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and is unable to
make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any,
that could result from an unfavorable outcome.


FIFTH THIRD: Sued Over Alleged Racial Discriminatory Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States of America v. Fifth Third Bank, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00626-MRB (S.D. Ohio, September 28, 2015) is an action against the
Defendants for discriminating against thousands of African-
American and Hispanic borrowers across the United States who
obtained loans from Fifth Third to finance automobiles,
specifically by allowing dealers to include markups in the
interest rates on automobile loans in a hidden manner not based on
the borrower's creditworthiness or other objective criteria
related to borrower risk.

Fifth Third Bank is a depository institution owned by Fifth Third
Bancorp. Fifth Third is incorporated in the state of Ohio with its
principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Horwitz, Esq.
      221 E. Fourth Street, Suite 400
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Telephone: (513) 684-6823
      Facsimile: (513) 684-6972
      E-mail: matthew.horwitz@usdoj.gov

         - and -

      Lucy Carlson, Esq.
      950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. - NWB
      Washington, DC 20530
      Telephone: (202) 305-0017
      Facsimile: (202) 514-1116
      E-mail: lucy.carlson@usdoj.gov


FLORIDA GAS: Court Denies Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan of the United States District Court
for Eastern District of Louisiana denied Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend complaint in the case captioned, JANIE THIGPEN, et
al v. FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, et al, Case No. 14-1415,
C/W No. 15-1749-CJB-SS.

On June 18, 2014, Janie Thigpen (Thigpen), individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint against Florida Gas. Florida Gas' motion to strike class
allegations was granted. On May 22, 2015, Brigitte Thomas and 31
others filed a complaint to recover damages as a result of the
pipeline ignition. The complaint by the Thomas Plaintiffs was
consolidated with the Thigpen action. Florida Gas filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint of the Thomas Plaintiffs as prescribed.
The Thomas Plaintiffs opposed the motion and sought leave to file
a first supplemental and amended complaint which was granted. The
District Judge found that all claims for injury or damages
sustained by the Thomas Plaintiffs on June 18, 2013 as a result of
the natural gas ignition were prescribed.

The Thomas Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint less than five weeks after they sought
leave to file their first amended complaint. They urge that the
amendment is needed to plead allegations that relate to the issues
of a continuing tort and the necessity of injunctive relief with
regard to the pipeline. They argue that the pleading is timely as
discovery has not commenced.

In her Order dated September 9, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/jb4tUkfrom Leagle.com, Judge Shushan found that
Plaintiffs repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies by amendments
which were allowed and there is undue prejudice to Florida Gas.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

D. Douglas Howard, Jr., Esq.
Jonathan C. Pedersen, Esq.
Kyle T. Del Hierro, Esq.
Shawn C. Reed, Esq.
HOWARD & REED
839 St Charles Ave # 306,
New Orleans, LA 70130
Tel: (504)581-3610

     - and -

William Harrell Arata, Esq.
ARATA & ARATA
216 Austin St
Bogalusa, LA 70427
Tel: (985)200-0098

Defendants are represented by James K. Ordeneaux, Esq. --
jordeneaux@pmpllp.com -- Godfrey Bruce Parkerson, Esq. -
bparkerson@pmpllp.com -- Jessica Smith Savoie, Esq. --
jsavoie@pmpllp.com -- Lauren B. Dietzen, Esq. --
ldietzen@pmpllp.com -- PLAUCHE, MASELLI, PARKERSON, LLP


FLOWERS BAKING: Faces "Brownfield" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Brownfield, et al. v. Flowers Baking Co. of California, LLC
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-02034-JAM-AC
(E.D. Cal., September 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California
Labor Code.

Headquartered in California, Flowers Baking Co. of California, LLC
manufactures and distributes bread products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Mellen, Esq.
      Jessica Galletta, Esq.
      MELLEN LAW FIRM
      411 Borel Avenue, Suite 230
      San Mateo, CA 94402
      Telephone: (650) 638-0120
      Facsimile: (650) 638-0125
      E-mail: email@mellenlawfirm.com


FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Trial Held in Pennsylvania Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Freightcar America, 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 trial was scheduled to
commence on August 25, 2015 in Pennsylvania court in a class
action lawsuit.

On July 8, 2013, the Company filed a Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the "Illinois
Court"). The case names as defendants the United Steel, Paper &
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial &
Services Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the "USW"), as
well as approximately 650 individual Retiree Defendants (as
defined in the Complaint), and was assigned Case No 1:13-cv-4889.

As described in the Complaint, pursuant to the 2005 Settlement
Agreement among the Company, the USW and the Retiree Defendants,
the Company agreed to make certain levels of contributions to
medical coverage for the Retiree Defendants and to continue to
provide life insurance benefits at their amount at that time under
certain of the Company's employee welfare benefit plans. The 2005
Settlement Agreement expressly provided that, as of November 30,
2012, the Company could cease making these contributions. In June
2011, the Company and the USW began discussing the possibility of
an extension beyond November 30, 2012 for the Company's
contributions to retiree medical coverage and life insurance
benefits at a reduced amount and on other mutually acceptable
terms. The Company engaged in voluntary negotiations for two years
with the USW and counsel for the Retiree Defendants in an effort
to reach a consensual agreement regarding such medical and life
insurance benefits, but the parties were unable to reach a final
agreement. The Company terminated, effective November 1, 2013, its
contributions for medical coverage provided to the Retiree
Defendants and the provision of life insurance benefits and is
seeking declaratory relief to confirm its rights under ERISA to
reduce or terminate retiree medical coverage and life insurance
benefits pursuant to the plans that were the subject of the 2005
Settlement Agreement.

On July 9, 2013, the USW and certain Retiree Defendants
(collectively, the "Pennsylvania Plaintiffs") filed a putative
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (the "Pennsylvania Court"), captioned as
Zanghi, et al. v. FreightCar America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-
cv-146. The complaint filed with the Pennsylvania Court alleges
that the Company does not have the right to terminate welfare
benefits previously provided to the Retiree Defendants and
requests, among other relief, entry of a judgment finding that the
Retiree Defendants have a vested right to specified welfare
benefits.

On July 26, 2013, the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs filed with the
Illinois Court a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b) or in the Alternative, to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1404(a), as well as a Motion to Stay and/or Prevent Plaintiff from
Obtaining Defaults against the Retiree Defendants. On August 5,
2013, the Company filed with the Pennsylvania Court a Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) or in the Alternative,
to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). On January 14, 2014,
the Pennsylvania Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss and,
on January 16, 2014, the Illinois Court transferred the Company's
case to the Pennsylvania Court. On January 31, 2014, the Company
filed a motion to consolidate both cases before the Pennsylvania
Court.

On April 3, 2014, the Pennsylvania Court entered an order (the
"Initial Procedural Order") that, among other things, consolidated
both cases before the Pennsylvania Court, certified a class for
purposes of the consolidated actions, established discovery
parameters and deadlines and established a briefing schedule
applicable to the parties' cross motions for summary judgment as
to liability only. On July 17, 2014, the parties filed with the
Pennsylvania Court their respective motions for summary judgment
as to liability.

On March 30, 2015, the Pennsylvania Court issued an order denying
both parties' summary judgment motions. A trial was scheduled to
commence on August 25, 2015 in the Pennsylvania Court. The
ultimate outcome of the proceedings before the Pennsylvania Court
cannot be determined at this time.

On September 5, 2013, the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs and certain
putative class representatives filed a Plaintiffs' Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the "TRO
Motion") with the Pennsylvania Court. In the TRO Motion, the
plaintiffs requested that the Pennsylvania Court enter an
injunction requiring the Company to continue to make monthly
contributions at the same rate established by the 2005 Settlement
Agreement until the parties' dispute is fully adjudicated on the
merits. Following entry of the Initial Procedural Order, the
Pennsylvania Court denied the TRO Motion without prejudice.

The Company has recorded postretirement benefit plan obligations,
a substantial portion of which relates to the dispute now before
the Pennsylvania Court.


GCA SERVICES: Court Narrows Claims in "Anderson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Greg N. Stivers of the United States District Court
for Western District of Kentucky granted in part Defendant's
motion to dismiss in the case captioned, KIMBERLY ANDERSON, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. GCA SERVICES GROUP OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:15-CV-37GNS.

Plaintiffs are 22 current and former employees of GCA Services
Group of North Carolina, Inc. (GCA). According to GCA's website,
the larger Group's 37,000 employees provide facilities services
(including janitorial and grounds-keeping services) across the
country. Plaintiffs make several allegations on behalf of all of
GCA's Kentucky employees who were denied wages to which they were
entitled. They assert CGA's Kentucky employees worked in excess of
40 hours in unspecified weeks while being underpaid straight
and/or overtime wages in violation of federal minimum and overtime
wage laws, and their state law corollaries. Plaintiffs also assert
several individual's claims. Most of these individuals maintain
they brought overtime wage issues to GCA supervisors and suffered
retaliation.

In the motion, Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs' Complaint fails
to include sufficient factual support and therefore fails to state
a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 9, 2015
available at http://is.gd/qbiyH5from Leagle.com, Judge Stivers
concluded that Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied in part as
to the individual claims by by Kimberly Anderson, Chantel Chapman,
Mark Chapman, and Crystal Watkins because the allegation is
sufficient to meet the pleading standard and granted as to the
Kentucky class action claims and FLSA Collective action claims
because the Court finds pleadings standards have been met for some
but not all claims.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Bradley S. Sowell, Esq.
John H. McCracken, Esq.
Timothy L. Stevenson, Esq.
MCCRACKEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1823 McIntosh St
Bowling Green, KY 42104
Tel: (270)783-8088

GCA Services is represented by M. Scott McIntyre, Esq. --
smcintyre@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP


GIGINO INC: "Torralba" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Torralba, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Gigino, Inc. (d/b/a Gigino Trattoria),
Robert Giraldi, Josetta Mola, Philip Suarez, and Luigi Celentano,
Case No. 1:15-cv-07625 (S.D.N.Y., September 28, 2015) seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 323
Greenwich Street, New York, New York, 10013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOOD SAMARITAN: "Amster" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Amster, and all others similarly situated v. Good
Samaritan Society, Case No. 2:15-cv-09272 (D. Kans., September 17,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and related penalties and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Kansas Wage
Payment Act.

The Defendant is a South Dakota Corporation, registered to do
business in Kansas, with a registered agent, The Corporation
Company, 112 Southwest 7th Street, Suite 3C, Topeka, Kansas,
66603, with an office at all times pertinent hereto, at 217 East
U.S. Hwy. 36, in St. Francis, Kansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip M. Murphy II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP M. MURPHY, II
      6731 W. 121st St
      Overland Park, KS 66209
      Tel: (913) 661-2900
      Fax: (913) 904-1348
      E-mail: Phillip@phillipmurphylaw.com


GOOGLE: Consumer Tech Companies Face Auto-Renewal Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reported that defense
lawyers are warning clients to carefully vet their subscription
renewal policies amid a flurry of consumer litigation under an
untested state law.

Since late 2013, two Southern California plaintiffs lawyers have
systematically targeted Google, Apple, Spotify, Lifelock, Blue
Apron and other companies with subscription-based services under a
2010 California statute that prohibits automatic renewal charges
without affirmative consent.

The suits seek restitution for unauthorized charges, some as low
as $1.99 per customer. Though most cases are still in early stages
or have been driven into arbitration, defense lawyers warn that
the new brand of litigation could become more than a nuisance if
it succeeds on a classwide basis.

"You take a big company that's got millions of subscriptions and
you find out that they've been violating one of these laws -- the
potential liability is enormous," said David Fuad, a lawyer in
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe's Los Angeles office who is
following the litigation.

The lawyers behind the wave, Julian Hammond of HammondLaw P.C. and
Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law Group, said the litigation is
already having an affect on corporate behavior.

"These companies are starting to actually make the terms clear and
conspicuous," said Hammond, who has filed nearly a dozen
automatic-renewal suits against companies including Apple Inc.,
Google, Spotify, Hulu, Dropbox and SeaWorld Entertainment Inc.

The biggest challenge faced by lawyers on both sides of the bar is
the newness of the law. There have been few decisions out of any
court, said Davis Wright Tremaine partner Joseph Addiego III, who
represents Spotify, Hulu and Microsoft Corp. in automatic-renewal
cases.

"You have no judicial guidance on the interpretation of the
language of the statute," said Addiego, who spoke on the topic
during a firm-sponsored class action panel in New York. "It's
exciting in a way because you have an opportunity . . .  to be
part of that process."

In many cases, defendants may be shielded by arbitration
agreements and class action waivers. A 2013 Northern District of
California case against Spotify was moved into arbitration, as was
a case brought against Hulu in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy principal Justin Berger said he's
considered filing suits under the automatic-renewal law, but in
"most of them, we take a pass because of the arbitration issues."
The California law, which lawyers say is one of the strictest in
the country, requires companies to present their subscription
terms in a clear and conspicuous manner, and to obtain affirmative
consent before charging a customer's credit card on a recurring
basis.

It mandates that customers be reimbursed for any services or
products they paid for in violation of the law, but doesn't
provide for additional damages. Most often the claims are brought
in conjunction with California's Unfair Competition Law, which
also only allows for restitution. Kazerounian said he suspects
plaintiffs lawyers are waiting to see what the early suits recover
before they jump on board.

Kazerounian has reached several preliminary settlements in
automatic-renewal cases, including a deal struck in July with
Blizzard Entertainment Inc., maker of the "World of Warcraft"
video game. While the amounts remain confidential and he's waiting
for his fees to be approved, Kazerounian said he's satisfied with
the results.

"I haven't actually seen a penny in return yet," he said, "but in
principal, yes I'm happy." Hammond, who founded HammondLaw in
2010, has a background in wage     - and -hour litigation. He's
also branched out into privacy and consumer law, and is currently
litigating a "no-poach" suit against California animation studios,
a suit targeting the security protections in Intuit Inc.'s
TurboTax software, and a privacy suit over a recent security
breach at AshleyMadison.com. The Sydney native joked it's his
"Australian spirit" that prompted him to jump into the untested
field of automatic-renewal litigation.

Lawyers on the other side of the bar say that instead of upholding
the purpose of the consumer-protection law, Hammond is suing over
minor technicalities. Lawyers with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati, representing Google in a suit over recurring Google Drive
charges, say customers were warned multiple times that their
credit card would be charged every month if they upgraded their
cloud storage plan.

"It simply would not be plausible for plaintiff to claim that he
was confused or misled about what he was purchasing or how he
would be billed for it," partners David Kramer and Brian Willen
wrote in their demurrer, in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The Google lawyers also say that the automatic-renewal law doesn't
create a private right of action, and therefore it must be tied to
a claim brought under another law. Hammond, who has teamed up with
Berman DeValerio partner Todd Seaver on the case, attached his
automatic-renewal claims to an unfair-competition claim, which
Google also is trying to get thrown out.

Mark Ankcorn, a San Diego-based consumer law attorney, said
defendants, such as Google, could have a decent case.

"There seems to be a pretty good defense," he said. "As I recall,
as long as they don't check the box for you, I think they're OK.
And as long as they give you ample warning, then they're OK with
it."

Michael Sobol, chair of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein's
consumer-protection practice group, sued McAfee Inc. in the
Northern District of California. The scope of the suit extended
beyond the company's basic compliance with the automatic-renewal
law -- plaintiffs lawyers said McAfee misled customers by claiming
it charged the same price for its antivirus software if shoppers
signed up for automatic renewal or bought a new copy in the store.
In reality, the lawyers wrote, McAfee consistently charged
automatic-renewal customers more. McAfee is represented by
Williams & Connolly and Lubin Olson & Niewiadomski. The parties
reached a settlement this summer.

In July, U.S. District Judge Margaret Morrow of the Central
District of California dismissed an automatic-renewal claim
against Tinder. Plaintiffs lawyers had argued the dating app
misled customers by imposing a recurring charge without warning,
and by making users above the age of 30 pay more. Morrow ruled the
claim couldn't proceed because the named plaintiff isn't a citizen
of California.

Still, Orrick's Fuad said companies that do business nationwide
ignore California's law at their own risk.

"I see no reason why these cases would go away," he said.
"Plaintiffs lawyers are going to latch onto these rules and try to
find a company that is not in compliance, and try to make an
example out of them."


GRADY COUNTY, GA: Plaintiffs' Motion for Payment of Fees Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge W. Louis Sands of the United States District
for Middle District of Georgia granted in part Plaintiffs' motion
for Attorneys' fees and expenses in the case captioned, ROBERTA
IMOGENE JONES, Plaintiff, v. GRADY COUNTY, GEORGIA, and JUDGE J.
WILLIAM BASS SR., Defendants, Case No. 1:13-CV-156 (WLS).

In the preliminary order of settlement in the class action, the
Court approved the Parties' agreement to litigate the issue of
attorneys' fees separately and independently from the other terms
of the class settlement agreement. Because the Defendants have
responded to the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses, and the Plaintiff has replied thereto.

In the motion, Plaintiff contends that Atlanta should be the
relevant legal market because no attorneys local to Albany or the
Middle District of Georgia challenged the unlawful practices of
the Defendants for seven or more years. Furthermore, they submit
the declaration of Albany attorney Kenneth B. Hodges III to
suggest the great unlikelihood of a local attorney taking on a
case with such high risks and low rewards. Defendants, however,
argue that Atlanta is not the relevant legal market because
Section 1983 cases are often litigated throughout the Middle
District of Georgia by competent, experienced attorneys which is
supported by the declaration of Defendants' own counsel, James L.
Elliot.

In the Order dated September 9, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/VeM2amfrom Leagle.com, Judge Sands found that Albany
to be the most appropriate legal market to determine Plaintiff's
reasonable hourly rates because the case was originally filed in
said District and that the rate requested by Plaintiff's counsel
to be unreasonable and adjusted the rate wherein Gerald Weber is
entitled to receive reasonable rate of $390 per hour; Sarah
Geraghty is entitled to receive a reasonable rate of $262.50 per
hour; and Ryan Primerano is entitled to receive a reasonable rate
of $150 per hour. The Court also found that Plaintiff is entitled
to recover expenses from the insurance litigation.

The Court directs Defendant to remit to Plaintiff within thirty
(30) days of the entry of this order $96,362.63 in attorneys' fees
and $4,392.34 in costs, for a total of $100,754.97.

Roberta Imogene Jones is represented by Gerald R. Weber, Esq. --
gweber@schr.org -- Sarah Elisabeth Geraghty, Esq. --
sgeraghty@schr.org & Ryan Primerano, Esq. -- rprimerano@schr.org
-- SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Grady County Georgia is represented by James A. Garland, Esq. --
jgarland@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP


GUITAR CENTER: 9th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Price Conspiracy Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew P. Kennison & Steven J. Cernak, writing for The National
Law Review, reported that on August 25, 2015, the Ninth Circuit
upheld a federal district court's dismissal of a consolidated
class action accusing guitar retail giant Guitar Center (and
several large guitar manufacturers) of conspiring to set minimum
guitar and amplifier prices. The plaintiffs alleged that Guitar
Center and five large guitar manufacturers orchestrated the
unlawful price-fixing agreements during meetings sponsored by the
National Association of Music Merchants Inc. (NAMM), the main
trade association for the musical instrument industry. A divided
Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, agreeing with the lower
court that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim.

The suit followed a 2007 Federal Trade Commission investigation
into price-fixing in the musical instrument industry. The FTC
alleged that NAMM organized meetings and programs at which
competing retailers of musical instruments were "permitted and
encouraged" to discuss setting minimum prices. Critically, the FTC
alleged that these information exchanges facilitated by the trade
association "served no legitimate business purpose" and "had the
purpose, tendency, and capacity to facilitate collusion."  Without
admitting fault, NAMM settled with the FTC via consent decree in
2009.

Building upon the foundation laid by the FTC, plaintiffs claimed
that the defendants reached their illicit agreements while
attending these NAMM meetings. The Ninth Circuit rejected that
argument, however, finding plaintiffs' allegations of "plus
factors" to be "no more consistent with an illegal agreement than
with rational and competitive business strategies, independently
adopted by firms acting within an interdependent market."

Because mere parallel conduct cannot form the basis of an
antitrust claim, the court held that the dismissal was required.

While NAMM members were able to avoid liability, their victory
followed years of costly court battles. The case illustrates the
costs and dangers of price-related discussions with competitors,
especially at trade association meetings, and why such discussions
should be avoided.


HEALTHSTAR HOME: Faces "Clevenger" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tona Clevenger, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HealthStar Home Health, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-03748
(D. Minn., September 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

HealthStar Home Health, Inc. provides a variety of home health,
mental health, life and health management, home help, and personal
care services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
      Rebekah L. Bailey, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
      E-mail: srey@nka.com
              bailey@nka.com


HHGREGG INC: Faces "Underwood" Class Action
-------------------------------------------
hhgregg, 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 is the
defendant in a class action lawsuit captioned, Dwain Underwood, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gregg
Appliances, Inc. and hhgregg, Inc., filed in the Superior Court in
Marion County, Indiana, where a former employee alleged that the
Company breached a contract by failing to correctly calculate his
(and other class members) incentive bonus.  On July 9, 2014, the
judge granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification, and
on July 17, 2015, the judge granted the plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment, although no finding on damages has yet been
made.  The Company intends to appeal the court's decision.  If the
Company does not ultimately prevail in this case, the potential
liability is approximately $2.4 million based on those individuals
included in the class, excluding interest and other fees which
cannot be determined at this time. The Company believes the loss
is not probable, and thus, as of June 30, 2015, a liability has
not been recorded for this matter.


HSN INC: Case by David Shaev Profit Sharing Account Now Moot
------------------------------------------------------------
HSN, 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 case, David Shaev Profit
Sharing Account v. HSN, Inc. et al., is moot.

The Company said, "In April 2015, a purported stockholder of the
Company filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the members
of our Board of Directors and Bank of America Corporation ("BAC").
The complaint is captioned David Shaev Profit Sharing Account v.
HSN, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 10919-CB. The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the members of our Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary duties, and that BAC aided and abetted such
breaches, in connection with the Credit Agreement dated as of
January 27, 2015 (the "Credit Agreement").  The complaint alleges
that the Credit Agreement contains a so-called "dead hand proxy
put" provision that (a) defines the election of a majority of
directors whose initial nomination arose from an actual or
threatened proxy contest to be an event of default that triggers
the lenders' right to accelerate payment of the debt outstanding
under the Credit Agreement; and (b) thereby coerces stockholders
and entrenches the members of the Board of Directors. The
complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as an award of costs and disbursements including
attorney's and experts' fees."

On May 29, 2015, the Company and its lenders amended the Credit
Agreement to remove the provision which is the subject of the
litigation.

"We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in
the lawsuit including that the lawsuit is now moot.  We do not
believe that the loss, if any, will be material," the Company
said.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Judge Dismisses "Rottner" Suit in Consolidated MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George H. Wu of the Central District of California
dismisses another suit in the consolidated case entitled In re:
HYUNDAI AND KIA FUEL ECONOMY LITIGATION. Jack Rottner,
Plaintiff(s), v. Hyundai Motor America, Defendant(s), CASE NOS.
MDL 13-2424-GW(FFMX), CV 13-815-GW(FFMX) (C.D. Cal.)

On February 6, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPML) assigned to the present court for centralized
pre-trial proceedings twelve class actions pending in five federal
districts, all involving the marketing, sale and advertising of
the mileage estimates for certain Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai)
and Kia Motors America, Inc. (Kia) vehicles. Eventually, 56
actions were consolidated into the present MDL litigation.

On June 11, 2015, the court issued an order granting final
approval of class action settlement which, dismissed, on the
merits and with prejudice, all claims pending before the court
belonging to class members who did not request exclusion from the
class action, and dismissed without prejudice the initial case of
Espinoza v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 2: 12-cv-00800-GW-
FFMx, before the court  and all other lawsuits in the MDL in which
the named plaintiffs in such lawsuits did not timely exclude
themselves from the settlement in accordance with the procedures
set forth in the class notice.

On August 18, 2015, the court recommended to the JPML that the MDL
case known as In re: Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation (MDL
No. 2424) be terminated and that portions of three cases be
remanded to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia
On August 26, 2015, the JPML issued an order for the office of the
Clerk for the United States District Court for the Central
District of California to remand the portions of the three
Virginia cases to the Virginia federal court. On September 3,
2015, the JPML indicated that no objection had been filed to the
order.

Judge Wu ordered the dismissal of the case of Jack Rottner v.
Hyundai Motor America, Case No. CV 13-815-GW(FFMx).

A copy of Judge Wu's dismissal order dated September 14, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/u4qdHEfrom Leagle.com.

Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, In Re:, represented by
Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC & Robert
Eugene Cartwright, Jr, The Cartwright Law Firm Inc

Kehlie R Espinosa, Related Case - CV 12-800-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Richard D McCune, Jr, McCune Wright LLP, Elaine S
Kusel, McCune Wright LLP, Jae Kook Kim, MCune Wright LLP & Robert
J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Nicole Marie Hunter, ET AL. - Related Case - SACV 12-1909-
GW(FFMx), Plaintiff, represented byRobert B Carey, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert J
Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC & Thomas E Loeser,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Jeremy Wilton, Related Case - SACV -1917-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Alan M Mansfield, The Consumer Law Group, Joe R
Whatley, Jr, Whatley Kallas LLP, Katherine Sarah DiDonato, Doyle
Lowther LLP, Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC &
William James Doyle, II, Doyle Lowther LLP

Kaylene P Brady, ET AL. - Related Case - SACV 12-1930-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented byRobert B Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Steve W Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M
DeStefano, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert J Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC &Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP

Gunther Krauth, Related Case - SACV 12-1935-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Eric James Buescher, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy,
Niall P McCarthy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, Anne Marie
Murphy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, LLP, Craig C Sheffer, Dreyer
Babich Buccola Wood Campora LLP, Harvey Rosenfield, Consumer
Watchdog, Jonathan W Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Laura
Antonini, Consumer Watchdog, Pamela Pressley, Consumer
Watchdog,Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC,
Steven M Campora, Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora LLP & William
H Anderson, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP

Eric Graewingholt, Related Case - SACV 12-1963-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Meiselman Packman
Nealon Scialabba and Baker PC, Todd S Garber, Finkelstein
Blankinship Frei-Pearson and Garber LLP & Robert J Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Reece Philip Thomson, ET AL. - Related Case - SACV 12-1981-
GW(FFMx), Plaintiff, represented by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Stuart McKinley Paynter, The Paynter Law
Firm PLLC, Walter H Sargent, Walter H Sargent PC & Robert J
Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Alex Maturani, Related Case - CV 13-813-GW(FFmx), Plaintiff,
represented by Andrew Scott Herring, Davis and Norris LLP,
Courtney Lynn Peinhardt, Davis and Norris LLP, D Frank Davis,
Davis and Norris LLP, John Edward Norris, Davis and Norris LLP,
Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC & Wesley W
Barnett, Davis and Norris LLP

Nilufar Rezai, Related Case - CV 13-814-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by John Nicolas Albukerk, Albukerk and Associates &
Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Jack Rottner, Related Case - CV 13-815-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Cathleen M Combs, Edelman Combs Latturner and
Goodwin, Daniel A Edelman, Edelman Combs Latturner and Goodwin
LLC, Francis R Greene, Edelman Combs Latturner and Goodwin LLC,
James O Latturner, Edelman Combs Latturner and Goodwin LLC &
Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Lydia Kievit, ET AL. - Related Case - CV 13-816-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin F Johns, Chimicles and Tikellis
LLP, Joseph G Sauder, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, Matthew D
Schelkopf, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP & Robert J Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Rebecca Sanders, ET AL. - Related Case - CV 13-817-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented byJeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Goldenberg
Schneider LPA & Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers,
PLLC

Bobby Brandon Armstrong, Related Case - CV 13-1122-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Anna M Kohut, Simmons Browder Gianaris
Angeliedes and Barnerd LLC, Derek Yeats Brandt, Brandt Law LLC,
Emily J Kirk, Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides and Barnerd LLC,
James M Terrell, McCallum Methvin and Terrell PC & Robert J
Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Sergio Torres, Related Case - CV 13-1123-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Rick Woods, Taylor Law Partners LLP, Shawn B
Daniels, Daniels Woods Snively and Atwell & Robert J Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Richard Woodruff, Related Case - CV 13-1124-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Deborah R Rosenthal, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC,
Derek Yeats Brandt, Brandt Law LLC, Emily J Kirk, Simmons Browder
Gianaris Angelides and Barnerd LLC & Robert J Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Marshall Lawrence Gordon, Related Case - CV 13-1125-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented byJayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz
Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom and Gross LLP & Robert J Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Joel A. Lipman, Related Case - CV 13-1127-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Joshua Richard Diller, Katten and Temple LLP,
Mitchell Bruce Katten, Katten and Temple LLP, Peter Vincent
Bustamante, Peter V. Bustamante, Richard F Linden, Law Offices of
Richard Linden & Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers,
PLLC

James Gudgalis, ET AL. - Related Case - CV 13-1128-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Anna M Kohut, Simmons Browder Gianaris
Angeliedes and Barnerd LLC, Derek Yeats Brandt, Brandt Law LLC,
Emily J Kirk, Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides and Barnerd LLC,
Patrick J Keating, Keating Law Group LLC & Robert J Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Mary P. Hoessler, ET AL. - Related Case - CV 13-1129-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Anna M Kohut, Simmons Browder Gianaris
Angeliedes and Barnerd LLC, Derek Yeats Brandt, Brandt Law LLC,
Emily J Kirk, Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides and Barnerd LLC &
Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Stephen Hayes, Related Case - 13-1130-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Kenneth G Gilman, Gilman Law LLP & Robert J
Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Brian Reeves, Related Case - CV 13-1131-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Jason A Charpentier, Charpentier Law LLC & Robert J
Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Sam Hammond, ET AL. - Related Case - CV 13-1132-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Anna M Kohut, Simmons Browder Gianaris
Angeliedes and Barnerd LLC, Derek Yeats Brandt, Brandt Law LLC,
Emily J Kirk, Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides and Barnerd LLC,
John Robert Phillips, Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides and
Barnerd LLC & Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Mark Leggett, Related Case - CV 13-1134-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Derek Yeats Brandt, Brandt Law LLC, Emily J Kirk,
Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides and Barnerd LLC,John Robert
Phillips, Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides and Barnerd LLC &
Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Edwin Naythons, Related Case - CV 13-1135-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Michael M Weinkowitz, Levin Fishbein Sedran and
Berman & Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Michael Washburn, Related Case - CV 13-1136-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Richard E Norman, Crowley Norman LLP, R Dean
Gresham, Payne Mitchell Law Group LLC, R Martin Weber, Jr, Crowley
Norman LLP & Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC.
Ira D. Dunst, Related Case - CV 13-1352-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Bryan A Wood, Berman Devalerio, Edward B Davis,
Bell Davis and Pitt PA, John H Sutter, Berman Devalerio,Justin
Saif, Berman Devalerio & Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial
Lawyers, PLLC

Brian Weber, ET AL. - Related Case - SACV 13-27-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek
PLLC, Jason S Kilene, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Jon A Tostrud, Tostrud
Law Group PC & Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Kamneel Maharaj, ET AL. - Related Case - SACV 13-70-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Eric H Gibbs, Gibbs Law Group LLP &
Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Kim Iocovozzi, Related Case - SACV 13-159-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Mark A Tate, Tate Law Group LLC, Richard M
Kirchner, Bonsignore and Brewer, Robert Bartley Turner, Savage
Turner Pinckney and Madison, Sherri N Watts, Tate Law Group LLC,
Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC & Robert
Eugene Cartwright, Jr, The Cartwright Law Firm Inc

Herbert J Young, Related Case - CV 13-167-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Laurence D King, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Hae
Sung Nam, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Justin B Farar, Kaplan
Fox and Kilsheimer LLP & Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial
Lawyers, PLLC

Linda Hasper, ET AL. - Related Case - SACV 13-220-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Eric James Buescher, Cotchett Pitre and
McCarthy, Niall P McCarthy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, Anne
Marie Murphy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, LLP, Craig C Sheffer,
Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora LLP, Harvey Rosenfield,
Consumer Watchdog, Laura Antonini, Consumer Watchdog, Pamela
Pressley, Consumer Watchdog, Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial
Lawyers, PLLC & Steven M Campora, Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood
Campora LLP

Leslie Bayard, ET AL. - Related Case - SACV 13-257-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Joshua B Swigart, Hyde and Swigart APC,
Matthew M Loker, Kazerouni Law Group APC, Nicholas J Bontrager,
Martin & Bontrager, APC, Robert L Hyde, Hyde and Swigart, Seyed
Abbas Kazerounian, Kazerouni Law Group APC, Suren N Weerasuriya,
Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC, Todd M Friedman, Law Offices of
Todd M Friedman PC & Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial
Lawyers, PLLC

Tricia Fellers, Related Case - SACV 13-384-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC
& Robert Eugene Cartwright, Jr, The Cartwright Law Firm Inc.

Orlando Elliott, Related Case - SACV 13-385-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC
& Robert Eugene Cartwright, Jr, The Cartwright Law Firm Inc.

James Bonsignore, Related Case - SACV 13-386-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Jae Kook Kim, MCune Wright LLP, Richard M Kirchner,
Bonsignore and Brewer, Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial
Lawyers, PLLC & Robert Eugene Cartwright, Jr, The Cartwright Law
Firm Inc.

Margaret Setser, Related Case - SACV 13-387-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC
& Robert Eugene Cartwright, Jr, The Cartwright Law Firm Inc.
Guillermo Quiroz, ET AL. - Related Case - SACV 12-2091-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented byCrystal Gayle Foley, Simmons Hanly
Conroy, Derek Yeats Brandt, Brandt Law LLC & Robert J Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Douglas Kurash, ET AL. - Related Case - SACV 12-2164-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented byElaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Michael C Dell'Angelo, Berger and Montague PC, Sarah
R Schalman-Bergen, Berger and Montague PC, Shanon J Carson, Berger
and Montague PC & Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers,
PLLC

Andres Carullo, ET AL. - Related Case - SACV 12-2174-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented byThomas D Mauriello, Mauriello Law Firm
APC & Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC.
Laura S Sutta, ET AL. - Related Case - SACV 13-417-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Casey Edwards Sadler, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Lionel Zevi Glancy, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP,
Marc L Godino, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Robert Ahdoot, Ahdoot
and Wolfson PC, Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot and Wolfson APC & Robert J
Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Georgia L Thomas, ET AL. - Related Case - SACV 12-2008-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented byLee A Cirsch, The Lanier Law Firm PC &
Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Eric J Olson, ET AL. - Related Case - SACV 12-2025-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented byChristopher Collins, Robbins Geller
Rudman and Dowd LLP, Mark J Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman and
Dowd LLP, Rachel L Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP &
Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Jennifer Myers, Related Case - SACV 13-444-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC
& Robert Eugene Cartwright, Jr, The Cartwright Law Firm Inc.

Tom Woodward, Related Case - SACV 13-443-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Richard M Kirchner, Bonsignore and Brewer, Robert J
Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC & Robert Eugene
Cartwright, Jr, The Cartwright Law Firm Inc.

Jerold Terhost, Related Case - SACV 13-476-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Richard M Kirchner, Bonsignore and Brewer, Robert J
Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC & Robert Eugene
Cartwright, Jr, The Cartwright Law Firm Inc.

Cameron John Cestaro, Related Case - SACV 13-442-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented byRichard M Kirchner, Bonsignore and
Brewer, Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC &
Robert Eugene Cartwright, Jr, The Cartwright Law Firm Inc.

Donald Brown, Related Case - SACV 13-441-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Richard M Kirchner, Bonsignore and Brewer, Robert J
Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC & Robert Eugene
Cartwright, Jr, The Cartwright Law Firm Inc.

Maria Figueroa, Related Case - SACV 13-373-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Allison Rachel Willett, Milstein Adelman LLP, Bryan
L Clobes, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengle LLP, Gillian L
Wade, Milstein Adelman LLP, Sara D Avila, Milstein Adelman LLP &
Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Constance Martyn, Related Case - SACV 13-475-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Richard M Kirchner, Bonsignore and Brewer, Robert J
Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC & Robert Eugene
Cartwright, Jr, The Cartwright Law Firm Inc.

Thomas Ganim, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated related to 2:12-cv-00800-GW-, Plaintiff, represented by
Jae Kook Kim, MCune Wright LLP, Richard D McCune, Jr, McCune
Wright LLP, Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC &
Robert B Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Daniel Baldeschi, on behalf of themselves and all others simiarly
situated related to 2:12-cv-00800-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Elaine S Kusel, McCune Wright LLP, Jae Kook Kim, MCune Wright
LLP, Richard D McCune, Jr, McCune Wright LLP & Robert J
Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Lillian E Levoff, on behalf of themselves and all others simiarly
situated re case number 2:12-cv-00800-, Plaintiff, represented by
Richard D McCune, Jr, McCune Wright LLP, Elaine S Kusel, McCune
Wright LLP, Jae Kook Kim, MCune Wright LLP, Robert J Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC & Robert B Carey, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP

Giuseppina Roberto, individually and on behalf of all others
sitatuated related to 8:12-cv-01909, Plaintiff, represented by
Robert B Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore
Trial Lawyers, PLLC &Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP

Robert Trader, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated related to 8:12-cv-01917-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Alan M Mansfield, The Consumer Law Group & Robert J Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Sean Goldsberry, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated related to 8:12-cv-01917-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Alan M Mansfield, The Consumer Law Group, James
Robert Hail, Doyle Lowther LLP, William James Doyle, II, Doyle
Lowther LLP & Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Cynthia Navarro, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated related to 8:12-cv-01917-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Alan M Mansfield, The Consumer Law Group, William
James Doyle, II, Doyle Lowther LLP & Robert J Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Owen Chapman, Plaintiff, represented by Alan M Mansfield, Whatley
Kallas LLC & Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC.
Michael Brein, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated related to 8:12-cv-01917-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Alan M Mansfield, The Consumer Law Group, Robert J Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC & William James Doyle, II, Doyle
Lowther LLP

Travis Brissey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert B Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Ronald J Burkard, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Steve W Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M
DeStefano, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert B Carey, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Adam Cloutier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert B Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Steven Craig, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert B Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

John J Dixson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert B Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Erin L Fanthorpe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Steve W Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M
DeStefano, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert B Carey, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Eric Hadesh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert B
Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Michael P Keeth, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP,Robert B Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

John Kirk MacDonald, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Robert B Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Michael Mandahl, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP,Robert B Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Nicholas McDaniel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Robert B Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Mary J Moran-Spicuzza, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Robert B Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Gary Pincas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert B
Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Brandon Potter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,Robert B
Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Thomas Purdy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,Robert B
Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Rocco Renghini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,Robert B
Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Michelle Singleton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Robert B Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Ken Smiley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert B
Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Gregory M Sonstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Robert B Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Roman Starno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,Robert B
Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Gayle A Stephenson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Robert B Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Andres Villicana, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP,Robert B Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Richard Williams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated related to 8:12-cv-01930-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP,Robert B Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John M DeStefano, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Thomas E Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP

Bradford L Hirsch, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated re 8:12-cv-01963-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Meiselman Packman Nealon Scialabba and
Baker PC & Todd S Garber, Finkelstein Blankinship Frei-Pearson and
Garber LLP

Ashley Cephas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated related 8:12-cv-01981-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Stuart
McKinley Paynter, The Paynter Law Firm PLLC & Walter H Sargent,
Walter H Sargent PC

David E Hill, related to 8:12-cv-02008-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Lee A Cirsch, The Lanier Law Firm

Chad McKinney, related to SACV 12-2008 GW, Plaintiff, represented
by Lee A Cirsch, The Lanier Law Firm PC

Mordechai Schiffer, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated related to 8:12-cv-02025-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Christopher Collins, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd
LLP, Mark J Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP & Rachel L
Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP

Lisa Sands, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated related to 8:12-cv-02091-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Crystal Gayle Foley, Simmons Hanly Conroy & Derek Yeats Brandt,
Brandt Law LLC

Donald Kendig, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated related to 8:12-cv-02174-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Thomas D Mauriello, Mauriello Law Firm APC

Kevin Gobel, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated related to 8:13-cv-00027-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Jon A Tostrud, Tostrud Law Group PC, Daniel E Gustafson,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC & Jason S Kilene, Gustafson Gluek PLLC

Eric Larson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated related to 8:13-cv-00027-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Jon A Tostrud, Tostrud Law Group PC, Daniel E Gustafson,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC & Jason S Kilene, Gustafson Gluek PLLC

Lin McKinney, related to 8:13-cv-00070-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H Gibbs, Gibbs
Law Group LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP

Ryan Cross, Plaintiff, represented by Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs
LLP, Eric H Gibbs, Gibbs Law Group LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk, Girard
Gibbs LLP

Phillip Hoffman, related to 8:13-cv-00070-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H Gibbs, Gibbs
Law Group LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP

Debra Simmons, related to 8:13-cv-00070-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H Gibbs, Gibbs
Law Group LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP

Abelardo Morales, related to 8:13-cv-00070-GW-FFM, Plaintiff,
represented by Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H Gibbs, Gibbs
Law Group LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP

Peter Blumer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated related to 2:13-cv-00816-, Plaintiff, represented by
Benjamin F Johns, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, Joseph G Sauder,
Chimicles and Tikellis LLP & Matthew D Schelkopf, Chimicles and
Tikellis LLP

Carolyn Hammond, related to 2:13-cv-01132, Plaintiff, represented
by Derek Yeats Brandt, Brandt Law LLC, Emily J Kirk, Simmons
Browder Gianaris Angelides and Barnerd LLC & John Robert Phillips,
Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides and Barnerd LLC

Melissa Leggett, Plaintiff, represented by Derek Yeats Brandt,
Brandt Law LLC, Emily J Kirk, Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides
and Barnerd LLC & John Robert Phillips, Simmons Browder Gianaris
Angelides and Barnerd LLC

Kelly Moffett, Related to Civil Case SACV 13-220-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Eric James Buescher, Cotchett Pitre and
McCarthy, Niall P McCarthy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, Anne
Marie Murphy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, LLP, Harvey Rosenfield,
Consumer Watchdog, Laura Antonini, Consumer Watchdog, Pamela
Pressley, Consumer Watchdog & Steven M Campora, Dreyer Babich
Buccola Wood Campora LLP

Evan Grogan, Related to Civil Case SACV 13-220-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Eric James Buescher, Cotchett Pitre and
McCarthy, Niall P McCarthy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, Anne
Marie Murphy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, LLP, Harvey Rosenfield,
Consumer Watchdog, Laura Antonini, Consumer Watchdog, Pamela
Pressley, Consumer Watchdog & Steven M Campora, Dreyer Babich
Buccola Wood Campora LLP

Carlos Medina, Related to Civil Case SACV 13-220-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Eric James Buescher, Cotchett Pitre and
McCarthy, Niall P McCarthy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, Anne
Marie Murphy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, LLP, Harvey Rosenfield,
Consumer Watchdog, Laura Antonini, Consumer Watchdog, Pamela
Pressley, Consumer Watchdog &Steven M Campora, Dreyer Babich
Buccola Wood Campora LLP

Alberto Dominguez, Related to Civil Case SACV 13-220-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Eric James Buescher, Cotchett Pitre and
McCarthy, Niall P McCarthy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, Anne
Marie Murphy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, LLP, Harvey Rosenfield,
Consumer Watchdog, Laura Antonini, Consumer Watchdog, Pamela
Pressley, Consumer Watchdog &Steven M Campora, Dreyer Babich
Buccola Wood Campora LLP

Catherine Bernard, Related to Civil Case SACV 13-220-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Eric James Buescher, Cotchett Pitre and
McCarthy, Niall P McCarthy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, Anne
Marie Murphy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, LLP, Harvey Rosenfield,
Consumer Watchdog, Laura Antonini, Consumer Watchdog, Pamela
Pressley, Consumer Watchdog &Steven M Campora, Dreyer Babich
Buccola Wood Campora LLP

Michael Breien, Related to Civil Case SACV 13-220-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Eric James Buescher, Cotchett Pitre and
McCarthy, Niall P McCarthy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, Anne
Marie Murphy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, LLP, Harvey Rosenfield,
Consumer Watchdog, Laura Antonini, Consumer Watchdog, Pamela
Pressley, Consumer Watchdog &Steven M Campora, Dreyer Babich
Buccola Wood Campora LLP

Laura Gill, Related to Civil Case SACV 13-220-GW(FFMx), Plaintiff,
represented by Eric James Buescher, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy,
Niall P McCarthy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, Anne Marie
Murphy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, LLP, Harvey Rosenfield,
Consumer Watchdog, Laura Antonini, Consumer Watchdog, Pamela
Pressley, Consumer Watchdog & Steven M Campora, Dreyer Babich
Buccola Wood Campora LLP

Thomas Schille, Related to Civil Case SACV 13-220-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Eric James Buescher, Cotchett Pitre and
McCarthy, Niall P McCarthy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, Anne
Marie Murphy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, LLP, Harvey Rosenfield,
Consumer Watchdog, Laura Antonini, Consumer Watchdog, Pamela
Pressley, Consumer Watchdog &Steven M Campora, Dreyer Babich
Buccola Wood Campora LLP

Judith Stanton, Related to Civil Case SACV 13-220-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Eric James Buescher, Cotchett Pitre and
McCarthy, Niall P McCarthy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, Anne
Marie Murphy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, LLP, Harvey Rosenfield,
Consumer Watchdog, Laura Antonini, Consumer Watchdog, Pamela
Pressley, Consumer Watchdog &Steven M Campora, Dreyer Babich
Buccola Wood Campora LLP

Randy Rickert, Related to Civil Case SACV 13-220-GW(FFMx),
Plaintiff, represented by Eric James Buescher, Cotchett Pitre and
McCarthy, Niall P McCarthy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLP, Anne
Marie Murphy, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, LLP, Harvey Rosenfield,
Consumer Watchdog, Laura Antonini, Consumer Watchdog, Pamela
Pressley, Consumer Watchdog &Steven M Campora, Dreyer Babich
Buccola Wood Campora LLP

Bryan Zirkel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated 8:13-cv-00220-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by Eric
James Buescher, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Anne Marie Murphy,
Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, LLP, Harvey Rosenfield, Consumer
Watchdog, Laura Antonini, Consumer Watchdog, Pamela Pressley,
Consumer Watchdog & Steven M Campora, Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood
Campora LLP

James Kundrat, related to civil case 13-1128-GW, Plaintiff,
represented by Derek Yeats Brandt, Brandt Law LLC, Emily J Kirk,
Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides and Barnerd LLC & Patrick J
Keating, Keating Law Group LLC

Robert Smith, 8:13-cv-00257-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Joshua B Swigart, Hyde and Swigart APC, Matthew M Loker, Kazerouni
Law Group APC, Nicholas J Bontrager, Martin & Bontrager, APC,
Robert L Hyde, Hyde and Swigart, Seyed Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerouni Law Group APC, Suren N Weerasuriya, Law Offices of Todd
M Friedman PC & Todd M Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC

Maria Kotova, 8:13-cv-00257-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Joshua B Swigart, Hyde and Swigart APC, Matthew M Loker, Kazerouni
Law Group APC, Nicholas J Bontrager, Martin & Bontrager, APC,
Robert L Hyde, Hyde and Swigart, Seyed Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerouni Law Group APC, Suren N Weerasuriya, Law Offices of Todd
M Friedman PC & Todd M Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC

Josipa Casey, re 8:13-cv-00257-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Joshua B Swigart, Hyde and Swigart APC, Matthew M Loker, Kazerouni
Law Group APC, Nicholas J Bontrager, Martin & Bontrager, APC,
Robert L Hyde, Hyde and Swigart, Seyed Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerouni Law Group APC, Suren N Weerasuriya, Law Offices of Todd
M Friedman PC & Todd M Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC

Luan Snyder, 8:13-cv-00257-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Joshua B Swigart, Hyde and Swigart APC, Matthew M Loker, Kazerouni
Law Group APC, Nicholas J Bontrager, Martin & Bontrager, APC,
Robert L Hyde, Hyde and Swigart, Seyed Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerouni Law Group APC, Suren N Weerasuriya, Law Offices of Todd
M Friedman PC & Todd M Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC

Ben Baker, 8:13-cv-00257-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua
B Swigart, Hyde and Swigart APC, Matthew M Loker, Kazerouni Law
Group APC, Nicholas J Bontrager, Martin & Bontrager, APC, Robert L
Hyde, Hyde and Swigart, Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Kazerouni Law
Group APC,Suren N Weerasuriya, Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC &
Todd M Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC

Brian Nguyen, 8:13-cv-00257-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Joshua B Swigart, Hyde and Swigart APC, Matthew M Loker, Kazerouni
Law Group APC, Nicholas J Bontrager, Martin & Bontrager, APC,
Robert L Hyde, Hyde and Swigart, Seyed Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerouni Law Group APC, Suren N Weerasuriya, Law Offices of Todd
M Friedman PC & Todd M Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC

Hattie Williams, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated 8:13-cv-00257-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Joshua B Swigart, Hyde and Swigart APC, Matthew M Loker, Kazerouni
Law Group APC, Nicholas J Bontrager, Martin & Bontrager, APC,
Robert L Hyde, Hyde and Swigart, Seyed Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerouni Law Group APC, Suren N Weerasuriya, Law Offices of Todd
M Friedman PC & Todd M Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC

Bill Holvey, 8:13-cv-00257-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Joshua B Swigart, Hyde and Swigart APC, Matthew M Loker, Kazerouni
Law Group APC, Nicholas J Bontrager, Martin & Bontrager, APC,
Robert L Hyde, Hyde and Swigart, Seyed Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerouni Law Group APC,Suren N Weerasuriya, Law Offices of Todd M
Friedman PC & Todd M Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC

Lourdes Vargas, 8:13-cv-00257-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Joshua B Swigart, Hyde and Swigart APC, Matthew M Loker, Kazerouni
Law Group APC, Nicholas J Bontrager, Martin & Bontrager, APC,
Robert L Hyde, Hyde and Swigart, Seyed Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerouni Law Group APC, Suren N Weerasuriya, Law Offices of Todd
M Friedman PC & Todd M Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC

Kendall Snyder, 8:13-cv-00257-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Joshua B Swigart, Hyde and Swigart APC, Matthew M Loker, Kazerouni
Law Group APC, Nicholas J Bontrager, Martin & Bontrager, APC,
Robert L Hyde, Hyde and Swigart, Seyed Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerouni Law Group APC, Suren N Weerasuriya, Law Offices of Todd
M Friedman PC & Todd M Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC

Nomer Medina, 8:13-cv-00257-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Joshua B Swigart, Hyde and Swigart APC, Matthew M Loker, Kazerouni
Law Group APC, Nicholas J Bontrager, Martin & Bontrager, APC,
Robert L Hyde, Hyde and Swigart, Seyed Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerouni Law Group APC, Suren N Weerasuriya, Law Offices of Todd
M Friedman PC & Todd M Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC

Sameria Goff, 8:13-cv-00257-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Joshua B Swigart, Hyde and Swigart APC, Matthew M Loker, Kazerouni
Law Group APC, Nicholas J Bontrager, Martin & Bontrager, APC,
Robert L Hyde, Hyde and Swigart, Seyed Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerouni Law Group APC, Suren N Weerasuriya, Law Offices of Todd
M Friedman PC & Todd M Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC

Ursula Pyland, 8:13-cv-00257-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Joshua B Swigart, Hyde and Swigart APC, Matthew M Loker, Kazerouni
Law Group APC, Nicholas J Bontrager, Martin & Bontrager, APC,
Robert L Hyde, Hyde and Swigart, Seyed Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerouni Law Group APC, Suren N Weerasuriya, Law Offices of Todd
M Friedman PC & Todd M Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC

Marcell Chapman, re 8:12-cv-02164-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Michael C
Dell'Angelo, Berger and Montague PC, Sarah R Schalman-Bergen,
Berger and Montague PC & Shanon J Carson, Berger and Montague PC

Kaye Kurash, re 8:12-cv-02164-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Michael C
Dell'Angelo, Berger and Montague PC, Sarah R Schalman-Bergen,
Berger and Montague PC & Shanon J Carson, Berger and Montague PC

Holly Amromin, re 8:12-cv-02164-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Michael C
Dell'Angelo, Berger and Montague PC, Sarah R Schalman-Bergen,
Berger and Montague PC & Shanon J Carson, Berger and Montague PC

John Chapman, re 8:12-cv-02164-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Michael C
Dell'Angelo, Berger and Montague PC, Sarah R Schalman-Bergen,
Berger and Montague PC & Shanon J Carson, Berger and Montague PC

Mary D'Angelo, re 8:12-cv-02164-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Michael C
Dell'Angelo, Berger and Montague PC, Sarah R Schalman-Bergen,
Berger and Montague PC & Shanon J Carson, Berger and Montague PC


George Rudy, re 8:12-cv-02164-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Michael C
Dell'Angelo, Berger and Montague PC, Sarah R Schalman-Bergen,
Berger and Montague PC & Shanon J Carson, Berger and Montague PC

Ayman Mousa, re 8:12-cv-02164-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by
Elaine T Byszewski, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Michael C
Dell'Angelo, Berger and Montague PC, Sarah R Schalman-Bergen,
Berger and Montague PC & Shanon J Carson, Berger and Montague PC

Shelly Henderson, re 8:12-cv-01917-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Alan M Mansfield, The Consumer Law Group, James Robert Hail,
Doyle Lowther LLP & William James Doyle, II, Doyle Lowther LLP

Jeffrey Hathaway, on behalf of themselves and all persons
similarly situated re 8:13-cv-00417-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented
by Casey Edwards Sadler, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lionel Zevi
Glancy, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Marc L Godino, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, Robert Ahdoot, Ahdoot and Wolfson PC & Tina
Wolfson, Ahdoot and Wolfson APC

Dennis J. Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Eugene
Cartwright, Jr, The Cartwright Law Firm Inc & J Thomas Henretta,
Henretta Law Offices

Douglas A Patterson, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated related to case number 2:14-cv-00327-GW-FFM,
Plaintiff, represented by Eric H Gibbs, Gibbs Law Group LLP
&Edward B Davis, Bell Davis and Pitt PA

John Gentry, Individually and on behalf of all other Virginia
owners similarly situated related to case number 2:14-cv-01359-GW-
FFM, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H Gibbs, Gibbs Law Group LLP
&James Ben Feinman, James B Feinman, Attorney At Law

Linda Ruth Scott, Individually and on behalf of all other Virginia
owners similarly situated related to case number 2:14-cv-01359-GW-
FFM, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H Gibbs, Gibbs Law Group LLP &
James Ben Feinman, James B Feinman, Attorney At Law

Danielle Kay Gilleland, Individually and on behalf of all other
Virginia owners similarly situated related to case number 2:14-cv-
01359-GW-FFM, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H Gibbs, Gibbs Law
Group LLP & James Ben Feinman, James B Feinman, Attorney At Law

Joseph Bowe, Individually and on behalf of all other Virginia
owners similarly situated related to case number 2:14-cv-01359-GW-
FFM, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H Gibbs, Gibbs Law Group LLP &
James Ben Feinman, James B Feinman, Attorney At Law

Michael DeSouto, Individually and on behalf of all other Virginia
owners similarly situated related to case number 2:14-cv-01359-GW-
FFM, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H Gibbs, Gibbs Law Group LLP &
James Ben Feinman, James B Feinman, Attorney At Law

Plaintiffs, Movant, represented by Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore
Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Greg Direnzo, 8:13-cv-00257-GW-FFM, Petitioner, represented by
Joshua B Swigart, Hyde and Swigart APC, Matthew M Loker, Kazerouni
Law Group APC, Nicholas J Bontrager, Martin & Bontrager, APC,
Robert L Hyde, Hyde and Swigart, Seyed Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerouni Law Group APC, Suren N Weerasuriya, Law Offices of Todd
M Friedman PC & Todd M Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M Friedman PC

Hyundai Motor America, Defendant, represented by Dean Hansell,
Hogan Lovells LLP, Joseph R Ashby, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP, Karin Kramer, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan
LLP, Shon Morgan, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Michael L
Kidney, Hogan Lovells LLP & Robert J Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial
Lawyers, PLLC

KIA Motors America, Defendant, represented by Dommond E Lonnie,
Dykema Gossett LLP,Benjamin W Jeffers, Dykema Gossett PLLC, James
Powell Feeney, Dykema Gossett LLC & Robert J Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Kia Motors Corporation, Defendant, represented by Holly P Smith,
Shook Hardy and Bacon LLP

Grossinger Autoplex Inc, also known as Grossinger Hyundai,
Defendant, represented by Joseph R Ashby, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP, Karin Kramer, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan
LLP, Shon Morgan, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP & Stephen
A Swedlow, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP

John Krafcik, Defendant, represented by Edwin L Lowther, Jr,
Wright Lindsey and Jennings LLP,Joseph R Ashby, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Karin Kramer, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan LLP & Shon Morgan, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

Hyundai Motor Company, -, Defendant, represented by Joseph R
Ashby, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Karin Kramer, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP & Shon Morgan, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

Sarah Kundrat, related to Civil Case 13-1128-GW, Defendant,
represented by Derek Yeats Brandt, Brandt Law LLC, Emily J Kirk,
Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides and Barnerd LLC & Patrick J
Keating, Keating Law Group LLC

Peri Fetsch, Objector, represented by Matthew Kurilich, Jr,
Matthew Kurilich Jr Law Offices

Caitlin Ahearn, Objector, represented by John J Pentz, Objectors
Group

Andrew York, Objector, represented by John J Pentz, Objectors
Group

Louis Bird, Objector, represented by Laura Antonini, Consumer
Watchdog

Dana Roland, Objector, Pro Se


KIA MOTORS: Judge Narrows Claim in "Robinson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Esther Salas of the District of New Jersey granted
in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss in the
case YVONNE ROBINSON, ROSE CIROS JESSE R. HOWELL, CHERYL MOXEY and
ROBERT MCCONNELL,: individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.,
HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, and XYZ CORP., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO.
13-006 (D.N.J.)

Plaintiff Yvonne Robinson is a New Jersey resident. Robinson
alleges that she purchased a used 2005 Kia Sorento in October
2011. Plaintiff Rose Ciros is also a New Jersey resident. Ciros
alleges that she purchased a new 2005 Kia Sorento in August 2006.
Plaintiff Jesse Howell is an Ohio resident, who alleges that he
purchased a new 2005 Kia Sorento in December 2005. Plaintiff
Cheryl Moxey is a Florida resident, who alleges that she purchased
a used 2004 Kia Sorento in May 2008. Plaintiff Robert McConnell is
a Pennsylvania resident. McConnell alleges that he purchased a
2004 Kia Sorento in June 2004.

Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased Kia Sorento model year
2002-2009 automobiles equipped with Hyundai-manufactured 3.5L 24-
valve DOHC V6 engines. Plaintiffs allege that the engines in their
Kia Sorento vehicles were designed with a defective power train
engine crankshaft pulley bolt and balancer.

On January 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed their original complaint,
which Kia filed a motion to dismiss on March 5, 2013, but the
court administratively terminated after plaintiffs moved to amend
their complaint. On October 14, 2014, Magistrate Judge Michael A.
Hammer granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion to
amend their complaint.

On October 27, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting eleven causes of action: (1) the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act (NJCFA), N.J.S.A. Section 56:8-1 et seq.; (2) the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA), Ohio Rev. Code Section
1345.01 et seq.; (3) the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act (FDUTPA), Fla. Stat. Section 501.201et seq.; (4) the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
(PUTPCP"), 73 Pa. Con. Stat. Section 201-1 et seq.; (5) express
warranty; (6) implied warranty of merchantability; (7) the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), 15 U.S.C. Section 2310(d)(1);
(8) declaratory relief; (9) negligence; (10) breach of contract;
and (11) common law fraud.

Kia moved to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint.

Judge Salas granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice with
respect to counts 2,3,5,9 and 10. Kia's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint, is granted with prejudice with
respect to counts 6 and 7 as to plaintiffs Robinson, Howell, and
Moxey, and denied with respect to plaintiffs Ciros and McConnell.
The motion is denied with respect to counts 1, 4, 8, and 11.

A copy of Judge Salas's opinion and order dated September 11,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/6N2X1Wfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Shmuel B. Klein, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF SHMUEL KLEIN, PC
113 Cedar Hill Ave
Mahwah, NJ 07430
Telephone: 845-425-2510

KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC., Defendant, represented by ROBERTO A.
RIVERA-SOTO -- riverasotor@ballardspahr.com -- MICHAEL ROBERT
CARROLL -- carrollm@ballardspahr.com -- MICHELE CLARE VENTURA --
venturam@ballardspahr.com -- NEAL D. WALTERS --
waltersn@ballardspahr.com -- at BALLARD, SPAHR LLP


KYTHERA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: "Lytle" Plaintiff Filed Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
KYTHERA Biopharmaceuticals, 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 plaintiff
Lytle filed an amended complaint in a class action lawsuit.

On June 17, 2015, the Company entered into a definitive Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the "Initial Merger Agreement"), with Allergan
plc ("Allergan") and Keto Merger Sub, Inc., an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Allergan ("Merger Sub" and, together with the
Company and Allergan, the "Parties"), which was subsequently
amended pursuant to an Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement and Plan
of Merger entered into by and among the Parties on July 1, 2015
("Amendment No. 1"), pursuant to which Merger Sub would merge with
and into the Company, with the Company surviving the merger as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Allergan (the "Merger"), and each share
of the Company's common stock issued and outstanding immediately
prior to the Merger would have been converted into the right to
receive: (1) $60.00 in cash, without interest and (2) that number
of validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable ordinary shares,
$0.0001 par value per share, of Allergan ("Allergan Shares") equal
to the quotient determined by dividing $15.00 by the volume
weighted average price of an Allergan Share (for the ten trading
day period starting with the twelfth trading day prior to the
closing date of the Merger and ending with the close of trading on
the third to last trading day prior to the closing date of the
Merger) (the "Initial Merger Consideration").

On August 4, 2015, the Parties amended and restated the Initial
Merger Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1, pursuant to the
Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"),  to provide, among other things, that each share of
Company common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to
the Merger (other than shares held by the Company as treasury
stock or held by Allergan, Merger Sub or any of their respective
subsidiaries, which will be canceled without consideration, shares
subject to any unvested Company restricted stock award, which will
be assumed by Allergan, and shares held by stockholders who
exercise their appraisal rights under Delaware law) will be
converted into the right to receive $75.00 in cash, without
interest.  The Merger remains subject to customary closing
conditions, including receipt of approval from the Company's
stockholders, and is expected to close in the third quarter of
2015.

Since the announcement of the Merger, five purported class action
complaints were filed by alleged stockholders of the Company
against various combinations of the Company, the individual
directors of the Company, Allergan and Merger Sub. These lawsuits
were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Lytle v.
KYTHERA Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11208-CB (June
26, 2015), Barbour v. KYTHERA Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 11239-CB (July 2, 2015), Furr v. KYTHERA
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11266-CB (July 8,
2015); Cohodes v. Allergan PLC, et al., C.A. No. 11289-CB (July
14, 2015); and Roth v. Ball, et al., C.A. No. 11360 (August 3,
2015). The Barbour, Furr, Cohodes and Roth lawsuits generally
allege that the members of the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the
Merger Agreement, that the Initial Merger Consideration
undervalues the Company, that the Company's stockholders will not
receive adequate or fair value for their shares of the Company's
common stock in the Merger, and that the terms of the Merger
Agreement impose improper deal protection terms that preclude
competing offers.

On August 4, 2015, plaintiff Lytle filed an amended complaint
that, in addition to making allegations similar to those
discussed, also alleges that the Registration Statement on Form S-
4 filed by Allergan on July 17, 2015 in connection with the Merger
is misleading and/or omits certain material information
concerning, among other things, the background leading up to the
Merger and the key data and inputs underlying the financial
valuation analyses supporting the fairness opinion provided by the
Company's financial advisor.  The lawsuits further allege that
KYTHERA, Allergan and/or Merger Sub aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty.  The lawsuits seek, among
other things, to enjoin the Merger, or in the event that an
injunction is not entered and the Merger closes, rescission of the
Merger and unspecified money damages, costs and attorneys' and
experts' fees.


LARGO FAMILY: "Knapp" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaclyn Knapp, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
Largo Family Restaurant, Inc. and Ajeten Resuloska, Case No. 8:15-
cv-02252-RAL-AEP (M.D. Fla., September 28, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, obtain declaratory relief, other relief under Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 788 N.
Missouri Avenue, Largo, FL 33770.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      201 N. Franklin Street, #700
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
      E-mail: Medelman@forthepeople.com


MARS INC: "Cheslow" Suit Removed to N. Dist. Cal. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Linda Cheslow and Mike Xavier,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mars,
Inc. and Mars Chocolate North America, LLC, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-
04454-LB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants fail to disclose
"artificial flavor added" on the labels of its Twix ice cream bars
and M&M's ice cream cones.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      Alyssa Dang, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com
              adang@finkelsteinthompson.com

         - and -

      Joseph N. Kravec Jr., Esq.
      McKean J. Evans, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      429 Forbes Avenue
      Allegheny Building, Suite 1705
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      E-mail: JKRAVEC@FDPKLAW.COM
              MEVANS@FDPKLAW.COM

The Defendant is represented by:

      Stephen D. Raber, Esq.
      David M. Horniak, Esq.
      Joelle S. Perry, Esq.
      WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
      725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 434-5000
      Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
      E-mail: sraber@wc.com
              dhorniak@wc.com
              jperry@wc.com


MARY KAY: Sued Over New Jersey Wage Payment Law Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Ina M. Collins, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated persons v. Mary Kay, Inc., ABC Corp., & Jane and John
Does, Case No. 2:15-cv-07129-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., September 28, 2015)
arises from the Defendants rules for Beauty Consultants whereby it
would require to purchase designated minimum amounts of Mary Kay
products directly from Mary Kay, Inc. in order to maintain their
designation as Beauty Consultants in violation of the New Jersey
Wage Payment Law.

Mary Kay, Inc. is in the business of selling its cosmetics
products to the public through its Beauty Consultants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
      THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.
      116 Village Boulevard, Suite 200
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (609) 799-1266
      Facsimile: (609) 799-1267
      E-mail: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Sandlin" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angela A. Sandlin v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02924-JFM (D. Md., September 28, 2015) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Briggette Smith v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02925-JFM (D. Md., September 28, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


MEDZID KOLENOVIC: Rikers Island Captain Charged for Beating Inmate
------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Weisner, writing for The New York Times, reported that a
Rikers Island captain and a correction officer were charged with
assaulting a teenage inmate in a storage room where there were no
video surveillance cameras, and then filing false paperwork to
conceal their actions.

The 18-year-old inmate, Ambiorix Celedonio, had to be hospitalized
after the beating, which left him bleeding from his forehead and
lips and with other injuries.

The captain, Medzid Kolenovic, and the officer, Jean Destine,
surrendered to the authorities and were released on their own
recognizance after pleading not guilty in State Supreme Court in
the Bronx, said the office of Robert T. Johnson, the Bronx
district attorney. The Bronx prosecutor, whose office filed the
charges, has jurisdiction over criminal matters at the Rikers jail
complex.

The authorities said the episode occurred on Dec. 9, 2014, at the
Robert N. Davoren Complex at Rikers. Mr. Celedonio was working at
the mess hall when he and Captain Kolenovic began arguing. The
captain then opened the door to a supply closet and invited the
inmate to settle the matter, prosecutors said.

Officer Destine followed the men into the closet; when they
emerged, Mr. Celedonio's face was bruised and bloodied, according
to video footage taken outside the storage room.

Prosecutors said that Captain Kolenovic and Officer Destine wrote
in subsequent reports that the inmate had been the aggressor, and
that they used appropriate force in response.

Mark G. Peters, the city's investigation commissioner, said the
case of excessive force was uncovered by the Correction
Department's investigation division, which immediately referred it
to his agency.

"These officers led an inmate to an unseen closet and beat him
bloody," Mr. Peters said. "Where city employees of any kind engage
in such gross behavior, we will find them and see that they are
prosecuted."

The charges came after Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration
agreed in June to carry out sweeping reforms, including the
appointment of a federal monitor, to settle a long-running federal
class-action lawsuit filed initially by the Legal Aid Society and
private law firms over violence and other abuse at Rikers. The
suit was later joined by the office of Preet Bharara, the United
States attorney for the Southern District of New York.

A year ago, Mr. Bharara's office, after a two     - and -a-half-
year investigation, issued a scathing report on the treatment of
teenage inmates at Rikers, which found widespread use of
unnecessary and excessive force by correction officers and
violations of the inmates' civil rights.

The beating of Mr. Celedonio, who had an I.Q. of 65 and whose name
has been spelled various ways, was one of 62 cases identified by
The New York Times in an article in February of inmates who were
seriously injured by correction officers from August 2014 through
January 2015 -- the period after Mr. Bharara released his report,
which was addressed to the mayor and two other senior city
officials.

The report had cited a "powerful code of silence" among Rikers
staff and what it called a "staggering" number of injuries among
teenage inmates. It noted that nearly 44 percent of the adolescent
male inmate population as of October 2012 had been subjected to a
use of force by staff members at least once.

Eve Kessler, a spokeswoman for Joseph Ponte, the correction
commissioner, said, "The vast majority of correction officers
perform their duties with the highest integrity, and Commissioner
Ponte has zero tolerance for those who don't."

The department said Captain Kolenovic, 40, who was hired in 2007,
and Officer Destine, 42, who was hired in 2006, were each put on
modified status after the episode, meaning they no longer had
contact with inmates.

The two defendants walked into the court on their own. Prosecutors
said that each man, if convicted, could receive up to four years
in prison. Captain Kolenovic's lawyer, James Frankie, had no
comment, his partner said later by phone; Officer Destine's lawyer
did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Norman Seabrook, president of the officers' union, did not address
the specifics of the case in a phone interview. But he said, "I
would certainly like the Bronx district attorney's office and the
other counties to prosecute inmates for violating the rights of
correction officers as vigorously as they do when it comes to
uniformed personnel."

Through a spokesman, he said later that if a "corrections officer
commits a crime, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent
of the law."

Patrick Ferraiuolo, president of the captains' union, said Mr.
Kolenovic had been defending himself and would "absolutely fight
the charges." He added, "It's just apparent, because of the
charges, they don't believe him."

The charges came the same week that the city agreed to pay
$450,000 to settle a civil rights lawsuit that alleged a Rikers
inmate was beaten while he was hogtied and had his hands cuffed
behind his back. A captain and five officers were later fired by
Commissioner Ponte, and the Bronx prosecutor's office has said it
is looking into the case.


MERGE HEALTHCARE: Faces "Lozoya" Suit Over Proposed IBM Takeover
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Lozoya, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Merge Healthcare Inc., et al., Case No. 11433 (Del.
Ch., August 26, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Merge Healthcare Inc. to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Merge by International
Business Machines Corp. through a flawed process and inadequate
consideration.

Merge Healthcare Inc. is a Delaware corporation that develops
software solutions that facilitate the sharing of images to create
an electronic healthcare experience for patients and physicians
worldwide.

International Business Machines Corp. is a New York corporation
that provides information technology products and services
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
      James R. Banko, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 482-3182
      E-mail: dfarrell@faruqilaw.com
              jbanko@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

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


MILBERG LLP: CA Vacates Dismissal of Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge John B. Owens of the United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of the motion
for class certification and remanded the case for further
proceedings in the case captioned, PHILIP BOBBITT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; JOHN J. SAMPSON;
JOHN HALL; BRENDA HALL, Plaintiffs, and LANCE LABER, Intervenor-
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MILBERG LLP; MELVYN I. WEISS; MICHAEL C.
SPENCER; JANINE LEE POLLACK; LEE A. WEISS; BRIAN C. KER; UITZ &
ASSOCIATES; RONALD A. UITZ; LUSTIGMAN FIRM; SHELDON S. LUSTIGMAN;
ANDRE B. LUSTIGMAN; GABROY ROLLMAN & BOSSE PC; JOHN GABROY; RONALD
M. LEHMAN, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 13-15812.

In 2001, Milberg, a national law firm specializing in class
actions, filed a lawsuit in Arizona district court against
Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company, Inc. (VALIC), for alleged
securities law violations. In January 2004, the district court
certified a class of plaintiffs, a significant accomplishment in
any class action litigation. Plaintiffs in the appeal sued Milberg
for malpractice for failing to meet the discovery requirements in
the VALIC class action. Plaintiffs named as defendants four law
firms as well as various lawyers who worked for them. The firms
are located in New York, Washington, D.C., and Arizona. The lawyer
defendants are residents of Florida, New York, Washington, D.C.,
Virginia, New Jersey, and Arizona. The two lead plaintiffs are
Texas residents.

After some litigation, the plaintiffs moved for class
certification. Defendants opposed on various grounds, arguing the
plaintiffs could not meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) and
(b)(3). The district court denied the motion for class
certification, ruling that plaintiffs had failed to meet the
predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).

On appeal, Plaintiff-Intervenor Lance Laber contend that the
district court erred in ruling against class certification.

In the Opinion dated September 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/U78O0vfrom Leagle.com, Judge Owens found that the
district court abused its discretion by basing its class
certification decision on an erroneous view of the proper choice
of law.

Plaintiffs are represented by Lawrence A. Kasten Esq. --
LKasten@LRRLaw.com, Robert H. McKirgan, Esq. --
RmcKirgan@LRRLaw.com &  William G. Voit, Esq. -- Wvoit@LRRLaw.com
-- LEWIS ROCA ROTHBERBER LLP

Defendants are represented by Douglas J. Pepe, Esq. --
dpepe@jha.com, Gregory P. Joseph, Esq. -- gjoseph@jha.com, Honey
L. Kober, Esq. -- hkober@jha.com & Jeffrey H. Zaiger, Esq. --
jzaiger@jha.com -- JOSEPH HAGE AARONSON LLC


OCWEN LOAN: Judge Approves Settlement in "Lee" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division, granted the parties' motion for approval
of class action settlement in the case JENNIFER LEE, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE
NO. 14-CV-60649-GOODMAN (S.D. Fla.)

On January 23, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval to the
proposed class action settlement set forth in the stipulation and
settlement agreement between plaintiffs Jennifer Lee, Douglas A.
Patrick, Gerald Coulthurst, Lisa Chamberlin Engelhardt, Enrique
Dominguez, Frances Erving, Johnnie Erving, John Clarizia, and
Shelia D. Heard, on behalf of themselves and all members of the
settlement class, and defendants Ocwen, Assurant, Inc., ASIC,
Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, Voyager Indemnity Insurance
Company, and American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida. The
court also provisionally certified the settlement class for
settlement purposes, approved the procedure for giving class
notice to the members of the settlement class, and set a final
approval hearing to take place on June 11, 2015.

On June 11, 2015 the parties requested the court to approve the
proposed class action settlement, consider the objections to it
and also approve class counsel's fee application.

Class counsel argue that a recent Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals decision has, for all practical purposes, mooted the
primary objections, that the settlement should not be approved
because it is based on a claims-made methodology and that the
attorney's fees should not be approved for the same reason.

The primary objector contends that a claims-made process is not
necessary because defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC does have
the ability, on a system wide borrower-by-borrower basis, to
identify borrowers who have paid the amounts or some portions of
the amounts invoiced them for lender-placed insurance, or those
who still owe those amounts.

Plaintiffs and defendants view the objections as merely a baseless
theory submitted by counsel who has a financial interest in
causing the proposed settlement to be rejected. Moreover,
plaintiffs describe the objection as little more than an
incorrect, self-interested hunch, belied by deposition testimony
submitted after the fairness hearing.

Magistrate Judge Goodman approves in full the proposed class
action settlement and class counsel's fee application and
overrules all objections.  The Court appoints the law firms of
Kozyak, Tropin, & Throckmorton, P.A., Podhurst Orseck, P.A., and
Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP as class counsel for the settlement
class.

The court designates named plaintiffs Jennifer Lee, Douglas A.
Patrick, Gerald Coulthurst, Lisa Chamberlin Engelhardt, Enrique
Dominguez, Frances Erving, Johnnie Erving, John Clarizia, and
Shelia D. Heard as the class representatives. The court awards
class counsel for the settlement class attorneys' fees and
expenses in the amount of $9.85 million, payable pursuant to the
terms of the settlement agreement. The court also awards case
contribution awards in the amount of $5,000 each to named
plaintiffs, payable pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement.

The parties are directed to implement and consummate the
settlement agreement according to its terms and provisions.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Goodman's order dated September 14,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/ifI1P1from Leagle.com.

Jennifer Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak
Tropin & Throckmorton, Jason L. Solotaroff, Anderson & Stewart,
LLP, John Gravante, III, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Margery Ellen
Golant, Margery E. Golant, P.A., Matthew Weinshall, Podhurst
Orseck, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Rachel Sullivan,
Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Roosevelt N. Nesmith, LLC, Tal J Lifshitz,
Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak
Tropin & Throckmorton, Howard Mitchell Bushman, Harke Clasby &
Bushman LLP, Jeffrey N. Golant, Joseph Gurian, Gurian Group, P.A.,
Lance August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Mary Kestenbaum
Fortson, The Merlin Law Group, Sean Michael Shaw, Merlin Law Group
& Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A.

Enrique Dominguez, TX, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M.
Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak,
Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A.

Frances Erving, FL, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
P.A.

Lisa Chamberlin Engelhardt, VA, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M.
Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak,
Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A.

Johnnie Erving, FL, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
P.A.

Douglas A. Patrick, NJ, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M.
Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak,
Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A.

Shelia D. Heard, IL, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
P.A.

Gerald Coulthurst, NY, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M.
Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak,
Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A.

John Clarizia, MA, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
P.A.

OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian V.
Otero, Hunton & Williams, Corey Anthony Lee, Hunton & Williams,
Ryan A. Becker, Hunton & Williams, LLP, Stephen R. Blacklocks,
Hunton & Williams, LLP, Abigail M. Lyle, Hunton & Williams &
Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A.

Assurant Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian P. Perryman,
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt P.A., W. Glenn Merten, Carlton, Fields, Jorden, Burt,
PA, Farrokh Jhabvala, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. & Irma T.
Reboso-Solares, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.

American Security Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Brian P. Perryman, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Franklin G.
Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A., W. Glenn Merten, Carlton,
Fields, Jorden, Burt, PA, Farrokh Jhabvala, Carlton Fields Jorden
Burt, P.A. & Irma T. Reboso-Solares, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt,
P.A.

Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A.

Voyager Indemnity Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A.

American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, Defendant,
represented by Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Defendants Dropped from Cities of Columbia Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, 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 litigation
relating to hotel taxes involving Cities of Columbia, et al.,
South Carolina, on April 6, 2015, the Court of Common Pleas for
the Ninth Judicial Circuit, South Carolina, entered a final order
approving the parties' class action settlement. On June 8, 2015,
the Court entered an order dismissing defendants with prejudice
from the action.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Agreement Reached in Stockholder Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, 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 In re Orbitz
Worldwide, Inc. Consolidated Stockholder Litigation, on May 20,
2015, Orbitz, Orbitz's directors, and the Consolidated Action
plaintiffs entered into an agreement in principle to settle such
putative class action lawsuit.


PRIME POTOMAC: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
BQE Films, LLC, et al. v. Ben Modo, Prime Potomac Solutions, Inc.,
d/b/a B.E.N. network, d/b/a Prime Potomac Group, Case No.
158850/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., August 26, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and damages pursuant to the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants operate a global provider of consulting services in
a broad range of industries, including Media and Video Production.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse Strauss, Esq.
      STRAUSS LAW PLLC
      305 Broadway, 9th Floor
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 822-1496
      Facsimile: (212) 822-1407
      E-mail: jesse@strausslawpllc.com


QED ENVIRONMENTAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Terrill Johnson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. Q.E.D. Environmental Systems
Inc. and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. RG15783414 (Cal. Super.
Ct., August 26, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the California Labor
Law.

Q.E.D. Environmental Systems Inc. is a Michigan corporation that
manufactures air powered pumps and equipment for groundwater
remediation and sampling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
      Farrah Siegel, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
      E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
              tuvia@setarehlaw.com
              farrah@setarehlaw.com


QLOGIC CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Phyllis Hull, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v.  QLogic Corporation, Prasad L. Rampalli, and Jean Hu,
Case No. 2:15-cv-07617 (C.D. Cal., September 28, 2015) alleges
that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

QLogic Corporation designs and supplies server and storage
networking infrastructure products that provide, enhance, and
manage computer data communication.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Howard G. Smith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, PA 19020
      Telephone: (215) 638-4847
      Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


RANGER FIRE: "Lucio" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leroy Lucio, Oscar Fuentes, Rene Fuentes, Rudy Moncada, on their
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Ranger Fire, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02123 (D. Colo., September 25,
2015) seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
interest, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Ranger Fire, Inc. is a construction contractor engaged in the
installation, maintenance and repair of fire sprinkler systems
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William W. Osborne Jr., Esq.
      Natalie C. Moffett Esq.1
      OSBORNE LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      4301 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 140
      Washington, D.C. 20008
      Telephone: (202) 243-3200
      Facsimile: (202) 243-3207
      E-mail: bosborne@osbornelaw.com
              nmoffett@osbornelaw.com

         - and -

      Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
      BUESCHER, KELMAN, PERERA & TURNER, P.C.
      600 Grant Street, Suite 450
      Denver, CO 80203
      Telephone: (303) 333-7751
      Facsimile: (303) 333-7758
      E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: To Continue to Defend Wesley West Minerals Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Energy, 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
continue to defend the remaining issues in the trial court, as
well as future appellate proceedings in the lawsuit filed by
Wesley West Minerals, Ltd. and Longfellow Ranch Partners, LP.

On April 5, 2011, Wesley West Minerals, Ltd. and Longfellow Ranch
Partners, LP filed suit against the Company and SandRidge
Exploration and Production, LLC (collectively, the "SandRidge
Entities") in the 83rd District Court of Pecos County, Texas. The
plaintiffs, who have leased mineral rights to the SandRidge
Entities in Pecos County, allege that the SandRidge Entities have
not properly paid royalties on all volumes of natural gas and CO 2
produced from the acreage leased from the plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs also allege that the SandRidge Entities have
inappropriately failed to pay royalties on CO2 produced from the
plaintiffs' acreage that results from the treatment of natural gas
at the Century Plant. The plaintiffs seek approximately $45.5
million in actual damages for the period of time between January
2004 and December 2011, punitive damages and a declaration that
the SandRidge Entities must pay royalties on CO 2 produced from
the plaintiffs' acreage that results from treatment of natural gas
at the Century Plant. The Commissioner of the General Land Office
of the State of Texas ("GLO") is named as an additional defendant
in the lawsuit as some of the affected oil and natural gas leases
described in the plaintiffs' allegations cover mineral classified
lands in which the GLO is entitled to one-half of the royalties
attributable to such leases. The GLO has filed a cross-claim
against the SandRidge Entities asserting the same claims as the
plaintiffs with respect to the leases covering mineral classified
lands and seeking approximately $13.0 million in actual damages,
inclusive of penalties and interest.

On February 5, 2013, the Company received a favorable summary
judgment ruling that effectively removes a majority of the
plaintiffs' and GLO's claims. On April 29, 2013, the court entered
an order allowing for an interlocutory appeal of its summary
judgment ruling.

The plaintiffs appealed the rulings to the Texas Court of Appeals
in El Paso. On November 19, 2014, that Court issued its opinion,
which affirmed the trial court's summary judgment rulings in part,
but reversing them in part. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
summary judgment rulings in the SandRidge Entities' favor against
the GLO. The Court also affirmed the summary judgment rulings in
the SandRidge Entities' favor against Wesley West Minerals, Ltd.,
on the largest oil and gas lease involved in the case, which
accounted for much of the total damages the plaintiffs are
claiming. The Court reversed certain rulings on other leases, thus
deciding those matters for the plaintiffs. The parties have
petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for review of the Court of
Appeals' decision.

The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining issues in
the trial court, as well as future appellate proceedings. At the
time of the rulings on summary judgment, the lawsuit was still in
the discovery stage and, accordingly, an estimate of reasonably
possible losses, if any, associated with the remaining causes of
action and those rulings reversed by the Court of Appeals cannot
be made until all of the facts, circumstances and legal theories
relating to such claims and the SandRidge Entities' defenses are
fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any
reserves relating to this action.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Claims v. Mississippian Trusts et al. Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Energy, 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 court has dismissed
without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against the Mississippian
Trusts and the underwriter defendants in the SandRidge Energy,
Inc. Securities Litigation.

On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
SandRidge Energy, Inc. and certain current and former executive
officers of the Company.

On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated stockholders, filed a substantially
similar putative class action complaint in the same court and
against the same defendants.

On March 6, 2013, the court consolidated these two actions under
the caption "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation"
(the "Securities Litigation") and appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel. On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint, which asserts a variety of federal securities
claims against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a
putative class of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common stock during
the period from February 24, 2011 to November 8, 2012, (b)
purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust I in or
traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 12,
2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian
Trust II (together with the Mississippian Trust I, the
"Mississippian Trusts") in or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 23, 2012. The claims are based on
allegations that the Company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and the Mississippian Trusts, among other
defendants, are responsible for making false and misleading
statements, and omitting material information, concerning a
variety of subjects, including oil and natural gas reserves, the
Company's capital expenditures, and certain transactions entered
into by companies allegedly affiliated with the Company's former
CEO Tom Ward. The defendants have filed respective motions to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, some of which are
pending before the court.

On May 11, 2015, the court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs'
claims against the Mississippian Trusts and the underwriter
defendants. Because the Securities Litigation is in the early
stages, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with
it, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and
legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and defendants'
defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not
etablished any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation.

Each of the Mississippian Trusts has requested that the Company
indemnify it for any losses it may incur in connection with the
Securities Litigation.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Hart" Settlement Subject to Final Negotiations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Energy, 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 proposed settlement
agreement in the case filed by James Hart remains subject to final
negotiations between the parties and court approval.

On July 15, 2013, James Hart and 15 other named plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas in an action undertaken individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated against SandRidge Energy,
Inc., SandRidge Operating Company, SandRidge E&P, SandRidge
Midstream, Inc., and Lariat Services, Inc. In their Amended
Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to
properly calculate overtime pay for the plaintiffs and for other
similarly situated current and former employees. The plaintiffs
further allege that the defendants required the plaintiffs and
other similarly situated current and former employees to engage in
work-related activities without pay. The plaintiffs assert claims
against the defendants for (i) violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, (ii) violations of the Kansas Wage Payment Act,
(iii) breach of contract, and (iv) fraud, and seek to recover
unpaid wages and overtime pay, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties, economic damages, compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and both pre- and post-judgment
interest.

On October 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional
Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the
Class and a Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On October
11, 2013, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to
Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma.

On April 2, 2014, the court granted the defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint
by April 16, 2014, which they did on such date. On July 1, 2014,
the court granted plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective
Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the Class, and
denied plaintiffs' Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations.

On May 27, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle this lawsuit. Pursuant to such agreement, the Company will
establish a settlement fund in the amount of approximately $5.0
million from which to pay participating plaintiffs' claims as well
as plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. Because the proposed settlement
agreement is subject to final negotiations between the parties and
court approval, the Company has not established a reserve for this
lawsuit.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Court Tossed Surbaugh and Dakil Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Energy, 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 court has dismissed
the consolidated Surbaugh and Dakil actions without prejudice to
refiling.

On November 10, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the U.
S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
certain current and former directors and officers of the Company
in the case styled Steve Surbaugh vs. SandRidge Energy, Inc., Tom
L. Ward, James D. Bennett, Eddie M. LeBlanc, and Randall D.
Cooley. The complaint asserts a federal securities class action on
behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons other than
defendants who purchased SandRidge securities between March 1,
2013, through November 4, 2014, seeking to recover damages
allegedly caused by the defendants' violations of federal
securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding SandRidge's business, operations and future prospects
because such statements failed to properly account for the
penalties SandRidge accrued under its treating agreement with
Occidental Petroleum Corporation ("Occidental") and, as a result,
SandRidge's financial statements were materially false and
misleading during the class period.

On November 11, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the U.
S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
certain current and former directors and officers of the Company
in the case styled Steven T. Dakil vs. SandRidge Energy, Inc., Tom
L. Ward, James D. Bennett, and Eddie M. LeBlanc. The complaint
asserts a federal securities class action on behalf of a putative
class consisting of all persons other than defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired SandRidge securities between
February 28, 2013, and November 3, 2014, seeking to recover
damages allegedly caused by the defendants' violations of federal
securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding
SandRidge's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
SandRidge was improperly accounting for penalties owed to
Occidental Petroleum Corp. under a treating agreement on an annual
basis when it was required to do so on a quarterly basis; (ii)
SandRidge's quarterly and annual financial and operating results
for the periods ending December 31, 2012 through June 30, 2014,
were overstated and required restatement; (iii) defendant Ward
engaged in improper related party transactions; (iv) SandRidge
lacked proper internal controls over financial reporting; and (v)
as a result of the foregoing, SandRidge's financial statements
were materially false and misleading during the class period.

On February 17, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma consolidated the Surbaugh and Dakil actions.
On July 29, 2015, the court dismissed the consolidated action
without prejudice to refiling.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Action by Lanier Trust in Early Stages
--------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Energy, 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 lawsuit filed by
the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust is in the early stages.

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors, among other defendants,
on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of
the Mississippian Trust I pursuant or traceable to its initial
public offering on or about April 7, 2011, and/or at other times
during the time period between April 7, 2011, and November 8, 2012
(the "Class Period"), and (b) purchasers of common units of the
Mississippian Trust II (together with the Mississippian Trust I,
the "Mississippian Trusts") pursuant or traceable to its initial
public offering on or about April 17, 2012, and/or at other times
during the Class Period. The claims are based on allegations that
the Company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and the Mississippian Trusts, among other defendants,
are responsible for making false and misleading statements, and
omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects,
including oil and natural gas reserves and the Company's capital
expenditures.

The Company and the other defendants intend to defend this lawsuit
vigorously. This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly,
an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this
action, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and
legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the
defendants' defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company
has not established any reserves relating to this action.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Lawsuit by "Gernandt" in Early Stages
-------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Energy, 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 lawsuit filed by
Barton Gernandt, Jr., is in the early stages.

On July 30, 2015, Barton Gernandt, Jr., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a
putative class comprised of all persons, except the named
defendants and their immediate family members, who were
participants in, or beneficiaries of, the SandRidge Energy, Inc.
401(k) Plan (the "Plan") at any time between August 2, 2012, and
the present, and whose Plan accounts included investments in
SandRidge common stock. The Plaintiff purports to bring the action
both derivatively on the Plan's behalf pursuant to ERISA Sections
409 and 502, and as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff's claims are based
on allegations that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
owed to the Plan and to the Plan participants by allowing the
investment of the Plan's assets in SandRidge stock when it was
otherwise allegedly imprudent to do so based on the financial
condition of the Company and the fact the Company's common stock
was artificially inflated because, among other things, the Company
materially overstated the amount of oil being produced and the
ratio of oil to natural gas in one of its core holdings.

The Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. This
lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly, an estimate of
reasonably possible losses associated with this action, if any,
cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories
relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the defendants' defenses
are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established
any reserves relating to this action.


SHELTER MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Distribute Net Profits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Lanting individually, as Successor-In-Interest to Carlos
Lanting, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v.
Shelter Management Corporation, et al., Case No. BC592623 (Cal.
Super. Ct., August 26, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
breach of fiduciary duty by violating the  terms of the limited
partnership agreements, specifically by failing to make yearly
distribution of net profits to the Limited Partners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Thompson, Esq.
      Brett E. Bitzer, Esq.
      CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN & CAUDILL, LLP
      2601 Main Street, Suite 800
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 261-2872
      Facsimile: (949) 261-6060
      E-mail: rthompson@ctsclaw.com
              bbitzer@ctsclaw.com

         - and -

      C. Tucker Cheadle, Esq.
      C. TUCKER CHEADLE, A LAW CORPORATION
      1000 Quail Street, Suite 100
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 553-1066
      Facsimile: (949) 553-2477
      E-mail: tcheadle@cheadlelaw.net


SMOB LLC: "Acosta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Acosta and all others similarly situated v. SMOB, LLC
d/b/a SMOB Services and Brinkerhoff Inspection, Inc., Case No.
5:15-cv-00845 (W.D. Tex., September 28, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in a business that specializes in coil
tubing completion technology.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
      TRAN LAW FIRM L.L.P.
      9801 Westheimer Rd., Suite 302
      Houston, TX 77042
      Telephone: (713) 223-8855
      Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
      E-mail: Ttran@tranlawllp.com


SUPERIOR HEALTHPLAN: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dedra Jackson, and all others similarly situated v. Superior
Healthplan, Inc., & Centene Company of Texas, L.P, Case No. 3:15-
cv-03125-P (N.D. Tex., September 25, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants operate a multi-line healthcare enterprise that
provides programs and related services to a number of under-
insured and uninsured individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Telephone: (214) 706-0834
      Facsimile: (469) 339-0204
      E-mail: Jack@siegellawgroup.biz


SWEPI LP: Class Certification Bid in "Walney" Suit Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the Western District of
Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the case THOMAS J. WALNEY and RODNEY A.
BEDOW, SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SWEPI LP and SHELL ENERGY HOLDING GP,
LLC, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-102-ERIE (W.D. Pa.)

SWEPI LP (SWEPI) is a limited partnership engaged in the business
of oil and gas exploration and production. Between 2011 and 2013,
SWEPI sought to acquire mineral leases in certain parts of
Pennsylvania, including Venango County. To that end, SWEPI
utilized the services of independent contractor land companies to
acquire oil and gas leases from Pennsylvania landowners.  Among
these companies was Southeast Land Services, LLC (Southeast),
which served as SWEPI's principal independent contractor for lease
acquisitions in Butler and Venango Counties.

Southeast's landmen began contacting individual landowners who,
based on county property records, appeared to own oil and gas
interests in Butler and Venango Counties. Based upon their initial
contact with landowners, the landmen would determine whether the
property in question was already under lease to another company
and, if not, whether the landowner was interested in entering into
a lease with SWEPI.

Plaintiffs Thomas J. Walney and Rodney A. Bedow, Sr. are residents
of Venango County, Pennsylvania, who were contacted by Southeast's
landmen and signed leases in favor of SWEPI in early 2012.
Plaintiffs contend that they signed the form leases and memorandum
of lease (MOL) based upon the promise that they would be paid
bonus monies. Walney maintains that in January 2012 he signed a
lease agreement covering 42.18 acres of land in exchange for a
promised bonus of $137,085.00. Bedow signed three lease agreements
in January 2012 which he claims covered 215.897 acres of land.
Bedow maintains that he was promised bonuses totaling $701,666.88.

Walney commenced a putative class action in the Venango County
Court of Common Pleas, asserting claims for breach of contract,
fraud, disparagement of title, and promissory estoppel. The case
was subsequently removed to the present court on April 12, 2013.
After various pretrial proceedings, Walney eventually filed a
second amended complaint (SAC) on October 10, 2014, with leave of
court The SAC added Bedow as a co-plaintiff and asserted
additional claims for breach of implied contract and unjust
enrichment.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and proposed a
certified class of "Every person who on or after March 14, 2009[3]
signed a Pennsylvania oil and gas lease and/or memorandum thereof
in favor of and recorded by SWEPI, LP in exchange for the promise
of a signing bonus which was never paid".

Defendants dispute the feasibility of a classwide resolution of
plaintiffs' claims. They contend that, despite SWEPI's use of form
documents, the negotiations between its landmen and the various
landowners took place on an individualized basis over the course
of days, weeks, or even months. The lease bonus amounts were also
individually negotiated on a dollar-per-acre basis.

Chief District Judge Conti granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Judge Conti held, "At this procedural juncture, the court finds,
with respect to Counts I and I(A) of the SAC, that common
classwide issues predominate over questions affecting only
individual class members and that all other prerequisites for
class certification are satisfied. If it appears, upon a review of
the merits, that the underlying forms and documents are not
similar in all material respects or that individual inquiry is
otherwise necessary such that the predominance criterion -- or any
other criterion for Rule 23(b)(3) certification -- is no longer
satisfied, the court, at that time, will consider a motion to
decertify the class. At this juncture, based upon the foregoing
discussion, plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be
granted with respect to the breach of contract claims at Counts I
and I(A) of the SAC. The motion will be denied in all other
respects. An appropriate order will be entered."

A copy of Chief District Judge Conti's opinion dated September 14,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/YXse5Qfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Joseph E. Altomare, Esq.
The Law Office of Joseph Altomare
314 S Franklin St.
Titusville, PA 16354
Telephone: 814-827-9626

     - and -

Richard N. Lettieri, Esq.
LETTIERI LAW FIRM, LLC
1620 King James Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15237
Telephone: 412-364-7255
Email: rlettierilaw@live.com

SWEPI LP, SHELL ENERGY HOLDING GP, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Jeremy A. Mercer -- jeremy.mercer@nortonrosefulbright.com --
Daniel M. McClure -- dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com -- at
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP

SOUTHEAST LAND SERVICES LLC, Movant, represented by Jeremy A.
Mercer -- jeremy.mercer@nortonrosefulbright.com -- at Norton Rose
Fulbright US LLP


TREMONT SECURITIES: Settling Class' Plan Allocation Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas P. Griesa of the Southern District of New
York approves class counsel's motion to approve plan allocation in
the case entitled IN RE TREMONT SECURITIES LAW, STATE LAW AND
INSURANCE LITIGATION, NO. 08-CV-11117 (S.D.N.Y.)

Defendants are the Tremont funds and related entities. Plaintiffs
are investors, or their successors in interest, who suffered
because defendants invested their funds with Bernard Madoff.

On March 26, 2009, the court entered an order creating three
groups of consolidated actions against defendants: the Securities
Actions, the State Law Actions, and the Insurance Actions.
Pursuant to the class settlement, two vehicles were created to
facilitate the compensation of plaintiffs. The first vehicle, the
Net Settlement Fund (NSF), housed a class action settlement
recovery of $100 million, minus certain recoveries and expenses.
After a thorough hearing, the court approved a plan of allocation
for the NSF in an order and accompanying opinion dated June 5,
2015. The order permitted the distribution of the NSF to members
of the settling class.

The second vehicle created pursuant to the class settlement, known
as the Fund Distribution Account (FDA), which consists principally
of assets paid by the SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Madoff's
firm to particular funds controlled by the Tremont defendants,
called the Rye funds.

Class counsel for the settling class asks the court to approve a
plan of allocation for the FDA. Class Counsel's plan of allocation
distinguishes between investors in different funds so that
investors in some funds will receive a substantial recovery from
the FDA while investors in other funds will receive little or
nothing. The reasons for allocating the FDA in this manner relate
to the structure of the Trustee Settlement and the mediation
process that resulted in class counsel's plan of allocation.

Several parties have objected to class counsel's plan of
allocation. One objector, investor George S. Martin, has also
moved the court to approve an alternative plan of allocation, and
to certify subclasses and order disclosure of certain materials.

Judge Griesa approves class counsel' motion to approve plan
allocation. All objections are overruled, and the motion of
objector Martin is denied.

A copy of Judge Griesa's opinion dated September 14, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/3ucqMgfrom Leagle.com.

Arthur M. Brainson, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Uri Seth
Ottensoser, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP,Jeffrey Michael Haber,
Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Jeffrey D. Lerner, Bernstein Liebhard,
LLP,Joseph R. Seidman, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP & Sandy A Liebhard,
Bernstein Liebhard, LLP

Yvette Finkelstein, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Daniel W.
Krasner, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Demet Basar,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Jeffrey Michael Haber,
Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Jeffrey D. Lerner, Bernstein Liebhard,
LLP, Joseph R. Seidman, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Sandy A Liebhard,
Bernstein Liebhard, LLP & Stacey Breen Kelly, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz

Group Defined Pension Plan & Trust, Lead Plaintiff, represented by
Jeffrey Michael Haber, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Jeffrey L. Koenig,
Hecht, Kleeger, Pintel, & Damashek, Jeffrey D. Lerner, Bernstein
Liebhard, LLP, Joseph R. Seidman, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP & Sandy
A Liebhard, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP

Arthur E. Lange, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J Entwistle,
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Robert N Cappucci, Entwistle & Cappucci
LLP & Stephen David Oestreich, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP

Arthur C. Lange, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J Entwistle,
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Robert N Cappucci, Entwistle & Cappucci
LLP, Stephen David Oestreich, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP & Reed
Richard Kathrein, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Chateau Fiduciaire S.A., Plaintiff, represented by Paulette
Suzanne Fox, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Daniel W.
Krasner, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, David Avi
Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Demet Basar, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Gregory Mark Nespole, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Stacey Breen Kelly, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz

The Matthew L. Klein Irrevocable Family Trust, Plaintiff,
represented by Paulette Suzanne Fox, Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz, Daniel W. Krasner, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Demet Basar, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Gregory Mark
Nespole, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Stacey Breen
Kelly, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz

The Harriet Rutter Klein Revocable Trust, Plaintiff, represented
by Paulette Suzanne Fox, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
Daniel W. Krasner, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP,
David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Demet
Basar, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Gregory Mark
Nespole, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP &Stacey Breen
Kelly, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz

John F. Keane, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by John F. Keane, Jr.,
PRO SE

The Geoffrey Rabie Credit Shelter Trust, Plaintiff, represented by
Demet Basar, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, David Avi
Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Edward Y. Kroub,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

The Joanne Brenda Rabie Credit Shelter Trust, Plaintiff,
represented by Demet Basar, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP &Edward Y.
Kroub, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

Arthur E. Lange Revocable Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew
J Entwistle, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP & Reed Richard Kathrein,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

NPV Positive Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J Entwistle,
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Reed Richard Kathrein, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP

Eastham Capital Appreciation Fund LP, Plaintiff, represented by
Andrew J Entwistle, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Reed Richard
Kathrein, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Laborers Local 17 Pension Plan, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher Lometti, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C., Joel
Paul Laitman, Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., Andrew J Entwistle,
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Kenneth Mark Rehns, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C., Reed Richard Kathrein, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP

Daniel Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lometti,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C., Joel Paul Laitman,
Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., Andrew J Entwistle, Entwistle & Cappucci
LLP, Kenneth Mark Rehns, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C. &
Reed Richard Kathrein, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Neal J. Polan, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J Entwistle,
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP

Yale M. Fishman 1998 Insurance Trust, Plaintiff, represented by
David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

Antonio Calabrese, Plaintiff, represented by David Gorvitz, Milber
Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP,Erik Thomas Kindschi, Pryor Cashman
LLP & Lisa M. Buckley, Pryor Cashman LLP

Stephen Calabrese, Plaintiff, represented by David Gorvitz, Milber
Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP

Calco Painting, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Gorvitz,
Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP

Richard A. Scherr, Plaintiff, represented by David Gorvitz, Milber
Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP

Arthur Simons, Plaintiff, represented by David Gorvitz, Milber
Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP

Paul Funk, Plaintiff, represented by David Gorvitz, Milber Makris
Plousadis & Seiden, LLP

Joseph Ludwig, Plaintiff, represented by David Gorvitz, Milber
Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP

Judith Ludwig, Plaintiff, represented by David Gorvitz, Milber
Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP

Stuart Levey, Plaintiff, represented by David Gorvitz, Milber
Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP

Deborah Levey, Plaintiff, represented by David Gorvitz, Milber
Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP

Levey Fishman Trust, Stuart Levey, Trustee, Plaintiff, represented
by David Gorvitz, Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP

Nicholas P. Kardasis IRA, Plaintiff, represented by David Gorvitz,
Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP

Jean-Marc Chouraqui, Plaintiff, represented by David Gorvitz,
Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP

BMIS Funding I, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Mumford
Perry, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP & Daniel Robert
Walfish, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP

Sola Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Gleason Minias,
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

Solus Core Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., Plaintiff, represented
by Joseph Gleason Minias, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

Solus Recovery Fund II Master LP, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph
Gleason Minias, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

Solus Recovery LH Fund LP, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph
Gleason Minias, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

Ultra Master Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Gleason
Minias, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

Halcyon Loan Trading Fund LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph
Gleason Minias, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

New York Life Insurance And Annuity Corporation, Plaintiff,
represented by John Michael Vassos, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP
& Mary Christina Pennisi, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
John Michael Vassos, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP & Mary
Christina Pennisi, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP

John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.), Plaintiff,
represented by John Michael Vassos, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP
& Mary Christina Pennisi, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP

Pacific Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by John
Michael Vassos, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP & Mary Christina
Pennisi, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP

Security Life of Denver Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented
by John Michael Vassos, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP & Mary
Christina Pennisi, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP

AIG Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by John Michael
Vassos, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP & Mary Christina Pennisi,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP

Delaware Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by John
Michael Vassos, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP & Mary Christina
Pennisi, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP

Pruco Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by John
Michael Vassos, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP & Mary Christina
Pennisi, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP

Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by John
Michael Vassos, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP & Mary Christina
Pennisi, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP

The Tremont Insurance Plaintiffs' Litigation Trust, Consolidated
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel W. Krasner, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Demet Basar, Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz & Kate Marietta McGuire, Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz

M. Kenneth Witover, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Mark
Steven Mulholland, Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C. & Thomas
Anthoney Telesca, Connell Foley LLP
Ronald Gallatin, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Mark
Steven Mulholland, Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C. & Thomas
Anthoney Telesca, Connell Foley LLP

The 2001 Frederick Dematteis Revocable Trust, Consolidated
Plaintiff, represented by Mark Steven Mulholland, Ruskin Moscou
Faltischek, P.C. & Thomas Anthoney Telesca, Connell Foley LLP

Dematteis FLP Assets, LLC, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by
Mark Steven Mulholland, Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C. & Thomas
Anthoney Telesca, Connell Foley LLP

John Patience, Individually, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented
by James L. Kopecky, Kopecky, Schumacher & Bleakley, P.C.,
Jonathan David Berg, Jaffe & Asher LLP, Jonathan Kord Lagemann&
Kevin M. Flynn, Kevin M. Flynn & Associates

John Patience, Plaintiff, represented by James L. Kopecky,
Kopecky, Schumacher & Bleakley, P.C. & Jonathan David Berg, Jaffe
& Asher LLP

John Patience, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan
Kord Lagemann & Kevin M. Flynn, Kevin M. Flynn & Associates

Cummins Inc., Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan
David Berg, Jaffe & Asher LLP,Jonathan Kord Lagemann, Kevin M.
Flynn, Kevin M. Flynn & Associates, Robert Andrew Chapman, Chapman
& Spingola LLP & Sara Lillian Siegall, Chapman Spingola, LLP

Lakeview Investments, LP, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by
Kevin M. Harr

The International Dad Trust, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented
by Ralph C Perry-Miller, Looper Reed & McGraw PC.
F. Daniel Prickett, Movant, represented by F. Daniel Prickett, PRO
SE

Harry Hodges, Defendant, represented by Seth M Schwartz, Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Austin Capital Management GP Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Geoffrey J. Ritts, Jones Day, Harold Keith Gordon, Jones Day &
Richard Joseph Bedell, Jr, Jones Day

Austin Capital Management Limited, Defendant, represented by
Geoffrey J. Ritts, Jones Day, Harold Keith Gordon, Jones Day &
Richard Joseph Bedell, Jr, Jones Day

Sandra L. Manzke, Defendant, represented by Carrie Ann Tendler,
Kobre & Kim LLP, Jonathan David Cogan, Kobre & Kim LLP, Michael
Sangyun Kim, Kobre & Kim LLP & Maggie E. Sklar, Kobre & Kim, LLP.
Robert Schulman, Defendant, represented by Seth M Schwartz,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Oppenheimerfunds, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Adam
Kotler, Dechert, LLP

FutureSelect Portfolio Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Emily Sinclair Alexander, Thomas, Alexander & Forrester, LLP,
Nicholas Kord Lagemann, Sidley Austin LLP & Thomas K. Cauley,
Sidley Austin, LLP

Ron Ward, Defendant, represented by Nicholas Kord Lagemann, Sidley
Austin LLP & Thomas K. Cauley, Sidley Austin, LLP

Austin Capital Management Ltd., Defendant, represented by Geoffrey
J. Ritts, Jones Day & Richard Joseph Bedell, Jr, Jones Day

Jim Mitchell, Defendant, represented by Seth M Schwartz, Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Tremont Market Neutral Fund, Defendant, represented by Ralph A.
Siciliano, Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP

Rupert Allan, Defendant, represented by Seth M Schwartz, Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Rye Select Broad Market Fund, Defendant, represented by David
Jeffrey Kanfer, Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP,
Ralph A. Siciliano, Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP
& Richard Walker Trotter, Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse &
Hirschtritt LLP

Rye Select Broad Market Prime Fund, Defendant, represented by
Ralph A. Siciliano, Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP

Susan Hammond, Defendant, represented by Maggie E. Sklar, Kobre &
Kim, LLP

Lynn O. Keeshan, Defendant, represented by Seth M Schwartz,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Spectrum Select L.P., Nominal Defendant, represented by Alan
William Sparer, Sparer Law Group, Bennette Deacy Kramer, Schlam
Stone & Dolan LLP, James Nabwangu, Sparer Law Group, Kevin Harvey
Lewis, Sparer Law Group & Richard Henry Dolan, Schlam Stone &
Dolan LLP

Rye Select Broad Market XL Fund, L.P., Nominal Defendant,
represented by Jamie Benjamin Walton Stecher, Tannenbaum Helpern
Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP & Ralph A. Siciliano, Tannenbaum
Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP

Rye Select Broad Market XL Portfolio Limited, Nominal Defendant,
represented by Ralph A. Siciliano, Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse &
Hirschtritt LLP

FutureSelect Prime Advisor II, LLC, Nominal Defendant, represented
by Emily Sinclair Alexander, Thomas, Alexander & Forrester, LLP

Stuart Pologe, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Seth M
Schwartz, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Patrick Kelly, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Seth M
Schwartz, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Rye Select Broad Market Prime Fund LP, Consolidated Defendant,
represented by David Jeffrey Kanfer, Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse &
Hirschtritt LLP

Rye Select Broad Market XL Fund LP, Consolidated Defendant,
represented by David Jeffrey Kanfer, Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse &
Hirschtritt LLP

Rye Select Broad Market Prime Fund LP, Consolidated Defendant,
represented by David Jeffrey Kanfer, Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse &
Hirschtritt LLP & Richard Walker Trotter, Tannenbaum Helpern
Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP

Rye Select Broad Market XL Fund LP, Consolidated Defendant,
represented by David Jeffrey Kanfer, Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse &
Hirschtritt LLP & Richard Walker Trotter, Tannenbaum Helpern
Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP

KPMG LLP, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Gregory Gil
Ballard, Sidley Austin LLP

Phoenix Lake Partners, LP, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by
Kevin M. Harr

Philadelphia Financial Life Assurance Company, Claimant,
represented by David T. McDowell, Edison, McDowell & Hetherington,
LLP, Hutson Brit Smelley, Edison, McDowell & Hetherington, LLP,
Richard Gerard Haddad, Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston & Rosen &
Thomas F.A. Hetherington, Edison, McDowell & Hetherington LLP

Lehman Brothers Finance AG, Claimant, represented by Kostas D.
Katsiris, Howrey LLP, Edward Ambrose Smith, III, Venable LLP &
Robert Leslie Meyerhoff, Venable LLP

New Jersey Carpenters Annuity Fund, New Jersey Carpenters Pension
Fund, New Jersey Carpenters Welfare Fund, ADR Provider,
represented by Robert Alan Wallner, Milberg LLP,Charles Slidders,
Milberg LLP & Kent Andrew Bronson, Milberg LLP

George P Turner, ADR Provider, represented by Vincent T. Gresham,
Vincent T. Gresham, Law Office

The Royal Bank of Scotland, N.V., Objector, represented by Michael
Svetkey Feldberg, Allen & Overy, Geoffrey Stuart Brounell,
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC & Lanier
Saperstein, Allen & Overy, LLP

HSBC Bank plc, Objector, represented by David E. Brodsky, Cleary
Gottlieb, Thomas J. Moloney, Cleary Gottlieb & Joaquin Pablo
Terceno, III, Cleary Gottlieb

HSBC USA Inc., Objector, represented by David E. Brodsky, Cleary
Gottlieb

Edward L White, Objector, represented by Kevin M. Harr.
ABN AMRO Bank (Ireland) Ltd., Objector, represented by Christopher
R. Harris, Latham & Watkins, LLP

Spectrum Equities, L.P., Objector, represented by Deborah A.
Ellingboe, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, James Volling, Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP, Michael Federick Cockson, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP &
Nicholas Nelson, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP

Spectrum Select II, L.P., Objector, represented by Deborah A.
Ellingboe, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, James Volling, Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP, Michael Federick Cockson, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP &
Nicholas Nelson, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP

Madelyn Haines, Objector, represented by Vincent T. Gresham,
Vincent T. Gresham, Law Office

Collins Capital Investments LLC, Objector, represented by Hilary
Lovett Preston, Vinson & Elkins L.L.P.

Meritage Capital, LLC, Objector, represented by Michael McGee
Munoz, Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP

Paul Zamrowski, Objector, represented by Vincent T. Gresham,
Vincent T. Gresham, Law Office

Bindler Living Trust, Objector, represented by Vincent T. Gresham,
Vincent T. Gresham, Law Office

George P Turner, Objector, represented by Vincent T. Gresham,
Vincent T. Gresham, Law Office

Madelyn Haines, Objector, represented by Vincent T. Gresham,
Vincent T. Gresham, Law Office

John Johnson, Objector, represented by Vincent T. Gresham, Vincent
T. Gresham, Law Office

William J. Millard Trust, Objector, represented by Vincent T.
Gresham, Vincent T. Gresham, Law Office

West Trust, Objector, represented by Vincent T. Gresham, Vincent
T. Gresham, Law Office.
Stella Ruggiano Trust, Objector, represented by Vincent T.
Gresham, Vincent T. Gresham, Law Office

Austin Capital BMP Fund, LLC, Miscellaneous, represented by Paul
Steven Singerman, Berger Singerman LLP & Ilyse M Homer, Berger
Singerman LLP

Richard Peshkin, Interested Party, represented by David S. Nalven,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Lee Matthew Gordon, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Reed Richard Kathrein, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Irving H. Picard, Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Substantively
Consolidated SIPA Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities LLC and Bernard L. Madoff, Interested Party,
represented by Marc Dennis Powers, Baker & Hostetler LLP

Michael S Martin, Interested Party, represented by Gary Steven
Graifman, Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. & Joshua Fruchter,
Wohl & Fruchter LLP

FutureSelect Prime Advisor II LLC, Interested Party, represented
by Emily Sinclair Alexander, Thomas, Alexander & Forrester, LLP &
Mark Forrester, Thomas, Alexander & Forrester LLP

The Merriwell Fund, L.P., Interested Party, represented by Emily
Sinclair Alexander, Thomas, Alexander & Forrester, LLP & Mark
Forrester, Thomas, Alexander & Forrester LLP

Telesis IIW, LLC, Interested Party, represented by Emily Sinclair
Alexander, Thomas, Alexander & Forrester, LLP & Mark Forrester,
Thomas, Alexander & Forrester LLP

SPCP Group, LLC, Interested Party, represented by Walter Rieman,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Daniel James
Juceam, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP

Dolos X LLC, Interested Party, represented by Irwin Howard Warren,
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

Dolos XI LLC, Interested Party, represented by Irwin Howard
Warren, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

Dolos XII LLC, Interested Party, represented by Irwin Howard
Warren, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

Dianne Ward, All Plaintiffs, represented by Emily Sinclair
Alexander, Thomas, Alexander & Forrester, LLP

RCW Group, Inc., All Plaintiffs, represented by Emily Sinclair
Alexander, Thomas, Alexander & Forrester, LLP

Ronald Ward, All Plaintiffs, represented by Emily Sinclair
Alexander, Thomas, Alexander & Forrester, LLP

2005 Tomchin Family Charitable Trust, Intervenor, represented by
Jason Samuel Cowart, Pomerantz LLP


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Faces Suits Pending in N.Y. and Calif. Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greg B. Smith, writing for NY Daily News, reported that  when 75-
year-old Robert Guillo hears candidate Donald Trump speak for "the
silent majority" and promise to "put people back to work," he has
to laugh.

Guillo is one of hundreds of former "students" of the now-defunct
Trump University; an entity the New York attorney general says was
a grand scam that put $5 million in Trump's pocket.

"As soon as I attended the first workshop, I knew I had been
scammed," Guillo said. "Every single workshop, they charged you
another amount. Everything was to get you to spend more and more
and more."

Instead, according to lawsuits filed in New York and California,
"students" got repeat come-ons to run up credit card debt to buy
increasingly expensive mentorships topping out at nearly $35,000
per person.

Students were even advised to fudge their income to persuade
credit card companies to increase their credit limits, the
lawsuits charge.

An internal Trump U. document titled "surefire script to more
purchasing power" suggested deliberately inflating actual income
by adding in "projected income" from businesses that did not yet
exist.

Students were told to make up a name of this fictional business,
but not to include "real estate" in its name.

"Be vague," the internal Trump U. document states.

In the end, according to the lawsuits, hundreds of students saw
their credit scores damaged -- and worse.

Kathleen Meese of upstate Schoharie said in a sworn affidavit that
a Trump U. "mentor" pressured her to buy a $25,000 "elite"
program.

When she balked, telling him she needed to support her son with
Down syndrome, he "told me that I had to sign up for Trump Gold
Elite for $25,000 to help my family. He said he had a son, so he
knew how family meant everything to me."

He promised she'd make the $25,000 back within 60 days, and she
put the program on her card. When she again balked, he promised to
personally work with her. After the three-day period for seeking
refunds passed, he told her he was sending over another mentor.

Two years later, she was still paying off her credit card debt to
Trump U.

Nelly Cunningham of Staten Island says she emptied her savings
account for Trump U. and couldn't get a refund.

"I wasted my entire life savings on Trump," she said in an
affidavit. "I spent $1,495 on the Trump three-day seminar and
$24,995 on the Trump Gold Elite mentorship package, only to be
demeaned and belittled. I feel like such a fool."

In a lawsuit pending in Manhattan Supreme Court, New York Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman says 600 ex-Trump U. students in the
state were defrauded. Trump Organization counsel Alan Garten
defended the school as "a substantive, real program" that "offered
people valuable training, valuable courses and valuable
mentorships."

He provided sworn affidavits of eight students praising the
school, with some saying they'd initiated successful real estate
deals as a result of their training.

So far, Judge Cynthia Kerr has found Trump violated state
education laws by calling his entity a "university" when it wasn't
licensed as one. She will decide on possible restitution after a
yet-to-be scheduled hearing.

Meantime, two more class-action lawsuits are pending in
California.

Trump U. claimed to help some of the working stiffs who Trump has
expressed concern for on the stump by turning them into real
estate tycoons via "experts" who were allegedly "hand-picked" by
Trump.

And who were these ambassadors to extravagant wealth?

One was a graphic designer. Two "mentors" had filed for protection
from creditors under the bankruptcy act after running up huge
debts in failed real estate adventures, according to bankruptcy
court documents.

"I don't think that someone had a downturn on a business deal
means that they are not experienced," said Trump's counsel,
Garten.

Students say Trump U. presenters told them Trump didn't get a
penny and that all the fees went back into the school.
Schneiderman says Trump personally pocketed $5 million.

So what do unhappy Trump U. students think of his plan to "make
America great again"?

For Guillo of Manhasset, L.I., who demanded but never got a refund
of his $34,995, it's all a great big joke.

"Donald Trump has charisma. He's got the greatest persona of any
of the Republican candidates and even the Democratic candidates,"
Guillo said.

"And if you're not sophisticated, he makes a pitch before the Iowa
fair and he gives a speech, they believe all this stuff.

"But when it comes down to solutions, he's not specific about
anything. And people are buying it."

Nora Hann, 62, of Seagate, Brooklyn, isn't buying it anymore. She
tried for months to get a refund after putting a $34,995 "Gold
Elite" mentorship on her credit card.

"I went through hell and back," she said. "I kept calling them,
sending them emails, nothing happened. Ignoring me. Email after
email. They kept sending me emails saying how everything is
progressing."

Amex told her the Trump charge had already gone through. Then her
"mentor" stopped taking her calls. She finally got him to pick up
by using a friend's cell phone. He agreed to a refund.

This experience left Hann with serious doubts about a potential
President Trump.

"I don't think he's going to make it. He has a big mouth. He's
just stirring up trouble," she said. "I think they're a bunch of
frauds. They told us that he was going to be there. He wasn't
there. This is not $3,500. This is $35,000. It's crazy."

Arlene Cohen, 59, who lives in Forest Hills, Queens -- the borough
where Trump grew up -- paid $1,495 for a three-day seminar because
she admired him.

Pressured to buy far more expensive "mentorships," she walked
away. Her view of Trump soured somewhat when her refund request
was rebuffed.

"Although I think he's an amazing person and he might even be a
good President, this is different," she said.

"He sold out for the money."


TWO HARBORS: Baltimore Court Preliminarily Approved Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two Harbors Investment Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015,
that on July 16, 2015, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland preliminarily approved the terms of a proposed settlement
entered into by Two Harbors Investment Corp. ("Company"), certain
members of the Company's Board of Directors, and the plaintiff in
the case captioned Orlando v. Two Harbors Investment Corp., et
al., Case No. 24-C-15-001765. The settlement remains subject final
approval by the Circuit Court.

A copy of the Settlement notice is available at
http://is.gd/YrpB43


VILLAGE OF TINLEY: Sued Over Inaccurate Smart Meters
----------------------------------------------------
Omar Jaber, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. The Village of Tinley Park, Case No. 2015-CH-12754 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., August 26, 2015) arises out of the alleged unreliability and
inaccuracy of the electronic and digital Severn Trent "smart
meters" used by the Defendant to record water usage between the
years of 2005 to the present.

Village of Tinley Park is a municipal corporation located in the
State of Illinois and its conduct.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry D. Drury, Esq.
      LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
      100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1010
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 346-7950

         - and -

      John H. Alexander, Esq.
      JOHN H. ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      55 West Monroe, Suite 2455
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: 312/263-7731


VISANU THAI: Faces "Aviles" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Aviles and Juan Aviles-Reza individually and on behalf of
other employees similarly situated v. Visanu Thai 55, Inc. and
Visanu Srisak, Case No. 1:15-cv-08540 (N.D. Ill., September 28,
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 restaurant located at 1607 E.
55th St, Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Edwards" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Donald P. Edwards Jr., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-04003-RMG (D.S.C., September 25, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of "defeat device" in
at least the following diesel models of its vehicles: MY 2009-2015
VW Jetta; MY 2009-2014 Jetta Sportwagen; MY 2012-2015 VW Beetle;
MY 2012-2015 VW Beetle Convertible; MY 2010-2015 VW Golf; MY 2015
Golf Sportwagen; MY 2012-2015 VW Passat; and MY 2010-2015 Audi A3.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
      Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq.
      Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
      MOTLEY RICE LLC
      28 Bridgeside Boulevard
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 216-9000
      Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
      E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
              jflowers@motleyrice.com
              kdean@motleyrice.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hall" Suit in Wis. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Hall, Jeff Machi, Waylon Herron, Jeremiah Lee Mehrhoff
Katherine Lacey Mehrhoff v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Volkswagen AG, and Audi AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-04212-NKL (W.D. Wis.,
September 28, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
installation of sophisticated software, known as a "defeat
device," in Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles sold in the United
States that was designed to circumvent and artificially suppress
the results of official vehicle emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

Volkswagen AG is a German multinational automotive manufacturing
company headquartered in Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony, Germany.

Audi AG is a German automobile manufacturer that designs,
engineers, produces, markets and distributes luxury automobiles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig R. Heidemann, Esq.
      Nathan A. Duncan, Esq.
      DOUGLAS, HAUN & HEIDEMANN, P.C.
      111 West Broadway, P.O. Box 117
      Bolivar, MO 65613
      Telephone: (417) 326-5261
      Facsimile: (417) 326-2845
      E-mail: craig@dhhlawfirm.com
              nathan@dhhlawfirm.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hill" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jess Hill, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and
Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-07604 (C.D. Cal., September 28,
2015) arises out of the Defendant's intentional installation of
"defeat devices", which are software that circumvent EPA emissions
standards for certain air pollutants, in over 482,000 diesel
Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

Volkswagen AG is a German multinational automotive manufacturing
company headquartered in Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony, Germany.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Thomas E. Loeser
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 330
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
              toml@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      John B. Quinn, Esq.
      Shon Morgan, Esq.
      QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
      865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
      Telephone: (213) 443 3000
      Facsimile: (213) 443 3100
      E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kaufman" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Ari Kaufman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-
13417-JCO-EAS (E.D. Mich., September 28, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices", which
are software that circumvent EPA emissions standards for certain
air pollutants, in over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Powell Miller, Esq.
      Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      950 West University Drive, Suite 300
      Rochester, MI 48703
      Telephone: (248) 841-2200
      Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
      E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
              ssa@millerlawpc.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kim" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Young Kim, Julie Chapla, Vincent Ray, and Cristian Mendoza,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07605 (C.D.
Cal., September 28, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
installation of sophisticated software, known as a "defeat
device," in Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles sold in the United
States that was designed to circumvent and artificially suppress
the results of official vehicle emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
      Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
      Kevin R. Budner, Esq.
      Phong-Chau G. Nguyen, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
              twalburg@lchb.com
              kbudner@lchb.com
              pgnguyen@lchb.com

         - and -

      David S. Stellings, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
      E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com

         - and -

      Bryan Kemnitzer, Esq.
      Adam J. McNeile, Esq.
      KEMNITZER BARRON & KRIEG
      445 Bush St. 6th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 632-1900
      Facsimile: (415) 632-1901
      E-mail: bryan@kbklegal.com
              adam@kbklegal.com

         - and -

      Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
      CHAVEZ & GERTLER, LLP
      42 Miller Ave
      Mill Valley, CA 94941
      Telephone: (415) 381-5599
      Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
      E-mail: mark@chavezgertler.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Klein" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg A. Klein, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Does 1
to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-07570 (C.D. Cal., September
25, 2015) arises from the Defendant VW's conscious decision to
market, sell, and distribute vehicles equipped with a concealed
"defeat device" to circumvent Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) emissions requirements during official testing of the
vehicle, while emitting up to 40 times more than the allowable
levels of certain pollutants during normal operation.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan A. Michaels, Esq.
      Kathryn J. Harvey, Esq.
      Kianna C. Parviz, Esq.
      MLG AUTOMOTIVE LAW, APLC
      A Professional Law Corporation
      2801 W. Coast Highway, Suite 370
      Newport Beach, CA 92663
      Telephone: (949) 581-6900
      Facsimile: (949) 581-6908
      E-mail: jmichaels@mlgautomotivelaw.com
      kharvey@mlgautomotivelaw.com
      kparviz@mlgautomotivelaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Krieger" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Lane Krieger, individually, and on behalf of a class of Oklahoma
similarly situated individuals v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01064-F (W.D. Okla., September 28, 2015)
arises out of the Defendants' alleged installation of
sophisticated software, known as a "defeat device," in Volkswagen
and Audi diesel vehicles sold in the United States that was
designed to circumvent and artificially suppress the results of
official vehicle emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Wiggins OBA No. 9594
      WIGGINS SEWELL & OGLETREE
      3100 Oklahoma Tower
      210 Park Avenue
      Oklahoma City, OK 73102
      Telephone: (405) 232-1211
      Facsimile: (405) 235-7025
      E-mail: jwiggins@wsolaw.net


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Labudda" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Anderson, B., Labudda, S., Granger, P. Grendziak, S., Keaton, M.
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00622 (W.D.
Wis., September 25, 2015) arises out of Volkswagen's intentional
installation of "Defeat Device" to detect when the vehicle is
undergoing an emissions test in certain makes and models,
including the Jetta, the Jetta Sportwagen, the Golf, the Audi A3,
the Beetle, the Beetle Convertible, the Passat, and the Golf
Sportwagen.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Zoeller, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      222 West Washington Avenue, Suite 450
      Post Office Box 2155
      Madison, WI 53701-2155
      Telephone: (608) 257-0040
      Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
      E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Mesa" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Waldo Mesa and Michael Powell, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Volkwagen A.G. and Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-23606-FAM (S.D. Fla., September
25, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged installation of
sophisticated software, known as a "defeat device," in Volkswagen
and Audi diesel vehicles sold in the United States that was
designed to circumvent and artificially suppress the results of
official vehicle emissions testing.

Volkswagen AG is one of the world's largest car manufacturers. It
owns and controls the brand names Volkswagen, Rolls-Royce,
Bentley, Audi, Lamborghini, Skoda and Seat.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
      Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
      Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
      200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 525-4100
      Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
      E-mail: gilbert@kolawyers.com
              ostrow@kolawyers.com
              streisfeld@kolawyers.com
              edelsberg@kolawyers.com

         - and -

      Michael E. Criden, Esq.
      CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
      7301 Southwest 57 Court, Suite 515
      South Miami, FL 33143
      Telephone: (305) 357-9000
      Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
      E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Parsons" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Amie L. Parsons, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of American, Inc. and
Volkswagen AG, Case No. 3:15-cv-03132-N (N.D. Tex., September 28,
2015) arises out of the Defendant's intentional installation of
"defeat devices", which are software that circumvent EPA emissions
standards for certain air pollutants, in over 482,000 diesel
Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

Volkswagen AG is a German multinational automotive manufacturing
company headquartered in Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony, Germany.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles "Trey" Branham, Esq.
      DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP
      3900 Elm St.
      Dallas, TX 75226
      Telephone: (214) 722-5990
      Facsimile: (214) 722-5991
      E-mail: tbranham@dobllp.com

         - and -

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      2926 Maple Ave., Ste. 200
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (214) 696-1100
      Facsimile: (214) 696-740-0112
      E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Strayhorn" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Bruce Strayhorn and Megan Strayhorn, invidually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00584-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., September
25, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged installation of
sophisticated software, known as a "defeat device," in Volkswagen
and Audi diesel vehicles sold in the United States that was
designed to circumvent and artificially suppress the results of
official vehicle emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sawyer C. Smith, Esq.
      THE WILBUR SMITH LAW FIRM
      The Bradford Block, PO Drawer 8
      1415 Hendry Street
      Fort Myers, FL 33901
      Telephone: (239) 334-7696
      Facsimile: (239) 334-3669
      E-mail: scsmith@wilburlaw.com

         - and -

      Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
      Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq.
      Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
      MOTLEY RICE LLC
      28 Bridgeside Boulevard
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 216-9000
      Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
      E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
              jflowers@motleyrice.com
              kdean@motleyrice.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Stolz" Suit in R.I. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary M. Stolz, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00407 (D.R.I., September 25, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's
alleged intentional installation of "defeat device" in at least
the following diesel models of its vehicles: MY 2009-2015 VW
Jetta; MY 2009-2014 Jetta Sportwagen; MY 2012-2015 VW Beetle; MY
2012-2015 VW Beetle Convertible; MY 2010-2015 VW Golf; MY 2015
Golf Sportwagen; MY 2012-2015 VW Passat; and MY 2010-2015 Audi A3.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert McConnell, Esq.
      Vincent L. Greene, Esq.
      Jonathan D. Orent, Esq.
      MONTLEY RICE LLC
      321 South Main Street, 2nd Floor
      Providence, RI 02903
      Telephone: (401) 457-7700
      Facsimile: (401) 457-7708
      E-mail: bmcconnell@montley.com
              vgreene@montley.com
              jrent@montley.com

         - and -

      Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
      Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq.
      Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
      MOTLEY RICE LLC
      28 Bridgeside Boulevard
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 216-9000
      Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
      E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
              jflowers@motleyrice.com
              kdean@motleyrice.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Thompson" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Thompson, individually and as representative of all
similarly situated persons v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-04805 (E.D. La., September 28, 2015) arises out
of Volkswagen's intentional installation of "Defeat Device" to
detect when the vehicle is undergoing an emissions test in certain
makes and models, the Jetta, the Beetle, the Audi A3, the Golf and
the Passat models.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Becnel Jr., Esq.
      Matthew Moreland, Esq.
      Salvadore Christina Jr., Esq.
      Jennifer Crose, Esq.
      BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
      P.O. Drawer H
      Reserve, LA 70084
      Telephone: 985.536.1186
      Facsimile: 985.536.6446
      E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com
              mmoreland@becnellaw.com
              schristina@becnellaw.com
              jcrose@becnellaw.com

         - and -

      Morris Bart, Esq.
      Mekel Alvarez,Esq.
      MORRIS BART, LLC
      909 Poydras Street, 20th Fl.
      New Orleans, LA 70112
      Telephone: (504) 599-3318
      Facsimile: (504) 599-3392


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Wenger" Suit in D.C. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric A. Wenger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01575-RMC (D.D.C., September 28, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged installation of sophisticated software, known
as a "defeat device," in Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles sold
in the United States that was designed to circumvent and
artificially suppress the results of official vehicle emissions
testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
      BAILEY GLASSER, LLP
      1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 463-2101
      Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
      E-mail: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Willingham" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Willingham and Jeremy Empol, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-07633-LGS (S.D.N.Y., September 28, 2015) asserts
that Volkswagen designed and installed specialized "defeat
devices" on nearly 500,000 Clean Diesel Cars that deceptively
permitted them to pass laboratory emission standard tests required
for the cars to be imported and sold in the United States.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
      E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com

         - and -

      Laurence D. King, Esq.
      Linda M. Fong, Esq.
      Matthew George, Esq.
      Mario M. Choi, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 772-4700
      Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
      E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
              lfong@kaplanfox.com
              mgeorge@kaplanfox.com
              mchoi@kaplanfox.com

         - and -

      Justin B. Farar, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      11111 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 620
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 614-7260
      Facsimile: (310) 575-8697
      E-mail: jfarar@kaplanfox.com


WARNER MUSIC: Reply Date Has Not Yet Been Set
---------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. 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's reply
date has not yet been set on the motion for class certification
related to the Pricing of Digital Music Downloads.

On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of
the State of New York served the Company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to the pricing of digital music downloads. On February 28, 2006,
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served us
with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking information
relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music. Both
investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the
announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative
class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital
music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern
District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on
April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay
the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate
their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble
damages.

On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing
the case as to all defendants, including us. However, on January
12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the District
Court and remanded the case for further proceedings and on January
10, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for
Certiorari.

Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments
made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed
by the District Court.

On July 18, 2011, the District Court granted defendants' motion in
part, and denied it in part. Notably, all claims on behalf of the
CD-purchaser class were dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide
variety of state and federal claims remain for the class of
internet download purchasers. Plaintiffs filed an operative
consolidated amended complaint on August 31, 2011. Pursuant to the
terms of an August 15, 2011 stipulation and order, the case is
currently in discovery. Disputes regarding the scope of discovery
are ongoing.

Plaintiffs filed a Class Certification brief on March 14, 2014.
The Company's reply date has not yet been set. The Company intends
to defend against these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to
predict the outcome of these suits. Regardless of the merits of
the claims, this and any related litigation could continue to be
costly, and divert the time and resources of management. The
potential outcomes of these claims that are reasonably possible
cannot be determined at this time and an estimate of the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot presently be
made.


                            *********

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  * * *