CAR_Public/151013.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 13, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 204


                            Headlines


169 NINTH: Faces "Massi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Settlement Fee
ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Suit Over Antitrust Violation
AMERIGAS PROPANE: Court Okays Transfer Bid, Rejects Dismissal Bid
AUTOMOTIVE AFTERMARKET: Sued Over Inaccurate Wage Statement
BANK OF AMERICA: 12 Banks Settle Default Swap Claims for $1.86BB

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Faces Suit Over Antitrust Violation
BUFFALO WILD: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Periods
C LUCE: Faces "Park" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
C&J ENERGY: "Esparza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CAL WEST: Faces "Mora" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages

CAL-MAINE FOODS: Settlement Opt Out Deadline Extended for DAPs
CAPITOL SECURITY: "Oliva" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CBS CORPORATION: Faces "Norman" Suit Over Asbestos Exposure
CELEBRITY CRUISES: CA Affirms Class Cert. in Doctors' Lawsuit
CERMACK HOSPITALITY: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

CESSNA AIRCRAFT: Sued in Wisc. Over Disability Discrimination
COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CONNECTICUT: Court Denies Appointment of Counsel, Class Cert.
CONTINENTAL BANK: "Uhrinek" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
CSX INTERMODAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Truck Drivers, Suit Claims

CVS PHARMACY: Suit by Burton's, Dilworth Goes to Arbitration
CYNOSURE INC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Weitzner" Case
DA ZHEN: Faces "Wu" Suit Over Tour Bus Operation Negligence
EDISON NATION: "Principe" Suit Alleges Misrepresentation
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Lawyer Seeks $4.6MM Fee from NCAA Athletes' Deal

ELIM FOREVER: Faces "Kim" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
EXPERIAN: Lax Security Allowed Hackers to Steal Info, Suit Claims
FLOWERS BAKING: Faces "Brownfield" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FOI ENTERPRISES: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
FOUR SEASONS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Estrada" Suit Says

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Easterly" Suit Over Zofran(R) Drugs
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Murray" Suit Over Zofran(R) Drugs
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Zofran(R) Drugs
HARDEE'S FOOD SYSTEMS: Staff with Hepa A Prepared Food, Suit Says
INVESTIGATIONS AND SECURITY: Faces Suit Alleging FLSA Violations

JUST PUPS: Court Permits Discovery in Pet Buyer's Action
KG SALES: Faces "Choi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
LEE COUNTY, FL: Court Adopts Plaintiffs' FLSA Opt-in Notice
LUCILLE ROBERTS: Gym Member Sues in S.D.N.Y. Over Religion Bias
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Conditional Cert. Granted in "Senne" Case

MANAGED HEALTH: Supreme Court to Hear Arbitration Clause Case
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Finerman"
MARY GIULIANI CATERING: Waiters Sue in NY Over Unpaid Tips & OT
MAZUMA FEDERAL: Faces "Bowens" Suit in Mo. Over Overdraft Fees
MCKESSON CORPORATION: Sued Over Injuries Caused by Cymbalta Drugs

MORGAN STANLEY: No Equal Pay for Black Fin'l Advisors, Suit Says
MYANMAR: Committed Genocide v. Rohingya Muslims, NY Suit Claims
PULASKI BANK: FLSA Collective Action Settlement Wins Approval
RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Del. Chancery Court Approves Deal, Fees
RMI INTERNATIONAL: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements

SA MIDTOWN: "Molina" Suit in N.Y. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SPRINT ENERGY: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Jackson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
STAPLES INC: 2nd Cir. Revives Breach of Contract Claims
TARGET CORPORATION: Court Grants Motion for Class Certification

TEP EVENTS: "Tracey" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
THEKKEK HEALTH: Faces "Cagungao" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
THORNE RESEARCH: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
TNT LANDSCAPE: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
TOYODA GOSEI: Sued in Mich. Over Automotive Hose-Price Fixing

UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Ends Inquiry into Leak of Immigrant Info
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Baczewski" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Klahn" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lanham" Suit in W.V. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Mansour" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Midland Suit in Ill. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Miller" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Mizak" Suit in Conn. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Moyer" Suit in Ariz. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Puglisi" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Romero" Suit in Ill. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Rumpf" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Verez" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices


                            *********


169 NINTH: Faces "Massi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Settlement Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carr Massi v. 169 Ninth Avenue Realty LLC , Robert Malta, and
Speak Integrated Corp, d/b/a Bocca Di Bacco, Case No. 159889 (N.Y.
Super. Ct., September 26, 2015) is an action for damages as a
result of the Defendants' failure to pay a total monetary
settlement agreement amount in a disability discrimination action
filed at Southern District of New York, and for Defendants'
failure to make the proper accessibility modifications,
specifically:

a. placing a permanently affixed buzzer within the accessible
    reach range for persons in wheelchairs; and

b. installing a rear wall grab bar around the toilet as required
    by the ADA 2010 Standards.

The Defendants own, lease, and operate a place of public
accommodation located at 169 Ninth Ave, New York, NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C.
      2501 Jody Court
      North Bellmore, NY 11710
      Telephone: (646) 290-8258
      E-mail: James@CivilRightsNY.com


ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Suit Over Antitrust Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, and all others
similarly situated v. Allergan, plc fka Actavis, plc, Allergan,
Inc., Allergan USA, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC, Warner Chilcott
Limited, Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Cadila Healthcare
Limited, Case No. 1:15-cv-13407 (D. Mass., September 21, 2015),
seeks money damages and equitable relief under the state antitrust
laws and principles of unjust enrichment.

This suit is brought on behalf of indirect purchaser plaintiffs
who have been denied the right to purchase generic versions of
Asacol (400mg) and Asacol HD as a result of Defendants'
anticompetitive practices.

Allergan plc is a public limited company incorporated under the
laws of Ireland, with its principal place of business at 1 Grand
Canal Square, Docklands Dublin 2, Ireland. Allergan maintains a
place of business within the United States at Morris Corporate
Center III, 400 Interpace Parkway, Parsippany, New Jersey, 07054.
Allergan was known as "Actavis plc" until June 15, 2015, when it
began operating under its current name. Allergan markets branded
and generic pharmaceuticals throughout the United States and has
commercial operations in the U.S. and approximately 100 countries
around the world. The Company became a successor in interest to
Warner Chilcott plc and Proctor & Gamble Pharmaceuticals Inc. when
it acquired Warner Chilcott plc on October 1, 2013.  Allergan,
Inc., Allergan USA, Inc. and Allergan Sales, LLC are subsidiaries
of Allergan plc.

Warner Chilcott Limited is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allergan
plc and is incorporated under the laws of Bermuda with its
principal place of business at Canon's Court 22, Victoria Street,
Hamilton HM 12, Bermuda.

Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. is privately held corporation under
the laws of New Jersey with its principal place of business at 73
Route 31 N., Pennington, New Jersey, 08534. Zydus is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Cadila Healthcare Limited. Zydus markets and
distributes generic drugs for sale throughout the United States.

Cadila Healthcare Limited is a corporation organized under the
laws of India with its principal place of business at Zydus Tower,
Satellite Cross Roads, Ahmedabad 380015, India. Upon information
and belief, Cadila Healthcare Limited works in concert with Zydus
to develop, manufacture, and market pharmaceutical products
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq.
      BERMAN DEVALERIO
      One Liberty Square
      Boston, MA 02109
      Tel: (617) 542-8300
      Fax: (617) 542-1192
      E-mail: norenstein@bermandevalerio.com

          - and -

      Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 496-0300
      Fax: (215) 496-6611
      E-mail: jkodroff@srkw-law.com


AMERIGAS PROPANE: Court Okays Transfer Bid, Rejects Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted Defendant's
motion to transfer and denied as moot the alternative motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, JEFFREY SHIELDS, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
AMERIGAS PROPANE, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-00754-KJM-
EFB.

On June 28, 2013, counsel for John P. Chavez, Sr. filed a class
action complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The Chavez
complaint alleged nine claims against AmeriGas for violations of
the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Order, the California Business and Professions Code, and
California's Private Attorney's General Act (PAGA). Based on the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d),
AmeriGas removed Chavez to the federal district court for the
Central District of California, where the parties conducted
discovery and depositions, submitted briefing and evidence, and
argued the issue of class certification before Judge Morrow.

On April 7, 2015, Chavez's attorneys filed a complaint
substantially similar to the original Chavez class action in this
district on behalf of new proposed class representative Jeffrey
Shields. His complaint before this court alleges nine violations
of California's wage and hour laws identical to those alleged in
Chavez.  Additionally, the complaint states a claim under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that did not appear in the Chavez
complaint, and does not include any claim under the PAGA.

In the motion, Defendant moves to transfer to the Central District
based on U.S.C. 1404(a) arguing that plaintiff's intent in filing
his complaint in the district is to avoid the prior adverse
ruling, and to submit to the court the evidence Judge Morrow
deemed untimely and did not consider in denying class
certification. Plaintiff opposes, maintaining that the Eastern
District is the proper venue, as it is both plaintiff's home
district and a location where the alleged violations occurred.

In her Order dated September 14, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/qYTixjfrom Leagle.com, Judge Mueller concluded that
the interests of justice support the court's grant of the motion
to transfer since both public and private factors weight in favor
to the transfer of the action to the Central District of
California.

Jeffrey Shields is represented by:

Matthew John Matern, Esq.
Launa Nicole Adolph, Esq.
Matthew Warren Gordon, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 Rosecrans Ave #200,
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Tel: (310)531-1900

Amerigas Propane, Inc. is represented by Carrie Anne Gonell, Esq.
-- cgonell@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP


AUTOMOTIVE AFTERMARKET: Sued Over Inaccurate Wage Statement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eswin Hernandez Morales, an individual, on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general v. Automotive
Aftermarket, Inc. and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. BC596252
(Cal. Super. Ct., September 30, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statement
in compliance with California Labor Code.

Automotive Aftermarket, Inc. is a California corporation that
manufactures and distributes automotive parts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
      Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
      KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Bl., Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 990-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
      E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsiey.com
              kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com


BANK OF AMERICA: 12 Banks Settle Default Swap Claims for $1.86BB
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
12 of the world's biggest banks agreed to pay $1.86 billion to
settle claims that they colluded to obstruct greater transparency
in the credit default swap market.

A Los Angeles retirement fund led more than 10 plaintiffs in a
class action lobbing antitrust claims at a dozen major banks, the
International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), and its
data-service provider Markit.  Bank of America, Barclays, BNP
Paribas, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs,
HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland and
UBS all were named as defendants.

The $1.86 billion settlement is one of the largest ever in an
antitrust class action, according to a statement from class
counsel at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw.

Each of the banks has also agreed to changes in licensing
procedures that will make it easier for electronic-trading
platforms to enter the credit default swap market, a change
intended to promote competition and transparency.

The class action had accused the banks of conspiring against the
Credit Market Derivatives Exchange (CMDE), a credit default swap
clearinghouse and exchange designed to promote transparency and
competition.

Nonparties Citadel LLC and CME Group had created the CMDE as joint
venture in 2008.  Through secret meetings, email exchanges and
telephones, the banks conspired to shut it down before it hit the
market, and they got Markit and the ISDA to withhold licensing
information, according to the lawsuit.  The banks refused to deal
with CMDE or similar enterprises in favor of the one clearinghouse
it could control: ICE Clear Credit, the plaintiffs claimed.
Investigation by the U.S. Justice Department and the European
Commission ensued when The New York Times blew the lid on the
secret meetings in 2010.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote rejected an attempt by
the banks to dismiss the lawsuit as untimely and unsupported.
Though the banks claimed that their behavior was "self-interested
conduct in reaction to the global financial crisis," Cote was
skeptical.  "The financial crisis hardly explains the alleged
secret meetings and coordinated actions," she wrote. "Nor does it
explain why ISDA and Markit simultaneously reversed course."

Dan Brockett and Bruce Simon, co-lead counsel for the class,
applauded the settlement in a joint statement.

"We are pleased that we have reached this exceptional settlement
for the class, appropriate for the damages our clients suffered,"
they said. We look forward to the court reviewing the settlement
and bringing this important matter to a just conclusion."

                           *     *     *

In a letter dated Sept. 25 to Judge Cote, Daniel L. Brockett,
Esq., at Quinn Emanuel, said the parties jointly request that the
Court set Oct. 16, 2015, as the deadline for filing the motion for
preliminary approval of the settlements.

The case is In re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litig., No. 13 MD
2476 (DLC)(S.D.N.Y.)

Co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs are:

     Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
     Steig D. Olson, Esq.
     Sascha N. Rand, esq.
     Jonathan Oblak, Esq.
     QUINN EMANUEL
     51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
     New York, NY 10010
     Tel: 212-849-7000
     Fax: 212-849-7100
     E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
             steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
             sascharand@quinnemanuel.com
             jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com

          - and -

     Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
     Clifford Pearson, Esq.
     PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW LLP
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: 415-433-9000
     Fax: 415-433-9008
     E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com
             cpearson@pswlaw.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Faces Suit Over Antitrust Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin
Islands, and all others similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia,
New York Agency; BMO Capital Markets Corp.; BNP Paribas Securities
Corp.; Barclays Capital Inc.; Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.; Citigroup
Global Markets Inc.; Countrywide Securities Corporation; Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Daiwa Capital Markets America Inc.;
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; HSBC
Securities (USA) Inc.; Jefferies LLC; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC;
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Mizuho
Securities USA Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; Nomura Securities
International, Inc.; RBC Capital Markets, LLC; RBS Securities
Inc.; SG Americas Securities, LLC; TD Securities (USA) LLC and UBS
Securities LLC,, Case No. 1:15-cv-00055 (D. V.I., September 21,
2015), seeks actual damages, treble damages, injunctive relief,
pre- and post-judgment interest and other relief under the Sherman
Act and the Commodity Exchange Act, to remedy breaches of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for unjust
enrichment.

The action concerns the Defendants' collusion in and manipulation
of the market for U.S. Treasury securities, including Treasury
bills, notes, bonds, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities and
floating rate notes, and derivative instruments based on such
securities, including U.S. Treasury futures and options.

The Defendants are primary dealers of Treasury Securities and
transacted in Treasury Securities and Treasury Instruments with
plaintiff and members of the Class.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas L. Capdeville, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS L. CAPDEVILLE, P.C
      2107 Company St. - Lot #4
      P.O. Box 224191
      St. Croix, USVI 00822
      Tel: (340) 773-7275
      E-mail: videfense@capdevillelaw.com


BUFFALO WILD: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Periods
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kiana Tamez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. BC596402 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 30, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide lawful meal periods
or compensation in violation of the California Labor Code.

Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. is a California corporation that operates
a restaurant throughout the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
      Kashif Haque, Esq.
      Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
      AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
      9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
      Irvine, CA 92618-2902
      Telephone: (949) 379-6250
      Facsimile: (949) 379-6251


C LUCE: Faces "Park" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Woojae Park v. C Luce, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No.  BC595975 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 28, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

C Luce, Inc. is engaged in the business of manufacturing and
distributing women's clothing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward W. Choi, Esq.
      Paul M. Yi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES, APLC
      3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2400
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 381-1515
      Facsimile: (213) 465-4885


C&J ENERGY: "Esparza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Esparza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00850
(W.D. Tex., September 30, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

C&J Energy Services, Inc. is a global company providing well
construction, well completions, and well services to the oil and
gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


CAL WEST: Faces "Mora" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carmela Mora, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Cal West AG Services, Inc., Jon Marthedal, Eric
Marthedal and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01490-GSA (E.D. Cal., September 30, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a farm management services company
in Fresno County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
      Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
      Marco A. Palau, Esq.
      Joseph D. Sutton, Esq.
      Eric S. Trabucco, Esq.
      MALLISON & MARTINEZ
      1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
      Oakland, CA 94612-3547
      Telephone: (510) 832-9999
      Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
      E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
              HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
              MPalau@TheMMLawFirm.com
              JSutton@TheMMLawFirm.com
              ETrabucco@TheMMLawFirm.com


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Settlement Opt Out Deadline Extended for DAPs
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gene E. K. Pratter of the United States District
Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania extended the deadline
for the Kraft direct action plaintiffs or Kraft DAPs to opt out of
the Cal-Maine Settlement in the case captioned, IN RE: PROCESSED
EGG PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: Kraft
Foods Global, Inc. v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 08-
MD-2002, 12-CV-0088.

The initial class complaints in the litigation were filed in
September 2008 and were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation in the District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  The case was then transferred to the Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial
proceedings. In August 2013, the direct purchaser plaintiffs and
Cal-Maine announced that they had reached a settlement of the
direct purchaser class claims against Cal-Maine and would seek
Court approval of it. On February 28, 2014, the Court
preliminarily approved the Cal-Maine Settlement.

The Kraft DAPs received notices of the Cal-Maine Settlement in
April 2014, but did not submit a formal opt-out letter. They claim
that the decision not to submit a formal opt-out letter was based
on their counsel's belief that a formal opt-out letter was
unnecessary because (1) the Kraft DAPs had filed and prosecuted
their own separate action, which was treated as a separate action
against Cal-Maine under Case Management Order 15; (2) the Kraft
DAPs had engaged in separate settlement negotiations with Cal-
Maine after the announcement of the Cal-Maine Settlement; and (3)
the Cal-Maine Settlement Notice made no reference to pending
separate lawsuits, so counsel believed that its res judicata
effect was limited to claims that were made or could have been
made in the DPP class lawsuit, not claims in any of the direct
action lawsuits.

On January 14, 2015, Cal-Maine's counsel sent a letter to the
Kraft DAPs' counsel, stating that the Kraft DAPs' lawsuit against
Cal-Maine was barred by the Cal-Maine Settlement.

In the motion, Kraft DAPs argue that there was no need for the
Kraft DAPs to opt out and that the failure to opt out was a result
of excusable neglect.

In the Memorandum dated September 14, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/NgNCQEfrom Leagle.com, Judge Pratter found that the
Notice satisfied the due process with respect to the Kraft DAPs
and their pending lawsuit against Cal-Maine, and the Kraft DAPs'
post-settlement conduct was not sufficient to provide a reasonable
indication of their intention to opt out of the Cal-Maine
Settlement.  The Court finds that the Kraft DAPs' failure to opt
out was a result of excusable neglect, and will therefore extend
the period of time in which the Kraft DAPs may opt out of the Cal-
Maine Settlement.


CAPITOL SECURITY: "Oliva" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Lazaro R. Oliva and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Capitol Security Services Inc. and Manuel Lopez, individually,
Case No. 1:15-cv-23651-DPG (S.D. Fla., September 30, 2015)seeks to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Capitol Security Services is a Florida corporation that provides
security services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


CBS CORPORATION: Faces "Norman" Suit Over Asbestos Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Norman v. CBS Corporation, et al., Case No. BC593761 (Cal.
Super. Ct., September 30, 2015) is an action for damages as a
result of the Defendants' alleged negligence in the use or
maintenance of their property that caused hazardous asbestos to
become airborne.

CBS Corporation is a mass media corporation focused on commercial
broadcasting, publishing, and television production.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gordon D. Greenwood, Esq.
      MarkSwanson, Esq.
      KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD
      A Professional Law Corporation
      Jack London Market
      55 Harrison Street, Suite 400
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Telephone: (510) 302-1000
      Facsimile: (510) 835-4913
      E-mail: GGreenwood@kazanlaw.com
              MSwanson@kazanIaw.com


CELEBRITY CRUISES: CA Affirms Class Cert. in Doctors' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas Logue of the Court of Appeals of Florida, Third
District, affirmed the order certifying a class of doctors who
worked under contract with the Cruise Line in the case captioned,
Celebrity Cruises, Inc., Appellant, v. Jerry Rankin, M.D., et al.,
Appellees, Case No. 3D14-3137.

The Cruise Line contracted with the Doctors to pay them a
commission on "total medical revenues." When paying commissions,
however, the Cruise Line excluded revenues generated by the sale
of medications. The underlying dispute is whether the Doctors were
contractually entitled to commissions on medication sales. The
Doctors filed suit, alleging a breach of contract and seeking
class certification under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.220(b)(3).

In opposition to class certification, the Cruise Line argued that
common issues would not predominate over individual ones: "An
analysis of each individual physician's understanding of the terms
of their agreement with [the Cruise Line] will necessarily
overwhelm any issues that could be deemed common to the class."

The trial court granted the motion and certified a class defined
as "All ship physicians of [the Cruise Line] who worked during the
time period of September 17, 2004, to December 31, 2009, and had
contracts that provided for payment based upon a commission on
total medical revenue without a specific exclusion for
medication/medicine that were not paid a percentage of the
medication/medicine sales."

On appeal, the Defendant argued that the trial court abused its
discretion when it certified the class proposed by the Doctors.

In his Opinion dated September 16, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/f962vufrom Leagle.com, Judge Logue found that the
prerequisites to class certification are adequately satisfied and
the threshold requirements of class action are established.

Plaintiffs are represented by Elizabeth K. Russo, Esq. --
ekr@russoappeals.com -- RUSSO APPELLATE FIRM, P.A. and Christopher
J. Bailey, Esq. -- cbailey@kslaw.com -- KING AND SPALDING

Celebrity Cruise, Inc. is represented by Cameron W. Eubanks, Esq.
-- ceubanks@maselara.com -- MASE LARA, P.A. & Lauren DeFabio, Esq.
-- ldefabio@rumberger.com -- RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL


CERMACK HOSPITALITY: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Perez and Marco Reynoso on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Cermack
Hospitality, Inc., d/b/a Lobo Del Mar, Eduardo Rodriguez, Case No.
1:15-cv-08662 (N.D. Ill., September 30, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate Lobo Del Mar restaurant located at
5503 W. Cermak Rd., Cicero, 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


CESSNA AIRCRAFT: Sued in Wisc. Over Disability Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cessna Aircraft Co.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01166-LA (E.D. Wis., September 29, 2015) arises
out of the Defendant's alleged unlawful employment practices on
the basis of disability in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Cessna Aircraft Co. owns and operates an aviation aircraft
manufacturing company doing business in the State of Wisconsin and
the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Camille Monahan, Esq.
      EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
      Milwaukee Area Office
      310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500
      Milwaukee, WI 53203
      Telephone: (414) 297-3548
      Facsimile: (414) 297-3146

         - and -

      Jean P. Kamp, Esq.
      EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
      Chicago District Office
      500 West Madison Street, Suite 2000
      Chicago, IL 60661
      Telephone: (312) 869-8116
      E-mail: jean.kamp@eeoc.gov


COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Lombardo, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-02257-EAK-AEP
(M.D. Fla., September 30, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc. produces, distributes, and
markets bottled and canned liquid non-alcoholic refreshment
products in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
      P.O. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3341
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


CONNECTICUT: Court Denies Appointment of Counsel, Class Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer of the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut denied Plaintiff's motion
for appointment of counsel and for class certification in the case
captioned, ROLANDO ROBLES, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS M. RIORDAN,
TIMOTHY M. POPE, and CRAIG PATON, Defendants, Case No. 3:13-CV-
01772 (JAM).

Plaintiff Rolando Robles has filed suit, claiming that his rights
were violated by prison officials when he was subjected to a group
strip search while incarcerated at the Robinson Correctional
Institution in November 2011. He objects to the circumstances of
the search and the failure of prison personnel to consider the
effect of the searches on his mental impairments (including post-
traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety). According to
plaintiff, "he had an interest in being provided an accommodation"
for his mental impairments and that there was "a presumption, an
unwritten rule, an unwritten policy or mutually explicit
understandings that prisoners are to be searched out of view of
other prisoner's, unless an emergency situation has occurred and
it would be impractical." Plaintiff subsequently transferred from
Robinson in mid-2012, and his address of record reflects that he
has been released from prison.

Plaintiff moves for class certification. The Court has the
authority to appoint pro bono counsel to represent an indigent
plaintiff.

In his Ruling and Order dated September 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/L4zNnsfrom Leagle.com, Judge Meyer concluded that it
would not be appropriate to certify a class without the
participation of counsel to represent the class because the Court
declined to appoint counsel for the Plaintiff since the Plaintiff
has yet to show his claims have likely merit.

The Defendants are represented by DeAnn S. Varunes, Esq., at the
Attorney General's Office.


CONTINENTAL BANK: "Uhrinek" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Cheri Uhrinek, and all others similarly-situated v. Continental
Bank, Case No. 2:15-cv-05244 (E.D. Pa., September 21, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for misclassifying its Loan Officers
as exempt employees and failing to pay its Loan Officers any wages
for the overtime hours worked, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968.

Continental Bank is a community bank, headquartered in Plymouth
Meeting, PA, that provides commercial and mortgage banking
services to consumers in Pennsylvania from eight branch locations
in Eastern Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Cohen, Esq.
      604 Spruce Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Tel: (215) 873-4836
      E-mail: dcohenlaw@comcast.net

          - and -

      Erik H. Langeland, Esq.
      733 Third Avenue, 15th Floor
      New York, N.Y. 10017
      Tel: (212) 354-6270
      Fax: (212) 898-9086
      E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com

          - and -

      Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
      TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 278-2600
      Fax: (310) 278-2640
      E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com


CSX INTERMODAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Truck Drivers, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Valadez, Israel Lux Carrillo, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc.,
CSX Transportation, Inc., and Does 1 to 10 inclusive, Case No.
RG15787834 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 30, 20150) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay Truck Drivers' minimum
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing intermodal freight
transportation services through a combination of trains and trucks
primarily.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
      David Pogrel, Esq.
      Giselle Olmedo, Esq.
      LEONARD CARDER, LLP
      1330 Broadway, Suite 1450
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 272-0169
      Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
      E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
              dpogrel@leonardcarder.com
              golmedo@leonardcarder.com


CVS PHARMACY: Suit by Burton's, Dilworth Goes to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake of the United States District
Court for Middle District of North Carolina granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss and compel arbitration to the extent that
arbitration be compelled, and stayed the action in the case
captioned, BURTON'S PHARMACY, INC., PIKE'S PHARMACY, INC., and
DILWORTH DRUGS, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION, CVS
PHARMACY, INC., CAREMARK RX, LLC, and CAREMARK, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:11CV2.

Plaintiffs Burton's Pharmacy, Inc. (Burton's), Pike's Pharmacy,
Inc. (Pike's), and Dilworth Drugs, LLC (Dilworth) are North
Carolina retail pharmacies, asserting claims in this case against
CVS Caremark Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Caremark Rx, LLC,
and Caremark, LLC. Plaintiffs contend that following a merger in
2007 between pharmacy benefit plan manager Caremark Rx, Inc. and
retail pharmacy chain CVS Corporation, Defendants now collectively
represent one of the largest pharmacy chains and pharmacy benefit
plan managers in the country. As a pharmacy benefit plan manager,
Defendant Caremark obtains and has access to patient health
information, including the name, address, date of birth, and
gender of the patient; the identity of the prescribing physician;
the patient's prescription drug history; and the pharmacies that
have filled prescriptions for the patient. Plaintiffs contend that
Defendant Caremark shares this information with its affiliated
businesses, and that Defendants use this information to target
potential new customers and draw current customers away from
pharmacies such as Plaintiffs. In addition, Plaintiffs also allege
that Defendants exclude and/or discriminate against other network
pharmacies, such as Plaintiffs, with respect to filling
prescriptions for maintenance medications used to treat chronic
health conditions.

Plaintiffs request injunctive and declaratory relief as well as
damages for violation of the North Carolina Pharmacy of Choice
Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 58-51-37, and the North Carolina Unfair
and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 75-1-1.

In the motion to compel arbitration, Defendants contend that the
Provider Agreements between Plaintiffs and Caremark contain
arbitration provisions under the FAA and argued that the claims
raised by Plaintiffs fall within the scope of these agreements and
the arbitration clauses.

The retailers assert that the arbitration clauses do not apply to
their claims for injunctive relief.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation dated September 15,
2015 available at http://is.gd/WmT548from Leagle.com, Judge Peake
found that the Plaintiffs' argument that the arbitration clauses
do not apply has no merit, and recommended that Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss or to Compel Arbitration be granted to the extent that
the matter be ordered to arbitration, that the action be stayed
pending that arbitration.

Plaintiffs are represented by Gary Walker Jackson, Esq. --
gjackson@ncadvocates.com -- JACKSON & MCGEE, LLP

Defendants are represented by Jonathan Arthur Berkelhammer, Esq. -
- jon.berkelhammer@elliswinters.com -- ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP,
Robert H. Griffith, Esq. -- rgriffith@foley.com -- Michael D.
Leffel, Esq. -- mleffel@foley.com -- FOLEY & LARDNER LLP


CYNOSURE INC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Weitzner" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Pierre N. Leval of the United States Court of
Appeals, Second Circuit, dismissed Plaintiffs' appeal from the
order dismissing their complaint against Cynosure, Inc.

The appellate case is, ARI WEITZNER and ARI WEITZNER, M.D., P.C.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff-Appellants, v. CYNOSURE, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case
No. 314-723-CV.

The complaint was dismissed by the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

Plaintiffs Ari Weitzner, an ophthalmologist based in Brooklyn, NY,
and Ari Weitzner, M.D., P.C., which is Ari Weitzner's professional
corporation, sued Cynosure, Inc., a Massachusetts-based
manufacturer and distributor of light-based products for medical
and aesthetic use, for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (TCPA) when Plaintiffs received
four unsolicited faxes sent by Cynosure.  Plaintiffs seek to
represent a nationwide class of more than 10,000 similarly-
situated persons or entities to which Cynosure allegedly sent
unsolicited faxes.

Before the EDNY Action, Weitzner's company filed a purported class
action in 2005 against Cynosure in the Massachusetts Superior
Court, seeking statutory damages and injunctive relief for itself
and the putative class members.  Following discovery, motion
practice, and oral argument on the class certification motion, the
Massachusetts Superior Court denied class certification.

Plaintiffs then instituted the EDNY Action.  Cynosure then
confessed judgment in the Massachusetts Action, acknowledging
liability for injunctive relief vis-a-vis the plaintiff, and the
maximum damages available to the plaintiff under the TCPA. Over
the plaintiff's objections, the Massachusetts Superior Court
entered final judgment in the case, awarding Ari Weitzner, M.D.,
P.C., $6,000 in damages and permanently enjoining Defendant from
sending unsolicited faxes to it, dismissing the class allegations
with prejudice, and awarding Defendant certain costs. Weitzner
appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

While the state appeal was pending, the EDNY Court ordered
Plaintiffs to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as
res judicata by reason of the Massachusetts Superior Court
judgment. The district court rejected Plaintiffs' request for a
stay or administrative closure pending resolution of the state
appeal and then dismissed this suit as claim-precluded and issue-
precluded. The court entered judgment on March 5, 2013.

Ten days later, on March 15, 2013, Plaintiffs served on Defendant
a motion for reconsideration of the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b). Plaintiffs did not "file" the motion with the court. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 5(d). Their failure to file the motion was in
observance of the district judge's Individual Rule 3(d), which
prohibits litigants from filing a motion until the motion is fully
briefed and ready for adjudication. The rule instructs the moving
party instead to serve the motion on the adversary and to advise
the court by letter that the motion has been served.

The district court met with counsel and issued a scheduling order
for submission of the not-yet filed motion. The scheduling order,
dated March 21, 2013, provided, as requested by the parties, that
Cynosure would serve its response to Plaintiffs' motion by April
12, 2013, and that Plaintiffs would serve their reply by April 26,
2013. On April 12, Cynosure timely served its opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs did not serve their reply until
August 14, 2013, at which point Plaintiffs finally filed the
fully-briefed motion for reconsideration with the clerk of the
district court. Defendant then objected, arguing that the motion
should be denied because it was not made "within a reasonable
time" as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). Without mention of
Defendant's untimeliness argument, the district court denied the
motion for reconsideration on the merits, entering the order of
denial on February 6, 2014.

On March 6, 2014, less than 30 days after the district court's
denial of the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal from the March 5, 2013, judgment.  Plaintiffs
argue that the District Court implicitly rejected Defendant's
contention that the motion for reconsideration was untimely by
ruling on the merits of the motion.

In the Decision dated September 16, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/k0Lmppfrom Leagle.com, Judge Leval concluded that
Plaintiffs' dilatory motion for reconsideration failed to toll the
time to appeal under Fed.R.App.P. Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(vi), and
Plaintiffs' notice of appeal was filed more than a year after
judgment entered against them. The Court lacks jurisdiction to
hear the appeal. As the case underscores the conflict between time
requirements in the federal rules of procedure and individual
district court rules that require litigants to delay the filing of
motions, the Second Circuit said it "very strongly recommend[s]"
that district courts in the circuit revise their rules to comply
with the federal rules and safeguard litigants' rights under them.

Plaintiffs are represented by Todd C. Bank, Esq. --
tbank@toddbanklaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF TODD C. BANK, P.C.

Defendant is represented by Richard M. Zielinski, Esq. --
rzielinski@goulstonstorrs.com -- Jonathan A. Grippo, Esq. --
jgrippo@goulstonstorrs.com -- GOULSTON & STORRS, P.C.


DA ZHEN: Faces "Wu" Suit Over Tour Bus Operation Negligence
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mei Xia Wu, Fung Yee Kwan, David Adalberto Agundez, Zhong Chun Xu,
Hong Bao Tian, Jacsoon Lau, Guo Yian Yu, Lai Chun Kwok Wong v.
Pndlyan Andranik, Charles Mickey Poster, Da Zhen Travel Agency,
Inc., d/b/a Da Zhen Bus, and Does 1 through 30, inclusive, Case
No. BC596021 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 28, 2015) is an action
for injuries and damages as a result of the Defendants' negligence
in the operation and maintenance of the Tour Bus that collided
with the truck operated by Charles Mickey Poster.

The Defendants own and operate a travel agency doing business in
the City of Monterey Park, County of Los Angeles, State of
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Panish, Esq.
      Deborah Chang, Esq.
      PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
      11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste 700
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 477-1700
      Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
      E-mail: PANISH@PSBLAW.COM
              CHANG@PSBLAW.COM


EDISON NATION: "Principe" Suit Alleges Misrepresentation
--------------------------------------------------------
Mark Principe, and all others similarly-situated v. Edison Nation,
LLC, Plymouth Direct, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-
05453 (E.D.N.Y., September 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of New York General Business Law
sections 349 and 350 and all similar state consumer protection
laws, a claim for negligent misrepresentation, intentional
misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, violation of the
Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty of fitness
for a particular purpose and a claim for unjust enrichment.

The Defendants sell a number of different types of Gyro Bowls,
including the Gyro Bowl Kid-Proof Spill-Proof Bowl, and four Gyro
Bowls that are licensed by Disney, including the Disney Pixar Cars
2 Kid-Proof Spill-Proof Gyro Bowl, the Disney Princess Kid-Proof
Spill-Proof Gyro Bowl, the Disney Toy Story Kid-Proof Spill-Proof
Gyro Bowl and the Disney Minnie Mouse Kid-Spoof Spill-Proof Gyro
Bowl.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, PC
      77 Water Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (646) 722-4266
      Fax: (888) 749-7747
      E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

          - and -

      Brett D. Zinner, Esq.
      ROSENBERG FORTUNA & LAITMAN, LLP
      666 Old Country Road, Suite 810
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 228-6666
      Fax: (516) 228-6672
      E-mail: brett@rosenbergfortuna.com


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Lawyer Seeks $4.6MM Fee from NCAA Athletes' Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a lawyer says he is entitled to $4.6 million in attorneys'
fees from NCAA athletes' $40 million settlement with video game
maker Electronic Arts because he brought up the right-of-publicity
theory used in the case.

Timothy McIlwain represented National Football League hall of fame
running back Jim Brown against Electronic Arts in 2008, and
applied a similar right-of-publicity theory in a class action led
by ex-Rutgers quarterback Ryan Hart. Hart fired McIlwain in 2013,
claiming that his attorney did not inform him of Electronic Arts'
settlement offer. McIlwain disputes Hart's version of events.

In August, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken granted final
approval to the $40 million settlement between current and former
college athletes and Electronic Arts.

The agreement encompasses NCAA basketball and Division I football
players whose names, images or likenesses appeared in EA video
games between May 4, 2003 and Sept. 3, 2014, and includes several
major lawsuits against EA and the Collegiate Licensing Company
over the use of student-athletes in NCAA-themed games without
compensation.

Attorneys for the players will receive $12 million of the $40
million award, to be divided among Hausfeld LLP, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, The McKenna Law Firm LLC and Lum, Positan &
Drasco LLP.

Wilken said she would issue a separate order regarding the
allocation of the attorneys' fee award among counsel, but has yet
to do so. The four firms will also share in a $2.1 million award
for expenses, with McIlwain to receive $45,000.

McIlwain sued Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and attorneys Steve
Berman, Robert Carey, Leonard Aragon and W. Mark Lanier in New
Jersey Superior Court on Sept. 23. McIlwain says he "originated
the right of publicity theory of liability for athletes against
video game maker Electronic Arts."

In his complaint, McIlwain says the law firm "reneged on" their
prior agreement with him when Hart fired him. The parties had
allegedly agreed to split a fee award to Hagens Berman 60-40, and
to add McIlwain as counsel to a separate case that settled for an
additional $20 million.

"As a result of defendants Hagens Berman et al. breach of
contract, plaintiff has been damages as he has suffered
substantial economic losses in amount to approximately $4,620,000
or an amount to be proven at trial," McIlwain's lawsuit states.

McIlwain is representing himself in the suit. He did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.

Aragon told Courthouse News that attorneys went back to the
drawing board after Hart fired McIlwain. The Hagens Berman
attorney said McIlwain was "along for the ride."

"Someone else wrote his appellate brief and he did little at trial
except get his case dismissed. And soon after, it became clear to
the parties to settle the case. I'm not sure he's entitled to
anything but the most minimal fees at all," Aragon said.


ELIM FOREVER: Faces "Kim" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sung Yun Kim v. Eunice Hong, Elim Forever, Inc., and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC596141 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
September 29, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Elim Forever, Inc. is a California Corporation that conducts
business and maintains its principal places of business located at
3530 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 695, County of Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas M. Lee, Esq.
      LEELAWOFFICES, APLC
      3435 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2400
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 251-5533
      Facsimile: (213) 251-5534
      E-mail: leethomas.esq@gmail.com

         - and -

      Barry G. Florence, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BARRY G. FLORENCE
      3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2000
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 232-4969
      Facsimile: (213) 232-4890
      E-mail: bgf@bgflawoffices.com


EXPERIAN: Lax Security Allowed Hackers to Steal Info, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that lax security at credit checker Experian allowed hackers to
steal the personal information of 15 million T-Mobile customers, a
class claims in Federal Court in Chicago.

Both Experian NA and T-Mobile are named as defendants to the
federal class action Brendan Moore, of Mill Valley, Calif., filed
in Illinois.  The lawsuit comes just one day after Schaumberg-
based Experian notified T-Mobile that an attack by hackers exposed
the personal information of approximately 15 million people who
applied for T-Mobile services between September 2013 and September
2015.

Experian, T-Mobile's vendor that processes its credit
applications, is the world's largest credit-checking company. It
holds data on millions on consumers, as the law requires credit
data to be maintained for at least 25 months following their
application.

Moore says the stolen data includes names, address, birthdates,
Social Security numbers, and drivers' license numbers, but no
banking or credit card information.

"This is not the first time data maintained by Experian has been
breached. An attack on an Experian subsidiary that began before
Experian purchased it in 2012 exposed the Social Security numbers
of 200 million Americans," the complaint states.

"Plaintiffs have already experienced suspicious activity related
to the compromised data. For example, fraudulent transactions
and/or fraudulent home loan applications have already begun to
appear on plaintiffs' and class members' credit reports.

"As a direct and proximate result of defendants' actions and
omissions in disclosing and failing to protect plaintiffs' private
personal information, plaintiffs and those similarly situated have
been placed at a substantial risk of harm in the form of identity
theft and have incurred and will incur actual damages in an
attempt to prevent identity theft."

In an open letter to those affected by the breach, T-Mobile CEO
John Legere wrote: "I am incredibly angry about this data breach
and we will institute a thorough review of our relationship with
Experian, but right now my top concern and first focus is
assisting any and all consumers affected."

All those affected are being offered two years of credit-
monitoring services from ProtectMyID.

The class seeks punitive damages for negligence, and violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  It is represented by:

     Edward Wallace, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE
     55 W Monroe St # 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: 312-589-6272
     E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com


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-at-01006 (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 and located in California, Flowers Baking Co. of
California, LLC, operates a wholesale bakery for direct-store-
delivery of buns, sliced breads, rolls.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FOI ENTERPRISES: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Singhsidhu Gurdiyal v. Jatinder Singh, Ashesh Patel, Foi
Enterprises, Inc., Flavors of India, Tien C. Yu, Hsiu H. Yu, and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG15787345 (Cal. Super.,
Ct., September 25, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate Flavors India restaurants in
Alameda County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark L. Venardi, Esq.
      Martin Zurada, Esq.
      VENARDI ZURADA LLP
      700 Ygnacio Valley, Road, Suite 300
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 937-3900
      Facsimile: (925) 937-3905
      E-mail: mzurada@vefirm.com


FOUR SEASONS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Estrada" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edy Estrada, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Four Seasons Development Co., Inc., and Julian
Kubeczka, Case No. 4:15-cv-02864 (S.D. Tex., September 30, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants are engaged in construction business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd Slobin, Esq.
      Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
      SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net
              rprieto@eeoc.net


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Easterly" Suit Over Zofran(R) Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Easterly and Martin Easterly, individually and on behalf
of Estate of Bentley Easterly v. Glaxosmithkline, LLC, d/b/a
GlaxoSmithKline, Hospira, Inc., and Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 6:15-
cv-00173-GFVT (E.D. Ky., September 30, 2015) is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendants' failure to warn and
concerted effort to promote Zofran(R) and its generic
bioequivalent form, also known as ondansetron, for off-label use
in pregnant women despite the increased risk of birth defects.

Zofran is a prescription drug indicated for the prevention of
chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting, radiation therapy-
induced nausea and vomiting and post-operative nausea and
vomiting.

Glaxosmithkline, LLC is a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware.

Hospira, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that manufactures and
distributes generic drugs.

Pfizer, Inc. is a multinational pharmaceutical corporation with
its principal place of business at 235 East 42nd Street, New York,
New York, 10017.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
      Alex C. Davis, Esq.
      JONES WARD PLC
      312 S. Fourth Street, 6th Floor
      Louisville, KY 40202
      Telephone: (502) 882-6000
      Facsimile: (502) 587-2007
      E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com
              alex@jonesward.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Murray" Suit Over Zofran(R) Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Murray and Matthew Murray, individually, and on behalf
of Minor J.M. v. Glaxosmithkline LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-04474 (N.D.
Cal., September 29, 2015) is an action for damages as a result of
the Defendants' failure to warn and concerted effort to promote
Zofran(R) and its generic bioequivalent form, also known as
ondansetron, for off-label use in pregnant women despite the
increased risk of birth defects.

Zofran is a prescription drug indicated for the prevention of
chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting, radiation therapy-
induced nausea and vomiting and post-operative nausea and
vomiting.

Glaxosmithkline, LLC is a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wendy R. Fleishman, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013-1413
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
      E-mail: wfleishman@lchb.com

         - and -

      Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
      Sarah R. London, 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
              slondon@lchb.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Zofran(R) Drugs
------------------------------------------------------------
Karla Rodriguez and Edward Rodriguez, individually and as parents
and natural guardians of Maia Rodriguez, a Minor v.
GlaxoSmithKline LLC d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, Case No. 5:15-cv-04455-
NC (N.D. Cal., September 28, 2015) is an action for damages as a
result of the Defendants' failure to warn and concerted effort to
promote Zofran(R) and its generic bioequivalent form, also known
as ondansetron, for off-label use in pregnant women despite the
increased risk of birth defects.

Zofran is a prescription drug indicated for the prevention of
chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting, radiation therapy-
induced nausea and vomiting and post-operative nausea and
vomiting.

Glaxosmithkline, LLC is a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kimberly D. Barone Baden, Esq.
      Fred Thompson III, Esq.
      Ann E. Rice Ervin, Esq.
      MOTLEY RICE LLC
      28 Bridgeside Boulevard
      Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 216-9265
      Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
      E-mail: kbarone@motleyrice.com
              fthompson@motleyrice.com
              ariceervin@motleyrice.com


HARDEE'S FOOD SYSTEMS: Staff with Hepa A Prepared Food, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Fedderly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
Hardee's restaurant in Spartanburg County, S.C., allowed an
employee with hepatitis A to prepare food, exposing patrons to the
virus, a class action claims.

Plaintiff Cody Werkmesiter claims he was exposed to the virus
during a visit to the restaurant on September 8, but no one knows
exactly how many patrons were similarly exposed -- the complaint
suggests the number "may exceed 3,000" -- because of the high
volume of business a typical Hardee's does.

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environment was
notified on September 17 that a Hardee's employee had tested
positive for hepatitis A and had been working at the restaurant
during his infection.

"Dr. Anna-Kathryn Rey, M.D. medical consultant in DHEC's Bureau of
Disease Control, recommended that customers and staff who ate food
at the defendant's restaurant during the 'exposure periods' . . .
should receive post-exposure treatment for hepatitis A," the
complaint says.

A spokesperson for Hardee's told Courthouse News, "CKE Restaurants
[the restaurant group that owns Hardee's] takes the health of its
guests and employees very seriously. We have worked closely with
the appropriate authorities to ensure the health and safety of all
our customers and employees."

The class seeks general and special damages. The damages include
"wage loss; medical and medical-related expenses; travel and
travel-related expenses; emotional distress; fear of harm and
humiliation; physical pain; physical injury."

"As far as the recent action, we do not comment on pending
litigation," the Hardee's spokesperson told Courthouse News.


INVESTIGATIONS AND SECURITY: Faces Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Jackson, Johanne Filossaint, Cornelius Johnson, and all
others similarly-situated v. Investigations and Security Bureau,
Inc. and Skip Drish, Case No. 8:15-cv-02194 (M.D. Fla., September
21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages,
an additional equal amounts as liquidated damages, obtain
declaratory relief, other relief under Article X, Section 24 of
the Florida Constitution and reasonable attorney's fees and costs
and relief as available under Florida common law and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide investigative, surveillance and security
services for corporations, financial institutions, retail
merchants, insurance companies and manufacturers as well as for
individuals in the private sectors.  It is headquartered in
Hillsborough County, Florida.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


JUST PUPS: Court Permits Discovery in Pet Buyer's Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, BERNA CANSEVEN, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. JUST PUPS, LLC and
VINCENT LOSACCO, Defendants, Case No. 15-5633, District Judge Anne
E. Thompson of the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey ruled on Plaintiff's motion for remand and request
for permission to perform discovery on the jurisdictional issues
implicated in Plaintiff's motion.

Plaintiffs originally filed the case in Middlesex County Superior
Court on June 8, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants sold her
a puppy that was unfit for purchase and accepted a return of that
puppy without refunding Plaintiff the full purchase price or
compensating her for the expenses she undertook to provide
veterinarian care for the puppy while it was in her possession.
Plaintiff states her claim under various New Jersey state laws and
regulations, and alleges a class action on behalf of "[a]ll New
Jersey resident consumers who purchased a pet from any Just Pups
location in New Jersey at any time on or after the day six years
prior to the date this complaint was filed, using some or all of
the sales documents and health certificates the same or similar to
the sales documents and health certificates used in the
transaction with Plaintiff."

On July 17, 2015 Defendants removed the case on the basis that it
is possible that at least one member of the putative class may be
a citizen of a state other than New Jersey. Defendants also argue
that Canseven herself was a citizen of New York at the time the
Complaint was filed because, when she purchased a puppy from Just
Pups, she used a New York driver's license as her ID.

In her Opinion dated September 16, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/vWDnzNfrom Leagle.com, Judge Thompson found that
Defendants' arguments that at least one member of the class may be
a citizen of other state are not persuasive and that Plaintiff's
claims are not clearly frivolous, nor does the Court doubt the
ability of the parties to construct, with the aid of the
Magistrate Judge, discovery requests that are reasonably
particular and not overly broad.  The Court gave the parties two
months to perform discovery, after which time Plaintiff may renew
her motion for remand.

Berna Canseven is represented by Matthew Scott Oorbeek, Esq. --
moorbeek@wolflawfirm.net -- THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC

Defendants are represented by:

Paul I. Perkins, Esq.
HADLEY PERKINS, P.C.
5 Monitor Street
Ground Floor
Jersey City, NJ 07304
Tel: (201)942-4470


KG SALES: Faces "Choi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hyun Jin Choi v. KG Sales, Inc., d/b/a Loco Shoes, USA and Ik S
Chang a/k/a Kay Chang, Case No. 1:15-cv-08624 (N.D. Ill.,
September 30, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of Shoes Online Stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
      INSEED LAW, P.C.
      2454 E Dempster St Suite 301
      Des Plaines, IL 60016
      Telephone: (847) 905-6262
      Facsimile: (847) 770-4774


LEE COUNTY, FL: Court Adopts Plaintiffs' FLSA Opt-in Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge John E. Steele of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida adopted Plaintiffs'
proposed FLSA Opt-in notice in the case captioned, KEVIN
CALDERONE, an individual, GEORGE SCHWING, an individual, MICHAEL
ZALESKI, an individual, and SELENA LEE, an individual, Plaintiffs,
v. MICHAEL SCOTT, as the duly elected Sheriff of Lee County,
Florida, Defendant, Case No. 2:14-CV-519-FTM-29CM.

In its July 16, 2015 Opinion and Order, the Court granted
conditional certification for a putative class consisting of
former or current deputy sheriffs who, in the past three years,
allegedly performed off-the-clock work for which they were not
compensated in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Court directed Plaintiffs to provide a proposed Notice to
putative class members in accordance with that Opinion and Order.
Plaintiffs provided their proposal on July 30, 2015. Defendant
responded with his competing proposal and, in response, Plaintiffs
provided a revised proposal that adopted many of Defendant's
edits.

The parties agreed that (1) Plaintiffs' definition of the putative
class with minor revisions; (2) the Consent to Join shall specify
that it must be returned to Plaintiffs' counsel only if an
individual seeks to join the collective action; (3) the counsel
for Plaintiffs is authorized to provide notice of this lawsuit to
putative class members on or before September 30, 2015; and (4)
putative class members shall have until December 31, 2015 to
complete and return Consents to Join to Plaintiffs' counsel.

In the Opinion and Order dated September 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/arqP6ufrom Leagle.com, Judge Steele ordered that
parties comply to the provisions of the agreed FLSA Opt-in Notice
to putative class members.

Plaintiffs are represented by Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq. --
byormak@yormaklaw.com -- YORMAK DISABILITY LAW GROUP

Michael Scott is represented by David J. Stefany, Esq. --
dstefany@anblaw.com -- Nicolette Laleh Bidarian, Esq. --
nbidarian@anblaw.com -- ALLEN, NORTON & BLUE, PA


LUCILLE ROBERTS: Gym Member Sues in S.D.N.Y. Over Religion Bias
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Babe, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that an
observant Jew's gym membership at Lucille Roberts has become a
nightmare -- with workers screaming at her and threatening to call
the police -- all because she wears a knee-length skirt while she
works out for religious reasons, she claims in a federal
complaint.

"Public accommodations must serve people regardless of race, creed
or religion under federal, state and city law, whether they wear a
kippah, a skirt or a cross of ash on their forehead," Yosefa Jalal
said in the lawsuit.  The 15-page action describes Jalal as a Long
Island-born Brooklyn resident who teaches math while studying for
her master's degree at Brooklyn College.

As an observant Jew, 25-year-old Jalal says she keeps kosher,
attends synagogue and observes the Sabbath. The complaint notes
that she recently changed her first name from Sarah.  Having been
a member of the popular New York fitness club Lucille Roberts
since 2011, Jalal says she mainly began going to the gym's
location on Kings Highway when she returned from seminary in
Jerusalem in 2013.  Because her religion requires her to keep a
modest appearance in public, Jalal wears a knee-length, fitted
skirt with tights when she is out in public.

Several pictures of the ensemble appear in an exhibit filed with
the complaint.  Another exhibit includes a copy of the Lucille
Roberts dress code, which makes no mention of skirts but does take
aim at flannel, denim and "street clothes."  Oddly, the dress code
does shame women who elect to wear sweatpants at the gym, saying
they should instead "dress appropriately" and "look your best."

Jalal says the first time a manager yelled at her for wearing a
skirt, she was using the elliptical machine in October 2013.  She
wore the skirt to gym every time since then without incident for
another year until someone warned her about the skirt at the Kings
Highway location again in 2014, according to the complaint.

Jalal says she began going to a different Lucille Roberts in
Flatbush. She made it eight months there until a manager
complained about her skirt this past June, according to the
complaint.  But Jalal says the confrontations have escalated.
First a manager accused of trespassing by wearing the wrong
attire. Another time, the gym brought a kickboxing class to a halt
and refused to resume until Jalal removed her skirt.

"Some participants screamed at Ms. Jalal," the complaint states.
"Ms. Jalal was embarrassed, upset, and shocked."

Jalal says she retreated to an elliptical to work out alone but
that a gym worker tracked her down there and told her that her
membership had been revoked.

"The police are on their way," the worker said, according to the
complaint.

Jalal says she has not returned to a Lucille Roberts location
since that confrontation on July 1.

"Ms. Jalal wants to be readmitted to Lucille Roberts," the
complaint states. "She wants to be treated the same as other
women. She wants to take classes and work out in peace."

Jalal is represented by Ilann Maazel of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &
Abady.

"We look in the world and we see so much intolerance and division,
especially in New York City where we have people from all
backgrounds," Maazel said in a phone interview. "Lucille Roberts
needs to be more tolerant, accepting and understanding."

This past summer, Emery Celli won a $4.48 million settlement for
clients alleging shocking anti-Semitism at the Pine Bush school
district in the Catskills.

Jalal seeks punitive damages and an injunction for civil rights
violations.

"All I want is to work out and take classes like everyone else,"
Jalal said in the statement. "It isn't fair for Lucille Roberts to
target me because I'm Jewish."

Lucille Roberts did not reply to request for comment.

The case is, YOSEFA JALAL, Plaintiff v. LUCILLE ROBERTS HEALTH
CLUBS INC., Defendant, Case 1:15-cv-07802 (S.D.N.Y., October 2,
2015).

Attorneys for Plaintiff Yosefa Jalal:

     Ilann M. Maazel, Esq.
     EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
     600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
     New York, NY 10020
     Tel: (212) 763-5000


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Conditional Cert. Granted in "Senne" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, a federal
judge in San Francisco, California, awarded Minor League
ballplayers conditional class certification in an ongoing labor
suit against Major League Baseball.

Lead plaintiff Aaron Senne sued MLB, its commissioner Bud Selig,
and three major league clubs in February 2014, claiming the wages
paid to Minor Leaguers violated state and federal labor laws.  All
30 Major League teams were later added as defendants to the
lawsuit, but U.S. District Judge Joseph Spero dismissed eight
teams in May for lack of personal jurisdiction, leaving 22 Major
League clubs as defendants.

During an Oct. 2 hearing, Spero said the standard for achieving
conditional class certification is "extremely low."  Spero pointed
to three common issues that justified granting conditional class
certification -- the alleged failure to pay minimum wage, failure
to pay overtime wages, and a uniform player contract which
requires all minor league players receive payment only during the
championship season but obligates them to work outside of the
season.

"There are declarations showing work was performed during the
offseason without compensation," said Spero.

MLB attorney Elise Bloom disagreed with Spero's decision, arguing
there is nothing "facially unlawful" about the uniform player
contract.

"It obligates a player to perform professional services on a
calendar-year basis, regardless of the fact that the salary is
paid during the championship season," Bloom said of the contract.

Bloom argued that some players were paid for extended spring
training on a club-by-club basis and that no "facially unlawful
policy" exists to tie the minor league players into one group.

However, Spero said Bloom's arguments at this stage of the class
certification process are moot because the plaintiffs have
provided sufficient evidence to show common claims of injury.

Bloom urged the judge to exclude "a handful of players" that
worked for the Major League clubs that were dismissed from the
suit in May due to lack of personal jurisdiction.

"They're claiming some kind of joint-employer relationship," said
Bloom. "Whether there is a joint-employer relationship is a fact-
intensive inquiry and would not be sufficient to pull all those
players into this claim."

Spero said for him to rule on that subject at this point would be
similar to him issuing a premature summary judgment, adding those
questions will be tackled during the next phase of the class
certification battle.

"We believe we have more than enough to meet the standard of
conditional class certification on behalf of all players," said
plaintiff class attorney Bobby Pouya.

The judge approved the plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification, adding that the next phase will pose more
challenges to both sides and set the stage for a "big fight"
between the parties.

Notice will now be mailed to all minor leaguers that played ball
during the class period, giving the players an opportunity to
become part of the class action.


MANAGED HEALTH: Supreme Court to Hear Arbitration Clause Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News reports that the Supreme Court has agreed to
decide whether Managed Health Network's arbitration provision
gives the company too much control over disputes and is therefore
unconscionable.

A trial court refused to compel arbitration in a labor class
action against Managed Health Network and MHN Government Services
after finding numerous aspects of the arbitration provision
unconscionable.

Besides finding the provision procedurally unconscionable because
it deprived employees the chance to negotiate, the court also
found substantive problems because MHN held the power to choose
the arbitrator, limited the amount of time disputes could be
brought and shifted costs and fees to the prevailing party
regardless of ability to pay.

In an unpublished opinion filed in December 2014, a Ninth Circuit
panel agreed with the trial court's findings and upheld the
ruling.

Per its custom, the Supreme Court did not issue any comment in
taking up MHN's case.


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Finerman"
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Defendant's motion
to dismiss in the case captioned, DANIEL FINERMAN, etc.,
Plaintiff, v. MARRIOTT VACATIONS WORLDWIDE CORP., etc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:14-CV-1154-J-32MCR.

Plaintiff Daniel Finerman is a Marriott Vacation Club timeshare
owner. Owners may redeem points at various resorts and may also
use them for other types of vacations, including cruises. Finerman
and his wife booked a cruise using timeshare points. When it came
time to pay, Finerman was charged $159.00 per person for port fees
and $114.11 per person for government fees, amounts that could not
be paid with points. Finerman alleges that the amounts charged
were fabricated or inflated so he filed this class action lawsuit
against Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation and International
Cruise Excursion Gallery, Inc., which, Finerman alleges, handled
the cruise bookings as Marriott Vacation Club's agent.

Finerman seeks to represent the class of thousands of Marriott
Vacation Club timeshare owners throughout the United States who he
claims paid fabricated or inflated fees when booking cruises
through defendants.  In his two count complaint, Finerman alleges
that defendants' actions violate Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) and constitute unjust enrichment.
Finerman voluntarily dismissed his claims against International
Cruise Excursion Gallery.

Marriott argues Finerman's complaint should be dismissed for the
following reasons:

     1) the complaint does not meet minimum pleading standards in
that it alleges only conclusory allegations that are contradicted
by documents that should have been attached to the complaint;

     2) the documents that Marriott proffers reveal that another
entity, not Marriott, billed Finerman for the fees;

     3) Finerman cannot plausibly allege that Marriott engaged in
deceptive or unfair practice if Marriott did not bill or collect
the fees;

     4) Finerman's FDUTPA claim was not pled with particularity as
is required when alleging a deceptive practice;

     5) the documents provided by Marriott show that Finerman
cannot plausibly allege that he conferred a benefit on Marriott as
is required to prove a claim of unjust enrichment;

     6) Finerman cannot bring the equitable claim of unjust
enrichment because he failed to allege that he did not have an
adequate remedy at law;

     7) Finerman cannot bring an unjust enrichment claim where his
FDUTPA claim based on the same alleged conduct is due to be
dismissed.

In his Order dated September 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/34I3Lxfrom Leagle.com, Judge Corrigan concluded that
Finerman presents in his FDUTPA claims pled satisfying allegations
and that the dismissal is unwarranted at his time.

The Court directed Marriott to file its answer to the complaint no
later than October 15, 2015 and for the parties to file the Case
Management Report no later than October 15, 2015.

Daniel Finerman is represented by John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Esq.,
at MORGAN & MORGAN, PA

Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation is represented by David
E. Sellinger, Esq. -- sellingerd@gtlaw.com -- Dawn Ivy Giebler-
Millner, Esq. -- millnerd@gtlaw.com -- Philip R. Sellinger, Esq.
-- sellingerp@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP


MARY GIULIANI CATERING: Waiters Sue in NY Over Unpaid Tips & OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News reports that a catering business owned by Rudy
Giuliani's cousin, Ryan, and Ryan's wife, Mary, faces a class
action in Manhattan court from waiters and bartenders seeking tips
and overtime.

Barbara Ross, writing for New York Daily News, reports that four
waiters and bartenders say the Giulianis, who have run their
catering business in the Flat Iron district for a decade, charged
their customers for gratuities but never turned the tips over to
their staff.

The Giuliani customers have included all the high fashion magazine
publishers, Sotheby's, the Tribeca Film Festival and designers
like Stella McCartney, Ralph Lauren, Max Mara and Valentino.

The class action suit, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, goes
after Mary Giuliani Catering & Events, which partnered up with
celebrity TV chef Mario Batali two years ago. The Mario by Mary
menu debuted at a Jessica Seinfeld Baby Buggy charity event in
East Hampton in July 2013.

A spokeswoman for the Giuliani firm declined to comment.


MAZUMA FEDERAL: Faces "Bowens" Suit in Mo. Over Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joy L. Bowens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mazuma Federal Credit Union and Does 1-10, Case No.
4:15-cv-00758-DW (W.D. Mo., September 30, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged unfair practice of charging overdraft fees
when there were sufficient funds in the account to cover the
transaction.

Mazuma Federal Credit Union is a Missouri state chartered credit
union headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
      WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON, LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 876-2600
      E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com

         - and -

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
      E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
              jkk@mccunewright.com

         - and -

      Taras Kick, Esq.
      Thomas A. Segal, Esq.
      THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
      201 Wilshire Boulevard
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 395-2988
      Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
      E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com
              thomas@kicklawfirm.com


MCKESSON CORPORATION: Sued Over Injuries Caused by Cymbalta Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anson Randall Aday, et al. v. McKesson Corporation, Eli Lilly and
Company, and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC593765
(Cal. Super. Ct., September 30, 2015) arises out of the severe
personal injuries of the Plaintiffs as a result of their ingestion
of Cymbalta(R), a prescription drug manufactured and marketed by
Defendants.

Cymbalta(R) is generically known as duloxetine, a prescription
antidepressant.

McKesson Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business at One Post Street, San Francisco, California
94104. McKesson packaged, marketed, distributed, promoted and sold
Cymbalta in California and in Los Angeles County.

Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, Eli Lilly and Company is a
pharmaceutical company involved in the research, development,
testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution,
marketing, and sale of numerous pharmaceutical products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Baum, Esq.
      R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
      BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
      12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310)207-3233
      Facsimile: (310)820-7444
      E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com
              rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com


MORGAN STANLEY: No Equal Pay for Black Fin'l Advisors, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a class action lawsuit in San Francisco, California, claims Morgan
Stanley is still denying black financial advisors equal pay and
opportunities, despite its recent extension of a 2008 settlement
agreement over similar claims.

Kathy Frazier, a former Morgan Stanley financial advisor, sued the
company for race discrimination, retaliation and breach of
contract.  Frazier claims the financial services titan has "no
genuine intent" to reform its practices or abide by the spirit of
settlement agreements reached in race and gender discrimination
suits filed in 2006.

The plaintiff, who left Morgan Stanley in 2013, says she and other
black employees were excluded from lucrative financial advisor
teams and denied opportunities to take over highly profitable
client accounts.

In September, the company sent employees an email about extending
parts of the 2008 Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley race discrimination
settlement. Within the attached disclosure was a notice on page 19
of 22, stripping employees of their rights to pursue class action
discrimination claims in court, Frazier alleges.  She describes
the memo as "a calculated attempt by Morgan Stanley to continue
its rampant discrimination in private and without challenge or
accountability in the court or notice by the investigating
public."

In a statement, Morgan Stanley said the lawsuit has no merit and
that its decision to allow employees to pursue their claims
through "professional unbiased arbitrators," instead of through
the courts is encouraged by federal law.

"In truth, the only people disadvantaged by this program are the
class action lawyers looking to maximize attorneys' fees through
protracted litigation," a Morgan Stanley spokeswoman said.

Frazier's experience

After earning an MBA from the University of Pennsylvania and
gaining substantial experience as a financial advisor at Goldman
Sachs and Merrill Lynch, Frazier was recruited to join Morgan
Stanley in 2007.  Throughout her employment, Frazier says she was
excluded from favorable advisor teams and blocked from taking on
lucrative account transfers when other financial advisors retired
or left the firm.

Frazier says the company retaliated against her after she
complained about the treatment, but her lawsuit lacks specifics on
the alleged retaliation.  She says her requests to see actual
account redistributions were "flatly denied" by managers,
violating the terms of the Jaffe settlement agreement.

After Frazier left the firm in 2013, she filed complaints with
diversity monitors assigned by the court under the Jaffe
settlement agreement but no investigation took place, she says.
Frazier also filed a complaint with the diversity monitor assigned
from a separate gender discrimination settlement in August --
Johnson v. Morgan Stanley, but no corrective action was taken, she
claims.  Although she was a class member in both settlements, she
received no relief from the discriminatory policies and practices,
according to the complaint.

"Not only did plaintiff receive no benefit from the settlements,
she was affirmatively harmed by the firm's flouting its
obligations and its refusal to comply with the court-ordered
programmatic relief," the 16-page complaint states.

Frazier seeks a declaration, class certification, lost
compensation and benefits, punitive damages and an injunction to
stop Morgan Stanley from implementing mandatory arbitration and
class action waivers for discrimination claims.

On Sept. 30, Senior District Judge Thelton Henderson approved a
two-year extension of the Jaffe settlement agreement, which dealt
with claims of discrimination against African American and Latino
employees.

Morgan Stanley employs more than 16,000 financial advisors
nationwide and managed $2 trillion in client assets in 2014 with a
20 percent profit margin, according to the complaint.

Frazier is represented by:

     Sharon Vinick, Esq.
     LEVY VINICK BURRELL HYAMS
     180 Grand Ave #1300
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Tel: 510-318-7700
     E-mail: sharon@levyvinick.com

          - and -

     Suzanne Bish, Esq.
     STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD
     303 W Madison Ste 2600
     Chicago IL 60606
     Tel: 312) 431-0888
     E-mail: sbish@sfltd.com


MYANMAR: Committed Genocide v. Rohingya Muslims, NY Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Babe, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Myanmar committed genocide and human rights abuses against more
than a million Rohingya Muslims living in the western part of the
country, activists claim in a class action lawsuit in Manhattan.

The Rohingya people, a minority community residing primarily in
western Myanmar's Rakhine State, have been the victim of "hate
crimes and discrimination amounting to genocide" perpetrated by
"the Burman Buddhist supremacist government" that has ruled
Myanmar since 1962, according to the complaint. The lawsuit was
filed in Manhattan Federal Court against Myanmar President Thein
Sein and five of the country's current and former officials.

The Burma Task Force, Rohingya member Hitay Lwin Oo and unnamed
plaintiffs sued on behalf of "themselves and their injured and
deceases relatives." They say they "are excluded from citizenship
and brutally persecuted because of their faith and ethnicity." The
task force is made up of Muslim-American organizations managed by
nonprofit human rights group Justice for All.

In 1982, despite having lived in Rakhine State for hundreds of
years, Rohingyas were stripped of their citizenship, renamed
Bengalis and reclassified as foreign, according to the lawsuit.
Since 2012, anti-Muslim sentiment has fueled state-sponsored
attacks against the community, resulting in "deaths, widespread
destruction of property and the internal displacement of more than
150,000 people", mostly Rohingyas, the complaint states.

Oo says he was illegally detained for 27 days by Burmese
authorities, who beat and tortured him. They told him he had been
arrested because he is a Rohingya, he says. Oo eventually fled to
the United States.

"Genocide, ethnic cleansing and persecution of Rohingya people in
Myanmar is well documented and is acknowledged by the
international community," the 26-page complaint states. "United
Nations officials and independent human rights groups have
reported evidence of direct state complicity in ethnic cleansing
and sever human rights abuses, blocking of international aid and
incitement of anti-Muslim violence."

The Rohingya community includes more than 1.3 million Muslims,
according to the complaint.

In addition to Sein, the lawsuit names as defendants Myanmar's
minister of foreign affairs Wunna Maung Lwin, former minister of
border affairs Thein Htay, former minister for immigration and
population Khin Yi, Rakhine State chief minister Maung Ohn, and
minister of home affairs Ko Ko.

The Burma Task Force and Oo seek damages for the Myanmar
government's violation of the U.S. Alien Tort Statute and
international law as well as a court declaration that its actions
amounted to genocide. They are represented by Babak Pourtavoosi in
Jackson Heights, N.Y.

The lawsuit's proposed class consists of Rohingya community
members "who are survivors of or next of kin of those who were
killed as a result of the policies and acts of genocide, ethnic
cleansing and persecution," the complaint states.

Myanmar's presidential spokesman did not reply to a request for
comment.


PULASKI BANK: FLSA Collective Action Settlement Wins Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Greg Kays of the United States District for
Western District of Missouri granted Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Approval of FLSA Collective Action Settlement in the case
captioned, TODD BRANSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PULASKI BANK,
Defendant, Case No. 4:12-CV-01444-DGK.

The case is an "opt-in" collective action arising out of
Plaintiffs' employment as loan officers with Defendant Pulaski
Bank (Pulaski). Plaintiffs, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated, allege that Pulaski violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219, by willfully
failing to pay them the minimum wage and overtime compensation
due. Pulaski denied the material factual allegations in the case
and asserted multiple affirmative defenses. On October 17, 2013,
the Court granted conditional certification of a putative class
defined as all current and former Pulaski loan officers who were
employed during the previous three years. Thirty-four employees
timely filed consent-to-join forms; twenty-eight are still
actively participating in the litigation and are covered by the
proposed settlement.

After the Court declined to approve a prior proposed settlement,
the parties negotiated a new proposed settlement (the Settlement)
which covers all Plaintiffs still actively engaged in this
litigation. The Settlement's essential terms are:

     -- Pulaski will pay $134,611.95 into a gross settlement fund.

     -- Plaintiffs' counsel will request 25% of the gross amount
of the fund ($33,652.99) as attorneys' fees, plus an additional
$6,176.01 for reimbursement of costs and expenses.

     -- Pulaski agrees not to oppose Plaintiffs' counsel's
application for these fees and expenses.

     -- Named Plaintiff Todd Branson will receive a modest $2,000
service award for his work prosecuting this case on behalf of the
class.

     -- The remaining $92,782.95 will be distributed to the 28
Plaintiffs on a pro rata basis by multiplying each employee's
number of weeks employed during the applicable period by the per-
week value of the employee's work. The amounts received by each
individual Plaintiff will vary, but the per capita average
recovery will be $3,314.

In the Order dated September 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/X22vULfrom Leagle.com, Judge Kays found that the
Settlement and the parties' supporting fulfill the prerequisites
for approval.

Todd Branson is represented by Jeff R. Scurlock, Esq. --
scurlock@stuevesiegel.com -- George A. Hanson, Esq. --
hanson@stuevesiegel.com -- STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP

Pulaski Bank is represented by Robert A. Kaiser, Esq. --
rkaiser@armstrongteasdale.com -- Sheena Hamilton, Esq. --
shamilton@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP


RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Del. Chancery Court Approves Deal, Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock of the Court of Chancery of Delaware
approved the proposed settlement and granted the fee request in
the case captioned, IN RE RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, INC. STOCKHOLDERS
LITIGATION, Case No. 10484-VCG.

The litigation arises from a transaction in which Thoma Bravo, LLC
and Teachers' Private Capital, an affiliate of Ontario Teachers'
Pension Plan, acquired all outstanding shares of Riverbed at a
price of $21 per share, cash, valuing the Company at approximately
$3.6 billion.  The Plaintiffs initially sought to enjoin the
Merger, alleging that the sales process undervalued the Company
and was tainted by conflicts of interest. Shortly after the filing
of the definitive proxy, the court granted expedition on the
claims regarding disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
held by Goldman Sachs, one of the financial advisors.
Approximately ten days later, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding, and ultimately entered into the Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release pursuant to which
the Company made supplemental disclosures in an SEC filing prior
to the stockholder vote.

Plaintiffs seek a fee of $500,000, $200,000 as Supplemental
Disclosures merit, $100,000 as a support fee and $329,881.61 as
aggregate award together with costs.

In the Memorandum Opinion dated September 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Sm57vDfrom Leagle.com, Judge Glasscock found the
Stipulation in the Settlement as appropriate and reasonable.

Plaintiffs are represented by Peter B. Andrews, Esq. --
pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- Craig J. Springer, Esq. --
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com -- ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC, Seth D.
Rigrodsky, Esq. -- sdr@rl-legal.com -- Brian D. Long, Esq. --
bdl@rl-legal.com -- Gina M. Serra, Esq. -- gms@rl-legal.com --
Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. -- jjr@rl-legal.com -- RIGRODSKY & LONG,
P.A., Kent A. Bronson, Esq. -- kbronson@milberg.com -- Arvind
Khurana, Esq. -- kkhurana@milberg.com -- Roy Shimon, Esq. --
rshimon@milberg.com -- MILBERG LLP

Defendants are represented by Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, Esq. --
tmontgomery@wsgr.com -- Bradley D. Sorrels, Esq. --
bsorrels@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC


RMI INTERNATIONAL: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Salvatierra, an individual, on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general v. RMI International,
Inc. and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. BC596075 (Cal. Super.
Ct., September 29, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in compliance
with California Labor Code.

RMI International, Inc. operates a security guard service company
located at 8125 Somerset Blvd., Paramount, CA90723.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
      Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
      KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 990-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
      E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
              kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com


SA MIDTOWN: "Molina" Suit in N.Y. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Molina and Victor Campos, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. SA Midtown LLC d/b/a Casa
Lever, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07643 (S.D.N.Y., September 28,
2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages due to an invalid tip
credit, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

SA Midtown LLC owns and operates Casa Lever restaurant located at
390 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


SPRINT ENERGY: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noe Galvan Garcia Jr., and all others similarly situated under 29
USC 216(B) v. Sprint Energy Services, LP & Sprint Waste Services,
LP, Case No. 4:15-cv-02848 (S.D. Tex., September 30, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an oil field services company
located at 1041 Conrad Sauer, Houston, TX 77043.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      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


SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Jackson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jontian Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SPS Technologies, LLC d/b/a Air Industries
Company and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. BC596401 (Cal.
Super. Ct., September 30, 2015) is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

SPS Technologies, LLC manufactures and distributes aerospace
fasteners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
      Kashif Haque, Esq.
      Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
      AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
      9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949) 379-6250
      Facsimile: (949)379-6251


STAPLES INC: 2nd Cir. Revives Breach of Contract Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case captioned, ANDREW ORLANDER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. STAPLES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 14-2677-CV, Circuit
Judge Pierre N. Leval of the United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit, vacated a district court's dismissal under Fed. R.
Civ. P 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and remanded to the
district court with instructions to deny Defendant's motion to
dismiss and to grant Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint in
order to particularize the damages he suffered from the alleged
breach of contract.

Plaintiff Andrew Orlander, a resident and citizen of New York
State, filed a putative class action against Staples, Inc. for
breach of contract, violations of N.Y. GBL Sections 349 and 350,
breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment.
Staples filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to both Rules 12(b)(3)
(improper venue) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim).
Plaintiff purchased both a computer and a two-year, $99.99 "Carry-
in" Protection Plan from Staples, and brought suit, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, after Staples
denied Plaintiff the services for which he allegedly paid.

On June 30, 2013, after briefing and a hearing on the motion, the
district court issued a memorandum and order granting the motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court
rejected the venue argument because the binding arbitration clause
on which the motion was grounded was contained only in the Terms
and Conditions of the Purchase Plan, which the Plaintiff allegedly
never received, and which the district court accordingly did not
consider part of the Contract.

On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in
finding the language of the Protection Plan Brochure ("the
Contract") to be unambiguous; in requiring Plaintiff to show a
"material" breach of that contract; and in finding that the
Plaintiff suffered no damages. Plaintiff also argues that the
district court erred in finding that Plaintiff failed to plead an
actual injury under N.Y. GBL Sections 349 and 350.

Staples responds that the contract terms were unambiguous, that
Plaintiff failed to allege a breach of the unambiguous contract,
and that Plaintiff failed to show damages from the alleged breach.
Defendant also argues that Plaintiff failed sufficiently to allege
either a materially misleading practice or an actual injury under
N.Y. GBL Sections 349 and 350.

In the Decision dated September 16, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/rrHldmfrom Leagle.com, Judge Leval concluded that
Plaintiff has adequately alleged both a materially misleading
practice and an actual injury under N.Y. GBL Sections 349 and 350
and with respect to the breach of contract claim, that the
district court erred in finding the Contract to be unambiguous, in
requiring Plaintiff to allege a "material" breach, and in finding
that Plaintiff had failed to adequately allege damages.

Andrew Orlander is represented by Megan A. Farmer, Esq. --
mfarmer@gardylaw.com -- GARDY & NOTIS, LLP

Staples, Inc. is represented by Barry M. Kazan, Esq. --
Barry.Kazan@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON HINE LLP


TARGET CORPORATION: Court Grants Motion for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Magnuson of the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota granted Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and appointment of class representatives and
class counsel in the case captioned, In re: Target Corporation
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. This document relates
to: Financial Institution Cases, Case No. 14-2522(PAM/JJK).

The case stems from a massive breach of the computer network of
one of the nation's largest retailers, Defendant Target
Corporation. In late 2013, unidentified computer hackers gained
virtually unfettered access to Target's computer system,
ultimately extracting the financial information of more than 40
million consumers. After the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation consolidated lawsuits regarding the breach in this
Court, the case was separated into two "tracks": one for consumers
and one for financial institutions.  The consumer action has
settled, pending final court approval.

Plaintiff moves for class certification. The Court has the
authority to appoint pro bono counsel to represent an indigent
plaintiff. Plaintiffs in the financial-institution "track" issued
payment cards such as credit and debit cards to consumers who, in
turn, used those cards at Target stores during the period of the
2013 data breach. The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
raises three claims against Target. Count One contends that Target
was negligent in failing to provide sufficient security to prevent
the hackers from accessing customer data. Count Two asserts that
Target violated Minnesota's Plastic Security Card Act, and Count
Three alleges that this violation constitutes negligence per se.
The putative class representative Plaintiffs allege that they
suffered injury in the form of replacing cards for their
customers, reimbursing fraud losses, and taking various other
remedial steps in response to the Target data breach.

In the motion, Plaintiffs seek the certification of a Rule
23(b)(3) class "of all entities in the United States and its
Territories that issued payment cards compromised in the payment
card data breach that was publicly disclosed by Target on December
19, 2013."

In his Memorandum and Order dated September 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/TZZuvUfrom Leagle.com, Judge Magnuson:

     -- certifies a class defined as "All entities in the United
States and its Territories that issued payment cards compromised
in the payment card data breach that was publicly disclosed by
Target on December 19, 2013"; and

     -- appoints Zimmerman Reed PLLP and Chestnut Cambronne PA as
Co-Lead Counsel and Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield; Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.; Barrett Law Group, P.A.; Levin, Fishbein,
Sedran & Berman; Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP; Carlson Lynch
Ltd.; Scott + Scott LLP; Hausfeld LLP; and Beasley, Allen, Crow,
Methvin, Portis Miles, P.C. as Co-Class Counsel for the Class; and

     -- Umpqua Bank, Mutual Bank, Village Bank, CSE Federal Credit
Union, and First Federal Savings of Lorain as Class
Representatives.

The Court directs the parties to provide notice of the pendency of
the action to the class as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c)(2)(B).

Plaintiffs are represented by E. Michelle Drake, Esq. --
drake@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP & Jennifer J. Sosa, Esq. --
jsosa@milberg.com -- MILBERG LLP

Target Corporation is represented by Douglas H. Meal, Esq. --
Douglas.Meal@ropesgray.com -- Michelle L. Visser, Esq. --
Michelle.Visser@ropesgray.com -- ROPES & GRAY LLP, Rebekah
Kaufman, Esq. -- rkaufman@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP &
Wendy J. Wildung, Esq. -- wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE
BAKER DANIELS LLP


TEP EVENTS: "Tracey" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tracey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TEP Events International, Inc. and Duuzra, Case No.
1:15-cv-07696 (S.D.N.Y, September 30, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and statutory penalties, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

TEP Events International, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation that
provides interactive event technology solutions at corporate
events, meetings, seminars, and training sessions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Braunstein, Esq.
      THE BRAUNSTEIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      3 Eberling Drive
      New City, NY 10956
      Telephone: (845) 642-5062
      E-mail: MBraunstein@BraunsteinFirm.com


THEKKEK HEALTH: Faces "Cagungao" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Adelbert Cagungao, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Thekkek Health Services, Inc., PAKSN, Inc.,
and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. RG15787300 (Cal.
Super. Ct., September 25, 2015) is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California
Labor Code.

The Defendants are in the business of owning, operating, and
administering skilled nursing facilities throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      RobertS. Arns, Esq.
      Jonathan E. Davis, Esq.
      Kevin M. Osborne, Esq.
      Julie C. Erickson, Esq.
      THE ARNS LAW FIRM
      515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 495-7800
      Facsimile: (415) 495-7888
      E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com
              jed@arnslaw.com
              kmo@arnslaw.com
              jce@arnslaw.com

         - and -

      Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq.
      George Kawamoto, Esq.
      STEBNER AND ASSOCIATES
      870 Market Street, Suite 1212
      San Francisco, CA 941 02
      Telephone: (415) 362-9800
      Facsimile: (415) 362-9801

         - and -

      Michael D. Thamer, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. THAMER
      Old Callahan School House
      12444 South Highway 3
      Post Office Box 1568
      Callahan, CA 96014-1568
      Telephone: (530) 467-5307
      Facsimile: (530) 467-5437
      E-mail: michael@trinityinstitute.com


THORNE RESEARCH: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christalina Farrington, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Thorne Research, Inc. and William C. McCamy
III, Case No. 6:15-cv-01630-PGB-TBS (18th Ct. Fla., September 30,
2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages.

The Defendants operate a healthcare company doing business in the
State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles F. Rodman, Esq.
      GESMER UPDEGROVE LLP
      40 Broad Street
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 350-6800
      Facsimile: (617) 350-6878
      E-mail: chuck.rodman@gesmer.com


TNT LANDSCAPE: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Smith, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
TNT Landscape and Lawn Maintenance, Inc. and Thomas L. Richardson,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01165-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla., September 30, 2015)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of landscaping or maintaining
ground of property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3017
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


TOYODA GOSEI: Sued in Mich. Over Automotive Hose-Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al. v. Toyoda Gosei Co.,
Ltd., Case No. 2:15-cv-13451-LVP-DRG (E.D. Mich., October 1, 2015)
arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to unlawfully fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the
market and customers in the United States for Automotive Hoses.

Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its
principal place of business in Aichi, Japan. Toyoda directly and
through its subsidiaries, manufactured, marketed and sold
Automotive Hoses throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
      Alexander E. Blum, Esq.
      MANTESE HONIGMAN P.C.
      1361 E. Big Beaver Road
      Troy, MI 48083
      Telephone: (248) 457-9200
      E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
              ablum@manteselaw.com

         - and -

      Don Barrett, Esq.
      Brian Herrington, Esq.
      David McMullan, Esq.
      BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
      P.O. Box 927
      404 Court Square
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-2488
      E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
              bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com
              dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
      Joel Davidow, Esq.
      Daniel Cohen, Esq.
      Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street, N.E.
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
              joel@cuneolaw.com
              danielc@cuneolaw.com
              vicky@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
      LARSON  KING, LLP
      2800 Wells Fargo Place
      30 East Seventh Street
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (651) 312-6500
      E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com

         - and -

      Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      300 North Tucker, Suite 801
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 226-1015
      E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Phillip Duncan, Esq.
      Richard Quintus, Esq.
      DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
      900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 228-7600
      E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com
              richard@duncanfirm.com

         - and -

      Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
      THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
      1101 Garland Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Telephone: (501) 374-1058
      E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net


UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Ends Inquiry into Leak of Immigrant Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
ended its inquiry into whether a government attorney improperly
cited a newspaper article about crimes committed by undocumented
immigrants.

The case involves a class action in which undocumented immigrants
who have been criminally charged and detained for more than six
months are seeking bond hearings. The immigrants received an
injunction from the trial court, which the Justice Department
appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

At a hearing in July, the circuit's three-judge panel chastised a
Justice Department attorney for citing a July 21 Los Angeles Times
article about Kaene Dean, an undocumented Filipino man who is
accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.

Circuit Judge Kim Wardlaw wondered at the hearing whether the
government had leaked the Dean's case to the Times to influence
the appeal proceedings.  The circuit's order said that both sides'
submissions to an order to show cause in August have "satisfied us
that no government attorney provided information to the press with
the object of influencing this appeal."

Rather, the Ninth Circuit's unsigned discharge order said it
appears that a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
spokesperson provided information about the case in response to an
inquiry by a Times reporter and the timing of the article's
publication was "only coincidentally related" to the date of the
hearing.

However, the order said the panel remains "concerned that
government counsel made an argument based on evidence not properly
before this court, which left an impression contrary to the facts
surrounding Kaene Dean's immigration bond hearings."

The panel said it will disregard the article and the government's
arguments referencing it, but "we find no basis for concluding
that government counsel deliberately attempted to mislead the
court."

Therefore, the panel did not impose sanctions on the Justice
Department.

Neither side could be immediately reached for comment.

The cases before the Ninth Circuit are:

ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, for himself and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals; ABDIRIZAK ADEN FARAH, for himself
and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated individuals; JOSE
FARIAS CORNEJO; YUSSUF ABDIKADIR; ABEL PEREZ RUELAS, Petitioners-
Appellees, and EFREN OROZCO, Petitioner, v. TIMOTHY ROBBINS, Field
Office Director, Los Angeles District, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; JEH JOHNSON, Secretary, Homeland Security; LORETTA E.
LYNCH, Attorney General; WESLEY LEE, Assistant Field Office
Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; RODNEY PENNER,
Captain, Mira Loma Detention Center; SANDRA HUTCHENS, Sheriff of
Orange County; NGUYEN, Officer, Officer in-Charge, Theo Lacy
Facility; DAVIS NIGHSWONGER, Captain, Commander, Theo Lacy
Facility; MIKE KREUGER, Captain, Operations Manager, James A.
Musick Facility; ARTHUR EDWARDS, Officer-in-Charge, Santa Ana City
Jail; RUSSELL DAVIS, Jail Administrator, Santa Ana City Jail; JUAN
P. OSUNA, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review,
Respondents-Appellants, No. 13-56706, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-03239-TJH-
RNB; and

ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, for himself and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals; ABDIRIZAK ADEN FARAH, for himself
and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated individuals; JOSE
FARIAS CORNEJO; YUSSUF ABDIKADIR; ABEL PEREZ RUELAS, Petitioners-
Appellants, and EFREN OROZCO, Petitioner, v. TIMOTHY ROBBINS,
Field Office Director, Los Angeles District, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General; WESLEY
LEE, Assistant Field Office Director, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; RODNEY PENNER, Captain, Mira Loma Detention Center;
SANDRA HUTCHENS, Sheriff of Orange County; NGUYEN, Officer,
Officer-in-Charge, Theo Lacy Facility; DAVIS NIGHSWONGER, Captain,
Commander, Theo Lacy Facility; MIKE KREUGER, Captain, Operations
Manager, James A. Musick Facility; RUSSELL DAVIS, Jail
Administrator, Santa Ana City Jail; ARTHUR EDWARDS, Officer-in-
Charge, Santa Ana City Jail; THOMAS G. SNOW, Acting Director,
Executive Office for Immigration Review; JEH JOHNSON, Secretary,
Homeland Security, Respondents-Appellees, No. 13-56755, D.C. No.
2:07-cv-03239-TJH-RNB


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Baczewski" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Baczewski and Mark Brong, individually, and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07141-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.,
September 28, 2015) Volkswagen Jetta, Beetle and Golf (MY 2009-
2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged intentional
installation of defeat devices in Volkswagen Passat (MY 2014-2015)
and Audi A3 (MY 2009-2015) vehicles that contain Type EA 189 and
EA 288 diesel engines, to create the impression of high fuel
efficiency and high performance with extremely low emissions.

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:

      Matthew Mendelsohn, Esq.
      Adam M. Slater, Esq.
      David A. Mazie, Esq.
      MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
      103 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 228-9898
      E-mail: mmendelsohn@mskf.net
              aslater@mskf.net
              dmazie@mskf.net


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Klahn" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Klahn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
07179-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., September 30, 2015) arises from the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of defeat devices in
at least the following diesel models of its vehicles: MY 2009-2015
VW Jetta, MY 2009-2015 VW Beetle, MY 2009-2015 VW Golf, MY 2014-
2015 VW Passat, MY 2009-2015 Audi A3, and MY 2009-2015 Audi A8.

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:

      Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
      Daniel N. Gallucci, Esq.
      Joanne E. Matusko, Esq,
      NATLAW, LLC
      1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 923-9300
      Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
      E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
              dgallucci@nastlaw.com
              jmatusko@nastlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lanham" Suit in W.V. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard E. Lanham, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-13507 (S.D.W.V., September 28, 2015) arises from the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of defeat devices in
at least 500,000 model year 2009-2015 Volkswagen and Audi vehicles
sold in the United States and equipped with a 2.0L TDI CleanDiesel
engine.

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:

      Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
      Eric B. Snyder, Esq.
      Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq.
      Robert P. Lorea, Esq.
      Katherine E. Charonko, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
      209 Capitol Street
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 345-6555
      Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
      E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com
              esnyder@baileyglasser.com
              jboggs@baileyglasser.com
              rlorea@baileyglasser.com
              kcharonko@baileyglasser.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Mansour" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
James Mansour, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., and
Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-05670 (E.D.N.Y., September 30,
2015) arises from the Defendant's alleged intentional installation
of defeat devices in diesel automobiles -- the Jetta, Jetta
Sportwagen, Beetle, Beetle Convertible, Golf, Golf Sportwagen,
Audi A3 and Passat.

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 corporation organized under the laws of
Germany having it headquarters and principal place of business
located in Wolfsburg, Germany.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. London, Esq.
      Virginia E. Anello, Esq.
      DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C.
      59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212) 566-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 566-7501
      E-mail: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com
              vanello@douglasandlondon.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Midland Suit in Ill. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Midland Industries, Inc., on behalf of itself and all similarly
situated persons v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-08610 (N.D. Ill., September 30, 2015) arises from the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of defeat devices in
Volkswagen and Audi vehicles 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:

      Alex Stepick, Esq.
      STEPICK LAW, LLC
      2260 N. Elston Ave., 2nd Fl. S.
      Chicago, IL 60614
      Telephone: (773) 245-3884
      E-mail: Alex@stepicklaw.com

         - and -

      Adam Urbanczyk, Esq.
      PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC
      140 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 315
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 787-2717
      E-mail: Adam@progressivelaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Miller" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Miller, Abdon Anthony Cruz, Joseph Daniel Toms Warren, and
David Joseph, individually, and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, and Audi AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-07650
(C.D. Cal., September 29, 2015) ) arises from the Defendant's
alleged intentional installation of defeat devices in at least
500,000 model year 2009-2015 Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in
the United States and equipped with a 2.0L TDI CleanDiesel engine.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Casey Jr., Esq.
      Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
      Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
      Wendy M. Behan, Esq.
      Casey Gerry Schenk, Esq.
      FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
      110 Laurel Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 238-1811
      Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
      E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
              gmb@cglaw.com
              jrobinson@cglaw.com
              wbehan@cglaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Mizak" Suit in Conn. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Mizak, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-01429 (D. Conn., September 30, 2015) arises from the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of defeat devices in
model year 2009 through 2015 passenger vehicles with 2.0L diesel
engines.

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:

      Bruce E. Newman, Esq.
      Cody N. Guarnieri, Esq.
      BROWN PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP
      100 Pearl Street
      Hartford, CT 06103
      Telephone: (860) 522-3343
      Facsimile: (860) 522-2490
      E-mail: bnewman@bpslawyers.com
              cguarnieri@bpslawyers.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Moyer" Suit in Ariz. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Moyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00462-RCC (D. Ariz., September 30, 2015) arises
from the Defendant's alleged intentional installation of defeat
devices in at least 500,000 model year 2009-2015 Volkswagen and
Audi vehicles sold in the United States and equipped with a 2.0L
TDI CleanDiesel engine.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      A. Bates Butler III, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF A. BATES BUTLER III, LLC
      177 North Church Ave., Suite 1013
      Tucson, AZ 85701
      Telephone: (520) 624-6200
      Facsimile: (520) 624-6204
      E-mail: bates@abbutlerlaw.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 "Puglisi" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
John Puglisi, Paul Krawitz, and Melissa Wittig, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07208-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.,
September 29, 2015) arises from the Defendant's alleged
intentional installation of defeat devices in model year 2009
through 2015 passenger vehicles with 2.0L diesel engines, to fake
Environmental Protection Agency emissions test results.

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:

      Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
      Ruben Honik, Esq.
      Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
      David J. Stanoch, Esq.
      GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 985-9177
      Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
      E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
              rhonik@golombhonik.com
              kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
              dstanoch@golombhonik.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Romero" Suit in Ill. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No._______
(Ill. Ch., September 25, 2015) arises from the Defendant's alleged
intentional installation of defeat devices in at least the
following diesel models of its vehicles: MY 2009-2015 VW Jetta, MY
2009-2015 VW Beetle, MY 2009-2015 VW Golf, MY 2014-2015 VW Passat,
MY 2009-2015 Audi A3, and MY 2009-2015 Audi A8.

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:

      Mark S. Grotefeld, Esq.
      John R. Schleiter, Esq.
      David L. Poindexter, Esq.
      GROTEFELD HOFFMANN SCHLEITER GORDON OCHOA & EVINGER, LLP
      311 South Wacker Drive, Ste. 4500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 551-0200
      Facsimile: (312) 601-2402
      E-mail: mgrotefeld@ghlaw-llp.com
              jschleiter@ghlaw-llp.com
              dpoindexter@ghlaw-llp.com

         - and -

      Zona Jones, Esq.
      PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM L.L.P.
      490 Park Street
      Beaumont, TX 77701
      Telephone: (409) 835-6000
      Facsimile: (409) 813-8618
      E-mail: ZJones@provostumphrey.com

         - and -

      Muhammad S. Aziz, Esq.
      ABRAHAM , WATKINS, SORRELS, AGOSTO & FRIEND
      800 Commerce Street
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-7211
      Facsimile: (713) 225-0827
      E-mail: maziz@abrahamwatkins.com

         - and -

      Stephen E. Harrison II, Esq.
      HARRISON DAVIS STEAKLEY MORRISON P.C.
      5 Ritchie Road
      Waco, TX 76712
      Telephone: (254) 633-2813
      Facsimile: (254) 761-3301
      E-mail: steve@thetriallawyers.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Rumpf" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Rumpf, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-07637 (C.D. Cal., September 29, 2015) arises from the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of defeat devices in
model year 2009 through 2015 passenger vehicles with 2.0L diesel
engines, to fake Environmental Protection Agency emissions test
results.

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 H. Gomez, Esq.
      Deborah S. Dixon, Esq.
      Kristen K. Barton, Esq.
      GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS
      655 W Broadway, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 237-3490
      Facsimile: (619) 237-3496
      E-mail: john@gomeztrialattorneys.com
              ddixon@gomeztrialattorneys.com
              kbarton@gomeztrialattorneys.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Verez" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hugo Verez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
07123-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., September 28, 2015) arises from the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of defeat devices in
over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the
United States, to create the impression of high fuel efficiency
and high performance with extremely low emissions.

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:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
              LTaylor@carellabyrne.com

         - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq.
      Benjamin Branda, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Ste. 605
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 429-2290
      E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
              enafisi@wbmllp.com
              bbranda@wbmllp.com

         - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      First Tennessee Plaza
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0090
      E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
              mark@gregcolemanlaw.com

         - and -

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
              aek@wexlerwallace.com


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *