CAR_Public/151014.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, October 14, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 205


                            Headlines


ABBVIE INC: Lawsuits Against Unimed Consolidated for Pre-Trial
ABBVIE INC: Niaspan Antitrust Litigation Pending
ABBVIE INC: Sidney Hillman Case Returned to District Court
ABBVIE INC: TRT Lawsuit by Medical Mutual Still Pending
ABBVIE INC: 1,250 TRT Cases Consolidated for Pre-Trial Purposes

ABBVIE INC: 700 Product Liability Claims Over Depakote(R) Pending
ABBVIE INC: Suit by Holders of Shire Securities Pending
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR: Faces "Cisneros" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ANN INC: MOU Reached in Class Suit Over Ascena Retail Merger
BANKRATE INC: Motions to Dismiss Los Angeles Class Suit Pending

BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Expands Recall on DaVinci Brand Cribs
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 27,000+ Product Liability Cases Still Pending
BUMBLE BEE: Faces Associated Grocers Suit Over PSP-Price Fixing
CB FINANCIAL: Oral Argument in Appeal to Be Held in October 2015
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Defending Against "Guglielmo" Action

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Anticipated in Sikora & Reed Cases
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Masters" Case Sent to Orange County Court
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Arbitration Bid Pending in "Garcia" Case
COMMAND SECURITY: Trial Date Set for March 2016
COVISINT CORPORATION: Court Denied Motion to Dismiss Class Suits

CREST PUMPING: Faces "Carley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DEX MEDIA: Class Suit by Murphy, Noe & Palmer Now Concluded
DEX MEDIA: Motion to Dismiss "Fulmer" Action Pending
DIODES INCORPORATED: Class Action Appeal Fully Briefed
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Suit Over Retention of Service Charges

EATON CORPORATION: Class Certification Bid Denial Appealed
FIFTH STREET: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
GROUPON INC: Class Suit Parties Engaged in Expert Discovery
GROUPON INC: New Settlement Reached in Marketing & Sales Suit
HCA MANAGEMENT: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks

HOME LOAN: Defending Against Class Suits in S.D.N.Y.
HOME LOAN: Defending Against Class Action by Retirement Fund
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime
ILLINI STATE: Faces "Poteet" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
IMPORT IMPORT: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Ortiz" Suit Says

ISIDORO ZARCO: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Fernandez" Suit Says
LA KITCHEN: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Disability Discrimination
MARSEA INVESTMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
MARY GIULIANI: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Tips and OT Wages
MASTEC INC: Still Defending Against "Wrigley" Case

MERCK & CO: Faces "Bediner" Suit Over Januvia and Janumet Drugs
NEW YORK FRIED: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NORTHWEST TERRITORIAL: Sued in Wash. Over Gender Discrimination
ORTHONET LLC: Faces "Gethers-Trent" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PASEO DEL MAR: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

PEACH MOTORS: "White" Suit in Ga. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
PERALTA CABINETS: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
PHILLIES: "Senne" Suit Transferred to Northern District Cal.
PLAINS GP: Still Defending S.D. Illinois Class Action
POST HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Phase in Antitrust Case Ongoing

PRO TOUR: Faces "Arroyo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PRO TOUR: Faces "Jerez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY: Sued in Tenn. Over Alleged Money Extortion
R & A KING: "Nanduca" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
RENAISSANCE LEARNING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

RESPONSE ENVELOPE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
RIO VISTA: Faces "Valero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
SALSBURY FORTRESS: Sued Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Trust No Longer Party to Class Suit
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Defending Lanier Trust Class Suit

SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Hearing Held on Plaintiffs' Bid for Leave
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: No Oral Argument Yet on Motion to Dismiss
SCS-CHICAGO: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Securities Class Action Still Pending
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: "Holly Hall" Case in Preliminary Stages

SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Fla. and Tex. Cases Voluntarily Dismissed
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: "Anderson" Case in Preliminary Stages
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Judicial Panel Denied Motion to Transfer
SHIFTGIG INC: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
STANLEY MARTIN: Sued in Va. Over Alleged Gender Discrimination

SWEPI LP: Files Petition to Appeal Class Cert. Ruling
TCP INTERNATIONAL: State Court Proceedings Stayed
TOYODA GOSEI: Faces Martens Suit in Mich. Over Automotive Hoses
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Pa. Over Misleading Financial Reports
VITTAL INTERNATIONAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Beitz" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Brigham" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Cowell" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Elder" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Greczylo" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Heinz" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kannapel" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kornfeld" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lefkowitz" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Maston" Suit Over Defeat Device

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "McGarry" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "McKenna" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Rasor" Suit in Mich. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Safra" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Seager" Suit in Ill. Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Spiker" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Barnes" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bergrud" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Behncke" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Schlesselman" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Springfield" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Travalio" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Underwood" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Morrey" Suit in Mo. Over Defeat Devices
VOLTARI CORPORATION: Class Action Appeal Pending

WHITELAW HOTEL: Does Not Properly Pay Workers Wages, Suit Claims


                            *********


ABBVIE INC: Lawsuits Against Unimed Consolidated for Pre-Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that several pending lawsuits filed
against Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(a company Abbott acquired in February 2010 and now known as
AbbVie Products LLC) and others are consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia under the Multi-District Litigation (MDL)
Rules as In re: AndroGel Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2084.

These cases, brought by private plaintiffs and the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), generally allege Solvay's 2006 patent litigation
involving AndroGel(R) was sham litigation and the patent
litigation settlement agreement and related agreements with three
generic companies violate federal and state antitrust laws and
state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs
generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

MDL No. 2084 includes: (a) four individual plaintiff lawsuits; (b)
six purported class actions; and (c) Federal Trade Commission v.
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. Following the district court's
dismissal of all plaintiffs' claims, appellate proceedings led to
the reinstatement of the claims regarding the patent litigation
settlement, which are proceeding in discovery in the district
court. The Attorney General of the State of Alaska has served
AbbVie with a Civil Investigative Demand, primarily seeking
documents that AbbVie produced in these lawsuits.


ABBVIE INC: Niaspan Antitrust Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that lawsuits are pending against
AbbVie and others generally alleging that the 2005 patent
litigation settlement involving Niaspan(R) entered into between
Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company acquired by Abbott in 2006
and presently a subsidiary of AbbVie) and a generic company
violates federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and
deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs
generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees. Two individual plaintiff lawsuits and 17
purported class actions are consolidated for pre-trial proceedings
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under the MDL Rules as In re: Niaspan Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 2460. The office of the Attorney General of
the State of Alaska has served AbbVie with a Civil Investigative
Demand, primarily seeking documents that AbbVie produced in this
lawsuit.


ABBVIE INC: Sidney Hillman Case Returned to District Court
----------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that in August 2013, a putative class
action lawsuit, Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester, et al.
v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against AbbVie in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by
three healthcare benefit providers alleging violations of Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes and
state deceptive business practice and unjust enrichment laws in
connection with reimbursements for certain uses of Depakote(R)
from 1998 to 2012. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and/or
equitable relief and attorneys' fees. In April 2015, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the
district court's decision to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims
with prejudice on statute of limitations grounds. The case has
been returned to the district court for further proceedings.

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


ABBVIE INC: TRT Lawsuit by Medical Mutual Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that in November 2014, a putative
class action lawsuit, Medical Mutual of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et
al., was filed against several manufacturers of testosterone
replacement therapies (TRTs), including AbbVie, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of all insurance companies, health benefit providers, and
other third-party payors who paid for TRTs, including AndroGel(R).
The claims asserted include violations of the federal RICO Act and
state consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices laws. The
complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

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


ABBVIE INC: 1,250 TRT Cases Consolidated for Pre-Trial Purposes
---------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that product liability cases are
pending in which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie and other
manufacturers of TRTs did not adequately warn about risks of
certain injuries, primarily heart attacks, strokes and blood
clots. Approximately 1250 cases are consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under the Multi-District Litigation Rules as
In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2545. Approximately 50 cases are pending in
various state courts. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive
damages.

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


ABBVIE INC: 700 Product Liability Claims Over Depakote(R) Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that product liability cases are
pending in which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie did not
adequately warn about risk of certain injuries, primarily various
birth defects, arising from use of Depakote(R). Over ninety
percent of the approximately 700 claims are pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and
the rest are pending in various other federal and state courts.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.


ABBVIE INC: Suit by Holders of Shire Securities Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that five individuals filed in
November 2014 a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers and sellers of certain Shire plc securities between
June 20 and October 14, 2014, against AbbVie and its chief
executive officer in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois alleging that the defendants made
and/or are responsible for material misstatements in violation of
federal securities laws in connection with AbbVie's proposed
transaction with Shire. The complaint seeks monetary damages and
injunctive relief.

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


AIRTOUCH CELLULAR: Faces "Cisneros" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Cisneros v. Airtouch Cellular, Inc. and Does 1 through 10,
Case No. BC596594 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 1, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Airtouch Cellular, Inc. is a national communications company with
numerous retail stores selling cellular telephones and cellular
telephone services throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abraham Mathew, Esq.
      JACOB GEORGE, Esq.
      SANG J. PARK, Esq.
      MATHEW & GEORGE
      500 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1490
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (310)478-4349
      Facsimile: (310)478-9580
      E-mail: abraham@mathewandgeorge.com
              jacob@mathewandgeorge.com
              sang@mathewandgeorge.com


ANN INC: MOU Reached in Class Suit Over Ascena Retail Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, that the Current Report on
Form 8-K is being filed pursuant to a memorandum of understanding
regarding the settlement of certain litigation relating to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of
May 17, 2015, by and among ANN INC., a Delaware corporation ("ANN"
or the "Company"), ascena retail group, inc., a Delaware
corporation ("ascena"), and Avian Acquisition Corp., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of ascena ("Merger
Sub"). The Merger Agreement provides that, upon the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge
with and into ANN, with ANN continuing as the surviving
corporation (the "Merger").

As disclosed on page 75 of the Definitive Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") by the Company on July 20, 2015 (the "Definitive Proxy
Statement"), ANN, its board of directors, ascena and Merger Sub
are named as defendants in a putative class action in the Delaware
Court of Chancery challenging the Merger. The suit was filed on
May 27, 2015 and is captioned Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust v.
ANN, Inc., C.A. No. 11067-CB (the "Action"). The complaint
alleges, among other things, that ANN's board of directors
breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell ANN through an
unfair process and by failing to maximize the value of ANN. The
complaint also alleges that ANN, Merger Sub and ascena have aided
and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty. On July 2, 2015, the
plaintiff amended its complaint to include allegations that ANN's
preliminary proxy statement, filed as part of ascena's
registration statement, was materially misleading and incomplete.

On August 6, 2015, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiff providing for the
settlement of the Action. While the Company and ascena believe
that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws,
in order to avoid the burden and expense of further litigation,
the Company and ascena have agreed, pursuant to the terms of the
MOU, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the
proposed Merger, all of which are set forth below. The MOU
contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to
customary conditions, including court approval following notice to
the Company's stockholders. In the event that the parties enter
into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at
which the Delaware Court of Chancery will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all
claims by stockholders of the Company challenging any aspect of
the proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made
in connection therewith, including in the Definitive Proxy
Statement, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to
stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In
addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will file a petition in the
Delaware Court of Chancery for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to be paid by the Company or its successor. The
settlement is also contingent upon, among other things, the Merger
becoming effective under Delaware law. There can be no assurance
that the Delaware Court of Chancery will approve the settlement
contemplated by the MOU. In the event that the settlement is not
approved and such conditions are not satisfied, the defendants
will continue to vigorously defend against the allegations in the
Action.


BANKRATE INC: Motions to Dismiss Los Angeles Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bankrate Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that motions to dismiss the
case, The City of Los Angeles v. Bankrate, Inc., et al., remain
pending.

In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was brought in
federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors. The suit, captioned The City of
Los Angeles v. Bankrate, Inc., et al., No. 14-CV-81323-DMM,
alleges, among other things, that the Company's 2011, 2012, and
2013 financial statements improperly recognized revenues and
expenses and therefore were materially false and misleading, and
seeks relief (including damages) under the federal securities laws
on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all persons, other
than the defendants, who purchased the Company's securities
between October 16, 2012 and September 15, 2014, inclusive.

On February 23, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, which asserts claims against the Company, certain
officers and directors of the Company, entities associated with
Apax Partners, the underwriters of the Company's March 2014 stock
offering, and the Company's independent registered public
accountant, alleging that the Company's 2011, 2012, and 2013
financial statements were materially false and misleading and that
the Company sold securities in March 2014 pursuant to a
registration statement and prospectuses in violation of federal
securities law. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and rescission or rescissionary damages.

On March 9, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. Other named defendants, including the Company's
accountant, the underwriter defendants, and the Company's former
Chief Financial Officer, Edward J. DiMaria, have each filed
separate and additional motions to dismiss the amended complaint.
Those motions are pending.

Pursuant to a notice of voluntary dismissal submitted by the lead
plaintiff, the Apax Defendants were terminated from the action on
April 23, 2015.

"The action is in its preliminary stages and we are not able to
predict its outcome. The Company cannot presently estimate the
amount of loss, if any, that would result from an adverse
resolution of this matter," the Company said.

Two earlier lawsuits making similar allegations, captioned Tong v.
Evans, et al., No. 14-cv-81183-KLR (S.D. Fla), and Atiyeh v.
Evans, et al., No. 14 Civ. 8443 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y), were voluntarily
dismissed by their respective plaintiffs.


BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Expands Recall on DaVinci Brand Cribs
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 1, 2015
Posting date: October 1, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55168
Affected products What you should do
Expansion of July 15, 2015 recall.

This recall includes specific models of the DaVinci brand cribs
manufactured between May 2012 and December 2012.

The affected DaVinci brand cribs include the following models:

Model Name  Model Number
Purchase Order (serial number)

*new serial numbers added in this recall expansion

  --- Reagan crib  2801  4959/ 5035/ 5109/ *5254/ *5350/ *5035
  --- Emily crib  4791  4648/ 4669/ 4962/ *5249/ *5380/ *5534/
      *5193
  --- Jamie crib  4791  4954/ 5029/ *5108/ *5381
  --- Jenny Lind crib  7391  4954/ 4620/ 4669/ 4758/ 4934/ 4994/
      5041/ 4648/ *5214/ *5100/ *5227/ *5313/ *5382/ *5094/
      *5524/ *5644

The purchase order number, model number and manufacture date can
be found on the label located on the side panel of the crib.  The
purchase order number is listed as "serial number" and is preceded
by "N00" on the label.

A metal bracket that connects the mattress support to the crib can
break and become detached from the crib, creating an uneven
sleeping surface or a gap. If this occurs, a child can become
entrapped in the crib, fall or be lacerated by the broken metal
bracket.

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

Bexco Enterprises, Inc. has received 5 additional reports of
detachment in the United States. No injuries were reported as a
result of the detached bracket.

Approximately 13 additional affected cribs in Canada and 6,000
additional affected cribs in the United States were distributed at
juvenile products retailers nationwide.

The recalled products were manufactured between May 2012 and
December 2012.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Bexco Enterprises Inc.,
             Montebello
             California
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs and
contact the company for a free replacement mattress support which
includes new attached brackets.  In the meantime, parents are
urged to find an alternate, safe sleeping environment for the
child.

Consumers should contact DaVinci toll-free at (888) 673-6652 from
8:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. PST Monday through Friday or by email or
visit the company's website.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website.  You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/pmo8bwf


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 27,000+ Product Liability Cases Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of August 5,
2015, there were over 27,000 product liability cases or claims
related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat
stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse pending
against the Company.

The Company said "The cases are pending in various federal and
state courts in the United States and include eight putative class
actions. There were also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive
of three putative class actions, and fewer than 10 claims in the
United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury
associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products.
The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to
warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer
protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 2,700 of the
cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in
Massachusetts."

"On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the
federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for
coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth quarter of
2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state
attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh
products. We have responded to those requests.

"During April 2015, solely by way of compromise and without any
admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing, we
entered into a master settlement agreement with certain
plaintiffs' counsel to settle substantially all of their
inventories of cases and claims pending against us. The master
settlement agreement provides that we will pay approximately $119
million to resolve 2,970 pending cases and claims, including the
case in the District Court of Dallas County (TX) for which there
is a judgment of approximately $35 million that is currently
subject to appeal.

"Under the terms of the master settlement agreement, we will make
two payments into a settlement fund held in escrow with full
funding to be completed on or before October 1, 2015. In addition,
during May and June 2015, solely by way of compromise and without
any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing,
we entered into various master settlement agreements with certain
plaintiffs' counsel regarding settling an aggregate 1,627 pending
cases and claims. All master settlement agreements that we have
entered into provide that the settlement and the distribution of
settlement funds to participating claimants are conditioned upon,
among other things, achieving minimum required claimant
participation thresholds. If the participation thresholds under
the master settlement agreement are not satisfied, we may
terminate that agreement.

"We have established a product liability accrual for known and
estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as
costs of defense thereof associated with our transvaginal surgical
mesh products. While we believe that our accrual associated with
this matter is adequate, changes to this accrual may be required
in the future as additional information becomes available. We
intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against
us; however, the final resolution is uncertain and could have a
material impact on our results of operations, financial condition
and/or liquidity. Initial trials involving our transvaginal
surgical mesh products have resulted in both favorable and
unfavorable judgments for us. We do not believe that the judgment
in any one trial is representative of potential outcomes of all
cases or claims related to our transvaginal surgical mesh
products."


BUMBLE BEE: Faces Associated Grocers Suit Over PSP-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Grocers Of Florida, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, f/k/a Bumble
Bee Seafoods, LLC, TriUnion Seafoods, LLC, d/b/a Chicken of The
Sea International, Starkist Company, and King Oscar, Inc., Case
No. 3:15-cv-04536 (N.D. Cal., October 1, 2015) arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy
to raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain prices, allocate customers,
and restrict capacity in the market for shelf-stable packaged
seafood ("PSPs"), including tuna, clam, crab, mackerel, oyster,
salmon, sardines, and shrimp sold in the United States, from
January 1, 2000, through the present.

The Defendants are manufacturers of Packaged Seafood sold in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
      Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
      Louis A. Kessler, Esq.
      CERA LLP
      595 Market Street, Suite 2300
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 777-2230
      Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
      E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
              tbright@cerallp.com
              lakessler@cerallp.com


CB FINANCIAL: Oral Argument in Appeal to Be Held in October 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
CB Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that oral argument in a
class action appeal is expected to be held in October 2015.

On April 21, 2014, a class action complaint, captioned Sutton v.
FedFirst Financial Corp., et al., was filed under Case No.
24C14002331, in the Circuit Court in Baltimore City, Maryland (the
"Court"), against FedFirst Financial Corp., each of FedFirst
Financial's directors, and CB Financial. The complaint alleged,
among other things, that the FedFirst Financial directors breached
their fiduciary duties to FedFirst Financial and its stockholders
by agreeing to sell to CB Financial without first taking steps to
ensure that FedFirst Financial stockholders would obtain adequate,
fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances, by
agreeing to terms with CB Financial that benefit themselves and/or
CB Financial without regard for the FedFirst Financial
stockholders and by agreeing to terms with CB Financial that
discourages other bidders. The plaintiff also alleged that CB
Financial aided and abetted the FedFirst Financial directors'
breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other
things, an order declaring the Merger Agreement unenforceable and
rescinding and invalidating the Merger Agreement, an order
enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger, as well as
attorneys' and experts' fees and certain other damages.

On June 20, 2014, FedFirst Financial and the individual defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. On July 29, 2014, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding an additional claim
that the Form S-4 filed by CB Financial in connection with the
merger contained material misstatements and omissions.

On September 22, 2014, the Court dismissed all claims as to all
defendants with prejudice, including claims against FedFirst
Financial and its directors as well as claims against CB
Financial. The plaintiff has appealed the dismissal of the
complaint. Oral argument is expected to be held in October 2015.
CB Financial continues to believe that the factual allegations in
the complaint, as amended, are without merit.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Defending Against "Guglielmo" Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on May
28, 2015, a group of current and former restaurant hourly
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Code, by
requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work, and for
allegedly violating the State of New York's minimum wage and
overtime provisions. (Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 2:15-CV-03117).  The Plaintiffs
are seeking unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary
payments.

"We intend to vigorously defend against this action.  Based upon
the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any
potential future payments," the Company said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Anticipated in Sikora & Reed Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
Company has reserved an immaterial amount in anticipation of
settlement in the Sikora and Reed cases.

On April 11, 2013, a current restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court, Placer
County, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor
Code and California Business and Professions Code, by requiring
employees to purchase uniforms for work (Sikora v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No SCV0032820).  A similar
lawsuit covering a different time period was also filed in Placer
County (Reed v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al;
Case No. SCV27073).  By stipulation the parties agreed to transfer
the Reed and Sikora cases to Los Angeles County.  Both cases (Case
Nos. SCV0032820 and SCV27073) were subsequently coordinated
together in Los Angeles County by order of the Judicial Council.

On November 15, 2013, the Company filed a motion to enforce
judgment and to preclude the prosecution of certain claims under
the California Private Attorney General Act and California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200.  On March 11, 2015,
the Court granted the Company's motion in Case No. SCV0032820.

The parties participated in voluntary mediation on June 25, 2015
and have executed a memorandum of understanding with respect to
the terms of settlement, which is subject to court approval and is
intended to be a full and final resolution of the actions.

"Based on the current status of this matter, we have reserved an
immaterial amount in anticipation of settlement," the Company
said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Masters" Case Sent to Orange County Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the case,
Masters v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al, has
been officially transferred to the Orange County Superior Court.

On November 26, 2014, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court
alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay
overtime, to permit required rest breaks and to provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims. (Masters v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 37-2014-00040278).  By
stipulation, the parties agreed to transfer Case No. 37-2014-
00040278 to the Orange County Superior Court.

On March 2, 2015, Case No. 37-2014-00040278 was officially
transferred and assigned a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the
Orange County Superior Court.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified
amounts of fees, penalties and other monetary payments on behalf
of the plaintiff and other purported class members.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  Based on the current
status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential
future payments," the Company said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Arbitration Bid Pending in "Garcia" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a
decision is pending on a motion to compel arbitration in the case,
Garcia v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated, et al.

On January 14, 2015, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court
alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code, by failing to permit
required meal and rest breaks, and to provide accurate wage
statements, among other claims. (Garcia v. The Cheesecake Factory
Incorporated, et al; Case No 37-2015-00001408).

On February 19, 2015, the Company filed an ex parte application to
stay the litigation pending a hearing on the Company's motion to
compel arbitration.  The Court granted the Company's application,
stayed the litigation, and held a hearing on the motion to compel
arbitration in July 2015. A decision is pending.  The lawsuit
seeks unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and other monetary
payments on behalf of the plaintiff and other purported class
members.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  Based on the current
status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential
future payments," the Company said.


COMMAND SECURITY: Trial Date Set for March 2016
-----------------------------------------------
Command Security Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the trial date has
been set for March 16, 2016, in a class action lawsuit.

In July 2012, the Service Employee International Union (SEIU)
filed a suit in U.S. District Court - Northern District Court
against the Company seeking the restoration of the collective
bargaining agreement between SEIU and the Company following a
majority vote of Aviation Safeguards employees in December 2011 to
withdraw recognition of the union.

The Company said, "On February 20, 2014, the U.S. District Court,
Central District of California, ruled in favor of the Company and
granted our motion for summary judgment in full, denied the
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and terminated the case.
The plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 18, 2014 and both parties
have subsequently filed appellate briefs. The Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit has not yet set a date for oral argument. A
related lawsuit was filed on July 6, 2012 by the California
Service Employees Health and Welfare Trust Fund in U.S. District
Court Northern District Court seeking to maintain the payment of
monthly health insurance contributions which were stopped by the
Company following the termination of the collective bargaining
agreement. Venue was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California. On July 31, 2014 the
U.S. District Court - Central District Court denied the
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted partial
summary judgment in favor of the Company."

"On April 29, 2014, the California Superior Court granted a
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class consisting of all persons
who were employed by the Company in a non-exempt security officer
position within the State of California at any time since May 2,
2007 through the date of trial who agreed to and signed an on-duty
meal period agreement at the time of their employment. The case is
a certified class action involving allegations that the Company
violated certain California state laws relating to on-duty meal
and rest breaks."

The Company intends to conduct a vigorous defense of this case,
which is currently in the discovery stage. The Company is unable
to determine the potential outcome of this case which could be
material at this time. The trial date has been set for March 16,
2016.


COVISINT CORPORATION: Court Denied Motion to Dismiss Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Covisint Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has denied the
Company's motion to dismiss two putative class actions.

Beginning on May 30, 2014, two putative class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, directors and certain officers at the time of
the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") alleging violation
of securities laws in connection with the Company's IPO and
seeking unspecified damages. On August 15, 2014, the cases were
consolidated with Charles Rankin appointed lead plaintiff. On
October 14, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class
action complaint (the "Complaint") alleging violations of
Regulation S-K and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.

The Complaint alleges, among other things that the IPO's
registration statement contained (1) untrue statements and
omissions of material facts related to the Company's projected
revenues for fiscal 2014, (2) materially inaccurate statements
regarding the Company's revenue recognition policy, and (3)
omissions of known trends, uncertainties and significant risk
factors as required to be disclosed by Regulation S-K. The Company
has filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint.

"On July 1, 2015 the Court denied our motion to dismiss," the
Company said.  "We believe the Complaint is without merit, and we
intend to vigorously defend it. The Company currently has no other
outstanding litigation."


CREST PUMPING: Faces "Carley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scot Carley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Crest Pumping Technologies, L.L.C., Case No. 7:15-cv-
00161 (W.D. Tex., October 1, 2015) for failure to pay overtime
wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Crest Pumping Technologies, L.L.C. is an enterprise that engages
in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
      Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
      THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C.
      1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Telephone: (806) 331-1800
      Facsimile: (806) 398-9095
      E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com
              rachael@youngfirm.com


DEX MEDIA: Class Suit by Murphy, Noe & Palmer Now Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------------
Murphy, Noe & Palmer v. Verizon Communications, et al.; Civil
Action No.3:09-cv-2262-G, is now concluded, Dex Media, Inc. said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2015.

On November 25, 2009, three retirees, Philip A., Murphy, Jr.,
Sandra R. Noe, and Claire M. Palmer, brought a putative class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas Division), against both the Employee
Benefits Committee and pension plans of Verizon and the Employee
Benefits Committee ("EBC") and pension plans of SuperMedia.  All
three named plaintiffs are receiving the single life monthly
annuity pension benefits. Plaintiffs allege that Verizon
transferred them against their will from the Verizon pension plans
to SuperMedia pension plans at or near the time of SuperMedia's
spin-off from Verizon.  They allege that both the Verizon and
SuperMedia defendants failed to provide requested plan documents,
which would entitle the Plaintiffs to statutory penalties under
ERISA, that both the Verizon and SuperMedia defendants breached
their fiduciary duty for refusal to disclose pension plan
information, and other class action counts aimed solely at the
Verizon defendants. Plaintiffs sought class action status,
statutory penalties, damages and a reversal of the employee
transfers.

The SuperMedia Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the entire
Complaint on March 10, 2010. On October 18, 2010, the Court
dismissed all claims against the SuperMedia pension plans and all
the claims against SuperMedia's EBC relating to the production of
documents and statutory penalties for failure to produce same. The
only claims that remained against SuperMedia were procedural ERISA
claims against SuperMedia's EBC.

On November 1, 2010, SuperMedia's EBC filed its answer to the
Complaint. On November 4, 2010, SuperMedia's EBC filed a Motion to
Dismiss one of the two remaining procedural ERISA claims against
the EBC. Pursuant to an agreed Order, Plaintiffs obtained class
certification against the Verizon defendants. After obtaining
permission from the Court, the Plaintiffs filed another amendment
to the Complaint, alleging a new count against SuperMedia's EBC.

SuperMedia's EBC filed another motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and filed a summary judgment motion before the deadline
set by the scheduling order. On March 26, 2012, the Court denied
SuperMedia's EBC's motion to dismiss.

On September 16, 2013, the Court granted the Defendants' summary
judgments, denied the Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment, and entered a
take nothing judgment in favor of the SuperMedia EBC. Plaintiffs
filed an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, Oral argument was held on September 4, 2014. On October
14, 2014, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the
District Court. Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ for
Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on February 17, 2015, which
was denied on June 1, 2015. This matter is now concluded.


DEX MEDIA: Motion to Dismiss "Fulmer" Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Dex Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the cases, Bruce Fulmer, et
al. v. Scott W. Klein, Donald B. Reed, Stephen L. Robertson,
Thomas S. Rogers, Paul E. Weaver, John J. Mueller, Jerry V.
Elliott, Samuel D. Jones, Katherine J. Harless, The Employee
Benefits Committee, Georgia Scaife, William Gist, Steven
Garberich, Clifford Wilson, Bill Mundy, Andrew Coticchio, the
Human Resources Committee and John Does 1-20; Case No. 3:09-cv-
2354-N, is currently pending before the District Court.

On December 10, 2009, Bruce Fulmer, a former Idearc Media employee
who has a history of litigation against the Company, individually
and behalf of others allegedly similarly situated ("Plaintiff"),
filed a putative class action in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division), against
certain officers, directors and members of the Company's Executive
Benefits Committee ("Defendants"). Plaintiff claims Defendants
breached fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA in administrating
various savings plans from November 17, 2006 to March 31, 2009 and
seeks to recover losses to the plans.

On April 1, 2010, Randy Kopp, another former Idearc Media employee
filed a similar case, which has been consolidated with the Fulmer
matter. Plaintiffs originally alleged, among other claims, that
Defendants breached a duty of prudence, duty of loyalty, and duty
to monitor by wrongfully allowing all the plans to invest in
Idearc's common stock.

On March 16, 2011, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the consolidated Complaint, and on March 15, 2012,
following amendment, the Court again granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.

On July 9, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal. On July 1, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court
granted Plaintiffs' petition for certiorari, vacated the judgment,
and remanded for further consideration.

On August 7, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
remanded to the District Court. On February 17, 2015, Plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, reasserting claims
based on allowing plans to invest in Idearc common stock.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement
for litigation expenses. On April 1, 2015, Defendants moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint, which is currently pending before
the District Court.

SuperMedia intends to honor its indemnification obligations and
vigorously defend the allegations on behalf of Defendants.


DIODES INCORPORATED: Class Action Appeal Fully Briefed
------------------------------------------------------
Diodes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a class action appeal
is fully briefed.

On September 15, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas issued an order regarding the putative
securities class action entitled Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators
and Pavers Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No.
6:13- cv-00247 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 15, 2013) (the "Class
Action"), granting defendants' motion to dismiss the Class Action
with prejudice. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the order dismissing the Class Action to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal is fully
briefed.  The Court had set oral argument for September 3, 2015.


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Suit Over Retention of Service Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
Atila Adolfo Tigges, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., Domino's, Inc., Domino's Pizza,
LLC, A.M. Pizza, Inc., and Henry Askew, Case No. 1:15-cv-13485
(October 1, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged unlawful
retention of service charges paid by customers, in violation of
Massachusetts General Law.

The Defendants own and operate Domino's franchise restaurants in
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen S. Churchill, Esq.
      Brant Casavant, Esq.
      FAIR WORK, P.C.
      192 South Street, Suite 450
      Boston, MA 02111
      Telephone: (617) 607-6230
      E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com
              brant@fairworklaw.com


EATON CORPORATION: Class Certification Bid Denial Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark S. Wallach, as a Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate
of Performance Transportation Services, Inc., Tauro Brothers
Trucking Company, Toledo Mack Sales & Services, Inc., and JJRS,
LLC, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, filed a
petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit for notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure 3 and 4 from an order by the United States
District Court District of Delaware denying Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, Toledo Mack Sales & Services,
Inc.'s motion to intervene as the Plaintiff/class representative,
and JJRS, LLC's motion to intervene as the Plaintiff/class
representative and all orders and ruling merged therein.

The appeals case is Mark S. Wallach, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the
Bankruptcy Estate of Performance Transportation Services, Inc. and
Tauro Brothers Trucking Company, jointly and on behalf of the
Estate and all others similarly situated v. Eaton Corporation,
Daimler Trucks North America LLC, Navistar International
Corporation, International Truck and Engine Corporation, PACCAR
Inc., Kenworth Truck Company, Peterbilt Motors Company, Volvo
Trucks North America and Mack Trucks, Inc., Case No. 10-260-SLR.

The Appellant is represented by:

      Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
      P. Brandford de Leeuw
      919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
      P.O. Box 1070
      Wilmington, DE 19899
      Telephone: (302)656-4433
      E-mail: jzeldin@rmgglaw.com
              bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com


FIFTH STREET: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Randall, Trustee, Howard & Gale Randall Trust FBO Kimberly
Randall Irrevocable Trust UA FEB 15, 2000, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fifth Street Finance
Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07759 (S.D.N.Y., October 1, 2015)
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Fifth Street Finance Corp. is a specialty finance company that
lends to and invests in small and mid-sized companies, primarily
in connection with investments by private equity sponsors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
      Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
              bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631)367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
              DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com


GROUPON INC: Class Suit Parties Engaged in Expert Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties in a
securities class action are currently engaged in expert discovery,
and dispositive motions are scheduled to be filed by January 29,
2016.

On February 8, 2012, the Company issued a press release announcing
its expected financial results for the fourth quarter of 2011.
After finalizing its year-end financial statements, the Company
announced on March 30, 2012 revised financial results, as well as
a material weakness in its internal control over financial
reporting related to deficiencies in its financial statement close
process.  The revisions resulted in a reduction to fourth quarter
2011 revenue of $14.3 million. The revisions also resulted in an
increase to fourth quarter operating expenses that reduced
operating income by $30.0 million, net income by $22.6 million and
earnings per share by $0.04.

Following this announcement, the Company and several of its
current and former directors and officers were named as parties to
the following outstanding securities class action and purported
stockholder derivative lawsuits all arising out of the same
alleged events and facts.

The Company is currently a defendant in a proceeding pursuant to
which, on October 29, 2012, a consolidated amended class action
complaint was filed against the Company, certain of its directors
and officers; and the underwriters that participated in the
initial public offering of the Company's Class A common stock.
Originally filed in April 2012, the case is currently pending
before the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois: In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation. The
complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Allegations in the consolidated
amended complaint include that the Company and its officers and
directors made untrue statements or omissions of material fact by
issuing inaccurate financial statements for the fiscal quarter and
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 and by failing to
disclose information about the Company's financial controls in the
registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering of Class A common stock and in the Company's
subsequently-issued earnings release dated February 8, 2012.  The
lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages,
reimbursement for fees and costs incurred in connection with the
actions, including attorneys' fees, and various other forms of
monetary and non-monetary relief.

On September 25, 2014, the district court entered an order
granting plaintiff's motion for class certification. On October 1,
2014, the Company filed a petition for leave to appeal that order
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
which the court denied on May 7, 2015, and the Company retains its
right to appeal any final judgment that is entered in the action.

On June 25, 2015, the district court entered an order directing
that class notice be provided to the members of the certified
class and subclass, and establishing a program and schedule for
class notice. On June 29, 2015, the parties concluded fact
discovery, including the depositions of fact witnesses. The
parties are currently engaged in expert discovery, and dispositive
motions are scheduled to be filed by January 29, 2016. The
district court has not yet scheduled a trial date.


GROUPON INC: New Settlement Reached in Marketing & Sales Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties in the so-
called Groupon Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation are in the
process of documenting a new settlement.

In 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in a series of class
actions that came to be consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California. The consolidated actions
are referred to as In re Groupon Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation. The Company denies liability, but the parties agreed
to settle the litigation for $8.5 million before any determination
had been made on the merits or with respect to class
certification.

On December 18, 2012, the district court approved the settlement
over various objections to the settlement lodged by certain
individual class members. Thereafter, certain of the objectors
filed an appeal, and on February 19, 2015, the Court of Appeals
vacated the settlement and remanded the case for further
proceedings concerning the proposed settlement consistent with the
Court of Appeals' opinion.

On June 22, 2015, the Company terminated the settlement agreement
as is permitted under its terms. The parties thereafter re-
commenced settlement negotiations, and in July 2015 reached an
agreement in principle regarding a new settlement involving a
combination of cash and Groupon credits, worth a total of $8.5
million, which the parties are in the process of documenting and
which the parties plan to submit to the court during the third
quarter for approval under the rules that govern class action
settlements. The Company continues to deny liability and if the
settlement is not approved by the court or is not consummated for
any reason, will contest the case vigorously.


HCA MANAGEMENT: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Franklin, Jennifer Bierie, and all others similarly
situated v. HCA Management Services, L.P. and Columbia Medical
Center of Las Colinas, Case No. 3:15-cv-03194-L (N.D. Tex.,
October 1, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay direct patient care employees for uninterrupted meal breaks.

The Defendants are involved in the business of operating hospitals
throughout the United States.

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: info@L-B-Law.com

         - and -

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Telephone: (844) Low-Wage
      Facsimile: (844) Low-Wage
      E-mail: Jack@siegellawgroup.biz


HOME LOAN: Defending Against Class Suits in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend the New York Action.

Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York entitled: (i) Oliveira v. Home Loan Servicing
Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-652 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on
January 29, 2015; (ii) Berglan v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions,
Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 9, 2015;
and (iii) W. Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Home Loan Servicing
Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-1063 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on
February 13, 2015.

On April 2, 2015, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action, which is referred to as the "New York Action." On April
28, 2015, lead plaintiff, lead counsel and liaison counsel were
appointed in the New York Action. On July 17, 2015, lead
plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint.

The New York Action names as defendants HLSS, former HLSS Chairman
William C. Erbey, HLSS Director, President, and Chief Executive
Officer John P. Van Vlack, and HLSS Chief Financial Officer James
E. Lauter. The New York Action asserts causes of action under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on certain public disclosures made by the Company relating
to, among others, the Company's relationship with Ocwen and the
Company's risk management and internal controls. More
specifically, the consolidated class action complaint alleges that
a series of statements in HLSS's disclosures were materially false
and misleading, including statements about (i) Ocwen's servicing
capabilities; (ii) HLSS's contingencies and legal proceedings;
(iii) its risk management and internal controls and (iv) certain
related party transactions. The consolidated class action
complaint also appears to allege that HLSS's financial statements
for the years ended 2012 and 2013, and the first quarter ended
March 30, 2014, were false and misleading based on the Company's
August 18, 2014 restatement. Lead plaintiffs in the New York
Action also allege that the Company misled investors by failing to
disclose, among other things, information regarding governmental
investigations of Ocwen's business practices. The Company intends
to vigorously defend the New York Action.


HOME LOAN: Defending Against Class Action by Retirement Fund
------------------------------------------------------------
Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend a class action by the Chester
County Employees' Retirement Fund.

On May 22, 2015, plaintiff Chester County Employees' Retirement
Fund filed an action in the Court of Chancery in Delaware bringing
individual, class and derivative claims purportedly on behalf of
NRZ naming as defendants HLSS, NRZ, FIG LLC, Fortress Investment
Group LLC and certain directors of NRZ, entitled Chester Cnty.
Emp. Ret. Fund v. New Residential Inv. Corp., No. 11058 (Del. Ch.)
(the "Chester County Action"). On July 13, 2015, HLSS filed its
motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Chester County Action seeks monetary, equitable and
declaratory relief against HLSS and certain defendants based on
alleged violations of the NYSE Listed Company Manual and the
interpretation of certain transaction documents, and claims, among
other things, that the defendants deprived plaintiff and the class
of a vote on the issuance of stock to HLSS and options to FIG LLC
in NRZ's acquisition of HLSS. HLSS intends to vigorously defend
the Chester County Action.


HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janina Swierczynska, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HDA, Human Development Association, Inc.,
Human Development Association, Inc., a/k/a Human Development
Association, a/k/a Human Development Agency, Case No. 511973 (N.Y.
Sup., October 1, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Defendants provide home health care to frail elderly
individuals who live in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Harrison, Esq.
      HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
      110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Telephone: (718) 799-9111
      Facsimile: (718) 799-9171
      E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


ILLINI STATE: Faces "Poteet" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vicki Poteet and Judith Perry, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Illini State Trucking, Co., Case No.
3:15-cv-03196-L (N.D. Tex., October 1, 2015) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Illini State Trucking, Co. provides transportation services
through freight agents located across North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
      Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
      THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C.
      1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Telephone: (806) 331-1800
      Facsimile: (806) 398-9095
      E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com
              rachael@youngfirm.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey H. Rasansky, Esq.
      RASANSKY LAW FIRM
      2525 McKinnon, Suite 725
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (214) 651-6100
      Facsimile: (214) 651-6150
      E-mail: jrasansky@jrlawfirm.com


IMPORT IMPORT: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Ortiz" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Ortiz, and other similarly situated individuals v. Import
Import Inc., Case No. 32753673 (11th Ct. Fla., October 1, 2015) is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay the amount due to
the Plaintiff and class members for services provided and
performed.

Import Import Inc. is a Florida Profit Corporation authorized to
conduct business in Miami Dade County, and is engaged in
interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ISIDORO ZARCO: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Fernandez" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orestes Fernandez and all others situated v. Isidoro Zarco, M.D.,
P.A. and Isidoro Zarco, M.D., Case No. 1:15-cv-23653-MGC (S.D.
Fla., October 1, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for worked performed in excess of 40
hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a medical clinic in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brickell Bay Club, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RICK YABOR, P.A.
      2333 Brickell Avenue, Suite A-1
      Miami, FL 33129
      Telephone: (305) 372-1203
      E-mail: rick.yabor@yaborlaw.com


LA KITCHEN: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Disability Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nery Santos Matute Perez v. La Kitchen City, Inc. and Does 1
through 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC595964 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
September 28, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged unlawful
employment practices on the basis of disability in violation of
the California Fair Employment & Housing Act.

La Kitchen City, Inc. owns and operates a bathroom and kitchen
remodeling contractor company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
      David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
      BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR
      A Professional Corporation
      1801 Century ParkEast, Suite 2600
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-2328
      Telephone: (310)597-1441
      Facsimile: (310)300-1705
      E-mail: mehrdad@tomorrowlaw.com
              david@tomorrowldw.com


MARSEA INVESTMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Gonzalez, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Marsea Investment of South Florida, Corp. d/b/a Excel Group and
Hector D. Lopez, Case No. 32606866 (11th Ct. Fla., September 29,
2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation,
liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Marsea Investment of South Florida, Corp. maintains its main place
of business in Miami Dade County, Florida, and is engaged in
interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARY GIULIANI: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Tips and OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah Holmes, Joshua Karchem, Robert Parks, and Doug Roland, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mary
Giuliani Catering & Events, Inc. and Ryan Giuliani, Case No.
653255 (N.Y. Sup. September 29, 2015) seeks to recover
misappropriated tips and unpaid overtime pay for the Plaintiffs
and similarly situated hourly servers and bartenders pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mary Giuliani Catering & Events, Inc. is a New York corporation
that is engaged in the catering business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rachel Bien, Esq.
      Sally J. Abrahamson
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, New York 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      E-mail: og@outtengolden.com


MASTEC INC: Still Defending Against "Wrigley" Case
--------------------------------------------------
MasTec, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend against it in the case, Wrigley v. MasTec, Inc.

On May 7, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit, Wrigley v.
MasTec, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-21740) was filed in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, naming
the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Jose R. Mas,
and the Company's Chief Financial Officer, George L. Pita, as
defendants. The Lawsuit has been purportedly brought by a
shareholder, both individually and on behalf of a putative class
of shareholders, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws arising from alleged false or misleading statements contained
in, or alleged material omissions from, certain of the Company's
filings with the SEC and other statements, in each case with
respect to accounting matters that are the subject of the
independent internal investigation being conducted by the Audit
Committee of the Company's Board of Directors. The Lawsuit seeks
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as
reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. The
Company believes that the Lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it; however, there can be no assurance
that the Company will be successful in its defense.


MERCK & CO: Faces "Bediner" Suit Over Januvia and Janumet Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Bediner, as Proposed Administratrix of the Estate of Mark
Bediner, and Anna Bediner v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., Case No.
505403 (N.Y., Sup., May 1, 2015) is an action for injuries and
damages as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants'
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, distribution, labeling, and sale of the Januvia and
Janumet Drugs.

Januvia and Janumet prescription drugs are designed to help lower
blood sugar levels in adults with diabetes mellitus type 2.

Merck & Co., Inc. operates a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business located at One Merck Drive, Whitehouse
Station, New Jersey, 08889-0100.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shayna E. Sacks, Esq.
      NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK, LLP
      350 Fifth Avenue - Suite 7413
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 267-3700


NEW YORK FRIED: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dinah Adams and Mary Ameyaa, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. New York Fried Chicken, Inc. and
Abdul Mosaver, Case No. 1:15-cv-05702 (E.D.N.Y., October 1, 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 New York Fried Chicken restaurants,
with two locations at 131-04 Merrick Boulevard, Queens, New York
11434 and 147-01 Liberty Avenue, Queens, New York, 11434.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORTHWEST TERRITORIAL: Sued in Wash. Over Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Northwest Territorial
Mint, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01554 (W.D. Wash., September 30, 2015)
arises out of the Defendant's unlawful payment of wages to
employees of one sex at rates less than the rates paid to
employees of the opposite sex.

Northwest Territorial Mint, LLC is a precious metals bullion
dealer, private mint, custom coins for corporate, municipal,
government, and military.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Peck, Esq.
      EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
      Seattle Field Office-San Francisco District
      909 First Avenue, Suite 400
      Seattle, WA 98104-1061
      Telephone (415) 522-3150


ORTHONET LLC: Faces "Gethers-Trent" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eddith Gethers-Trent, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Orthonet, LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-07743-VB
(S.D.N.Y., October 1, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Headquartered in White Plains, New York, Orthonet, LLC is the
leading orthopedic specialty benefit management company in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian P. Murray, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      122 E 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com


PASEO DEL MAR: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Garcia v. Nick Eliopoulos, Kambiz Hakim, Paseo Del Mar Group,
LLC, and Does 1 through 30, inclusive, Case No. BC596099 (Cal.
Super. Ct., September 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California
Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a commercial real estate agency in
Los Angeles County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gavril T. Gabriel, Esq.
      Joseph A. Cardella, Esq.
      CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS LAW GROUP
      235 E. Broadway, Suite 518
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 489-9400
      Facsimile: (562)912-2256
      E-mail: admin@constructionclaimslg.com


PEACH MOTORS: "White" Suit in Ga. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lavania White, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Peach Motors, LLC d/b/a Gravity Autos, and Mohammed
Adeel Shad, Case No. 1:15-cv-03419-AT (N.D. Ga., September 29,
2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages
and reasonable attorney's fees and expenses pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of selling previously-owned
vehicles to the public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dean R. Fuchs, Esq.
      Stephen W. Brown, Esq.
      SCHULTEN WARD & TURNER, LLP
      260 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 2700
      Atlanta, GA
      Telephone: (404) 688-6800
      Facsimile: (404) 688-680
      E-mail: drf@swtlaw.com
              swb@swtlaw.com


PERALTA CABINETS: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Onis Alvarez, and other similarly situated individuals v. Peralta
Cabinets & Installations, Inc. and Yoselin Urrutia, Case No.
32607401 (11th Ct., Fla., September 29, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wage compensation, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Peralta Cabinets & Installations, Inc. maintains its main place of
business in Miami Dade County, Florida and is engaged in
interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHILLIES: "Senne" Suit Transferred to Northern District Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Aaron Senne, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. The
Phillies, Case No. 2:15-mc-00224-JD, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00608-JCS to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
      Garrett R. Broshuis, Esq.
      Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
      KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
      505 North 75th Street, Suite 3600
      St. Louis, MO 62101
      Telephone: (314) 241-4844
      Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
      E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com
              gbroshuis@koreintillery.com
              azigler@koreintillery.com


         - and -

      George A. Zelcs, Esq.
      John A. Libra, Esq.
      KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
      205 North Michigan, Suite 1950
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 641-9750
      Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
      E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
              jlibra@koreintillery.com

         - and -

      Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
      Benjamin E. Shiftan, Esq.
      PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 433-9000
      Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
      E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com
              bshiftan@pswlaw.com

         - and -

      Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
      Bobby Pouya, Esq.
      PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW LLP
      15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (818) 788-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
      E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
              bpouya@pswlaw.com


PLAINS GP: Still Defending S.D. Illinois Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Plains GP Holdings, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company continues
to face class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.

The Company said, "On July 10, 2015, we experienced a crude oil
release of approximately 100 barrels at our Pocahontas Pump
Station near the border of Bond and Madison Counties in Illinois,
approximately 40 miles from St. Louis Missouri. The Pocahontas
Station is part of the Capwood pipeline that runs from our Patoka
Station to Wood River, Illinois. A portion of the released crude
oil was contained within our Pocahontas facility, but some of the
released crude oil entered a nearby waterway where it was
contained with booms."

"On July 14, 2015, PHMSA issued a corrective action order
requiring us to take various actions in response to the release,
including remediation, reporting and other actions. We are in the
process of satisfying the requirements of the corrective action
order. To date, no fines or penalties have been assessed in this
matter; however, it is possible that fines and penalties could be
assessed in the future.

"In connection with this incident, we have also had one class
action lawsuit filed against us in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In this lawsuit, the
plaintiff seeks unspecified money damages and other remedies on
behalf of itself and other unspecified similarly situated
claimants. We estimate that the aggregate total costs associated
with this release will be less than $10 million."


POST HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Phase in Antitrust Case Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the class-certification
phase of the antitrust case is currently in process.

In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. and
approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs,
manufacturers of processed egg products, and egg industry
organizations), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and
egg products, and seeking unspecified damages. In December 2008,
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the
transfer of all cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Between late 2010 and early 2012, a number of companies, each of
which would be part of the purported class in the antitrust
action, brought separate actions against defendants. These "tag-
along" cases, brought primarily by various grocery chains and food
companies, assert essentially the same allegations as in the main
action. All but one of the tag-along cases were either filed in or
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where they
are being treated as related to the main action. Fact discovery
concluded on April 30, 2014.

The class-certification phase of the case is currently in process.
Hearings on class certification occurred in March 2015 for the
direct purchaser plaintiffs and April 2015 for the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs. No ruling has been made yet on either class
certification.


PRO TOUR: Faces "Arroyo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Esmeralda Arroyo v. Pro Tour Memorabilia, LLC and Does 1 to 20,
inclusive, Case No. BC596459 (C.D. Cal., September 30, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

Pro Tour Memorabilia, LLC owns and operates a poster and framing
factory located in Pacoima, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jackie Rose Kruger, Esq.
      Vadim Yeremenko, Esq.
      THE KRUGER LAW FIRM
      485 S. Robertson Blvd. Suite #4
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 550-1234
      Facsimile: (310) 550-6904
      E-mail: irkrugerlaw@gmail.com


PRO TOUR: Faces "Jerez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Jerez v. Pro Tour Memorabilia, LLC and Does 1to 20,
inclusive, Case No. BC596383 (C.D. Cal., September 30, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

Pro Tour Memorabilia, LLC owns and operates a poster and framing
factory located in Pacoima, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jackie Rose Kruger, Esq.
      Vadim Yeremenko, Esq.
      THE KRUGER LAW FIRM
      485 S. Robertson Blvd. Suite #4
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 550-1234
      Facsimile: (310) 550-6904
      E-mail: irkrugerlaw@gmail.com


PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY: Sued in Tenn. Over Alleged Money Extortion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Rodriguez, Steven Gibbs, Paula Pullum, Yolanda Carney,
Jacqueline Brinkley, Curtis Johnson, Fred Robinson, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Providence
Community Corrections, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01048 (M.D.
Tenn., October 1, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendants from
continuing to operate a racketeering enterprise that is extorting
money from some of the most impoverished people in Rutherford
County under constant threat of jail and to prevent the Defendants
from misusing the probation supervision process for profit.

Providence Community Corrections, Inc. is a multinational company
incorporated in Delaware, headquartered in Tucson, Arizona, and
operating a variety of services in different industries in 44
states and the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Cole, Esq.
      Sarah Murray, Esq.
      BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
      211 Commerce Street, Suite 800
      Nashville, TN 37201
      Telephone: (615) 726-7335
      Facsimile: (615) 744-7335
      E-mail: jcole@bakerdonelson.com
              smurray@bakerdonelson.com

         - and -

      Lori H. Patterson, Esq.
      Kristine L. Roberts, Esq.
      Matthew G. White, Esq.
      BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
      First Tennessee Bank Building
      165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
      Memphis, TN 38103
      Telephone: (901) 577-8182
      Facsimile: (901) 577-0724
      E-mail: lpatterson@bakerdonelson.com
              klroberts@bakerdonelson.com
              mwhite@bakerdonelson.com

         - and -

      Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
      Phil Telfeyan, Esq.
      EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
      916 G Street, NW Suite 701
      Washington, DC 20001
      Telephone: (202)-670-1004
      E-mail: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
              ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org


R & A KING: "Nanduca" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Grisel Nanduca, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs v. R & A King Corp. d/b/a Taam Tov, Roben Katanov and
Abby Cohen, Case No. 1:15-cv-07669-JMF (S.D.N.Y., September 29,
2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Taam Tov Restaurant located at 41
West 47th Street, New York, NY 10036.

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


RENAISSANCE LEARNING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Black, T., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Renaissance Learning, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00635
(W.D. Wis., October 1, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Renaissance Learning, Inc. sells cloud-based assessment, teaching,
and learning software solutions to schools in the United States
and abroad.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Daniel A. Rottier, Esq.
      Jason Knutson, Esq.
      Breanne L. Snapp, Esq.
      HABUSH HABUSH & ROTTIER S.C.
      150 East Gilman Street, Suite 2000
      Madison, WI 53703-1481
      Telephone: (608) 255-6663
      Facsimile: (608) 255-0745
      E-mail: rottier@habush.com
              jknutson@habush.com
              bsnapp@habush.com


RESPONSE ENVELOPE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Lena Navarro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Response Envelope, Inc. and Does 1 through 100,
Inclusive, Case No. BC596077 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 29, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Response Envelope, Inc. is a California corporation that
manufacturers and prints envelopes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Nourmand, Esq.
      James A. De Sario, Esq.
      THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
      8822 West Olympic Boulevard
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 553-3600
      Facsimile: (310)553-3603


RIO VISTA: Faces "Valero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Valero and Nora Valcarcel v. Rio Vista Development Company,
d/b/a The Beverly Garland, and The Garland and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC596415 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 30, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate The Beverly Garland resort hotel in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Pairavi, Esq.
      Saradin Chhim, Esq.
      Michael A. Zelman, Esq.
      Leah Molayen, Esq.
      PAIRAVI LAW, P.C.
      1875 Century Park East, Suite 1025
      Los Angeles, California 90067
      Telephone: (310) 789-2063
      Facsimile: (310)789-2064
      E-mail: edwin@pairavilaw.com
              dean@pairavilaw.com
              michael@pairavilaw.com
              leah@pairavilaw.com


SALSBURY FORTRESS: Sued Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Intrepidus, LLC, a member of Seductive Approach LLC, suing in the
right of Seductive Approach LLC v. Glenn J. Bivins, Eric Monse,
Phillip Salsbury Schloss, and The Salsbury Fortress, LLC d/b/a
Attractive Approach, Case No. 1:15-cv-07721-LTS (S.D.N.Y.,
September 30, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
infringement, misappropriation and conversion of copyrighted
intellectual property, specifically by launching a new dating and
relationship coaching service called Attractive Approach, in
direct competition with Seductive Approach .

Seductive Approach LLC is a company that specializes in "personal
lifestyle development and enhancement with an emphasis on
confidence, fashion and personal development, and a strong
emphasis on dating techniques."

The Salsbury Fortress, LLC is a Wyoming limited liability company
with a registered address of P.O. Box 1045, 125 S. King Street,
Suite 2A, Jackson, Wyoming 83001.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Marc Davidoff, Esq.
      Anthony Lekas, Esq.
      DAVIDOFF LAW FIRM, PLLC
      228 East 45th Street, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 587-5971
      Facsimile: (212) 658-9852
      E-mail: jonathan@davidofflawfirm.com
              anthony@davidofflawfirm.com


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Trust No Longer Party to Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma issued on May 11, 2015,
an order dismissing all claims against the Trust in a putative
class action lawsuit filed by unitholders of the Trust and
stockholders of SandRidge, in which the plaintiffs asserted a
variety of federal securities claims against the Trust, SandRidge
and certain of SandRidge's current and former officers and
directors, among other defendants.  As a result of the order, the
Trust is no longer a party in the lawsuit.  However, the dismissal
was based on a procedural defect, and thus was made without
prejudice to the plaintiffs' rights, if any, to refile their
claims against the Trust once the defect is cured.


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Defending Lanier Trust Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Duane &
Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated unitholders of the Trust, filed on June 9, 2015, a
putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidge and
certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge, among
other defendants (the "Securities Litigation"). The complaint
asserts a variety of federal securities claims on behalf of a
putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of the Trust in
or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 7,
2011, and (b) purchasers of common units of SandRidge
Mississippian Trust II in or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 17, 2012.  The claims are based on
allegations that SandRidge and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, among other defendants, including the
Trust, are responsible for making false and misleading statements,
and omitting material information, concerning a variety of
subjects, including oil and gas reserves. The plaintiffs seek
class certification, an order rescinding the Trust's initial
public offering and an unspecified amount of damages, plus
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Hearing Held on Plaintiffs' Bid for Leave
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a hearing on
plaintiffs' motion for leave was scheduled for August 12, 2015, in
the case, Corban v. Sarepta, et al.

Purported class action complaints were filed against the Company
and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on January 27, 2014 and January 29,
2014. The complaints were consolidated into a single action
(Corban v. Sarepta, et al., No. 14-cv-10201) by order of the court
on June 23, 2014, and plaintiffs were afforded 28 days to file a
consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs' consolidated
amended complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, sought to bring claims
on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or
acquired securities of the Company between July 10, 2013 and
November 11, 2013. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that
Sarepta and certain of its officers violated the federal
securities laws in connection with disclosures related to
eteplirsen, the Company's lead therapeutic candidate for DMD, and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

Pursuant to the court's June 23, 2014 order, Sarepta filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on August 18,
2014, and argument on the motion was held on March 12, 2015.

On March 31, 2015, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' amended
complaint. Plaintiffs in the Corban suit have filed a motion for
leave seeking to file a further amended complaint, which the
Company has opposed. A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for leave was
scheduled for August 12, 2015.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: No Oral Argument Yet on Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that oral argument on the
motion to dismiss has not been scheduled in the case, Kader v.
Sarepta.

A complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on December 3, 2014 by William Kader,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Sarepta Therapeutics Inc., Christopher Garabedian, and Sandesh
Mahatme (Kader v. Sarepta et.al 1:14-cv-14318), asserting
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the Company, Christopher
Garabedian and Sandesh Mahatme. Plaintiffs' amended complaint,
filed on March 20, 2015, alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations or omissions during the putative class period
of April 21, 2014 through October 27, 2014, regarding the
sufficiency of the Company's data for submission of an NDA for
eteplirsen and the likelihood of the FDA accepting the NDA based
on that data. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and fees. The
Company received service of the complaint on January 5, 2015.
Sarepta filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 4, 2015,
pursuant to the scheduling order entered on February 20, 2015,
which plaintiffs have opposed. Oral argument on the motion to
dismiss has not been scheduled.


SCS-CHICAGO: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Mendoza, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. SCS-Chicago, L.L.C. d/b/a
Le Colonial, Case No. 1:15-cv-08691 (N.D. Ill., October 1, 2015)
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

SCS-Chicago, L.L.C. owns and operates Le Colonial restaurant in
Chicago.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
      Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
      Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
      CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
      224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 300
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 763-6880
      E-mail: info@caffarelli.com


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Securities Class Action Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. continues to defend Securities Class
Action Lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker
v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA
(KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the
Company's Board of Directors, certain of its executive officers
and Blackstone.

On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs,
Pensionskassen For Borne- Og Ungdomspaedagoger and Arkansas Public
Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs,
Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines
Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), filed an amended complaint against the Company, the
Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors, certain of its
executive officers, Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial
public offering and secondary public offerings. The amended
complaint alleges, among other things, that the prospectus and
registration statements filed contained materially false and
misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws
and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or were reckless in not
knowing that Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld's business at the
time of each public statement.

On May 29, 2015, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 31, 2015. The reply of
the Company and the other defendants was due on September 18,
2015.

The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without
merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there
can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this
lawsuit.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: "Holly Hall" Case in Preliminary Stages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Hall v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., is in the preliminary
stages and a response to the complaint has not yet been filed,
SeaWorld said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015.

On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorld
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00600-CAB-RBB (the "Hall
Matter"). The complaint identifies three putative classes
consisting of all consumers nationwide who at any time during the
four-year period preceding the filing of the original complaint,
purchased an admission ticket, a membership or a SeaWorld
"experience" that includes an "orca experience" from the SeaWorld
amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida or San
Antonio, Texas respectively.

The complaint alleges causes of action under California Unfair
Competition Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
California False Advertising Law, California Deceit statute,
Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment.
Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Company
misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and
treatment of its killer whales, resulting in confusion or
misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material
facts regarding its killer whales with intent to deceive and
mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The complaint
further alleges that the specific misrepresentations heard and
relied upon by Holly Hall, the sole named plaintiff, in purchasing
her SeaWorld tickets concerned the circumstances surrounding the
death of a SeaWorld trainer. The complaint seeks actual damages,
equitable relief, attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff claims that
the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, but the liability
exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined
(if certification is granted at all). The case is in the
preliminary stages and a response to the complaint has not yet
been filed.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Fla. and Tex. Cases Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that four purported
class actions were filed against the Company and its affiliates in
the following federal courts on April 9, 2015, April 16, 2015,
April 17, 2015 and May 7, 2015, respectively: (i) the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
captioned Joyce Kuhl v. SeaWorld LLC et al., 6:15-cv-00574-ACC-
GJK, (ii) the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, captioned Jessica Gaab, et al. v. SeaWorld
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-842-CAB-RBB (the "Gaab
Matter"), (iii) the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas, captioned Elaine Salazar Browne v. SeaWorld of
Texas LLC et al., 5:15-cv-00301-XR and (iv) the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned
Valerie Simo et al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No.
15:cv-1022-CAB-RBB (the "Simo Matter"). These cases, in essence,
reiterate the claims made and relief sought in the Hall Matter. On
May 1, 2015, the cases in Florida and Texas were voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice by the respective plaintiffs.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: "Anderson" Case in Preliminary Stages
-------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the case, Marc
Anderson, et al., v. SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc., is in
the preliminary stages and a response to the Amended Complaint has
not yet been filed.

On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County
of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc.,
captioned Marc Anderson, et al., v. SeaWorld Parks and
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545292 (the "Anderson
Matter"). The putative class consists of all consumers within
California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to
SeaWorld San Diego.

On May 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleges
causes of action under the California False Advertising Law,
California Unfair Competition Law and California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act. Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations
that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and
care and treatment of its killer whales, resulting in confusion or
misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material
facts regarding its killer whales with intent to deceive and
mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The Amended
Complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorneys' fees
and costs. Based on Plaintiff's definition of the class, the
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, but the liability
exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined
(if certification is granted at all).

On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No.
15:cv-2172-SC. The case is in the preliminary stages and a
response to the Amended Complaint has not yet been filed. On May
19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. This motion was
set for hearing on August 28, 2015.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Judicial Panel Denied Motion to Transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company filed
on May 14, 2015, a motion before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to have the Hall, Gaab, Simo, and
Anderson Matters centralized and transferred to the Middle
District of Florida, Orlando Division. The hearing on the
Company's motion to transfer was held on July 30, 2015 and on
August 5, 2015 the Judicial Panel denied the Company's motion.

The Company believes that these consumer class action lawsuits are
without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously;
however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome
of these lawsuits.


SHIFTGIG INC: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Georgette Kirkendall v. Shiftgig, Inc., and The Bullpen, Inc.,
Case No. 2015-CH-14464 (Ill. Cir. Ct., October 1, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in
violation of the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of employing day or
temporary laborers to provide services, for a fee, to multiple
client companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE PC
      53 W. Jackson blvd., Suite 70 I
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Telephone: (312)795-9121
      E-mail: info@laborlawoffice.com


STANLEY MARTIN: Sued in Va. Over Alleged Gender Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Stanley Martin
Companies, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01246-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va.,
September 28, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's unlawful payment
of wages to employees of one sex at rates less than the rates paid
to employees of the opposite sex.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keyana C. Laws, Esq.
      U.S. EEOC
      Philadelphia District Office
      801 Market Street, Suite 1300
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215)440-2642
      Facsimile: (215)440-2848
      E-mail: Kevana.Laws@eeoc.gov


SWEPI LP: Files Petition to Appeal Class Cert. Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
Swepi LP and Shell Energy Holding GP, LLC, filed a petition with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for
permission to appeal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(f) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 5 an order
certifying a Rule 23(b)(3) class on two breach of contract claims.

The claims arise from Swepi's nonpayment of oil and gas lease
bonuses allegedly owned to certain landowners in Pennsylvania.

The appeals case is Thomas J. Walney and Rodney A. Bedow,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Swepi LP and Shell Energy Holding GP, LLC, Case No. 1:30-cv-00102-
JFC.

The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by:

      Jeremy A. Mercer, Esq.
      Michael P. Gaetani, Esq.
      NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
      Southpointe Boulevard, Suite 300
      Canonsburg, PA 15317
      Telephone: (724) 416-0400
      Facsimile: (724) 416-0404
      E-mail: jeremy.mercer@nortonrosefulbright.com
              michael.gaetani@nortonrosefulbright.com

         - and -

      Daniel McClure, Esq.
      Matthew A. Dekovich, Esq.
      NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
      Fulbright Tower
      1301 McKinney Street, Suite 5100
      Houston, TX 77010
      Telephone: (713) 651-5100
      Facsimile: (713) 651-5246
      E-mail: dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com
              matt.dekovich@nortonrosefulbright.com


TCP INTERNATIONAL: State Court Proceedings Stayed
-------------------------------------------------
TCP International Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a state court has
granted the Company's motion to stay proceedings pending
resolution of the federal consolidated action.

Following press reports of the Hauser litigation filed in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio, putative shareholders filed two securities class
action complaints in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, a securities class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York and a securities class action complaint in the Court of
Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

On May 29, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio consolidated the three federal securities class
actions into a single case, Sohol v. Yan, Case No. 15-cv-00393. On
June 12, 2015, plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action filed
an amended complaint against the Company, certain present and
former officers and directors of the Company, and the underwriters
of the Company's initial public offering (IPO), asserting
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933. Plaintiffs in the state court case similarly filed an
amended complaint on May 26, 2015, asserting violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
Plaintiffs in both the federal and state actions generally allege
that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions in
connection with the IPO prospectus and registration statement and
seek an unspecified amount of damages.

On July 29, 2015, the state court granted the Company's motion to
stay proceedings pending resolution of the federal consolidated
action.

The Company believes these claims lack merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself. As this litigation is in the early onset
of discovery, the Company is unable to determine the probability
and amount of loss, if any, related to this litigation.


TOYODA GOSEI: Faces Martens Suit in Mich. Over Automotive Hoses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al. v. Toyoda Gosei Co.,
Ltd., et al., Case No. 4:15-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 through its
subsidiaries, manufactured, marketed and sold Automotive Hoses
that were purchased 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

         - and -

      Dewitt Lovelace, Esq.
      Valerie Nettles, Esq.
      LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      Suite 200, 12870 US Hwy 98 West
      Miramar Beach, FL 32550
      Telephone: (850) 837-6020
      E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com
              alex@lovelacelaw.com

         - and -

      Charles Barrett, Esq.
      CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
      6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
      Nashville, TN 37205
      Telephone: (615) 515-3393
      E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

         - and -

      Gregory Johnson, Esq.
      G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC
      6688 145th Street West,
      Apple Valley, MN 55124
      Telephone: (952) 930-2485
      E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com


USA TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Pa. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven P. Messner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. USA Technologies, Inc., Stephen P. Herbert,
David F. Demedio, and Joseph Duncan Smith, Case No. 2:15-cv-05427-
MAK (E.D. Pa., October 1, 2015) alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.

USA Technologies, Inc. provides wireless networking, cashless
transactions, asset monitoring, and other value-added services
principally to the small ticket unattended retail markets in the
United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ira Neil Richards, Esq.
      SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
      1600 Market Street, Suite 3600
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 751-2000
      E-mail: irichards@schnader.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Marc Gorrie, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


VITTAL INTERNATIONAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Luis Trapani, and other similarly situated individuals v. Vittal
International Corp. and Claudio, Waisbord, Case No. 32753689 (11th
Ct. Fla., October 1, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants maintain its main place of business in
Miami Dade County, Florida and are engaged in interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Beitz" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Drew T. Beitz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
07233-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 1, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged installation of defeat devices in certain
model year 2009 through 2015 diesel light-duty vehicles equipped
with 2.0 liter 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:

      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 -

      Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
      Raymond A. Bragar, Esq.
      Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq.
      Justin A. Kuehn, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 308-5858
      E-mail: eagel@bespc.com
              bragar@bespc.com
              squire@bespc.com
              kuehn@bespc.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Brigham" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
William Brigham v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00186-P (N.D. Tex., October 1, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged installation of defeat devices in certain
model year 2009 through 2015 diesel light-duty vehicles equipped
with 2.0 liter 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:

      Ryan L. Thompson, Esq.
      WATTS GUERRA LLP
      4 Dominion Dr., Bldg. 3, Ste. 100
      San Antonio, TX 78257
      Telephone: (210) 448-0500
      Facsimile: (210) 448-0501
      E-mail: rlt-bulk@wattsguerra.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Cowell" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cowell, Jr., individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-07243-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 1, 2015) arises
out of the Defendant's alleged installation of defeat devices in
various Volkswagen and Audi models, including the Jetta, the Jetta
Sportswagen, the Golf, the Audi A3, the Beetle, the Beetle
convertible, the Passat, and the Golf Sportswagen.

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:

      Stephen A. Corr, Esq.
      John A. Corr, Esq.
      STARK & STARK
      777 Township Line Road, Ste. 120
      Yardley, PA 19067
      Telephone: (267) 907-9600
      Facsimile: (267) 907-9659
      E-mail: scorr@stark-stark.com
              jcorr@stark-stark.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Elder" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Elder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-07716 (D. Cal., October 1, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged installation of defeat devices in various
Volkswagen and Audi models, including the Jetta, the Jetta
Sportswagen, the Golf, the Audi A3, the Beetle, the Beetle
convertible, the Passat, and the Golf Sportswagen.

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:

      Neville L. Johnson, Esq.
      Douglas L. Johnson, Esq,
      Jordanna G. Thigpen, Esq.
      JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP
      439 North Canon Drive, Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 975-1080
      Facsimile: (310) 975-1095
      E-mail: njohson@jjllplaw.com
              djohnson@jjllplaw.com
              jthigpen@jjllplaw.com

         - and -

      Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
      Alexandra T. Steele, Esq.
      Joe Finnerty, Esq.
      GIRARDI KEESE
      1126 Wilshire Blvd.
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 977-0211
      Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
      E-mail: tgirardi@girardikeese.com
              asteele@girardikeese.com
              jfinnery@girardikeese.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Greczylo" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Greczylo, Charles Hall, Red Bradley, Tim Winkel, Benjamin
Foote, Nicolas Swisher, and Zak Dixon, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07234-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 1,
2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged intentional
installation of so-called defeat devices on at least 482,000
diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States
since 2009.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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 -

      Matthew Preusch, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Daniel Mensher, Esq.
      Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
              rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Heinz" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meggan Heinz and Hanneke Sijmons, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07257-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 1, 2015)
arises out of the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of
so-called defeat devices on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and
Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
      Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq.
      SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
      1212 SE Third Avenue
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326
      Telephone: (954) 320-9507
      Facsimile: (954) 320-9509
      E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com
              jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com
              jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kannapel" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Kannapel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-07235-JLL-JAD 9 (D.N.J., October 1, 2015) arises out of
the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of defeat devices
on over 482,000 diesel 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:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
      E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
              LTavlor@carellabvrne.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
              enafisi@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

         - 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: aek@wexlerwallace.com
              eaw@wexlerwallace.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kornfeld" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark S. Kornfeld, Tamara Barton, and Tracey D. Martinez, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Case No. 5:15-cv-02024 (C.D. Cal., October 1,
2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged intentional
installation of defeat devices on over 482,000 diesel 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:

      Allan Steyer, Esq.
      D. Scott Macrae, Esq.
      Jill M. Manning, Esq.
      STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
      One California Street, Suite 300
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 421-3400
      Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
      E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
              smacrae@steyerlaw.com
              jmanning@steyerlaw.com

         - and -

      William Pettersen, Esq.
      PETTERSEN & BARK
      1620 Union Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 702-0123
      Facsimile: (619) 702-0127
      E-mail: pbattorneys@cox.net


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lefkowitz" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Lefkowitz, Geoffrey S. Tracey, Helen Hicks and Wilbur Hicks,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07251-
JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 1, 2015) arises out of the Defendants'
alleged intentional installation of defeat devices on over 482,000
diesel 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:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
      E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
              LTavlor@carellabvrne.com

         - and -

      Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
      Malcolm T. Brown, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Ave.
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
      E-mail: Schmidt@whanfh.com
              Brown@whanfh.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Maston" Suit Over Defeat Device
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Maston, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00213-cr (D. Vt., October 1, 2015) arises out of the Defendants'
alleged intentional installation of defeat devices on one or more
of the following 2.0 liter diesel-engine vehicles: the 2009 to
2015 model year Volkswagen Jetta; the 2009 to 2014 model year
Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen; the 2010 to 2015 model year
Volkswagen Golf; the 2012 to 2015 model year Volkswagen
Beetle; the 2012 to 2015 model year Volkswagen Beetle Convertible;
the 2012 to 2015 model year Volkswagen Passat; the 2015 model year
Volkswagen Golf Sportwagen; and the 2010 to
2015 model year Audi A3.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman Williams, Esq.
      GRAVEL & SHEA PC
      76 St. Paul Street, 7th Floor
      Burlington, VT 05402
      Telephone: (802) 658-0220
      Facsimile: (802) 658-1456
      E-mail: nwilliams@gravelshea.com

         - and -

      Mark A. Strauss, Esq.
      KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
      825 Third A venue, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 371-6600
      Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
      E-mail: mstrauss@kmllp.com

         - and -

      Jonathan G. Kortmansky, Esq.
      SULLIVAN & WORCHESTER LLP
      1633 Broadway
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 660-3044
      Facsimile: (212) 660-3001
      E-mail: jkortmansky@sandw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "McGarry" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel McGarry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
04541 (N.D. Cal., October 1, 2015) arises out of the Defendants'
alleged intentional installation of defeat devices on over 482,000
diesel 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:

      Joseph C. Wilson, Esq.
      Michelle T. Duval, Esq.
      CURIALE WILSON LLP
      One Maritime Plaza, Suite 1000
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 908-1001
      Facsimile: (415) 796-0875
      E-mail: jwilson@curialwilson.com
              mduval@curialwilson.com

         - and -

      Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
      Frank M. Pitre, Esq.
      Nancy L. Fineman, Esq.
      Alison E. Cordova, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
      840 Malcolm Road
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
              fpitre@cpmlegal.com
              nfineman@cpmlegal.com
              acordova@cpmlegal.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "McKenna" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian McKenna and Suzanne Gallic, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07236-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 1, 2015)
arises out of the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of
defeat devices on over 482,000 diesel 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:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
      E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
              LTavlor@carellabvrne.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Rasor" Suit in Mich. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerald Rasor, Jeremy Bowman, Robert Marcolini, Michael Lorenz,
Adam Spring, David Ebenstein, Ralph Waterhouse, and Kate Deneveu,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-13452-
MOB-MJH (E.D. Mich., October 1, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of so-called defeat
devices on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles
sold in the United States since 2009.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tana Lin, Esq.
      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Daniel Mensher, Esq.
      Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: tlin@kellerrohrback.com
              lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
              rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Matthew Preusch, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
      E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Safra" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Safra, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:15-cv-04534 (N.D. Cal., October 1, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of so-called defeat
devices on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles
sold in the United States since 2009.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
      Frank M. Pitre, Esq.
      Nancy L. Fineman, Esq.
      Alison E. Cordova, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
      840 Malcolm Road
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
              fpitre@cpmlegal.com
              nfineman@cpmlegal.com
              acordova@cpmlegal.com

         - and -

      William H. Russel, Esq.
      1721 Valley View Avenue
      Belmont, CA 94002
      Telephone: (650) 339-2527
      E-mail: owyhee@comcast.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Seager" Suit in Ill. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Seager, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-08689 (N.D. Ill., October 1, 2015) arises out of
the Defendant's alleged intentional installation of so-called
defeat devices on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward T. Joyce, Esq.
      Arthur W. Aufmann, Esq.
      Tae Kim, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD T. JOYCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 641-2600
      Facsimile: (312) 641-0360


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Spiker" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Spiker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
07241-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 1, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of so-called defeat
devices on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles
sold in the United States since 2009.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
      E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
              LTavlor@carellabvrne.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
              enafisi@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

         - 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: aek@wexlerwallace.com
              eaw@wexlerwallace.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Barnes" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary I. Barnes and Jeanne A. Barnes as husband and wife and
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., and Volkswagen AG, Case No.
3:15-cv-00426-MCR-CJK (N.D. Fla., September 29, 2015) arises out
of the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of defeat
devices in various Volkswagen and Audi models, including the
Jetta, the Jetta Sportswagen, the Golf, the Audi A3, the Beetle,
the Beetle convertible, the Passat, and the Golf Sportswagen.

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:

      Neil D. Overholtz, Esq.
      Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
      Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
      Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
      Stephen H. Echsner, Esq.
      E. Samuel Geisler, Esq.
      AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ
      17 E. Main Street. Suite 200
      Pensacola, FL 32502
      Telephone: (850) 202-1010
      Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
      E-mail: noverholtz@awkolaw.com
              baylstock@awkolaw.com
              jwitkin@awkolaw.com
              dkreis@awkolaw.com
              sechsner@awkolaw.com
              sgeisler@awkolaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bergrud" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Bergrud, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-07629-FMO-JPR (C.D. Cal., September 29, 2015) arises out
of the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of defeat
devices in various Volkswagen and Audi models, including the
Jetta, the Jetta Sportswagen, the Golf, the Audi A3, the Beetle,
the Beetle convertible, the Passat, and the Golf Sportswagen.

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

         - and -

      Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
      Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: JGS@chimicles.com
              MDS@chimicles.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Behncke" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Federico Behncke, Rory Katharine Cox, Marianne Hartshorne, and
Gregory Hildebrand, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-07176-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., September 29, 2015) arises out of
the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of defeat devices
in multiple lines of diesel vehicles, including without limitation
the 2009 to 2015 models of the Volkswagen Beetle, Volkswagen Golf,
and the Audi A3, as well as the 2012 to 2015 models of the
Volkswagen 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.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen L. Dreyfuss, Esq.
      HELLRING LINDEMAN GOLDSTEIN & SIEGAL LLP
      One Gateway Center
      Newark, NJ 07102-5323
      Telephone: (973) 621-9020
      E-mail: sldreyfuss@hlgslaw.com

         - and -

      Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Esq.
      Peter J. Bezek, Esq.
      Robert A. Curtis, Esq.
      FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
      15 West Carrillo Street
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 962-9495
      E-mail: tfoley@foleybezek.com
              pbezek@foleybezek.com
              rcurtis@foleybezek.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Schlesselman" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Schlesselman and Jorge Soto, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-08658 (N.D. Ill., September 30, 2015) arises out
of the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of defeat
devices in multiple lines of diesel vehicles, including without
limitation the 2009 to 2015 models of the Volkswagen Beetle,
Volkswagen Golf, and the Audi A3, as well as the 2012 to 2015
models of the Volkswagen 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.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Todd McLawhorn, Esq.
      Richard L. Miller II, Esq.
      Matthew M. Wawrzyn, Esq.
      Stephen C. Jarvis, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 North State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              tmclawhorn@siprut.com
              rmiller@siprut.com
              mwawrzyn@siprut.com
              sjarvis@siprut.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Springfield" Suit Over Defeat Devices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Springfield, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-07219-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., September 30, 2015) arises out of
the Defendants' 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 -

      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water St., 26th Fl.
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 584-0700
      E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

         - and -

      Mark P. Robinson Jr., Esq.
      Kevin F. Calcagnie, Esq.
      Daniel S. Robinson, Esq.
      ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS, INC.
      19 Corporate Plaza Drive
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 720-1288


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Travalio" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Travalio and Barbara Travalio, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07157-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., September
29, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' 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:

      Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
      James S. Notis, Esq.
      Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
      GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
      560 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 3085
      Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
      Telephone: (201) 567-7377
      Facsimile: (207) 567-7337
      E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
              jnotis@gardylaw.com
              jsarnelli@gardylaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Underwood" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Underwood, on behalf on herself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Case No. :15-cv-
07178-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., September 30, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' 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:

      Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
      Daniel N. Gallucci, Esq.
      Joanne E. Matusko, Esq.
      NASTLAW 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 "Morrey" Suit in Mo. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Morrey and Beth Morrey, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-04208-NKL (W.D. Mo., September 28, 2015) arises
out of the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of defeat
devices in at least the following diesel models: 2009-2015 VW
Jetta; 2009-2015 VW Beetle; 2009-2015 VW Golf; 2014-2015 VW
Passat; and 2009-2015 Audi A3.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
      E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com


VOLTARI CORPORATION: Class Action Appeal Pending
------------------------------------------------
Voltari Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the appeal in the
putative securities class action is pending.

The Company said, "We previously announced that Joe Callan filed a
putative securities class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of
Motricity between June 18, 2010 and August 9, 2011 or in
Motricity's initial public offering. Motricity, which was our
predecessor registrant, is now our wholly-owned subsidiary and has
changed its name to Voltari Operating Corp. The defendants in the
case were Motricity, certain of our current and former directors
and officers, including Ryan K. Wuerch, James R. Smith, Jr., Allyn
P. Hebner, James N. Ryan, Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C. Gary, Brett
Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian V. Turner;
and the underwriters in Motricity's initial public offering,
including J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation,
Robert W. Baird & Co Incorporated, Needham & Company, LLC and
Pacific Crest Securities LLC. The complaint alleged violations
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, (the "Securities Act") and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
by all defendants and under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by
Motricity and those of our former and current officers who are
named as defendants. The complaint sought, inter alia, damages,
including interest and plaintiff's costs and rescission."

"A second putative securities class action complaint was filed by
Mark Couch in October 2011 in the same court, also related to
alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act,
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 7,
2011, the class actions were consolidated, and lead plaintiffs
were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act.

"On December 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
which added a claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act to its
allegations of violations of the securities laws and extended the
putative class period from August 9, 2011 to November 14, 2011.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 11, 2012 and a
second amended complaint on July 11, 2012.

"On August 1, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint, which was granted on January 17, 2013. A third
amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2013.

"On May 30, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint, which was granted by the Court on October 1, 2013. On
October 31, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. On April 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opening
appellate brief and on July 24, 2014 we filed our answering
brief."


WHITELAW HOTEL: Does Not Properly Pay Workers Wages, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Luis Triana Perez, and other similarly situated Bellmen v.
Whitelaw Hotel South Beach LLC and PCCO, Inc., Case No. 32684410
(11th Ct. Fla., September 30, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and minimum wages, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a hotel in Miami Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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