---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 20, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 209


                            Headlines


494 FIRE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Affairs
A & C PINE: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
A & S ENTERTAINMENT: "Anaya" Seeks Damages on FLSA Violations
AIRLINE COACH: "Lozada" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ALBANY MOLECULAR: Class Action Filed by John Gauquie Still Open

AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: 4 Class Actions Related to Fire Still Open
BANK OF AMERICA: "Belevich" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
BANK OF THE OZARKS: Arkansas Supreme Court Case Remains Pending

BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
BOSTON MARKET: Sued in Cal. Over Disabled-Inaccessible Restaurant
BREAD PARTNERS 3: "Dispaldo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
BUMBLE BEE FOODS: Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Expert Discovery Proceeding in Consumer Suit

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination
CALYPSO ST: Summoned to Answer "Alecia Hosue" Labor Lawsuit
CAP CONSTRUCTION: "Guzman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CELL-CRETE CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations
CHOW TIME: "Lewis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and OT

COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
CON-WAY INC: Faces "Abrams" Suit in Del. Over Proposed XPO Merger
CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENCE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
COOPERVISION INC: Faces Suit Over Antitrust Violation
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: 51 Professional Liability Suits Pending

DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Class Action Settlement Remains Pending
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Deal Being Finalized in Collective Action
DUKE ENERGY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held
DUKE ENERGY: Price Reporting Cases Consolidated in Nevada Court
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Class Suit in Mediation

E.I. DU PONT: "Corker" Imprelis Sales Action Dismissed
ELEGANCE RESTAURANT: Faces "Liu" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ENERGY TRANSFER: Regency Merger Litigation at Preliminary Stage
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Ohring" Suit for Alleged Data Breach
FIRST NATIONAL: "Antonik" Class Action in Discovery Stage

FIRST NATIONAL: "Saxe" Class Action in Discovery Stage
FOODSERVICE REFRIGERATION: "Carlton" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
FPUSA LLC: Faces "Gunter" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Faces "Marte" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GEO-LAB INC: "Street" Suit Seeks to Recover Compensation

GOOGLE INC: 9th Cir. Revives Class Cert. Bid in Pulaski Case
GROWTH SPURT: "Frazer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
HAMPTON BAYS: "Murcia" Suit in N.Y. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
HERE TO SERVE: "Flowers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HESKA CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Fauley" Suit in N.D. Ill.

HOME BOX: Faces "Fermin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: No Recorded Reserve for Hamilton Action
INTERMODAL BRIDGE: Illegally Terminates Employees, Suit Claims
INTL FCSTONE: 2nd Amended Complaint Dismissed in Its Entirety
INVENTURE FOODS: Has Complied with Jamba Juice Deal Requirements

INVENTURE FOODS: Resolved "Ghermezian" Demand Letter
JOHNNY'S PIZZA: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in "Hill" Denied
KILLION COMMUNICATIONS: "Kelly" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: 411 Suits Pending Following Decertification
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Consolidated Shareholder Class Action Pending

KWICK RENTALS: "Blankenship" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
LA PALA RESTAURANT: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
LADENBURG THALMANN: Motions to Dismiss Class Actions Pending
LENNY & LARRY'S: Faces "Schott" Class Suit Over "Vegan" Cookies
LIVE NATION: Judge Won't Revisit Ruling in Concert Tickets Suit

M&T BANK: Faces "Jaroslawicz" Suit in Delaware Over Merger
MARICOPA, AZ: Contempt Hearing in Suit v. Sheriff Arpaio Ongoing
MCCLATCHY COMPANY: 2nd and 3rd Phases of Trial Not Yet Set
MONSTER.COM: TalentBin Illegally Collects User Info, Suit Claims
NATIONAL SERVICE: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

NII HOLDINGS: Dismissed from Securities Litigation
NOVATION COMPANIES: NJ Carpenters Fund Action at Early Stage
NU SKIN: Class Action Over Marketing Activities in China Pending
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: "Meyer" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

PARKSIDE CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Bravo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PEABODY ENERGY: "Lynn" Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint
PEOPLES BANCORP: Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: Deal Reached in "Lozano" Age Bias Suit
SCOTTRADE INC: Faces San Diego Class Suit Over Data Breach

SCOTTRADE INC: Faces "Dugum" Suit in Mo. Over Alleged Data Breach
SECURE ENERGY: Faces "Ebertowski" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SHARP ELECTRONICS: Court Dismisses "Popejoy" Suit over LED TVs
SHOWCASE PROVISIONS: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation
SOCAL EDISON: Faces Shareholder Suit Over San Onofre Plant

SOLERA HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Merger With Vista Equity
SPRINT CORP: Final Approval Hearing Held in Stockholder Suit
STEINER LEISURE: Nesbitt v. FCNH Class Action Remains Pending
STEINER LEISURE: 20 Individuals Joined "Marlow" Action
STERLING BANCORP: Accord Pending in Hudson Valley Merger Action

SUNEDISON INC: "Jones" Class Action Remains Pending in E.D. Mo.
SUNRISE BLVD: "Jerez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TATA CONSULTANCY: "Heldt" Bias Suit Survives Dismissal Bid
THOMSON REUTERS: Misclassifies Staff as Contractors, Suit Says
TOYOTA MOTOR: "Strama" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud Act Violation

UBER TECH: Prioritizes Profits Over Safety, 2 Women Claim in Suit
UBER TECH: Cal. Judge Dismisses Suit Over Drivers' Private Data
UNITED PARCEL: November 2015 Trial Set in "Morgate" Action
UNITED PARCEL: Appeal Pending in AFMS LLC v. UPS and FedEx Case
UNITED PARCEL: One Case in Ontario Remains Outstanding

UNITED PARCEL: Nov. 2 Hearing on Class Action Settlement
UNITED STATES: Faces "Waid" Lawsuit Over OPM's Cyber-Breaches
UNITED STATES: Can't Alter Police-Bias Settlement, NJ Judge Says
VIVA TERRA: Falsely Marketed Textile Products, Action Claims
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Criminal Fraud Allegation

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Doebler" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fries" Suit in Ill. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Gibbons" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Helms" Suit in Ala. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Henry" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hiaasen" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kelley" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Klinkov" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kluchinsky" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Lawsuit Over Clean Diesel TDI Vehicles

W.P. CAREY: To Defend Appeal in "Gaines" Class Action
WAL-MART STORES: "Pork & Beans" Brand Has No Pork, Suit Claims
WANG DA 168: "Eu" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
WESTCHESTER AMBULETTE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
XEROX STATE: Suit Alleges Breach of Contract

YAHOO! INC: Dismissal of "Buch" Stockholder Action Sought
YOU FIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pazanski" Action Claims


                            *********


494 FIRE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Affairs
----------------------------------------------------------
George Makkos, a Member of 494 Fire Island Avenue, LLC, Suing in
the Right of 494 Fire Island Avenue, LLC v. 494 Fire Island
Avenue, LLC and Thomas Makkos, Case No. 653334 (N.Y. Sup., October
6, 2015) is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants'
failure to administer the affairs of the Company in a skillful,
diligent and careful manner.

The Defendants own and operate the Venetian Yacht Club, a high-end
catering/reception hall located in Suffolk County, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Laird, Esq.
      SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
      31-19 Newtown Avenue, Seventh Floor
      Astoria, NY 11102
      Telephone: (718) 269-2232
      Facsimile: (718) 746-4117


A & C PINE: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Sanchez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. A & C Pine Properties, Inc., Charles Rose, and all
other related entities, Case No. 704746 (N.Y. Sup. October 8,
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 Pine Restaurant of Queens located
at 37-10 114th Street, Corona, New York 11368.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550


A & S ENTERTAINMENT: "Anaya" Seeks Damages on FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Anaya, and all others similarly-situated v. A & S
Entertainment LLC dba The Office Miami Beach, Claudette M. Pierre
and Gregory Pierre, Case No. 1:15-cv-23562 (S.D. Fla., September
23, 2015), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an entertainment business or a
bar/strip club.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AIRLINE COACH: "Lozada" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Raynaud Lozada, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. Airline Coach Service,
Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG15788490 (Cal.
Super. Ct., October 6, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid wages and
penalties under California Labor Code.

Airline Coach Service, Inc. is a shuttle company that provides
transportation services to and from: Oakland International
Airport, San Francisco International Airport, San Jose
International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport and other
airports within the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Becht, Esq.
      Michael Sachs, Esq.
      Mythily Sivarajah, Esq.
      ADAMS NYE BECHT LLP
      222 Kearnv Street, Seventh Floor
      San Frandsco, CA 94108-4521
      Telephone: (415) 982-8955
      Facsimile: (415) 982-2042
      E-mail: dbecht@adamsnyeemployment.com
              msachs@adamsnyeemployment.com
              msivarajah@adamsnyeemployment.com


ALBANY MOLECULAR: Class Action Filed by John Gauquie Still Open
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany Molecular Research, Inc., is defending a purported class
action lawsuit filed by John Gauquie, 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 November 12, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit, John
Gauquie v. Albany Molecular Research, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-
6637, was filed against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.  The complaint alleges claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Company's
August 5, 2014 announcement of its financial results for the
second quarter of 2014, including that the OsoBio New Mexico
facility experienced a power interruption in July 2014, which
would have a material impact on the Company's results.  The
complaint alleges that the price of the Company's stock was
artificially inflated between August 5, 2014 and November 5, 2014,
and seeks certification as a class action, unspecified monetary
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.


AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lifestyle Investments, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Amicus Therapeutics, Inc., and John
F. Crowley, Case No. 3:15-cv-07350-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., October 7,
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.

Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. is a biotechnology company that
developed therapies for rare and orphan diseases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
      Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617)398-5600
      Facsimile: (617)507-6020
      E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
              jake@blockesq.com


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal related to a class action lawsuit involving Arena
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. remains pending, 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.

The Company said, "Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of
complaints were filed in the US District Court for the Southern
District of California against us and certain of our current and
former employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of
our common stock. The complaints were brought as purported
stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations
that we and certain of our current and former employees and
directors violated federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding our BELVIQ program,
thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The
plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief."

"On August 8, 2011, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2011,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On
March 28, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint without prejudice. On May 13, 2013, the lead plaintiff
filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On November 5,
2013, the Court dismissed the second consolidated amended
complaint without prejudice as to all parties except for Robert E.
Hoffman, who was dismissed from the action with prejudice. On
November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the second consolidated amended complaint. On March 20,
2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the second
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. On April 18, 2014,
the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and on August 27,
2014, the lead plaintiff filed his appellate brief in the US Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 24, 2014, we filed
our answering brief in response to the lead plaintiff's appeal. On
December 5, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his reply brief. Due to
the stage of these proceedings, we are not able to predict or
reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses
relating to these claims."


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: 4 Class Actions Related to Fire Still Open
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Four putative class actions related to the fire that occurred
early this year at the Avalon at Edgewater remain pending,
Avalonbay Communities, 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.

In January 2015, a fire occurred at the Company's Avalon at
Edgewater apartment community in Edgewater, NJ. The Company is
aware that third parties incurred significant property damage and
other losses, such as relocation costs, as a result of the fire.
Through the date of this Form 10-Q, residents and others have
filed approximately 149 claims with the Company's insurers, of
which approximately 58 claims have been settled or negotiated for
settlement. The Company has established protocols for processing
claims and has encouraged any party who sustained a loss to
contact the Company's insurance carrier to file a claim.

To date, four putative class action lawsuits have been filed on
behalf of Avalon at Edgewater residents and others who may have
been harmed by the fire. None of these lawsuits have been
certified as class actions as of this date; the Court has
consolidated three of these actions in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey and there is a pending motion
to consolidate the fourth case.

In addition, 15 lawsuits representing over 120 individual
plaintiffs have been filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey
Bergen County - Law Division. The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to the extent of damages claimed.

The Company believes that the fire was caused by sparks from a
torch used during repairs being performed by a Company employee
who was not a licensed plumber. The Company is undertaking a full
review of its maintenance policies related to safety matters,
including training, reporting structure and qualifications to
perform certain types of work.


BANK OF AMERICA: "Belevich" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anton Belevich, and all others similarly-situated v. Bank of
America National Association, Bank of America N.A., Bank of
America National Assoc and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. BC595333
(Cal. Super., September 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for denying wages, meal periods and accurate itemized
wage statements and waiting time penalties in violation of the
California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code,
and the applicable wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare
Commission including IWC Wage Order.

Bank of America National Association operates as a full service
bank.  Bank of America serves individual and institutional
customers throughout the United States. it is headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Righetti, Esq.
      RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
      456 Montgomery Street, Ste. 1400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel: (415)983-0900
      Fax: (415)397-9005


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Arkansas Supreme Court Case Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling from the Arkansas Supreme Court was expected in September
or in October 2015, Bank of the Ozarks, 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 January 5, 2012, the Company and the Bank were served with a
summons and complaint filed on December 19, 2011, in the Circuit
Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, Division III, styled Robert
Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc.
and Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. CV-2011-777. In addition, on
December 21, 2012, the Bank was served with a summons and
complaint filed on December 20, 2012, in the Circuit Court of
Pulaski County, Arkansas, Ninth Division, styled Audrey Muzingo v.
Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. 60 CV-12-6043. The complaint in each
case alleges that the Company and/or Bank have harmed the
plaintiffs, current or former customers of the Bank, by improper,
unfair, and unconscionable assessment and collection of excessive
overdraft fees from the plaintiffs. According to the complaints,
plaintiffs claim that the Bank employs sophisticated software to
automate its overdraft system, and that this system unfairly and
inequitably manipulates and alters customers' transaction records
in order to maximize overdraft penalties, particularly utilizing a
practice of posting of items in "high-to-low" order, despite the
actual sequence in which such items are presented for payment.
Plaintiffs claim that the Bank's deposit agreements with customers
do not adequately disclose the Bank's overdraft assessment
policies and are ambiguous, deceptive, unfair, and misleading. The
complaint in each case alleges that these actions and omissions
constitute breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, unconscionable conduct, conversion,
unjust enrichment, and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. The complaint in the Walker case also includes a
count for conversion. Each of the complaints seeks to have the
cases certified by the court as a class action for all Bank
account holders similarly situated, and seeks a declaratory
judgment as to the wrongful nature of the Bank's overdraft fee
policies, restitution of overdraft fees paid by the plaintiffs and
the putative class (defined as all Bank customers residing in
Arkansas) as a result of the actions cited in the complaints,
disgorgement of profits as a result of the alleged wrongful
actions, and unspecified compensatory and statutory or punitive
damages, together with pre-judgment interest, costs, and
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

The Company and Bank filed a motion to dismiss and to compel
arbitration in the Walker case. The trial court denied the motion
and found that the arbitration provision contained in the
controlling Consumer Deposit Account Agreement was unconscionable
and thus unenforceable on the grounds that the provision was the
result of unequal bargaining power. The Company and Bank appealed
the trial court's ruling to the Arkansas Court of Appeals on an
interlocutory basis.

On September 18, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Arkansas Court
of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the case
to the trial court for the purpose of entering an order compelling
arbitration. On October 7, 2013, the plaintiffs filed petitions
for reconsideration and review before the Arkansas Court of
Appeals and Arkansas Supreme Court, respectively. On October 30,
2013, the Arkansas Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs'
petition for reconsideration.

In January 2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted the
plaintiff's petition for review. Oral arguments were presented to
the Arkansas Supreme Court on May 1, 2014. On May 15, 2014, the
Arkansas Supreme Court vacated the Arkansas Court of Appeals'
decision, reversing and remanding the case to the trial court to
determine, in the first instance, whether there is a valid
agreement to arbitrate disputes between the named plaintiffs and
the Bank.

An evidentiary hearing was conducted by the trial court on the
arbitration issue on October 1, 2014, and the trial court took the
matter under advisement. On October 30, 2014, the trial court
issued an order once again denying the Company and Bank's motion
to dismiss and to compel arbitration. The trial court ruled that
the Consumer Deposit Account Agreement containing the arbitration
provision was not enforceable because of a lack of mutual
agreement and lack of mutual obligation. The Company and Bank have
appealed the trial court's ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court on
an interlocutory basis.

The Company and Bank filed their initial appellate brief on April
14, 2015. The plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on May 14,
2015, and the Company and the Bank filed their reply brief on May
29, 2015. The Arkansas Supreme Court has determined that oral
arguments are unnecessary. A ruling from the Arkansas Supreme
Court is expected in September or October of 2015.

The Plaintiff in the Muzingo case has agreed to stay the
proceedings in that case pending the outcome of the appeal in the
Walker case. The Company and the Bank believe the Plaintiffs'
claims in each of these cases are unfounded and subject to
meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend against these
claims.


BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Mark R. Sciulli, Juan Jaime, and all others similarly-situated v.
Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC dba AT&T, Case No. 32364280
(Fla. Cir., September 22, 2015), seek 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 Standards Act and Florida
Civil Rights Act of 1992.

BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC provides wire-line
telecommunication services to the residential and commercial
communities in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: (305) 416-5000
      Fax: (305) 416-5005


BOSTON MARKET: Sued in Cal. Over Disabled-Inaccessible Restaurant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael DePillares, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Boston Market Corporation, Case No. RG15788524 (Cal.
Super. Ct., October 6, 2014) alleged that the Defendant
discriminate people who are disabled, in ways that block them from
equal access to and use of their restaurants.

Boston Market Corporation operates 54 restaurants in the State of
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 534-2590
      Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


BREAD PARTNERS 3: "Dispaldo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Scarleth Dispaldo, and all others similarly situated v. Bread
Partners 3, Inc. dba Au Bon Pain, and Bread Partners Holding, Inc.
dba Au Bon Pain, Case No. 1:15-cv-23589 (S.D. Fla., September 24,
2015), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages,
interests, costs and attorney's fees under Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants operate as cafe/bakeries in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
      20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Tel: (786) 923-5899
      E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

          - and -

      Isaac Mamane, Esq.
      MAMANE LAW LLC
      1150 Kane Concourse, Second Floor
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Tel: (305) 773-6661
      E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


BUMBLE BEE FOODS: Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Carl Lesher, Sarah Metivier Schadt, Greg Stearns, Karren Fabian,
and all others similarly-situated v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Tri-
Union Seafoods LLC, Starkist Company and King Oscar, Inc., Case
No. 3:15-cv-02144 (S.D. Calif., September 25, 2015), seek
injunctive relief against the Defendants for violation of Section
1 of the Sherman Act and Section 16 of the Clayton Act.

This action arises out of a conspiracy by the largest producers of
packaged seafood products ("PSPs") in the United States, its
territories and the District of the Defendants -- which began no
later than July 24, 2011, and continues to the present, to fix,
raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for PSPs within the
United States, its territories and the District of Columbia.

Bumble Bee Foods LLC is a domestic limited liability company with
its principal place of business located at 9655 Granite Ridge
Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92123. Bumble Bee produces and
sells PSPs throughout the United States, its territories and the
District of Columbia. Bumble Bee is privately owned by Lion
Capital LLP, based in the United Kingdom.

Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, dba Chicken of the Sea International, is a
domestic limited liability company with its principal place of
business located at 9330 Scranton Road, San Diego, CA 92121. Tri-
Union Seafoods LLC produces and sells PSPs throughout the United
States, its territories and the District of Columbia. Unless
otherwise indicated, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC will be referred to
herein as "CoS." CoS is owned by Thai Union Frozen Products
("TUF"), a company based in Thailand.

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

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

CoS and King Oscar are wholly owned by Thai Union Frozen Products,
a public company headquartered in Thailand.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Stuart G. Gross, Esq.
      GROSS & KLEIN
      The Embarcadero
      Pier 9, Suite 100
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 671-4628
      Fax: (415) 480-6688
      E-mail: sgross@grosskleinlaw.com

          - and -

      Robert Taylor-Manning, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT TAYLORMANNING
      1800 South Jackson St., Suite 123
      Seattle, WA 98144
      Tel: (206) 310-3333
      Fax: (206) 299-4010
      E-mail: rtm@taylor-manning.net

          - and -

      Jerald M. Stein, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JERALD M. STEIN
      P.O. Box 1011
      835 Main Street
      Margaretville, NY 12455-1011
      Tel: (845) 586-6111
      Fax: (845) 586-2815
      E-mail: jmsteinlaw@gmail.com

          - and -

      Keith S. Dubanevich, Esq.
      STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING
      & SHLACHTER P.C.
      209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
      Portland, OR 97204
      Tel: (503) 227-1600
      Fax: (503) 227-6840
      E-mail: kdubanevich@stollberne.com


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Expert Discovery Proceeding in Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Expert discovery is proceeding in a consumer class action lawsuit,
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2015.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On
October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new
affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and
carriage was restored. Several purported class action lawsuits
were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers
seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits
were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was
filed in that court on February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer
fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.

On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to
dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining
claims, which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed
a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim
only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was filed on May
2, 2012. On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion for partial
summary judgment.

On March 31, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment. On May 5, 2014, the Court directed that expert
discovery commence. Expert discovery is proceeding.

On May 30, 2014, the Court approved the form of class notice, and
on October 7, 2014, approved the class notice distribution plan.
The class notice distribution has been completed, and the opt-out
period expired on February 27, 2015.

The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends
to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.


CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brittney Lee, as an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. California Commerce Club, Inc. d/b/a
Commerce Casino and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
BC596924 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 7, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged unlawful employment practices on the basis of
disability.
California Commerce Club, Inc. operates a casino located in the
County of Los Angeles, California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Howard L. Magee, Esq.
      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      Nick Rosenthal, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAWGROUP
      550 SouthHope Street, Suite 2655
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213)488-6555
      Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

         - and -

      Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
      HYUN LEGAL, APC
      550 S. Hope Street, Suite 2655
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 488-6555
      Facsimile: (213) 488-6554


CALYPSO ST: Summoned to Answer "Alecia Hosue" Labor Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Calypso St Barth, Inc. was summoned to answer the complaint
alleged in Alecia Hosue v. Calypso St Barth, Inc., (N.Y., October
5), which was brought on behalf of non-exempt hourly paid
employees working in sales whose rights were allegedly violated
under the New York Labor Law.

Calypso St Barth is a women's wear chain that sells clothing,
accessories and home decor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew Cohen, Esq.
     THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
     1613 Northern Boulevard
     Roslyn, N.Y. 11576
     Phone: (516) 625-0105 X.19


CAP CONSTRUCTION: "Guzman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pascola Guzman, Hermino Carrerra, Angel Piaz, and Josue Carrera,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAP
Construction & Environmental, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-03259-B (N.D.
Tex., October 7, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

CAP Construction & Environmental, LLC provides construction and
demolition services that it describes as "asbestos removal," "mold
remediation," "commercial demolition," and "restoration."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob S. Ginsberg, Esq.
      Elizabeth Caldcleugh, Esq.
      Ginsberg & Associates
      4502 W. Lovers Lane
      Dallas, TX 75209
      Telephone: (214) 369-9871
      Facsimile: (214) 368-4653
      E-mail: Jg.ginsberglaw@gmail.com
              caldcleugh@sbcglobal.net


CELL-CRETE CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Loza, and all others similarly-situated v. Cell-Crete
Corporation, Sound-Crete Contractors, Inc., and Does 1-100, Case
No. BC594681 (Cal. Super., September 22, 2015), seeks damages for
Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants are into the cellular concrete industry business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Natasha R. Chesler, Esq.
      CHESLER MCCAFFREY LLP
      11377 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 500
      Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683
      Tel: (310) 882-6407
      Fax: (310) 882-6359
      E-mail: nrc@cmlegal.com


CHOW TIME: "Lewis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Lewis, and all others similarly-situated v. Chow Time LLC
aka China Inn, Case No. 2:15-cv-02627 (W.D. Tenn., September 23,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant, Chow Time aka China Inn, is a limited liability
company doing business in Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee
principally engaged in the restaurant business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. King, Jr., Esq.
      ESKINS KING, PC
      50 North Front Street, Suite 590
      Memphis, TN 38103
      Tel: (901) 578-6902


COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Freedman, and all others similarly-situated v. Coca-Cola
Enterprises, Inc., John F. Brock, Jan Bennick, Calvin Darden, L.
Phillip Humann, Orrin H. Ingram II, Thomas H. Johnson, Suzanne B.
Labarge, Veronique Morali, Andrea L. Saia, Gary Watts, Curtis R.
Welling, Phoebe A. Wood, Orange U.S. Holdco, LLC, Orange MergeCo,
LLC, and The Coca-Cola Company, Case No. 11533 (Del. Ch.,
September 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
buyout of CCE by Coca-Cola Iberian Partners SA and Coca-Cola
Erfrischungsgetranke AG, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Coca-
Cola Company, as announced on August 6, 2015.

The action seeks equitable relief compelling the Board to properly
exercise its fiduciary duties to the Company's public
stockholders, to conduct a thorough, proper, and unbiased sales
process, and to enjoin the close of the Proposed Merger until the
Individual Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties and
related misconduct by the other Defendants are addressed.

The Individual Defendants are the members of CCE's Board of
Directors.

Defendant Coca-Cola is a Delaware corporation with its principal
office at One Coca-Cola Plaza, Atlanta, GA 30313. Coca-Cola, a
beverage company, manufactures and distributes various
nonalcoholic beverages worldwide.

Orange U. S. Holdco, LLC is a limited liability company formed
under the laws of the State of Delaware. Orange MergeCo, LLC is a
limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of
Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
      919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
      Citizens Bank Center
      P.O. Box 1070
      Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
      Tel: (302) 656-4433
      E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com

          - and -

      Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      3300 Two Commerce Square
      2001 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 963-0600


CON-WAY INC: Faces "Abrams" Suit in Del. Over Proposed XPO Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Abrams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Con-way Inc., et al., Case No. 11585 (Del. Ch.,
October 7, 2015) arises from disabling conflicts of interest that
led the Defendants to undertake a flawed process and agree to an
inadequately priced all-cash sale of Con-way Inc. to XPO
Logistics, Inc.

Con-way Inc. is a diversified freight transportation and supply
chain management company, with its principal executive offices
located at 2211 Old Earhart Road, Suite 100, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

XPO Logistics, Inc. is a provider of transportation logistics
services and a provider of engineered, technology-enabled contract
logistics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
      Spencer Oster, Esq.
      David Tejtel, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
      240 East 79th Street, Suite A
      New York, NY 10075
      Telephone: (888) 529-1108


CONCEPTS OF INDEPENDENCE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Janeth Jimenez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Concepts of Independence, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05790
(E.D.N.Y., October 7, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Concepts of Independence, Inc. is a third-party employer of
employees engaged in companionship services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey G. Smith, Esq.
      Robert Abrams, Esq.
      Coffey A. Kamin, Esq.
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: smith@whafh.com
              abrams@whafh.com
              karnin@whafh.com


COOPERVISION INC: Faces Suit Over Antitrust Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Judy Hirsch, Monique Moore, Brian Cohen, Amber Davis, Dan Leyva,
Jon Zeman, Sheryl Marean, Mistelle Gilbert, Melissa Silverman,
Kari Lucas, Rachel Taylor, Frances Cameron, Joanne Hopf, Nicholas
Keaveny, Robin Blankenship, Delia Druley, Heather Butcher, and all
others similarly-situated v. Coopervision, Inc.; Alcon
Laboratories, Inc; Bausch & Lomb Incorporated; Johnson & Johnson
Vision Care, Inc.; and ABB/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC aka ABB
Optical Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-01139 (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2015),
seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to
federal antitrust laws and state antitrust, unfair competition,
and consumer protection laws, and the common law of unjust
enrichment.

This lawsuit is about a conspiracy among four manufacturers of
Contact Lenses and the largest distributor of Contact Lenses in
the United States to eliminate discounting among retailers of
Contact Lenses and to artificially fix, raise, maintain and/or
stabilize the prices charged to consumers for Contact Lenses.

Defendant Alcon is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Fort
Worth, Texas that is owned by Novartis International AG, a Swiss
multinational pharmaceutical company based in Basel, Switzerland.
Alcon makes eye care products, including Contact Lenses.

Defendant Johnson & Johnson is a Florida corporation headquartered
in Jacksonville, Florida. Johnson & Johnson makes eye care
products, including Contact Lenses.

Defendant Bausch + Lomb is a New York corporation headquartered in
Bridgewater, New Jersey; it is now owned by Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Bausch + Lomb makes eye care
products, including Contact Lenses.

Defendant CooperVision is a United States company incorporated in
New York and headquartered in Pleasanton, California. CooperVision
makes eye care products, including Contact Lenses.

Defendant ABB is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Coral
Springs, Florida. ABB states on its website that it "is the
nation's largest distributor of soft Contact Lenses," and that it
supplies more than two-thirds of ECP in America with brand name
Contact Lenses, high grade ophthalmic and fully customizable Gas
Permeable Lenses. ABB is a wholesale seller of Contact Lenses it
purchases from the Manufacturer Defendants and services over
19,000 ECPs nationwide.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Gary C. Rosen, Esq.
      BECKER & POLIAKOFF, P.A.
      1 East Broward Blvd.
      Suite 1800
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 987-7550
      Fax: (954) 985-4176
      E-mail: grosen@becker-poliakoff.com

          - and -

      Bernard Persky, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 980-7400
      Fax: (212) 980-7499
      E-mail: bpersky@robinskaplan.com

          - and -

      K. Craig Wildfang, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 349-8500
      Fax: (612) 339-4181
      E-mail: kcwildfang@robinskaplan.com

          - and -

      Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
      BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
      193 Plummer Hill Road
      Belmont, NH 03220
      Tel: (888) 461-8710
      E-mail: rbonsignore@class-actions.us

          - and -

      M. Stephen Dampier, Esq.
      THE DAMPIER LAW FIRM P.C.
      55 N. Section Street
      P.O. Box 161 (36533)
      Fairhope, AL 36532
      Tel: (251) 929-0900
      Fax: (251) 929-0800


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: 51 Professional Liability Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2015, Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. is
engaged in 51 professional liability lawsuits, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2015.

The Company said, "Five lawsuits are currently scheduled for trial
or arbitration during the next twelve months, and it is expected
that additional cases will be set for trial or hearing. The
ultimate results of any of our professional liability claims and
disputes cannot be predicted with certainty. A significant
judgment entered against us in one or more of these legal actions
could have a material adverse impact on our financial position and
cash flows."

"Several of the 51 professional liability lawsuits are pending in
Arkansas state courts and relate to claims arising prior to the
cessation of our operations in that state on September 1, 2013. On
June 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of Arkansas issued a ruling in a
lawsuit against another provider that may impact the pending and
any future lawsuits filed against us in Arkansas. The Arkansas
Supreme Court ruled that a lawsuit against several facilities
formerly operated by Golden Living could proceed as a class
action. The class certified by the Court includes all residents of
defendants' facilities over a several year period, and the class
is certified for a determination of whether the defendants'
facilities were chronically understaffed and, if so, whether this
understaffing violated the residents' admissions agreements and
constituted a violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act.

"According to the opinion, if plaintiffs prevail on either legal
theory, then each member of the class will be entitled to a
hearing to determine the amount of damages sustained as a result
of the breach or violation. Shortly after the issuance of this
decision, the plaintiff in an existing professional liability case
against the Company amended her complaint to assert against the
Company the exact same class claims that were certified in the
Golden Living proceeding. The amended complaint also adds as a
plaintiff another resident of this facility, which was located in
Ouachita County, Arkansas. Additionally, there remains pending a
purported class action complaint filed in 2009 in the Circuit
Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company, which
asserts similar claims. Each of these lawsuits remains in its
early stages and has not yet been certified by the court as a
class action. The Company currently intends to defend these and
any other similar lawsuits vigorously, but a negative outcome in
any one of these actions could have a material adverse impact on
our financial position and cash flows."


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Class Action Settlement Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court
order approving a class action settlement has not yet been
entered.

In November 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Chancery Court for Williamson County, Tennessee
(21st Judicial District) against the Company's Board of Directors.
This action alleges that the Board of Directors breached its
fiduciary duties to stockholders related to its response to
certain expressions of interest in a potential strategic
transaction from Covington Investments, LLC ("Covington"). The
complaint asserts that the Board failed to negotiate or otherwise
appropriately consider Covington's proposals. Plaintiff has filed
a motion seeking to certify the action as a class action, which is
not currently set for hearing. On May 23, 2014, the plaintiff and
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding outlining
the terms of a settlement subject to the execution of definitive
documentation and court approval. The agreement provides that the
Company will adopt and maintain certain corporate governance
procedures for a period of at least three years. This settlement
was approved by the court at a settlement hearing held on May 22,
2015, but the court's order approving the settlement has not yet
been entered. The parties continue to dispute whether the
plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney's fees, and if so,
the amount to be awarded.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Deal Being Finalized in Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, 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 parties
in a collective action are in the process of finalizing a
settlement agreement.

In June 2012, a collective action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas against us and certain of our subsidiaries.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and seeks unpaid overtime wages as well as
liquidated damages.   The Court conditionally certified a
nationwide class of all of the Company's hourly employees, but
recently decertified the class.

After the class was decertified, the law firm initiating the
action filed three new separate actions in federal courts in
Arkansas, Tennessee, and Texas, naming as plaintiffs many of the
individuals who had filed claims in the first Arkansas action.
The new actions assert the same claim as was asserted in the
original Arkansas action.  The original action has been settled
and dismissed.  The Company mediated the remaining three actions
on July 28, 2015 and reached an agreement to settle with all
Plaintiffs.

The parties are in the process of finalizing a settlement
agreement, which will have to be approved by each of the three
courts in which the lawsuits are pending.  The Company anticipates
that it will obtain Court approval and finalize the settlements
within the next few weeks.  Once the settlements are approved, the
lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice.



DUKE ENERGY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held
---------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy 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 in the Progress Energy
Merger Shareholder Litigation, a final settlement approval hearing
was scheduled for August 12, 2015.

Duke Energy, the 11 members of the Board of Directors who were
also members of the pre-merger Board of Directors (Legacy Duke
Energy Directors) and certain Duke Energy officers are defendants
in a purported securities class action lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke
Energy Corporation, et al). This lawsuit consolidates three
lawsuits originally filed in July 2012, and is pending in the
United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina. The plaintiffs allege federal Securities Act and
Exchange Act claims based on allegations of materially false and
misleading representations and omissions in the Registration
Statement filed on July 7, 2011, and purportedly incorporated into
other documents, all in connection with the post-merger change in
Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

On August 15, 2014 the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the litigation. On March 10, 2015, the parties filed a
Stipulation of Settlement and a Motion for Preliminary Approval of
the Settlement. The court issued an order for preliminary approval
of the settlement on March 25, 2015. Under the terms of the
agreement, Duke Energy agreed to pay $146 million to settle the
claim. On April 22, 2015, Duke Energy made a payment of $25
million into the settlement escrow account. The remainder of $121
million was paid by insurers into the settlement escrow account.
Notice has been sent to members of the class and a final approval
hearing was scheduled for August 12, 2015.


DUKE ENERGY: Price Reporting Cases Consolidated in Nevada Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy 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 so-called Price
Reporting Cases have been reassigned to the same consolidated
federal court proceeding in Nevada for further proceedings.

Five lawsuits were filed against a Duke Energy affiliate, Duke
Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC, and other energy companies and
remain pending in a consolidated, single federal court proceeding
in Nevada. Each of these lawsuits contain similar claims that
defendants allegedly manipulated natural gas markets by various
means, including providing false information to natural gas trade
publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and
agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective
states. Plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts.

On July 18, 2011, the judge granted a defendant's motion for
summary judgment in two of five cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit subsequently reversed the lower court's
decision. On April 21, 2015, the Supreme Court affirmed the U.S.
Court of Appeals decision. The case has been reassigned to the
same consolidated federal court proceeding in Nevada for further
proceedings.


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Class Suit in Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------
Dynavax Technologies Corporation and the lead plaintiff in a
securities class action have agreed to participate in mediation,
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 June 18, 2013, the first of two substantially similar
securities class action complaints was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its former executive officers. The second was filed
on June 26, 2013. On August 22, 2013, these two complaints and all
related actions that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred
to, the District Court were consolidated into a single case
entitled In re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation. On
September 27, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. On November 12, 2013, lead plaintiff filed his
consolidated class action complaint (the "consolidated
complaint"), which named a former director of the Company as a
defendant in addition to the Company and the former executive
officers identified in the two prior complaints (collectively, the
"defendants").

The consolidated complaint alleged that between April 26, 2012 and
June 10, 2013, the Company and certain of its executive officers
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with
statements related to the Company's product, HEPLISAV-B, an
investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine. The consolidated
complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs. On January 10, 2014, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On March 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint. The opposition introduced a
new theory of the case, so defendants permitted plaintiffs to
amend their complaint. On April 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint ("ACC"). The ACC added a new
plaintiff and several new defendants, and alleged that, between
April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company, certain of its
executive officers and directors, and entities related to certain
of its directors, violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection
with statements related to our product candidate, HEPLISAV-B.
Specifically, the ACC alleged that the Company made fraudulent
misrepresentations or omissions regarding the manufacture of
HEPLISAV-B and that certain insiders unlawfully profited from such
misrepresentations or omissions. The ACC sought unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

On June 6, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the ACC. On
August 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Opposition to that motion.

On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed the second amended
complaint ("SAC") to remove or correct erroneous statements
attributed to confidential witnesses. The SAC retains all
allegations asserted in the ACC. On October 10, 2014, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On November 10, 2014,
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss
the SAC. The Company filed its reply in support of the motion on
December 1, 2014.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss the SAC occurred on February
20, 2015. The Court granted the motion with respect to some of the
alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by the Company or
certain named defendants as well as some of the insider trading
claims against certain insiders and denied the motion to dismiss
with respect to other alleged misrepresentations and omissions and
insider trading claims. The Company filed an answer to the SAC on
April 6, 2015. Dynavax and the lead plaintiff in the securities
class action have agreed to participate in mediation.


E.I. DU PONT: "Corker" Imprelis Sales Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gene E. K. Pratter of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Defendant's
motion to dismiss in the case captioned, IN RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS
DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: Richard and Donna Corker v. E.I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company, Case No. MDL No.2284 --MD-2284, No. 15-CV-
4003.

In the fall of 2010, DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide
designed to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-
target vegetation. After widespread reports of damage to non-
target vegetation, the EPA began investigating Imprelis, leading
to lawsuits, a suspension of Imprelis sales, and an EPA order
preventing DuPont from selling Imprelis. In September 2011, DuPont
started its own Claim Resolution Process to compensate victims of
Imprelis damage. Despite the voluntary process, Plaintiffs
continued to pursue their lawsuits, alleging consumer
fraud/protection act violations, breach of express and/or implied
warranty, negligence, strict products liability, nuisance, and
trespass claims based on the laws of numerous states.

DuPont then moved to dismiss, claiming that because the Corkers
did not opt out of the Settlement, their claims are barred by the
Settlement Agreement. The Corkers assert that (1) they did not
receive constitutionally adequate notice of the Settlement and (2)
DuPont should be estopped from using the Settlement to bar their
claims because DuPont misled them when it sent them a letter
attaching a warranty claim form.

In the Memorandum dated September 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/zTYWWzfrom Leagle.com, Judge Pratter held that even
a misleading response from DuPont could not have prejudiced the
Corkers, and the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Jordan S. Vahdat, Esq.
ELASSAL & ASSOCIATES
1000 N Telegraph Rd,
Dearborn, MI 48128
Tel: (313)529-4357

E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company is represented Kathryn S.
Wood, Esq. -- kwood@dickinsonwright.com -- DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC


ELEGANCE RESTAURANT: Faces "Liu" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Guohua Liu, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Elegance Restaurant Furniture Corp. d/b/a
Elegance Manufacturing, C.T.TSE a/k/a Zhilun Xie, John Doe and
Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-05787 (E.D.N.Y., October 7,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a furniture shop located at 70
Commerce Street, Brooklyn, NY 11231.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, New York 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


ENERGY TRANSFER: Regency Merger Litigation at Preliminary Stage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Partners, 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 following the
January 26, 2015 announcement of the definitive merger agreement
with Regency, purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in
state and federal courts in Dallas, Texas and Delaware state court
asserting claims relating to the proposed transaction.  Each of
these lawsuits is at a preliminary stage.

On February 3, 2015, William Engel and Enno Seago, purported
Regency unitholders, filed a class action petition on behalf of
Regency's common unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf of
Regency in the 162nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County,
Texas (the "Engel Lawsuit"). The lawsuit names as defendants the
Regency General Partner, the members of the Regency General
Partner's board of directors, ETP, ETP GP, ETE, and, as a nominal
party, Regency. The Engel Lawsuit alleges that (1) the Regency
General Partner's directors breached duties to Regency and the
Regency's unitholders by employing a conflicted and unfair process
and failing to maximize the merger consideration; (2) the Regency
General Partner's directors breached the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing by engaging in a flawed merger process; and
(3) the non-director defendants aided and abetted in these claimed
breaches. The plaintiffs seek an injunction preventing the
defendants from closing the proposed transaction or an order
rescinding the transaction if it has already been completed. The
plaintiffs also seek money damages and court costs, including
attorney's fees.

On February 9, 2015, Stuart Yeager, a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action petition on behalf of the
Regency's common unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf of
Regency in the 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas County,
Texas (the "Yeager Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and relief
sought in the Yeager Lawsuit are nearly identical to those in the
Engel Lawsuit.

On February 10, 2015, Lucien Coggia a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action petition on behalf of Regency's
common unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf of Regency in
the 192nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the
"Coggia Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and relief sought in
the Coggia Lawsuit are nearly identical to those in the Engel
Lawsuit.

On February 3, 2015, Linda Blankman, a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Regency's common unitholders in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas (the "Blankman Lawsuit"). The
allegations and claims in the Blankman Lawsuit are similar to
those in the Engel Lawsuit. However, the Blankman Lawsuit does not
allege any derivative claims and includes Regency as a defendant
rather than a nominal party. The lawsuit also omits one of the
Regency General Partner's directors, Richard Brannon, who was
named in the Engel Lawsuit. The Blankman Lawsuit alleges that the
Regency General Partner's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the unitholders by failing to maximize the value of
Regency, failing to properly value Regency, and ignoring conflicts
of interest. The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the non-
director defendants for aiding and abetting the directors' alleged
breach of fiduciary duty. The Blankman Lawsuit seeks the same
relief that the plaintiffs seek in the Engel Lawsuit.

On February 6, 2015, Edwin Bazini, a purported Regency unitholder,
filed a class action complaint on behalf of Regency's common
unitholders in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (the "Bazini Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims,
and relief sought in the Bazini Lawsuit are nearly identical to
those in the Blankman Lawsuit. On March 27, 2015, Plaintiff Bazini
filed an amended complaint asserting additional claims under
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 11, 2015, Mark Hinnau, a purported Regency unitholder,
filed a class action complaint on behalf of Regency's common
unitholders in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (the "Hinnau Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims,
and relief sought in the Hinnau Lawsuit are nearly identical to
those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On February 11, 2015, Stephen Weaver, a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of Regency's
common unitholders in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (the "Weaver Lawsuit"). The
allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Weaver Lawsuit are
nearly identical to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On February 11, 2015, Adrian Dieckman, a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of Regency's
common unitholders in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (the "Dieckman Lawsuit"). The
allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Dieckman Lawsuit are
similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit, except that the Dieckman
Lawsuit does not assert an aiding and abetting claim.

On February 13, 2015, Irwin Berlin, a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of Regency's
common unitholders in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (the "Berlin Lawsuit"). The
allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Berlin Lawsuit are
similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On March 13, 2015, the Court in the 95th Judicial District Court
of Dallas County, Texas transferred and consolidated the Yeager
and Coggia Lawsuits into the Engel Lawsuit and captioned the
consolidated lawsuit as Engel v. Regency GP, LP, et al. (the
"Consolidated State Lawsuit").

On March 30, 2015, Leonard Cooperman, a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of Regency's
common unitholders in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (the "Cooperman Lawsuit"). The
allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Cooperman Lawsuit
are similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On March 31, 2015, the Court in United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas consolidated the Blankman, Bazini,
Hinnau, Weaver, Dieckman, and Berlin Lawsuits into a consolidated
lawsuit captioned Bazini v. Bradley, et al. (the "Consolidated
Federal Lawsuit"). On April 1, 2015, plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Federal Lawsuit filed an Emergency Motion to Expedite
Discovery. On April 9, 2015, by order of the Court, the parties
submitted a joint submission wherein defendants opposed
plaintiffs' request to expedite discovery. On April 17, 2015, the
Court denied plaintiffs' motion to expedite discovery.

On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman, a purported Regency unitholder,
filed a class action complaint on behalf of Regency's common
unitholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the
"Dieckman DE Lawsuit"). The lawsuit alleges that the transaction
did not comply with the Regency partnership agreement because the
Conflicts Committee was not properly formed.

Each of these lawsuits is at a preliminary stage. ETP cannot
predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be
filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense that will
be required to resolve these lawsuits. ETP and the other
defendants named in the lawsuits intend to defend vigorously
against these and any other actions.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Ohring" Suit for Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall Ohring, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case
No. 8:15-cv-01612-JLS-JCG (C.D. Cal., October 7, 2015) arises out
of the massive hack on Experian's servers that compromised the
sensitive data of T-Mobile's customers and individuals who applied
for credit with T-Mobile.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an Ohio corporation which
provides, among other things, credit check services to
corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 400-3000
      Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
      E-mail: skaplan@ktmc.com

         - and -

      Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
      Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
      Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
      E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
              mtroutner@ktmc.com
              rdegnan@ktmc.com


FIRST NATIONAL: "Antonik" Class Action in Discovery Stage
---------------------------------------------------------
First National Community Bancorp, 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 action filed by Steven Antonik is in the discovery stage.

On August 13, 2013, Steven Antonik, individually, as Administrator
of the Estate of Linda Kluska, William R. Howells, and Louise A.
Howells, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
filed a consumer protection class action against the Company and
Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, seeking
equitable, injunction and monetary relief to address an alleged
pattern and practice of wrong doing by the Bank relating to the
repossession and sale of the Plaintiffs' and class members'
financed motor vehicles.  This matter is in the discovery stage.
At this time, the Company cannot reasonably determine the outcome
or potential range of loss.


FIRST NATIONAL: "Saxe" Class Action in Discovery Stage
------------------------------------------------------
First National Community Bancorp, 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
Charles Saxe, III individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated filed on September 17, 2013, a consumer class
action against the Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of Common
Pleas alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial
Code in connection with the repossession and resale of financed
vehicles.  This matter is in the discovery stage.  At this time
the Company cannot reasonably determine the outcome or potential
range of loss.


FOODSERVICE REFRIGERATION: "Carlton" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry W. Carlton, and all others similarly-situated v. Foodservice
Refrigeration, Inc. and Thomas A. Genesio, Case No. 0:15-cv-62013
(S.D. Fla., September 23, 2015), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonably
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a mid-sized plumbing, heating &
air-conditioning company in Pompano Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FPUSA LLC: Faces "Gunter" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Gunter, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. FPUSA, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00867 (W.D. Tex., October 7, 2015)
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

FPUSA, LLC is a full-service solids control company providing
solids control equipment and personnel to the oil and gas
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David I. Moulton, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


GENERAL DYNAMICS: Faces "Marte" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon J. Marte and Melissa R. Ward, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. General Dynamics Information
Technology, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01297-TSE-TCB (E.D. Va.,
October 7, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per
week.

General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. provides information
technology support to governments and corporations throughout the
United States, including federal government agencies in Virginia,
Maryland, Massachusetts, and the
District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Lowe, Esq.
      LOWE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      PO Box 21556
      Charleston, SC 29413-1556
      Telephone: (843) 725-4500
      Facsimile: (843) 725-4508
      E-mail: rlowe@lowefirm.com

         - and -

      Patrick J. Keman, Esq.
      KEMAN PROFESSIONAL GROUP
      111 D. Street, N.W.
      Washington, DC 20004
      Telephone: (202) 759-9911
      Facsimile: (202) 888-3493
      E-mail: pkeman@kemanprofessionalgroup.com

         - and -

      Edward J. Westbrook, Esq.
      James L. Ward Jr., Esq.
      Robert S. Wood, Esq.
      RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN
      P.O. Box 1007 (29465)
      1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A
      Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 727-6500
      Facsimile: (843) 216-6509
      E-mail: ewestbrook@rpwb.com
              iward@mwb.com
              bwood@mwb.com


GEO-LAB INC: "Street" Suit Seeks to Recover Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
Alvin Street, and all others similarly-situated v. Geo-Lab, Inc.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-02812 (S.D. Tex., September 25, 2015), seeks to
recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Geo-Lab was founded in 1983 and provides mud logging services to
the oil and gas industry throughout the Southwestern United
States, including Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, New
Mexico and Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      E-mail: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com


GOOGLE INC: 9th Cir. Revives Class Cert. Bid in Pulaski Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard A. Paez of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit, reversed the order of the district court denying class
certification and remanded the action for further proceedings in
the case captioned, PULASKI & MIDDLEMAN, LLC; JIT PACKAGING, INC.;
RK WEST, INC.; RICHARD OESTERLING, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
12-16752.

Between 2004 and 2008, many online internet advertisers used
Google, Inc.'s ("Google") AdWords program, an auction-based
program through which advertisers would bid for Google to place
their advertisements on websites. Pulaski & Middleman, LLC and
several other named plaintiffs ("Pulaski") brought this putative
class action under California's Unfair Competition and Fair
Advertising Laws, alleging that Google misled them as to the types
of websites on which their advertisements could appear. The
putative class initially sought injunctive and restitutionary
relief. After Google changed certain features of the AdWords
program, Pulaski, upon filing a Third Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint, abandoned the claim for injunctive relief. The
only relief the putative class seeks equitable remedy of
restitution.

Pulaski moved for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 23") for a Rule 23(b)(3)
class. The district court denied the motion finding that the
proposed class certification satisfied all of the criteria under
Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate
representation but did not predominate on the issues of
entitlement to restitution and amount of restitution due each
class member.

On appeal, Pulaski argues that the district court erred in failing
to follow the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Yokoyama v. Midland
National Life Insurance Co., 594 F.3d 1087, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010).

Google argues that Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, ___ U.S. ___, 133
S.Ct. 1426 (2013), called Yokoyama's holding into question.

In his Opinion dated September 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/aNtmbXfrom Leagle.com, Judge Paez found that the
district court erred by conflating restitution calculation with
the liability inquiry for UCL and FAL claims, and by failing to
follow the Circuit's rule in Yokoyama.  The proposed method for
calculating restitution was not "arbitrary" under Comcast, the
judge added.

Plaintiffs are represented by Miranda P. Kolbe Esq. --
mkolbe@schubertlawfirm.com -- Robert C. Schubert, Esq. --
rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com -- Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq. --
wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com -- SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP

Google, Inc. is represented by Michael G. Rhodes, Esq. --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Whitty Somvichian, Esq. --
wsomvichian@cooley.com -- Kyle C. Wong, Esq. -- kwong@cooley.com &
Heather Meservy, Esq. -- hmeservy@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP


GROWTH SPURT: "Frazer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Frazer, Theodor Rysz and Brandon Wilson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Growth Spurt
Productions LLC and Does 1 to 10 inclusive, Case No. BC597014
(Cal. Super. Ct., October 7, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid wages,
continuing wages, restitution, and damages, penalties, and
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Growth Spurt Productions LLC is the production company for the
Motion Picture Growth Spurt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan Harris, Esq.
      David Garrett, Esq.
      Christina Peacock, Esq.
      HARRIS & RUBLE
      655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (323) 962-3777
      Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
      E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
              cpeacock@harrisandruble.com
              dgarrett@harrisandruble.com


HAMPTON BAYS: "Murcia" Suit in N.Y. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Murcia, Cristian Alvarado, and Luis Emilio Jaya,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Hampton Bays Auto Wash, Ltd. d/b/a Hampton Auto Wash & Detail
Center, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-05794 (E.D.N.Y., October 7, 2015)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime premium pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Hampton Bays Auto Wash, Ltd. operates a car wash business located
in Hampton Bays, Long Island, New York.

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


HERE TO SERVE: "Flowers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Flowers and all similarly situated persons v. Here to
Serve Restaurants, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03563-SCJ (N.D.
Ga., October 7, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Here to Serve Restaurants, Inc. operates a restaurant business at
various locations in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary R. Kessler, Esq.
      GARY R. KESSLER, P.C.
      3379 Peachtree Road, NE
      Suite 400
      Atlanta, GA
      Telephone: (404) 237-1020
      E-mail: gkessler@isklaw.com


HESKA CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Fauley" Suit in N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heska 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 Company intends to
defend against the complaint filed by Shaun Fauley.

The Company said, "On March 12, 2015, a complaint was filed
against us by Shaun Fauley in the United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois alleging our transmittal of
unauthorized faxes in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005, as a class action seeking stated damages of the greater
of actual monetary loss or five hundred dollars per violation. We
intend to defend the Company vigorously in this matter."


HOME BOX: Faces "Fermin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Priamo Fermin and Christian Pellot, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Home Box Office, Inc., Apatow
Productions, Inc., and Jagged Films, Case No. 1:15-cv-07941-AT
(S.D.N.Y., October 8, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a media company with a premium cable and
satellite television network.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Vagnini, Esq.
      VALLI KANE & VAGNINI, LLP
      600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7180
      E-mail: jvagnini@vkvlawyers.com


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: No Recorded Reserve for Hamilton Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. has not recorded a reserve
for the Hamilton wage and hour 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.

The Company is a defendant in three wage-and-hour suits seeking
class action certification that were filed between August 29, 2012
and June 24, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas. Each of these cases is among several others
filed by Plaintiffs' attorney against contractors working in the
Port Arthur, Texas Motiva plant on various projects over the last
few years. The claims are based on alleged failure to compensate
for time spent bussing to and from a work site, donning safety
wear and other activities.

In a separate earlier case based on the same allegations, a
federal district court ruled that the time spent traveling on the
busses is not compensable. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit upheld the district court's ruling, and the U.S. Supreme
Court declined to review plaintiffs' appeal of the Fifth Circuit
dismissal.

To date, no other plaintiffs have joined the suit, and the statute
of limitations precludes any new claimants from seeking recovery
against the Company, as the Company's employees stopped working at
the project over two years ago. Due to the absence of any exposure
beyond the named plaintiffs, and the limited exposure for any time
spent bussing into the facility, the Company expects any payments
associated with the settlement of this matter would not result in
a material impact on the company's results of operations or
financial position.

"As such, we have not recorded a reserve for this matter as of
June 30, 2015," the Company said.


INTERMODAL BRIDGE: Illegally Terminates Employees, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacobo Humberto Benavides v. Intermodal Bridge Transport, Inc. and
Does 1 through 20, Case No. BC596959 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 6,
2015) arises out of the Defendants' wrongful termination of
employees in violation of the California Labor Code.

Intermodal Bridge Transport, Inc. operates a harbor and rail
drayage company in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvin M. Gomez, Esq.
      GOMEZ LAWGROUP
      853 Camino Del Mar, Suite 100
      Del Mar, CA 92014
      Telephone: (858) 552-0000
      Facsimile: (858) 755"3364
      E-mail: alvingomez@thegomezlawgroup.com


INTL FCSTONE: 2nd Amended Complaint Dismissed in Its Entirety
-------------------------------------------------------------
INTL FCStone Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the second amended
complaint in the securities litigation has been dismissed in its
entirety, with prejudice and without leave to replead.

In January 2014, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The
complaint alleged violations of federal securities laws, and
claimed that the Company issued false and misleading information
concerning the Company's business and prospects. The action sought
unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's shares between February 17, 2010 and December 16, 2013.

The lead plaintiff's amended complaint was filed in June 2014. The
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was filed in July 2014.

At the court hearing on February 4, 2015, the Company's motion was
granted and the amended complaint was dismissed, however the lead
plaintiff was given leave to amend its complaint.

The lead plaintiff's second amended complaint was filed on March
6, 2015, and it narrowed the purported class to persons who
purchased Company's shares between December 15, 2010 and December
16, 2013.

On March 27, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. The lead plaintiff's memorandum in
opposition was filed on April 13, 2015 and the Company's reply in
support of its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was
filed on April 27, 2015.

The matter was heard on July 9, 2015 and on July 13, 2015 the
second amended complaint was dismissed in its entirety, with
prejudice and without leave to replead.


INVENTURE FOODS: Has Complied with Jamba Juice Deal Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, Inc. has complied with the requirements of the
settlement in the case, Lilly v. Jamba Juice Company et al, and
the case has been dismissed, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2015.

On June 28, 2013, a class action complaint against Jamba Juice and
the Company, captioned Lilly v. Jamba Juice Company et al (the
"Lilly Matter"), was filed in the Federal Court for the Northern
District of California.  The plaintiff purports to represent a
class of individuals who purchased make-at-home smoothie kits from
Jamba Juice, and alleges that such smoothie kits contain
unnaturally processed, synthetic and/or non-natural ingredients
and that use of the words "all natural" on the labels of these
smoothie kits is unfair and fraudulent and violates various false
advertising and unfair competition laws.  The plaintiff also
alleges that the smoothie kits contain two additional allegedly
non-natural ingredients.  The Company asserted its belief that the
"all natural" statement on the smoothie kits was not misleading
and was in full compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration
guidelines.

The Company said, "On September 17, 2013, we filed a motion to
dismiss, seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' claims as to gelatin and
the Orange Dream Machine smoothie kit.  Our motion was denied in
November 2013.  On February 3, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion
to certify a class of all persons in California who bought certain
Jamba Juice smoothie kits.  On September 18, 2014, the court
issued an order granting class certification solely for purposes
of determining liability and denying certification for purposes of
damages.  The court requested further briefing on the question of
whether it has jurisdiction to certify a class for purposes of
granting injunctive relief."

"Following mediation, the basic terms of a proposed class
settlement were reached.  The parties signed a definitive
agreement that was filed with the court for approval on December
1, 2014.  Subsequently, the court approved the settlement, the
terms of which required the Company to (i) remove the "all
natural" designation on the labels of the challenged products and
(ii) pay $5,000 to each of the two individual plaintiffs and
$425,000 to plaintiffs' counsel for fees and costs.  The Company
would pay no damages to class members, although there is no
release by class members of any individual damage claims they
might have related to the Lilly Matter.  The Company has complied
with the requirements of the settlement and the case has been
dismissed."


INVENTURE FOODS: Resolved "Ghermezian" Demand Letter
----------------------------------------------------
Inventure Foods, 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 27, 2015, that the Company received on
February 26, 2015, a demand letter from counsel in California
purporting to represent plaintiff, Maria Ghermezian and other
California consumers.  The letter alleges that the Company's use
of the words "all natural" to describe certain kettle cooked
potato chips is misleading and deceptive to consumers and violates
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The demand letter
seeks changes to the Company's advertising of the products, a
recall of the products, and restitution.  Numerous "all natural"
lawsuits have been brought against various food manufacturers and
distributors in California over the past several years, including
the Company.  In July 2015, the matter was resolved to the
satisfaction of the parties.


JOHNNY'S PIZZA: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in "Hill" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Hayes of the United States District for
the Western District of Louisiana denied Defendant's motion to
strike class allegations in the case captioned, DONALD HILL,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v.
JOHNNY'S PIZZA HOUSE, INC, Case No. 15-1062.

On April 6, 2015, Donald Hill filed the instant collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against his former
employer, Johnny's Pizza House, Inc. (JPH). Hill contends that JPH
failed to reimburse delivery drivers for the reasonably
approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles which
caused the drivers' wages to fall below the FLSA minimum wage
during some or all workweeks. Hill seeks to bring this collective
action on behalf of himself and similarly situated JPH pizza
delivery drivers to recover the unpaid minimum wages owed by
defendant.

In the motion, JPH contends that the court should strike
plaintiff's class allegations because he failed to comply with
Local Rule 23.1's requirement that a class action plaintiff move
for certification of the class pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within 90 days after suit is
filed.

In her Memorandum Order dated September 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/v9kVj9from Leagle.com, Judge Hayes found that
defendant's motion is not well-taken and agreed with the Plaintiff
that Local Rule 23.1 is inapplicable because he is not seeking
class certification under Rule 23; rather, he is seeking to
prosecute a collective action under the FLSA.

The Court directed the Plaintiff to file a motion for conditional
certification of a collective action within the next 30 days from
the date of the order.

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

Johnny's Pizza House is represented by S. Price Barker, Esq. --
price.barker@keanmiller.com -- Brian Ross Carnie, Esq. --
brian.carnie@keanmiller.com -- Michael D. Lowe, Esq. --
michael.lowe@keanmiller.com -- KEAN MILLER


KILLION COMMUNICATIONS: "Kelly" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffry Kelly, and all others similarly-situated v. Killion
Communications Consultants, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03277 (C.D.
Ill., September 23, 2015), seeks damages and other relief pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Defendant is a staffing company that contracts with
telecommunications companies such as CenturyLink, AT&T, and
Windstream to provide various services within the
telecommunications industry. Its principal place of business is in
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Hungerford, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 256-3200
      E-mail: jhungerford@nka.com


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: 411 Suits Pending Following Decertification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, 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 as a result of the
decertification of a wage and hour class action lawsuit
(Rindfleisch v. Gentiva), single-plaintiff lawsuits with identical
claims have been filed against the Company. Including Rindfleisch,
which has four plaintiffs, there are 411 lawsuits pending in
federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia and
assigned to various judges. These lawsuits pertain to a
compensation plan that paid Gentiva's home health employees on
both a per visit and an hourly basis, thereby allegedly voiding
their FLSA exempt status and entitling them to overtime pay. The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits are seeking attorneys' fees and
costs, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years
from the filings of the complaints under the FLSA. No estimate of
the possible loss or range of loss resulting from these lawsuits
can be made at this time. The Company disputes the allegations
made in these lawsuits and will defend any related claims
vigorously.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Consolidated Shareholder Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, 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 a consolidated
shareholder class action lawsuit is currently pending against a
former officer and director of Gentiva in federal district court
for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), as well as Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"), and alleges, among other items, that Gentiva's public
disclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose that Gentiva
improperly increased the number of in-home therapy visits to
patients for the purposes of triggering higher reimbursement rates
under Medicare, which caused an artificial inflation in the price
of Gentiva Common Stock between July 31, 2008 and October 4, 2011.
The court dismissed Gentiva from the lawsuit in December 2013. On
December 10, 2014, the former officer and director of Gentiva
reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit for $6.5
million, to be funded in its entirety by insurance. The settlement
remains subject to the completion of definitive settlement
documentation, notice to the putative class and approval by the
court.


KWICK RENTALS: "Blankenship" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Blankenship, Marco Gonzalez, Armando Vega, and all others
similarly-situated v. Kwick Rentals, LLC and K&L Rentals, LLC,
Case No. 5:15-cv-01057 (N.D. Tex., July 10, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of supplying and delivering
rental equipment to oilfield production areas, including but not
limited to, portable toilets, portable lighting and utility
trailers. The Defendants primarily conduct business in Oklahoma,
Texas and Kansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Channy F. Wood, Esq.
      WOOD LAW FIRM, LLP
      1222 S. Fillmore St.
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Tel: (806) 372-9663
      Fax: (806) 372-9664
      E-mail: cwood@woodlandfirm-tx.com

          - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND
      BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet St.
      Houston, TX 77005
      Tel: (713) 751-0025
      Fax: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com

          - and -

      Richard J. Rex Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

          - and -

      Philip Bohrer, Esq.
      BOHRER LAW FIRM, LLC
      8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
      Baton Rouge, LA 70809
      Tel: (225) 925-5297
      Fax: (225) 231-7000
      E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com


LA PALA RESTAURANT: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ignacio Mendoza, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. LA PALA, LLC, doing business as LA PALA RESTAURANT,
EDENA BARRETO, and LUIGI PALAZZO, individually, Case 1:15-cv-07970
(S.D.N.Y., October 8, 2015), alleges that, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the
Defendants:

(1) unpaid wages and overtime compensation; (2) liquidated
damages; (3) prejudgment and postjudgment interest; and ( 4)
attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff, Ignacio Mendoza, further alleges that, pursuant to the
New York Labor Law, he is entitled to recover from the Defendants:

(1) unpaid wages and overtime compensation; (2) unpaid "spread
of hours" premium for each day he worked ten (10) or more hours;
(3) liquidated damages and statutory penalties pursuant to the
New York Wage Theft Prevention Act; (4) prejudgment and post-
judgment interest; and (5) attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin Cilenti, Esq.
     Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
     CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
     708 Third A venue - 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 209-3933
     Fax: (212) 209-7102
     E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


LADENBURG THALMANN: Motions to Dismiss Class Actions Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann 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 the
defendants' motions to dismiss two purported class action suits
are pending.

In December 2014 and January 2015, two purported class action
suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against American Realty Capital Partners,
Inc. ("ARCP"), certain affiliated entities and individuals, ARCP's
auditing firm, as well as the underwriters of ARCP's May 21, 2014
offering of $1,656,000 in common stock ("May 21, 2014 Offering")
and three prior notes offerings. The complaints have been
consolidated. Ladenburg was named as a defendant as one of 17
underwriters of the May 21, 2014 Offering and as one of eight
underwriters of ARCP's July 13, 2013 offering of $300,000 in
convertible notes. The complaints allege, among other things, that
the offering materials were misleading based on financial
reporting of expenses, improperly-calculated AFFO (adjusted funds
from operations), and false and misleading Sarbanes Oxley
certifications, including statements as to ARCP's internal
controls, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of
federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages, as well as other relief. The defendants'
motions to dismiss, which were filed in May 2015, are currently
pending. The Company believes the claims against Ladenburg are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.


LENNY & LARRY'S: Faces "Schott" Class Suit Over "Vegan" Cookies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Pais at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
claims baked snacks maker Lenny & Larry's misled consumers by
enticing them with an "all natural" and "vegan" come on when their
cookies are nothing of the kind.

Lenny & Larry's sells high protein baked goods across the United
States in hundreds of fitness, sports, nutrition and grocery
stores such as Kroger, Sports Authority and 7Eleven, among others.

In a lawsuit filed in Miami-Dade County, lead plaintiff John
Schott says that Lenny & Larry's misleadingly advertises its baked
products as "all natural" and healthier than other brands, in
order to induce consumers to purchase them.  Lenny & Larry's
products are known as "The Complete Cookie Family," and come in
different flavors such as chocolate and peanut butter, the
complaint says.  Schott claims that Lenny & Larry's markets and
advertises its products as a "healthy alternative;" however, they
are made with synthetic ingredients including thiamine,
mononitrate and riboflavin.

According to the complaint, Lenny & Larry's also promotes its
baked goods on its website as "all natural" stating that it "could
have easily taken shortcuts to produce our products like using
preservatives, hydrolyzed gelatin or collagen, sugar alcohols and
more but we made a conscious choice very early on to stay with all
natural ingredients."

"But the product actually contains various artificial ingredients
and defendant has not stated either on its packaging or its
website whether it is responsible for growing its own food or
obtaining its raw materials from certified organic producers,"
Schott says.

Schott alleges that "The Complete Cookie Family" cookies are
advertised as "vegan" and containing "no eggs, no dairy."
However, the rear side of the cookies' packaging states that they
are "manufactured in a facility that also processes . . . milk,
egg."

Lenny & Larry's mislead consumers by using a "flap" to cover up
the actual ingredients, Schott claims.  He says that he paid a
premium price for Lenny & Larry's products, and based on its
representations he believed that its products were "all natural
and vegan."

"Had plaintiff known that defendant's product was not all natural
he would have not purchased defendant's baked goods products," the
complaint says.

Schott seeks compensatory damages on claims of unjust enrichment.
He is represented by:

     Jared Beck, Esq.
     BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS
     Corporate Park at Kendall
     12485 SW 137th Avenue, Suite 205
     Miami, FL 33186
     Tel: (305) 234-2060
     Fax: (786) 664-3334
     E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com

Aaron Croutch, Lenny & Larry's VP of Business & Legal Affairs,
said that they can't comment on the lawsuit because the "complaint
has not been served on the company."


LIVE NATION: Judge Won't Revisit Ruling in Concert Tickets Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anne E. Thompson of the United States District
Court for District of New Jersey denied the motion of Plaintiffs
Marilyn Forst, Eli Beyda, Jodi Scrivanic and Marc Yenicag for
reconsideration, challenging the Court's July 27, 2015 Order
dismissing the Second Amended Complaint in the case captioned,
MARILYN FORST, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-2452.

Plaintiffs are four New Jersey concert ticket purchasers who
allege that Defendants, as concert promoters, unlawfully withheld
concert tickets in violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engage in a general practice of
withholding more than five percent of concert tickets from sale to
the general public by reserving blocks of tickets for brokers,
venues, artists, and ticketing companies who subsequently resell
those tickets at higher prices on the secondary market, thereby
causing consumers such as Plaintiffs to pay higher prices for
tickets. Plaintiffs bring a putative class action lawsuit on
behalf of themselves and all others who purchased tickets in the
last six years to concerts promoted by Defendants.

On February 27, 2015, the District Court granted Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint without
prejudice for failure to satisfy the pleading standards. On March
27, 2015 Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint asserting a
broad practice of unlawful ticket withholding, based on
information suggesting that Defendants withheld over:

     -- 15% of tickets to a July 2013 Beyonce concert at
        Boardwalk Hall,

     -- 84% of the tickets to a March 2013 Pink concert at
        the Izod Center, and

     -- 67% of the tickets to a July 2013 One Direction
        concert at the Izod Center.

In the motion, Plaintiffs argue that the Court applied an overly
stringent standard in evaluating Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
because the Court failed to draw all inferences in favor of
Plaintiffs as the non-moving party, failed to properly weigh the
fact that Defendants were in control of the relevant documents,
and erroneously required Plaintiffs to prove their claim in their
complaint rather than merely plead it. Plaintiffs challenge the
Court's findings that (1) the SAC failed to plead specific facts
relating to the four concerts to which the named Plaintiffs
purchased tickets and (2) it was unreasonable to infer or
generalize a broad practice of ticket withholding from three other
concerts not attended by Plaintiffs.

In her Opinion dated September 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/LR21Rkfrom Leagle.com, Judge Thompson found that
Plaintiffs have not satisfied the high standard for
reconsideration because (1) there is no assertion of any
intervening change in the law; (2) to the extent Plaintiffs' rely
on the Boardwalk Hall documents in the Kohn Certification to
demonstrate Defendants' general practice of unlawfully withholding
tickets to all concerts regardless of venue and artist, these
documents do not constitute new evidence within the meaning of
Local Civil Rule 7.1(i); (3) Plaintiffs' arguments relating to the
Court's application of the pleading standard fail to show a clear
error of law; and (4) to the extent Plaintiffs claim manifest
injustice based on the assertion that the Court's ruling
"penalizes plaintiffs for doing due diligence prior to filing the
complaint," the claim is mistaken.

Plaintiffs initially filed their Complaint on April 17, 2014, then
amended it on August 4, 2014.

Plaintiffs are represented by Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq. --
bnagel@nagelrice.com -- Greg Michael Kohn, Esq. --
gkohn@nagelrice.com -- NAGEL RICE, LLP

Defendants are represented by Philip R. Sellinger, Esq. --
sellingerp@gtlaw.com -- David E. Sellinger, Esq. --
sellingerd@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP


M&T BANK: Faces "Jaroslawicz" Suit in Delaware Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
David Jaroslawicz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. M&T Bank Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00897-UNA (D. Del., October 7, 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.

M&T Bank Corporation is a bank located in Buffalo, New York.

Sean Kelly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that M&T
Bank knew it was in violation of federal securities and consumer
disclosure laws, but covered up those transgressions to consummate
its merger with Hudson City Bancorp, an angry shareholder claims
in federal court.

Mr. Jaroslawicz claims that when Hudson City shareholders agreed
to merge with M&T Bank in April 2013, "M&T was grossly out of
compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the Anti-Money Laundering
regulations . . . in connection with millions of customer
accounts" and was also "out of compliance with consumer disclosure
laws."

He says these legal compliance issues were not fully and fairly
disclosed to shareholders prior to the merger note and only came
to light after regulators cited the violations as factors in their
delaying approval of the merger.

Jaroslawicz says M&T Bank ran afoul of regulators by failing to
validate and verify over three million customer accounts, and also
due to its practice of offering consumers free checking, only to
later switch them to accounts that carried fees.

When Hudson City agreed to merge with M&T on Aug. 27, 2012, the
banks opted to issue a joint proxy statement to shareholders to
consider when voting for the merger by April 18, 2013.

This joint proxy failed to mention M&T was out of compliance with
the BSA/AML and with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or
CFPB, Jaroslawicz says.

Just four days before the shareholder meeting was to be held, says
Jaroslawicz, "M&T and Hudson City announced that regulators had
expressed 'concerns' with M&T's procedures, systems and processes
related to BSA/AML."

In response, the banks issued an "inadequate Proxy Supplement"
that was "completely vague regarding these matters, omitted all
particulars, and in any event provided proxy voters with
insufficient time to evaluate the situation," the complaint says.

The defendants also held a public conference call three days prior
to the Hudson City shareholder vote on the merger, states the
complaint, which "was designed to ensure concerned shareholders
that M&T had violated no laws (an assertion that has turned out to
be incorrect) and that the matter was not a very serious one."

According to the complaint, M&T's Chief Financial Officer, Rene
Jones, related in the call that the merger would only be postponed
in the "near term" and said, "[w]e have no reason to believe that
the issues involve any wrong doing or illegal conduct by anyone at
M&T."

Those statements would prove to be untrue, and the information
about M&T's conduct would be trickled out through public
statements over the next three years when the merger date had to
be extended several times, the complaint says.

Defendant CFO Jones also allegedly downplayed the work entailed
for M&T to meet its regulatory requirements to effect the merger,
"by asserting that the regulatory issues could be addressed
'quickly', and might involve hiring 100 people.

This proved to be a grossly inaccurate representation of the
troubles M&T had with compliance, and the resources and time
needed to fix them," the complaint says.

Jaroslawicz claims, "M&T and its officers and directors failed to
detect that M&T failed to legally comply with BSA/AML
requirements, and in particular, the Know Your Customer rules as
to millions of its customer accounts."

The Know Your Customer rules, promulgated under the U.S. Patriot
Act in 2003, "have been in place for over a decade, [and] are the
cornerstone of a legally sufficient anti-money laundering
program," the complaint says.  It was only at the April 22, 2015,
annual M&T shareholder meeting that the company revealed that only
one million out of 3.5 million customers had been verified and
validated adequately under the 2003 Know your Customer
regulations, Jaroslawicz says.

"That millions of accounts were so deficient would have been
highly material to Hudson City shareholders who were entitled to
vote in the April 18, 2013, election," claims the plaintiff, and
that the "M&T warranty that all BSA/AML laws had been obeyed was
false."

Federal regulators finally approved the merger on Sept. 30, 2015;
it is set to close by Nov. 1, 2015.  Now that the merger has
finally been approved by federal regulators, Jaroslawicz says,
Hudson City shareholders are "stuck with acquiring shares in a
bank with a spotty regulatory record, and which is now barred by
regulators from any 'expansionary activities' until regulators are
satisfied that all the . . . legal issues are fixed." And this is
a "blow to M&T, and its value, as M&T has traditionally grown
through expansionary activities."

Jaroslawicz claims Hudson City shareholders have also suffered
diminished dividend payouts in the three years since the merger
was announced.  He seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the
proposed class of shareholders on multiple claims of negligent
violation of securities laws and breach of fiduciary duty.

Jaroslawicz is represented by:

      Francis J. Murphy, Esq.
      Jonathan L. Parshall, Esq.
      1011 Centre Road, Suite 210
      Wilmington, DL 19805
      Telephone: (302) 472-8103
      Facsimile: (302) 472-8135
      E-mail: fmurphy@msllaw.com
              jonp@msllaw.com

         - and -

      Deborah Gross, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS P.C.
      100 Penn Square East Suite 450
      Philadelphia PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 561-3600
      E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com

         - and -

      Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
      THE PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM P.C.
      208 East 51st St., Ste. 380
      New York, NY 10165
      Facsimile: 212-685-2306
      E-mail: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com

         - and -

      Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
      ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
      420 Lexington Avenue Suite 2440
      New York, NY 10170
      Telephone: (212) 867-1156
      Facsimile: (212) 504-8343
      E-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com


MARICOPA, AZ: Contempt Hearing in Suit v. Sheriff Arpaio Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Oct. 8 denied knowing that a private
investigator he'd hired tried to show that the federal judge
overseeing his civil contempt hearing was conspiring against the
sheriff with the Justice Department.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow questioned Arpaio about a flow
chart generated by Dennis Montgomery, a private investigator hired
by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. The chart appears to show
Snow directing an alleged wiretap on Arpaio's phone, and
connecting the judge with former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
and the Covington & Burling law firm, which represents the
plaintiffs in a 2007 racial profiling class action against Arpaio.

"It says I was the one that authorized the wiretap on your cell
phone," Snow pointed out.

Arpaio responded: "I could never believe it was there."

After seeing Snow on the chart, Arpaio said, he ordered his
subordinates not to look into the judge or investigate him at all.

"I said there would be no investigation of you," he told the
judge, adding that as "a federal guy all these years, I was
shocked, and didn't give much credibility to the source."

When pressed, Arpaio could not tell Snow whom he ordered not to
investigate the judge.

"I think I reconfirmed it," Arpaio told the half-full courtroom,
claiming Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan was the one who gave the
order.

The flow chart calls into question Arpaio's testimony in contempt
proceedings in April: that Montgomery investigated Judge Snow's
wife after she allegedly commented in a restaurant that her
husband was going to "do everything to make sure" Arpaio was not
re-elected, but that he did not investigate the judge.

"You were aware though, that Mr. Montgomery had investigated me,
weren't you?" Snow asked.

"I don't think there was any investigation; he just came up with a
flow chart," Arpaio said.

The self-described "America's Toughest Sheriff" and four of his
current and former aides are accused of civil contempt for failing
to deliver data to the court and failing to train deputies how to
make constitutional traffic stops.

Arpaio and Sheridan have admitted they are in contempt of court.

The 2007 Melendres class action accused Arpaio's deputies of
arresting Latinos during so-called "crime-suppression sweeps" and
traffic stops, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Snow agreed,
issuing a 2011 preliminary injunction to put a stop to Arpaio's
practice of having his officers arrest undocumented immigrants and
turn them over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Arpaio testified that his former attorney Tim Casey never told him
that transporting undocumented immigrants to the Border Patrol
would violate the federal court order.

Stanley Young, an attorney for plaintiffs with Covington &
Burling, asked Arpaio if any lawyer told him he could take
undocumented immigrants to the Border Patrol as part of a "backup
plan" the six-term lawman announced in a press release.

"I remember asking that question and I didn't get a negative or a
positive," Arpaio responded.

Young played the court a clip from one of Arpaio's depositions, in
which he claimed Casey never told him the Sheriff's Office could
not transport immigrants to the Border Patrol.

"Did Casey tell you, 'Yes, you can do that and it complies with
the injunction'"? Young asked in the clip.

"Either way, I recall him not having a problem with it," Arpaio
replied.

Casey testified that he learned in 2012 that deputies were still
violating the order, and that he was forced to withdraw as counsel
after a 2013 trial in the matter, when he received "resistance"
from Arpaio.  The 83-year-old sheriff said he could not remember
if he ever told Casey his deputies would release undocumented
immigrants if his office had no state charge to file against them.

"You deal with lawyers, you have conversations," Arpaio said.
"Sometimes I might have a recommendation, but I leave it up to the
legal people to do the legal work."

In another clip from Arpaio's deposition, Arpaio said he was "kind
of convinced that [Casey] knew we were doing it."

Arpaio also testified that Montgomery presented evidence that the
federal government illegally accessed the bank records of about
150,000 residents of Maricopa County, including Arpaio, his wife,
and Judge Snow.

"You know, after being a top federal law enforcement official for
many, many years, the possibility that a government agency is
tapping my line is a little concerning," Arpaio said. Arpaio
served in the Drug Enforcement Agency for 25 years.

He denied that information about the investigation came directly
to him from Montgomery. He said Det. Brian Mackiewicz and
investigator Mike Zullo acted as intermediaries between the two.

Montgomery conned the federal government into awarding him
millions of dollars for computer software that he claimed could
catch terrorists by decoding messages hidden in broadcasts on the
Al Jazeera network. The software was fake. The government was
reluctant to release details on the bogus software, claiming that
to do so could jeopardize national security.

"The best informers are the ones that are involved in the illicit
activities," Arpaio said in justification of using Montgomery.
"They have the information, they know who the bad guys are; you
have to give them some credibility . . . [and] sometimes you
invest in them, but they don't come through."

After the Montgomery investigation came to light in contempt
proceedings in April, Snow ordered Arpaio and his office to
deliver to the court any documentation related to it.

"Do you recall having any conversation with anyone about
responding to the order I gave you?" Snow asked.

"The only way I can answer that is I wanted that order to be
carried out," Arpaio responded. He said that other officials
present during the hearing "just knew" he would want the order
carried out.

"I don't want to sound pejorative, but you just assumed that they
knew you wanted it carried out?" Snow asked, testily.

"I did not write any memos," Arpaio said.

Snow later learned that the Sheriff's Office had 50 hard drives in
its possession from the Montgomery investigation that were never
turned over to the court. He ordered the sheriff in July to
deliver to the U.S. Marshals Service the hard drives and any other
documents that were not delivered after the April hearing.

                 Contempt hearing Continued Oct. 9

Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
lieutenant facing contempt of court charges along with Sheriff Joe
Arpaio on Friday Oct. 9 denied that Arpaio's attorney gave him
feedback on how to teach deputies to make constitutional traffic
stops -- though the attorney has testified that he did so.

Lt. Joe Sousa faces civil contempt charges along with Arpaio and
three other of his current and former aides for failing to deliver
data to the court or to train deputies how to make constitutional
traffic stops.  Sousa testified Oct. 9 that sheriff's Sgt. Brett
Palmer was to write a number of training scenarios to show
deputies what good and bad traffic stops look like. Palmer was to
send the scenarios to Sousa, who said he emailed them to Arpaio's
former attorney, Tim Casey.

"He's an attorney who can interpret what we write," Sousa said.

Despite sending repeated emails to Casey, Sousa said, he never
received a response.

"I'm pretty sure at the time I wanted to talk about it, I wanted
to get his opinion after his initial review," Sousa said.

Casey testified early in October, however, that he wanted the
training scenarios to send to members of Arpaio's now-defunct
Human Smuggling Unit as soon as U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow
issued a preliminary injunction in response to a 2007 racial
profiling class action challenging Arpaio's treatment of
undocumented immigrants.

Casey testified that it was clear to him when he saw the scenarios
that Palmer did not understand what Casey had told him about Judge
Snow's injunction.  He said he was sure he made corrections to the
scenarios, to explain them to Palmer and submit them to Arpaio's
former Executive Chief Brian Sands, who also faces civil contempt
charges.

Sands' attorney Greg Como, with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith,
asked Sousa on Friday: "There's been about 16,000 documents
produced by the county since you last testified in April of 2015.
Have you been shown any documents that indicated Tim Casey ever
reviewed the training scenarios and provided feedback?"

"I've not seen any, sir," Sousa responded.

Cecillia Wang, an attorney for plaintiffs with the ACLU Immigrant
Rights' Project, challenged Sousa's memory of the events,

Wang asked if it was true that he "suffered from memory lapses due
to the great workload . . . [and] relied on written notes and to-
do lists during that time."

Sousa confirmed that.

Wang quizzed Sousa about saying in a deposition that he did not
recall whether Casey had responded to the training scenarios.

Sousa said he has changed his mind.

"I came to the conclusion that there's no way that conversation
ever happened, based on his testimony," Sousa said.  He added that
Casey's explanation that deputies should "arrest or release"
undocumented immigrants was so "simple" he would have remembered
it.

Arpaio testified on Oct. 8, after failing in efforts to recuse
Judge Snow and to limit testimony in the contempt hearing, which
continued Tuesday Oct. 13.


MCCLATCHY COMPANY: 2nd and 3rd Phases of Trial Not Yet Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The McClatchy 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 28, 2015, that a court has not yet
established a date for the second and third phases of trial
concerning whether The Sacramento Bee is liable to the carriers in
the class for mileage reimbursement or owes any damages.

In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a purported
class action lawsuit against us and The Fresno Bee in the Superior
Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned
Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") alleging that the
carriers were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking
mileage reimbursement.  In February 2009, a substantially similar
lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company, involving similar
allegations was filed by carriers of The Sacramento Bee
("Sacramento case") in the Superior Court of the State of
California in Sacramento County. Both courts have certified the
class in these cases.  The class consists of roughly 5,000
carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500 carriers in the Fresno
case.  The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified
damages for mileage reimbursement.

With respect to the Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage
and hour claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an
equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California
Civil Code.  In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour
claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable
claim for mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code.

The court in the Sacramento case has trifurcated the trial into
three separate phases:  the first phase addressed independent
contractor status, the second phase will address liability, if
any, and the third phase will address damages, if any.  On
September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a
tentative decision following the first phase, finding that the
carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during
the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as
independent contractors.

"We objected to the tentative decision but the court ultimately
adopted it as final," the Company said.  The court has not yet
established a date for the second and third phases of trial
concerning whether The Sacramento Bee is liable to the carriers in
the class for mileage reimbursement or owes any damages.

The court in the Fresno case has bifurcated the trial into two
separate phases: the first phase will address independent
contractor status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the
second phase will address damages, if any.  The first phase of the
Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014 and
concluded in late March 2015. A decertification motion was filed
post-trial and the parties are awaiting a decision on that motion.
If that motion is denied, the court will move forward in issuing a
ruling on the first phase.

"We are defending these actions vigorously and expect that we will
ultimately prevail.  As a result, we have not established a
reserve in connection with the cases.  While we believe that a
material impact on our condensed consolidated financial position,
results of operations or cash flows from these claims is unlikely,
given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a possibility exists
that future adverse rulings or unfavorable developments could
result in future charges that could have a material impact.  We
have and will continue to periodically reexamine our estimates of
probable liabilities and any associated expenses and make
appropriate adjustments to such estimates based on experience and
developments in litigation."


MONSTER.COM: TalentBin Illegally Collects User Info, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a state court class action claims the tech recruiting start-
up TalentBin collects, packages and sells users' information
without their authorization.

The case against the company -- which was acquired by Monster.com
in February 2014 -- filed in San Francisco Superior Court is
similar to federal class action claims brought against
professional networking site LinkedIn earlier this year.  Lead
plaintiff Eric Halvorson claims that the TalentBin's website
"scours the Internet and aggregates personal information about
consumers from various sources."

TalentBin then assembles the information into "candidate profiles"
-- which include rankings of the users' skills based on the
gathered information -- and sells the profiles to their customers,
who use them to evaluate the candidates for employment, Halvorson
says.  He also claims that although some users are willing
participants, the company's regular practice is to create and sell
the profiles "without the consumer having done anything to invite
or initiate a relationship" with TalentBin.

In fact, since TalentBin gathers personal information without the
users' authorization, "many of the consumers on whom defendant has
compiled a candidate profile have no idea that such a profile
exists or that it is being communicated to potential employers,"
Halvorson says in the complaint.

Furthermore, TalentBin's own co-founder Peter Kazanjy has publicly
acknowledged that gathering and assembling personal information
without people's knowledge and consent is "creepy," according to
the complaint.

"Aside from being 'creepy,' when consumers are unaware of the
information being communicated about them, they are deprived of
the opportunity to ensure that the information is accurate, up-to-
date, and adequately reflects their actual qualifications," the
suit says.

Halvorson says he found just such issues with the profile
TalentBin created for him without his consent, which inaccurately
listed his current job and failed to reflect his college degree.

Another named plaintiff, Peter Dallman, says TalentBin refused to
provide his own candidate profile when he asked for it.

TalentBin qualifies as a "consumer reporting agency" under the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and California's Investigative
Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, the complaint says.  The company
"willfully and systematically" violated those laws by failing to
notify its employer-users of their obligation to comply with the
laws, by failing to obtain the legally necessary certifications
from those users, failing to provide a summary of the consumers'
Fair Credit Reporting Act rights along with the consumer reports
and failing to provide the consumers with a copy of their full
consumer files, the plaintiffs claim.  They seek class
certification, declaratory relief, statutory and punitive damages
and an injunction requiring TalentBin to cease its practices and
ensure that all users of TalentBin-furnished consumer reports
certify that they have a "permissible purpose" to use them.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew Helland, Esq.
     Nichols Kaster
     80 S 8th St #4600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: 612-256-3200
     E-mail: helland@nka.com


NATIONAL SERVICE: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Martinez and other similarly situated individuals v.
National Service Group & Associates, Inc. and Marilyn, Montiel,
Case No. 32911924 (11th Ct. Fla., October 6, 2015) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a janitorial services company in
Florida.

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


NII HOLDINGS: Dismissed from Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------
NII Holdings, Inc. has been dismissed from a securities class
action but the case is continuing as to the remaining individual
defendants, 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 March 4, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, as well as NII Capital Corp. and certain of
the Company's current and former directors and executive officers,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of the Company or NII Capital
Corp. between February 25, 2010 and February 27, 2014. The lawsuit
is captioned In re NII Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
Number 14-CV-227.

On July 18, 2014, the parties that have been designated as the
lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed a second amended complaint
against only the Company and three current and former officers,
which generally alleges that the defendants made false or
misleading statements or concealed material adverse information
about the Company's financial condition and operations in
violation of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks class
certification and unspecified damages, fees and injunctive relief.

On October 6, 2014, the Company and the individual defendants'
motion to dismiss was denied. Pursuant to the confirmed Plan of
Reorganization, the claims against the Company in the case were
extinguished and canceled, and on July 8, 2015, the Company was
dismissed from the case. The case is currently continuing as to
the remaining individual defendants, who will continue to
vigorously defend themselves in this matter.


NOVATION COMPANIES: NJ Carpenters Fund Action at Early Stage
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund
remains at the early stage of the litigation, Novation Companies,
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 May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC"), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, and its individual directors, several
securitization trusts sponsored by the Company ("affiliated
defendants") and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit
rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage
loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by the
plaintiff and the purported class members. On August 31, 2009, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which
the court granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend.

The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011,
and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29,
2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second amended complaint
with prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiff filed
an appeal.

On March 1, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the
lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the appellate
court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that
the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to
sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had
not invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to
the lower court for further proceedings.

On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum with the
lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not
invested, and on February 5, 2015 the lower court granted
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier
dismissal.

Given the early stage of the litigation, the Company cannot
provide an estimate of the range of any loss. The Company believes
that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses to the
case and expects them to defend the case vigorously.


NU SKIN: Class Action Over Marketing Activities in China Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. continues to defend a purported class
action lawsuit and derivative claim relating to negative media and
regulatory scrutiny regarding the Company's business in Mainland
China and the associated decline in the Company's stock price, 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.

Beginning in January 2014, six purported class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah. On May 1, 2014, the court consolidated the various purported
class actions, appointed State-Boston Retirement System as lead
plaintiff in the consolidated action and appointed the law firm
Labaton Sucharow as lead counsel for the purported class in the
consolidated action. On June 30, 2014, a consolidated class action
complaint was filed.

The Company sought to dismiss the case; that motion was denied by
an order issued on February 26, 2015. The consolidated class
action complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of certain of
the Company's stockholders under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against Nu Skin
Enterprises, Ritch N. Wood, and M. Truman Hunt and to assert
claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against Messrs. Wood and Hunt.

The consolidated class action complaint alleges that, inter alia,
the Company made materially false and misleading statements
regarding its sales operations in and financial results derived
from Mainland China, including purportedly operating a pyramid
scheme based on illegal multi-level marketing activities. The
Company believes that the claims asserted in the consolidated
class action complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself.


NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Violet Winter, Trustee of the Violet Winter Trust, and all others
similarly situated v. Nuance Communications, Inc., Paula A. Ricci,
William H. Janeway, Katharine a. Martin, Robert J. Frankenberg,
Mark B. Myers, Philip J. Quigley, Mark R. Laret, David S.
Schechter, Brett Icahn, Robert J. Finocchio, and Morgan Stanley
Senior Funding, Inc., Case No. 15-5788 (Mass. Cmmw., September 23,
2015), seeks to remedy the Defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties and other violations of law.

In breach of their fiduciary duties as directors of the Company,
the Individual Defendants wrongfully agreed to provisions in the
Company's amended and restated credit agreement, dated as of
August 7, 2013, among Nuance, the lenders party thereto, Morgan
Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. as administrative agent for the
Lenders, and certain other parties thereto, that trigger the
Lender's right to accelerate the debt if a majority of the seats
on the board of directors become occupied by persons who were
neither nominated nor appointed by the Board, directly or
indirectly (the "Dead Hand Proxy Put").

Defendant Nuance Communications, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business located in Burlington,
Massachusetts. Nuance is a provider of voice and language
solutions for businesses and consumers around the world.

Defendant Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Morgan Stanley with its principal executive offices
located at 1585 Broadway, New York, New York I 0036 and is the
administrative agent for the lenders in the Agreement.

The Individual Defendants are directors of Nuance and are members
of the Board.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
      HUTCHINGS, BARSAMIAN,
      MANDELCORN & ROBINSON, LLP
      110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
      Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
      Tel: (781) 431-2231
      E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

          - and -

      Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ
      MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor Pa, 19087
      Tel: (610) 667-7706
      Fax: (610) 667-7056

          - and -

      Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN OSTER PLLC
      240 E. 79th Street, Suite A
      New York, NY 10075
      Tel: (888) 529-1108


OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: "Meyer" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Meyer, and all others similarly situated v. Oliphant
Financial, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-01543 (C.D. Calif., September 24,
2015), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant, Oliphant Financial, LLC, is a debt-purchasing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


PARKSIDE CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Bravo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Bravo, et al. v. Parkside Construction Builders Corp., et
al., Case No. 160288 (N.Y. Sup., October 7, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Parkside Construction Builders Corp. owns and operates a
construction company with its principal place of business at 150-
18 14th Avenue, Whitestone, New York 11357.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
      Jonathan Roffe, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
              jmurphy@vandallp.com
              jroffe@vandallp.com


PEABODY ENERGY: "Lynn" Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy 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 plaintiff in the
Lori J. Lynn Class Action is expected to file an amended
complaint.

On June 11, 2015, a former Peabody Investments Corp. (PIC)
employee filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of
three of the Company's or its subsidiaries 401(k) retirement plans
and certain participants and beneficiaries of the plans. The
lawsuit, which was brought against the Company, Peabody Holding
Company, LLC (PHC), PIC and a number of the Company's and PIC's
current and former executives and employees, alleges breach of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA) relating to the offering of the Peabody Energy
Stock Fund as an investment option in the 401(k) retirement plans.
The defendants dispute the allegations of the lawsuit and plan to
vigorously defend their positions.

The parties filed a joint stipulation regarding the preliminary
schedule of proceedings.  Pursuant to that stipulation, the
plaintiff is expected to file an amended complaint. Following the
filing of an amended complaint, the Company will investigate any
new allegations. Based on the Company's evaluation of the issues
and their potential impact, the amount of future loss, if any,
cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.


PEOPLES BANCORP: Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------
The appeal in a class action lawsuit involving Peoples Bancorp Of
North Carolina, Inc. remains pending, 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 April 2, 2013, the Bank received notice that a lawsuit was
filed against it in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, Lincoln County, North Carolina. The complaint alleges
(i) breach of contract and the covenants of good faith and fair
dealing by the Bank, (ii) conversion, (iii) unjust enrichment and
(iv) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act in its assessment and collection of overdraft fees.
It seeks the refund of overdraft fees, treble damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff sought to have the
lawsuit certified as a class action.

On June 10, 2015, the North Carolina Business Court granted
summary judgment in favor of the Bank on all claims and ordered
the case dismissed with prejudice.  The Plaintiff has filed a
notice of appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.  The Bank
continues to believe that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit on
appeal.


SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: Deal Reached in "Lozano" Age Bias Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the Northern District
of California dismissed, with prejudice, the case, ANTHONY LOZANO,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS, LTD., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-00016-THE (N.D. Cal.), after the
parties, by their counsel, have advised the Court that they have
agreed to a settlement.

"This cause be dismissed with prejudice; provided, however, that
if any party hereto shall certify to this Court, with proof of
service of a copy to opposing counsel, within 120 days from the
date of this order, that the agreed consideration for said
settlement has not been delivered over, the foregoing Order shall
stand vacated and this cause shall forthwith be restored to the
calendar to be set for trial," the Court's Oct. 8 Order said.

Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that, the San Francisco 49ers settled an age discrimination
lawsuit brought by two former managers.  Former facilities manager
Anthony Lozano, 56, and former video operations director Keith
Yanagi, 59, sued the team and its CEO Jed York in January,
claiming the team fired them to make room for young Silicon Valley
tech workers. Both men had worked for the team for over 20 years.

The plaintiffs claimed York wanted to rebrand the 49ers as an NFL
"technology startup" so the team could move to a new stadium in
Silicon Valley. When asked why he wanted to hire young tech
workers, the CEO allegedly said, "Because they made a lot of
money, they did a lot of cool things before they turned 40 years
old, and they don't want to play golf six days a week," according
to the complaint.

The 49ers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in July, arguing
that Lozano signed a separation and release agreement which frees
the team from all liability. The team also said that both Lozano
and Yanagi accepted severance agreements when they left the
company, which "forever released" the 49ers from "all actions,
causes of action, debts, sums of money, damages, judgments, claims
and demands whatsoever."

Lozano received six months' salary and 12 months of health
insurance benefits as his severance package while Yanagi got six
months' salary and six months of health insurance premiums,
according to the July 15 motion to dismiss.

The 49ers also filed a motion to compel arbitration for claims
raised in the lawsuit in July, arguing that the severance and
release agreements signed by the plaintiffs required arbitration
to settle any disputes.

In their original complaint, the plaintiffs claimed the 49ers
violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Older Workers
Benefits Protection Act, and Fair Employment and Housing Act.  The
two formers managers also accused the team of wrongful
termination, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional
distress.

Attorneys for both parties did not return requests for comment on
the confidential settlement agreement.

A 49ers spokesman said, "The matter has been settled and the
parties have no further comment."


SCOTTRADE INC: Faces San Diego Class Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer at Courthouse News Service reported that a federal
class action in San Diego, Calif., seeks at least $5 million for
an estimated 4.6 million Scottrade account holders whose account
information hackers recently stole.

Scottrade client Stephen Hine says in a federal complaint filed
that thought Scottrade would protect brokerage account holders'
personal information. Instead, the company violated its privacy
policy and agreements with its clients, he says.

Scottrade was "negligent in failing to exercise reasonable
security precautions, [and] failing to comply with industry
standards for storing confidential and private personal
information," Hine says in the 38-page complaint.

"Despite prior warnings, including prior incursions of their
network by third parties who conducted fraudulent stock trades
using Scottrade's customers' accounts" and fines by federal
regulators over Scottrade's security procedures, the brokerage did
not take necessary precautions to protect clients' account
information, Hine says.

When Scottrade got around to sending email notifications to
affected clients, Hine says the "notification was woefully
inadequate and vague, given the threat that currently exists
concerning the potential use of their private information in stock
scams, other financial frauds, and its sale on the black market."

To open a Scottrade account, Hine says clients must provide
personal and confidential information including names, phone
numbers, Social Security and tax identification numbers, work
history, and other sensitive information.

But from late 2013 into early 2014, Hines says hackers targeted
Scottrade with a sustained hacker attack that compromised the
information of the brokerage's 4.6 million clients via a "massive
data breach" caused by a "criminal act."

The hackers accessed and stole clients' retirement, brokerage and
college savings, personal bank accounts, and other personal and
financial information, and Scottrade did not learn about it until
federal investigators investigating cybersecurity crimes informed
the company of the data breach, according to the complaint.

News media reported and Scottrade confirmed the data breach, and
Hine says Scottrade began notifying affected clients but admitted
it might never know the full extent of the data theft and exactly
who is affected.

Bryan Krebs of "Krebs On Security" published an article Friday
about an email Scottrade sent to its clients announcing the data
breach and saying a list of client names and their street
addresses were stolen by hackers who primarily were looking for
client contact information but also obtained Social Security
numbers, email addresses and other information, the complaint
says.

In the email notifying clients of the data breach, Hine says
Scottrade did not explain how it happened and placed the burden of
protecting private information on clients, while offering a year
of free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance for
affected clients.

The class seeks at least $5 million in restitution and damages,
including punitive damages for breach of fiduciary duty,
concealment, negligence, and violations of California's Customer
Records Act and unfair competition law.

Missouri-based Scottrade is a privately owned discount retail
brokerage firm that became popular during the 1990s with its flat
fee of $7 per online trade. The company provides brokerage and
financial services for its clients online and through 503 branch
offices located throughout the United States.

Neither class attorney Timothy D. Cohelan -- tcohelan@ckslaw.com
-- of Cohelan Khoury & Singer nor Scottrade officials were
immediately available for comment.


SCOTTRADE INC: Faces "Dugum" Suit in Mo. Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Duqum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Scottrade, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01537-SPM (E.D. Mo.,
October 7, 2015) arises out of the security breach of the
Defendant's data security system that compromised the sensitive
personal and financial information of millions of consumers.


The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      John S. Marrese, 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
              jmarrese@siprut.com

         - and -

      Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
      John G. Simon, Esq.
      THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
      800 Market Street, Suite 1700
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 241-2929
      Facsimile: (314) 241-2029
      E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com
              jsimon@simonlawpc.com


SECURE ENERGY: Faces "Ebertowski" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Ebertowski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Secure Energy Services USA, LLC and Secure
Drilling Services USA, LLC, d/b/a Marquis Alliance Energy Group
USA, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02225-REB (D. Colo., October 7, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for work in excess of 40 hours a week.

The Defendants are in the business of providing drilling fluid
services throughout the United States in the Niobrara, Bakken,
Permian, and Eagleford plays.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


SHARP ELECTRONICS: Court Dismisses "Popejoy" Suit over LED TVs
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William  J. Martini of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss and denied Defendant's motion to strike in the case
captioned, JASON POPEJOY, JOE SAWYER, and DANIEL SULLIVAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:14-06426(WJM).

Plaintiffs Jason Popejoy, Joe Sawyer, and Daniel Sullivan filed
this putative class action against Defendant Sharp Electronics
Corporation (Sharp). Plaintiffs contend that Sharp has engaged in
"a massive consumer fraud" by "deceptively labeling" certain of
its televisions as "LED TVs," "LED HDTVs," or "LED televisions."
Plaintiffs claim that Sharp's marketing of its LED TVs is false
and misleading because Sharp fails to disclose that its references
to LED refer to the light source that illuminates the LCD panel
rather than the display technology itself. Plaintiffs allege that
Sharp's marketing is "designed to falsely suggest that the
televisions at issue are not LCD TVs at all, but an entirely
different, improved, and technologically advanced class or species
of television.

Plaintiffs jointly seek to assert a nationwide class action
against Sharp.  Additionally, (1) Plaintiff Jason Popejoy brings
this action on behalf of himself and all other members of a
California class; (2) Plaintiff Joe Sawyer brings this action on
behalf of himself and all other members of a North Carolina class;
and (3) Plaintiff Daniel Sullivan brings this action on behalf of
himself and all other members of a Massachusetts class.

Sharp seeks case dismissal, saying the Plaintiffs failed to state
a claim.

In his Opinion dated September 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/iY2Qzqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Martini found that
Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that a reasonable consumer
could be deceived by Sharp's marketing. Although Plaintiffs argue
in their opposition brief that they were deceived by
misrepresentations made through multiple marketing channels, those
allegations are absent from the Complaint.

The Court gave Plaintiffs 30 days to file an Amended Complaint
consistent with the Opinion.

Plaintiffs are represented by Scott A. George, Esq. --
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS, LLP

Sharp Electronics Corporation is represented by Kevin Harry
Marino, Esq. -- kmarino@khmarino.com -- John D. Tortorella, Esq. -
jtortorella@khmarino.com -- MARINO, TORTORELLA & BOYLE, P.C.


SHOWCASE PROVISIONS: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Pedro R. De La Cruz, and all others similarly situated v. Showcase
Provisions, Inc., and Michael Flora, Case No. 1:15-cv-23590 (S.D.
Fla., September 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime and minimum wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Showcase Provisions, Inc. is a wholesaler and distributor of deli
meats, fresh pork, fresh chicken, fresh meat, poultry, frozen meat
and shelf stable.

Michael Flora is a corporate officer and owner and manager of the
Defendant Corporation who ran the day-to-day operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOCAL EDISON: Faces Shareholder Suit Over San Onofre Plant
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that board members jeopardized the
multibillion-dollar San Onofre nuclear plant settlement by hiding
secret communications with state officials, a derivative
shareholder class action alleges, echoing earlier claims.  The
suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court Central District.

The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) is operated by
Southern California Edison, according to NRC.gov.


SOLERA HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Merger With Vista Equity
---------------------------------------------------------
Edward A. Braunstein, and all others similarly-situated v. Tony
Aquila, Stuart J. Yarbrough, Thomas C. Wajnert, Thomas A. Dattilo,
Kurt J. Lauk, Arthur Kingsbury, Patrick D. Campbell, Michael E.
Lehman, Summertime Holding Corp., Summertime Acquisition Corp.,
Vista Equity Partners Fund V, L.P., SOLERA Holdings, Inc., Case
No. 11524 (Del. Ch., September 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class
action on behalf of the public shareholders of Solera in
connection with the purchase of Solera by Vista Equity Partners
Fund V, L.P., through its affiliates Summertime Holding Corp. and
Summertime Acquisition Corp.

The Plaintiff alleges that the sale of Solera to Vista as
contemplated by the Merger Agreement is unfair and inequitable to
the Solera public stockholders and constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duties of the directors in the sale of Solera.

Defendant Solera is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located at 7 Village Circle, Suite 350,
Westlake, Texas 76262. Solera provides risk and asset management
software and services to the automotive and property marketplace.

The Individual Defendants constitute the Board of Solera.

Defendant Summertime Holding Corp. ("Parent") is a Delaware
corporation. Defendant Summertime Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub")
is a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of Parent.

Defendant Vista Equity Partners Fund V, L.P. is a Delaware limited
partnership.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
      COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
      The Brandywine Building
      1000 West Street, 10th Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 984-3800
      Fax: (302) 984-3939

          - and -

      Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
      LIFSHITZ & MILLER
      821 Franklin Ave, Suite 209
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 493-9780
      Facsimile: (516) 280-7376


SPRINT CORP: Final Approval Hearing Held in Stockholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint 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 final approval
hearing was scheduled for August 5, 2015, in a class action
lawsuit brought by a stockholder.

In March 2009, a stockholder brought suit, Bennett v. Sprint
Nextel Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, alleging that Sprint Communications and three of its
former officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 by failing adequately to disclose certain alleged
operational difficulties subsequent to the Sprint-Nextel merger,
and by purportedly issuing false and misleading statements
regarding the write-down of goodwill. The plaintiff sought class
action status for purchasers of Sprint Communications common stock
from October 26, 2006 to February 27, 2008.

On January 6, 2011, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.
Subsequently, the Company's motion to certify the January 6, 2011
order for an interlocutory appeal was denied. On March 27, 2014,
the court certified a class including bondholders as well as
stockholders.

"On April 11, 2014, we filed a petition to appeal that
certification order to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals," the
Company said.  "The petition was denied on May 23, 2014. After
mediation, the parties have reached an agreement in principle to
settle the matter, and the settlement amount is expected to be
substantially paid by the Company's insurers. The district court
granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on April
10, 2015 and a final approval hearing has been scheduled for
August 5, 2015. We do not expect the resolution of this matter to
have a material adverse effect on our financial position or
results of operations."


STEINER LEISURE: Nesbitt v. FCNH Class Action Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc. et al., remains pending, Steiner
Leisure Limited 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.

The Company said, "On April 7, 2014, a former student at our
Schools Division's Denver School of Massage Therapy brought a
putative class action against our Schools Division, Nesbitt v.
FCNH, Inc. et al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and various state wage and hour laws. The plaintiff
alleges that, in performing certain therapies on individuals from
the public as part of the requirements that students perform
clinical services (required for a massage therapy license), she
was acting as an employee for purposes of the FLSA and applicable
state law and was entitled to wages for those services. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages. The plaintiff brought the
action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated at
the schools operated by our Schools Division. At this time, we are
unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome, or provide an estimate of the amount or range
of potential loss in this matter. Should we be found liable in
this matter, the amount that we may be required to pay in
connection with such liability could have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition and results of operations."


STEINER LEISURE: 20 Individuals Joined "Marlow" Action
------------------------------------------------------
Twenty individuals have joined the lawsuit, Marlow v. Ideal Image
Development Corp., to date, Steiner Leisure Limited 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.

The Company said, "On November 17, 2014, a former sales consultant
brought a putative collective action against Ideal Image
Development Corporation, Marlow v. Ideal Image Development Corp.,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee,
alleging violations of the FLSA. The plaintiff alleges that she
and others working as sales consultants were not paid the
applicable minimum wage for certain training and travel work and
were not paid overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages. The plaintiff brought the
action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated across
the country. Twenty individuals have joined the lawsuit to date.
At this time, we are unable to provide an evaluation of the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome, or provide an estimate of
the amount or range of potential loss in this matter. Should we be
found liable in this matter, the amount that we may be required to
pay in connection with such liability could have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition and results of
operations."


STERLING BANCORP: Accord Pending in Hudson Valley Merger Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement reached in a class action lawsuit related to the
merger with Hudson Valley Holding Corp., remains pending, Sterling
Bancorp disclosed 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, 2014, an action captioned Graner v. Hudson Valley
Holding Corp., et al., Index No. 70348/2014 (Sup. Ct., Westchester
Cnty.), was filed on behalf of a putative class of HVHC (as
defined below) shareholders against HVHC, its current directors,
and Sterling. On January 7, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. As amended, the complaint alleges that the HVHC board
of directors breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to the HVB
Merger and certain terms of the HVB Merger agreement and by
failing to disclose all material information concerning the HVB
Merger to the HVHC shareholders. The complaint further alleges
that Sterling aided and abetted those alleged fiduciary breaches.
The action sought, among other things, an order enjoining the
operation of certain provisions of the HVB Merger agreement,
enjoining any shareholder vote on the HVB Merger, as well as other
equitable relief and/or monetary damages in the event that the HVB
Merger is consummated.

On April 9, 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of the putative
class action. Under the terms of the MOU, the Company, HVHC, the
other named defendants and the plaintiff reached an agreement in
principle to settle the action. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU,
the plaintiff agreed to release the defendants from all claims
relating to the HVB Merger in exchange for certain additional
disclosure to the HVHC shareholders, which disclosure was made on
April 13, 2015 by HVHC via filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Form 8-K. Under the terms of the MOU, plaintiff's
counsel also has reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses. The settlement is subject to approval by the
Court, and, if the Court approves the settlement contemplated by
the MOU, the action will be dismissed with prejudice. The
settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid to
HVHC's shareholders pursuant to, and subject to the conditions set
forth in, the HVB Merger agreement.

The HVB Merger agreement and the HVB Merger were approved by the
Company's stockholders at a special meeting held on April 28, 2015
and by HVHC's shareholders at a special meeting held on April 30,
2015, The Company, HVHC and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations made by the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the Company, HVHC
and the other defendants have agreed to settle the action in order
to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction of further
litigation.


SUNEDISON INC: "Jones" Class Action Remains Pending in E.D. Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunEdison, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit filed
by Jerry Jones, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

On December 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
plaintiff, Jerry Jones, purportedly on behalf of all participants
in and beneficiaries of SunEdison's 401(k) Savings Plan (the
"Plan") between September 4, 2007 and December 26, 2008,
inclusive. The complaint asserted claims against SunEdison and
certain of its directors, employees and/or other unnamed
fiduciaries of the Plan. The complaint alleges that the defendants
breached certain fiduciary duties owed under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, generally asserting that the
defendants failed to make full disclosure to the Plan's
participants of the risks of investing in SunEdison's stock and
that the company's stock should not have been made available as an
investment alternative in the Plan. The complaint also alleges
that SunEdison failed to disclose certain material facts regarding
SunEdison's operations and performance, which had the effect of
artificially inflating SunEdison's stock price.

On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel
Acosta, which raises substantially the same claims and is based on
substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.
However, the amended complaint changes the period of time covered
by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiaries
of and/or participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008 through the
present, inclusive. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, including losses the participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to their
investment through the Plan in SunEdison's stock, equitable relief
and an award of attorney's fees. No class has been certified and
discovery has not begun. The company and the named directors and
employees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was fully
briefed by the parties as of October 9, 2009. The parties each
subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and
corresponding responses.

On March 17, 2010, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The
SunEdison defendants filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the
alternative, certification for interlocutory appeal, which was
fully briefed by the parties as of June 16, 2010. The parties each
subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and
corresponding responses.

On October 18, 2010, the court granted the SunEdison defendants'
motion for reconsideration, vacated its order denying the
SunEdison defendants' motion to dismiss, and stated that it will
revisit the issues raised in the motion to dismiss after the
parties supplement their arguments relating thereto. Both parties
filed briefs supplementing their arguments on November 1, 2010.

On June 28, 2011, plaintiff Jerry Jones filed a notice of
voluntary withdrawal from the action. On June 29, 2011, the court
entered an order withdrawing Jones as one of the plaintiffs in
this action. The parties each have continued to file additional
notices of supplemental authority and responses thereto.

On September 27, 2012, the SunEdison defendants moved for oral
argument on their pending motion to dismiss; plaintiff Manuel
Acosta joined in the SunEdison defendants' motion for oral
argument on October 9, 2012.

On March 24, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss but the plaintiffs filed, and the court in April 2014
granted, a motion to stay entry of final judgment pending a
Supreme Court decision in a case that could have implications in
this matter. That Supreme Court case was decided in June 2014, and
the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the
district court, based on that Supreme Court decision.

"We believe that we continue to have good reason for a dismissal
and intend to vigorously defend this motion," the Company said.

The Company said, "SunEdison believes the class action is without
merit, and we will assert a vigorous defense. Due to the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate
outcome or resolution of the foregoing class action proceedings or
estimate the amounts of, or potential range of, loss with respect
to these proceedings. An unfavorable outcome is not expected to
have a material adverse impact on our business, results of
operations and financial condition. We have indemnification
agreements with each of our present and former directors and
officers, under which we are generally required to indemnify each
such director or officer against expenses, including attorney's
fees, judgments, fines and settlements, arising from actions such
as the lawsuits described above (subject to certain exceptions, as
described in the indemnification agreements)."


SUNRISE BLVD: "Jerez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Jerez and Jacqueline McCray, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Sunrise Blvd Donuts, LLC and
Cafua Management Company, LLC, Case No. 0:15-cv-62114-WJZ (S.D.
Fla., October 7, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees, as well as for declaratory and injunctive relief, under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate over 300 Dunkin' Donuts retail store
franchises in at least 9 states throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
      BENNARDO LEVINE LLP
      1860 NW Boca Raton Blvd.
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 392-8074
      Facsimile: (561) 368-6478
      E-mail: drlevine@bennardolevine.com


TATA CONSULTANCY: "Heldt" Bias Suit Survives Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California denied
Defendant's motions to dismiss a first amended complaint, in part,
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1)
and to strike allegations in the FAC pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(f) in the case captioned, STEVEN HELDT, BRIAN
BUCHANAN, and CHRISTOPHER SLAIGHT, Plaintiffs, v. TATA CONSULTANCY
SERVICES, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-1696-YGR.

Plaintiffs Steven Heldt, Brian Buchanan, and Christopher Slaight
bring a putative class action against defendant Tata Consultancy
Services, Ltd. for discrimination in employment practices.
Plaintiffs bring causes of action in the first amended complaint
for disparate treatment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e, et seq., and the Civil Rights Act
of 1866, 42 U.S.C. section 1981. Plaintiffs allege that TCS
achieves its discriminatory goal of maintaining a workforce of
primarily persons of South Asian descent, race, and/or national
origin by employing at least three methods of discrimination: (a)
using the visa process to sponsor a high number of South Asian
workers with H-1B, L-1, and B-1 visas; (b) hiring a
disproportionate number of South Asian workers who reside in the
United States with a discriminatory preference; and (c)
discriminating against its non-South Asian employees in employment
decisions, including in placement, promotion, demotion, and
termination decisions.

In the motion, TCS moves to dismiss the FAC under Rule 12(b)(6) on
the ground that its use of the visa programs authorized by the
laws of the United States cannot be a basis for relief under Title
VII or Section 1981 because the lawful issuance of visas
establishes as a matter of law that TCS recruits foreign workers
in a non-discriminatory manner. TCS also moves to strike two
categories of allegations in the FAC as impertinent and
immaterial: (i) statistical data comparing the demographics of TCS
workers to the demographics of the entire United States; and (ii)
the class period for plaintiff Heldt's Title VII claim.

In her Order Order dated September 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/2aTWyDfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rogers found that
plaintiffs need not allege that comparators exist to state claims
under Title VII or Section 1981 and that TCS does not assert
anywhere in their papers that the class period allegations are
"redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous" as required by
Rule 12(f).

The Court directed Defendant to file a responsive pleading no more
than 14 days after plaintiffs file their amended complaint.

Plaintiffs are represented by Daniel A. Kotchen, Esq. --
dkotchen@kotchen.com -- Daniel Lee Low, Esq. -- dlow@kotchen.com &
Michael J. von Klemperer, Esq. -- mvonklemperer@kotchen.com --
KOTCHEN AND LOW LLP

Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd. is represented by Michelle M.
LaMar, Esq. -- mlamar@loeb.com -- Erin Michelle Smith, Esq. --
esmith@loeb.com -- Patrick Norton Downes, Esq. -- pdownes@loeb.com
-- LOEB AND LOEB LLP


THOMSON REUTERS: Misclassifies Staff as Contractors, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
reporters, editors and photographers claim in a federal class
action in San Francisco, Calif., that Thomson Reuters
misclassifies them as independent contractors to stiff them for
overtime and deny them basic benefits.

Lead plaintiff Phillip Furey, a reporter, claims the news service
denied him overtime wages, vacation time, health insurance and
meal and rest breaks for 10 years.  He claims Thomson Reuters and
Reuters America "willfully misclassified plaintiff and other
journalists as independent contractors, in order to maximize
profits at the expense of its journalists. Through the
misclassification scheme, defendants avoid the costs of providing
workers compensation protection to their own journalists, further
denying them of much needed compensation in the event of work-
related sickness or injury."

Lead attorney C. Joe Sayas, of Glendale, could not be reached for
comment.

Reuters classifies its reporters, editors, photographers,
producers, videographers and other journalists as contractors,
Furey says, but treats its news gatherers as employees by
providing them with press credentials, Reuters email addresses and
name tags, and obligatory daily conference calls to ensure they
comply with Reuters policies. Reuters also requires them to adhere
to specific reporting guidelines, such as standardized language
and formatting for stories.

The proposed class, consisting of all journalists who worked for
Thomson Reuters in the past four years, seeks restitution, unpaid
wages with interest, civil penalties for minimum wage and waiting
time violations, attorneys' fees, and an injunction against
misclassification policies.

Reuters did not respond to a request for comment.

Thomson Reuters has 60,000 employees in 100 nations and reported
$12.6 billion in revenue in 2014, according to publicly available
information. It is the corporate parent of several publishing
groups, including Reuters, Westlaw and West publishing.  Sayas is
assisted by Alvin Gomez in Del Mar.


TOYOTA MOTOR: "Strama" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria S. Strama, Jan Strama, and all others similarly-situated v.
Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,
Case No. 2015CH14070 (Ill. Cir., September 24, 2015), seeks
damages for Defendants' alleged Unfair Practice in violations of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

The action arises from Defendants' failure, despite their
longstanding knowledge of a material design defect, to timely
disclose to Plaintiffs that the Vehicle is predisposed to an
excessively high rate of engine oil consumption.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and/or service corporations doing business within the United
States. Furthermore, Defendants design, develop, manufacture,
distribute, market, sell, lease, warrant, service, and repair
passenger vehicles, including the Class Vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth M. DucDuong, Esq.
      KMD Law Office
      4001 W. Devon Ave., Suite 332
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Tel: (312) 997-5959
      Fax: (312) 219-8404


UBER TECH: Prioritizes Profits Over Safety, 2 Women Claim in Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that two women who say they were sexually assaulted by Uber
drivers claim in court in San Francisco, Calif., that the ride-
hailing company prioritizes profits over passenger safety.

Two Jane Does claim they were sexually assaulted by drivers in
Boston and South Carolina, despite a corporate marketing campaign
that promotes Uber as one of the safest options for getting home
after a night of drinking.  They sued Uber in federal court in the
Northern District of California on Oct. 8 over claims of negligent
hiring and supervision, fraud, battery, infliction of emotional
distress and false imprisonment for their confinement in vehicles.

The lawsuit points to corporate marketing slogans, such as "Drink
Up & Uber On," and says the company falsely promotes safety as its
primary concern.

"By marketing heavily toward young women who have been drinking
while claiming that rider safety is its number one priority, Uber
is instead putting these women at risk," the 52-page complaint
states.

Uber's "reckless expansion" requires the company to recruit and
employ thousands of non-professional drivers, the lawsuit alleges.

As of June 2015, the company employed more than one-million
drivers, and it claims to be adding hundreds of thousands of new
drivers each month, according to the complaint.

The two women say opening the Uber app and ordering a ride has
become the modern equivalent of "electronic hitchhiking."  The
complaint also gives blame to Uber's deficient background checks,
which have allowed people convicted of murder, kidnapping,
assault, robbery, identity theft and sexually exploiting children
to pass through Uber's screening process, according to another
lawsuit filed by district attorneys in San Francisco and Los
Angeles.

"Rather than notify riders of these failures, Uber fills its
website with pictures of smiling young women entering and exiting
vehicles, who are meant to appear 'safe,'" Does' complaint states.

One of the female plaintiffs says she was sexually assaulted by an
Uber driver in Boston in February of this year. After dropping off
her friends, the 38-year-old, 200-lb. driver told the woman he
"really liked her" and then forcibly kissed and groped the 20-
year-old passenger after driving her 15 minutes off route from her
destination.

"She was unable to push him off," the complaint states, but she
eventually managed to unlock the door and flee the vehicle. She
ran to a friend's house, whose door was locked, but a passerby
noticed her and together they called 911, according to the
lawsuit.  The driver was arrested and Uber refunded the woman $27
for her ride, she claims.

The other woman says she was "viciously raped" by an Uber driver
in Charleston, S.C., in August. The driver took her in the wrong
direction away from her home and suggested that she perform oral
sex as payment for the ride, she claims. The driver then proceeded
to "viciously rape her and threaten her with harm multiple times,"
according to the complaint.

It is unclear whether the Charleston driver was also arrested but
the lawsuit says a police officer noted that the alleged victim
had "bruising throughout her body."

"Sadly, Uber has proven time and time again that it is willing to
sacrifice the safety and well-being of its customers --
particularly its female customers -- for the sake of padding its
corporate bottom-line," the complaint states.

The lawsuit also cites reports of women that were allegedly
sexually assaulted by Uber drivers in New York City, New Jersey,
San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Chicago, Atlanta,
Philadelphia, Dallas, Houston, Orlando, Wisconsin, Paris, India
and China.

The two women seek immediate injunctive relief ordering Uber to
overhaul its "woefully inadequate safety measures so that no woman
has to ever endure what they have had to unfortunately
experience."

The lawsuit asks the court to order Uber to enact a series of
safety reforms, including 24-hour customer support, GPS tracking
for all drivers, disabled child locks for all vehicles, in-person
interviews for drivers, tramper-proof video cameras in cars, the
option to request a female driver, periodic background checks on
drivers, in-app panic buttons, and employing experts to
investigate complaints, among other requests.

The women seek a declaratory judgment, permanent injunction,
punitive damages, and damages for physical, mental and
reputational harm.

Uber, which was launched in San Francisco in June 2010, made $2.8
billion by 2015, and the company is expected to bring in $10
billion in revenue by the end of this year, according to the
complaint.

The two women are represented by lead attorneys Douglas Widgor in
New York City and Jamie Couche of Anderson & Poole in San
Francisco.

Uber Technologies did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.


UBER TECH: Cal. Judge Dismisses Suit Over Drivers' Private Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class action claiming Uber failed to safeguard its drivers'
private data will not survive the ride-hail's motion to dismiss, a
federal magistrate judge said in San Francisco, Calif.

Former Uber driver Sasha Antman sued Uber in January, claiming a
data breach compromised his personal information and led to an
attempted identity theft.

The May 2014 breach gave an unknown entity access to the personal
data of about 50,000 drivers, according to a February 2015
statement by Uber.

During a hearing Oct. 8, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler said
she was leaning toward granting Uber's motion to dismiss due to
lack of standing, but that she would also give the plaintiff leave
to amend his complaint.

"I think you have to plausibly plead a harm," Judge Beeler said.
"The concern is you haven't. You can try again."

Uber attorney Michael Wong argued Antman failed to show a causal
relationship between the data breach that leaked driver names and
driver's license numbers and an act of credit card fraud.

An unknown person used the plaintiff's personal information to
apply for a Capital One credit card in June 2014, according to the
complaint.

But Uber claims the plaintiff failed to show a "plausible link"
between the data breach and the attempted identity theft, since no
evidence exists that hackers obtained more than driver names and
license numbers.

"Driver's license numbers may be valuable," said Wong. "There may
be a black market for it, but if they're alleging their driver's
licenses ended up on a black market that would be a different
issue."

Antman's attorney Theodore Maya countered the full scope of the
breach remains unknown and that hackers could have hijacked his
client's Social Security number and used it to apply for an
unauthorized credit card.

"It seems like we're making a lot of assumptions as to what the
facts are," said Maya. "There are no facts showing the data breach
was as limited as Uber says it was."

Maya added that counterfeit driver's licenses tend to sell for
more money on the black market than do credit card numbers and
that a driver's license is an important part of a person's
identity.

"The idea that no cognizable injury exists under Article III --
the court would have to submit that driver's license information
is worthless, and that's not the case," said Maya.

Although more details may still come out about the data breach,
Wong argued the plaintiff bears the burden of proving he has
standing to bring the case.

"They're relying on a tentative chain of speculative arguments,"
said Wong.

Judge Beeler also questioned Maya on why his client was seeking
nationwide class certification, since both claims against Uber are
based on violations of California law.

"We would make the argument that the defendant can be submitted
for national liability and California-only is our fallback
position," said Maya.

Judge Beeler said she would grant Uber's motion to dismiss but
would also give Antman a second chance to submit a new complaint
that includes plausible claims of injury.

"Plaintiffs need to plausibly plead their claim and if they don't,
they don't get to stick around," said Judge Beeler.

The judge said she would likely issue a written ruling on the
motion to dismiss.


UNITED PARCEL: November 2015 Trial Set in "Morgate" Action
----------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, 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 a court has
scheduled a trial for November 2015 in the case, Morgate v. The
UPS Store, Inc.

The Company said, "UPS and our subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc., are
defendants in Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al. an action in
the Los Angeles Superior Court brought on behalf of a certified
class of all franchisees who chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes
Etc. franchises to The UPS Store in March 2003. Plaintiff alleges
that UPS and The UPS Store, Inc. misrepresented and omitted facts
to the class about the market tests that were conducted before
offering the class the choice of whether to rebrand to The UPS
Store. The court has scheduled a trial for November 2015, limited
to the claim of the class representative. After that trial is
complete, the court will consider how to proceed with respect to
the claims of the other class members."


UNITED PARCEL: Appeal Pending in AFMS LLC v. UPS and FedEx Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, 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 an appeal is
pending in the case, AFMS LLC v. UPS and FedEx Corporation.

In AFMS LLC v. UPS and FedEx Corporation, a lawsuit filed in
federal court in the Central District of California in August
2010, the plaintiff asserts that UPS and FedEx violated U.S.
antitrust law by conspiring to refuse to negotiate with third-
party negotiators retained by shippers and by individually
imposing policies that prevent shippers from using such
negotiators. UPS and FedEx have moved for summary judgment.

The Court granted these motions on April 30, 2015, entered
judgment in favor of UPS and FedEx, and dismissed the case. On May
21, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ")
has an open civil investigation of our policies and practices for
dealing with third-party negotiators," the Company said. "We have
cooperated with this investigation. We deny any liability with
respect to these matters and intend to vigorously defend
ourselves."


UNITED PARCEL: One Case in Ontario Remains Outstanding
------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc continues to defend one outstanding
case in Ontario, UPS 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.

The Company said, "In Canada, four purported class-action cases
were filed against us in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007)
and Quebec (2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate
disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services
provided by us under applicable provincial consumer protection
legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions
under the Criminal Code of Canada."

"The British Columbia class action was declared inappropriate for
certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was
upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010,
which ended the case in our favor. The Ontario class action was
certified in September 2011. Partial summary judgment was granted
to us and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The
complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is
being taken from that decision. The allegations of inadequate
disclosure were granted and we are appealing that decision.

"The motion to authorize the 2006 Quebec litigation as a class
action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012; there
was no appeal, which ended that case in our favor. The 2013 Quebec
litigation also has been dismissed. We deny all liability and are
vigorously defending the one outstanding case in Ontario.

"There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to
estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from this
matter, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and
believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and
(2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be
important to the ultimate resolution of this matter. Accordingly,
at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range
of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether
such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity."


UNITED PARCEL: Nov. 2 Hearing on Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, 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 settlement in a
class action lawsuit is subject to final court approval, which is
currently scheduled to be considered by the Court on November 2,
2015.

In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. In
July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint naming
numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS
Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in the
amended complaint. After two rounds of motions to dismiss, in
October 2014, UPS entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs to settle the remaining claims asserted against UPS for
an immaterial amount. The court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement on December 16, 2014. The settlement is subject to
final court approval, which is currently scheduled to be
considered by the Court on November 2, 2015.


UNITED STATES: Faces "Waid" Lawsuit Over OPM's Cyber-Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Waid, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. United States of America, Office of Personnel
Management, and Keypoint Government Solutions, Case 1:15-cv-01653-
ABJ (D.Col., October 8, 2015), arises out of alleged multiple
cyber-breaches of OPM's systems that compromised the security of
more than 20 million individuals.

Plaintiff and the Proposed Class members include current, former,
and prospective employees and contractors of the U.S, government
("federal applicants"), as well as family members or other
contacts of federal applicants, including spouses and co-
habitants, who never applied for a position with the U.S.
government, but that nonetheless had their personally identifying
information and records compromised ("related non-applicants")
because their information was provided to the U,S. government by
the federal applicants as part of the application process.

OPM is a U.S. agency that handles many aspects of the federal
employee recruitment process, including managing federal job
announcements, conducting background investigations and security
clearances, overseeing federal merit systems, managing personal
retirement and health benefits, providing training and development
programs, and developing government personnel policies.

Defendant KeyPoint describes itself as a "leading provider of
investigative and risk mitigation services to government
organizations, including the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management, Customs and Border Protection and Department of
Homeland Security'."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Jonathan Schraub, Esq.
     Paige Levy Smith, Esq.
     SANDS ANDERSON PC
     1497 Chain Bridge Road
     Suite 202
     Mclean, VA 22101
     Phone: (703) 893-3600
     Fax: (703) 893-8484
     E-mail: jjschraub@sandsanderson.com
             plevy@sandsanderson.com

        - and -

     Joel H. Bernstein, Esq.
     Garrett Bradley, Esq.
     Corban S. Rhodes, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROV/ LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 907-0700
     Fax: (212) 818-0477 (facsimile)
     E-mail: jbernstein@labaton.com
             gbradley@labaton.com
             crhodes@labaton.com


UNITED STATES: Can't Alter Police-Bias Settlement, NJ Judge Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
it is too late now for the U.S. government to alter a deal
intended to stamp out racial bias in the system for promoting New
Jersey police officers, a federal judge in Newark, N.J. ruled.

In 2012, the Justice Department and New Jersey Civil Service
Commission entered into a consent decree that resolved a two-year
lawsuit alleging the state's criteria for promoting police
officers to sergeant from 2000 to 2008 had a discriminatory impact
on black and Hispanic candidates.

Under the old system, candidates made it onto a promotion list
after passing a multiple-choice test. Since 89 percent of white
candidates passed the test, compared with 73 percent of black and
77 percent of Hispanic candidates, however, federal investigators
noted that nearly 18 percent of white candidates were promoted,
while just 9 percent of black and 13 percent of Hispanic
candidates rose to the rank of police sergeant.

The 2012 consent decree set up a new promotional system and
ensured retroactive seniority for 68 qualified officers who were
denied promotion under the old system.  But the Justice Department
flagged the settlement recently, claiming that one paragraph of
the deal has unintentionally wrought unfair consequences.  It
claims that the settlement is causing a disadvantage for police
officers in certain jurisdictions such as Trenton who had been
laid off and are now owed a promotion.

These officers are receiving their promotions after the
discriminated-against officers under the new system, which also
could exclude them altogether.

The feds proposed modifying the deal to forbid any discriminated-
against officer from promotion until officers on special re-
employment lists received their promotions.

New Jersey fought the proposal, however saying it would lead to
the promotion of candidates with lower test scores in favor of
those with higher scores on the priority hiring list.

U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Hayden sided with the state in
an unpublished opinion, saying consent decrees could be modified
only in the case of "a significant change in factual conditions."
A delay in promoting laid-off officers is not a sufficient reason
to modify the decree, the judge added.

"The record establishes that the DOJ foresaw [this] issue and
could have included the modification language it argues for now,"
the Sept. 30 ruling states. "The fact that the modification
language might never have been needed is of no moment; it could
have sat dormant without affecting the rest of the decree."


VIVA TERRA: Falsely Marketed Textile Products, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Florence M. Goldkrantz v. Viva Terra International, LLC, Case No.
CV-15-852223 (Ohio Com. Pleas October 7, 2015) seeks to remedy the
ongoing unfair and deceptive business practices of the
Defendant, with respect to the advertising, marketing and sales of
textile products not directly woven from bamboo fibers but were
described by Vivaterra as "Bamboo."

Viva Terra International, LLC is an Illinois limited liability
company that markets, sells, and distributes proprietary textile
fiber products online, such as apparel and bedding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Schlachet, Esq.
      3515 Severn Road
      Cleveland, OH 44118
      Telephone: (216) 225-7559
      Facsimile: (216) 932-5390
      E-mail: markschlachet@me.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Criminal Fraud Allegation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arash Badeanlou, Rachel Gourki, Gary L. Grela, David A. Licht,
Alex Scull, and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07108 (D.N.J., September 25,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for alleged criminal
fraud.

According to the complaint, the Defendant designed and sold cars
that were designed to, and did, mislead consumers and regulators
about the vehicles' emissions, fuel efficiency and performance.
Despite touting the "green" benefits of its diesel vehicles,
Defendant sold cars that produced pollution up to 40 times higher
than advertised, and then intentionally concealed the truth about
those cars through a sophisticated scheme involving defeat
devices.

The Defendant Volkswagen Group of America is a New Jersey
corporation with its principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand
Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171, and Eastern Regional
headquarters located in Woodcliff Lakes, New Jersey. At all
relevant times, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased
and warranted the vehicles with defeat devices under the
Volkswagen and Audi names throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
      OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Tel: (973) 994-1700

          - and -

      Timothy G. Blood, Esq
      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
      701 B Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 338-1100

          - and -

      Timothy R. Pestotnik, Esq.
      PESTOTNIK LLP
      501 W. Broadway, Suite 1025
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (610) 237-5080

          - and -

      Michael D. Singer, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 595-3001

          - and -

      Jeff Holmes, Esq.
      HOLMES LAW GROUP APC
      3311 East Pico Blvd.
      Los Angeles, CA 90023
      Tel: (310) 396-9045

          - and -

      Debra L. Hurst, Esq.
      HURST & HURST
      701 B. Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 236-0016

          - and -

      Cameron Gharabiklou, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CAMERON J.
      GHARABIKLOU
      530 B Street, Suite 1530
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (858) 412-0019


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Doebler" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
David Doebler, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
23753-PCH (S.D. Fla., October 7, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of "defeat device" 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. 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:

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fries" Suit in Ill. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Fries, individually and as representative of all similarly
situated persons v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01108-DRH-PMF (S.D. Ill., October 7, 2015) arises
out of the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of "defeat
device" in various model cars, including the Jetta, the Beetle,
the Audi A3, the Golf and the Passat models, that allowed the
engine control unit in the diesel engine to detect when the car
was undergoing an emissions test.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John J. Driscoll, Esq.
      Gregory J. Pals, Esq.
      THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
      211 N. Broadway, 40th Floor
      St. Louis, MO 63102
      Telephone: (314) 932-3232
      Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
      E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com
              greg@thedriscollfirm.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Gibbons" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Gibbons III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-07336-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 7, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of "defeat device" 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. 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
      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
              LTaylor@carellabyrne.com

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Helms" Suit in Ala. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Helms, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-00508-WS-N (S.D. Ala., October 7, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of "defeat device" 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. 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:

      Gregory B. Breedlove, Esq.
      Steven L. Nicholas, Esq.
      William E. Bonner
      David G. Wirtes Jr., Esq.
      CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC
      1601 Dauphin St.
      Mobile, AL 36604
      Telephone: (251) 471-6191
      Facsimile: (251) 479-1031
      E-mail: gbb@cunninghambounds.com
              sln@cunninghambounds.com
              web@cunninghambounds.com
              dgw@cunninghambounds.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Henry" Suit Over Defeat Devices
--------------------------------------------------------
Barry Henry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-
00691 (E.D. Tex., October 7, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's
alleged intentional installation of "defeat device" 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. 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:

      W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
      Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
      2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1120
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 554-2377
      Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
      E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
              jarrett@hughesellzey.com

         - and -

      Kenneth T. "Tommy" Fibich, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS,& JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet Street
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile (713) 751-0030


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hiaasen" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Hiaasen and Jennifer Hiaasen, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-23759-UU (S.D. Fla., October 7,
2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged intentional
installation of "defeat device" 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. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc. is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,
marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motor
vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States
of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Boies, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      333 Main Street
      Armonk, NY 10504
      Telephone: (914) 749-8200
      Facsimile: (202) 749-8300
      E-mail: mboies@bsfllp.com

         - and -

      Stephen N. Zack, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      100 SE Second Street, Suite 2800
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 539-8400
      Facsimile: (305) 539-1307
      E-mail: jzack@bsfllp.com

         - and -

      Stuart H. Singer, Esq.
      Carl E. Goldfarb, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 356-0011
      Facsimile: (954) 356-0022
      E-mail: ssinger@bsfllp.com
              cgoldfarb@bsfllp.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kelley" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
R. Scott Kelley and Tamara Trawick, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00271-CLC-CHS (E.D. Tenn., October
6, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged intentional
installation of "defeat device" 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. 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:

      Van Bunchf. Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT P.C.
      57 Carriage Hill
      Signal Mountain, TN 37377
      Telephone: (423) 580-5342
      Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
      E-mail: vbunch@bffb.com

         - and -

      Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
      Francis J. Balint, Jr.
      Eric Zard, Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      2325 E. Camelback Road, #300
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 274-1100
      Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
      E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
              fbalint@bffb.com
              ezard@bffb.com

         - and -

      Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      600 West Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 798-4292
      Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
      E-mail: mmuecke@bftb.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Klinkov" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Ariana Klinkov, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
07352-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 7, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged intentional installation of "defeat devices"
in Volkswagen diesel engine vehicles, which include 2009 through
2015 Jettas, 2012 through 2015 Beetles, 2010 through 2015 Golfs,
and 2012 through 2015 Passats, and 2010 through 2015 Audi diesel
engine A3s.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 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
      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
              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 "Kluchinsky" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Kluchinsky, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-07339-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 7, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of "defeat device" 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. 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 Lawsuit Over Clean Diesel TDI Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia A. Bonney, Ryan Blitstein, and Jonathan Goslin, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen AG,
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen of America, Inc.,
AUDI AG, and AUDI of America, Inc., Case 1:15-cv-01323-LO-MSN
(Va., October 9, 2015), alleges fraud and deceit in relation to
sales of Clean Diesel TDI vehicles, which allegedly promised to
consumers the best of all worlds: low emissions, fuel efficiency,
and power.

Defendants are in the business of automobile design,
manufacturing, distribution, and/or service corporations doing
business within the United States. Furthermore, Defendants design,
develop, manufacture, distribute, market, sell, lease, warrant,
service, and repair passenger vehicles, including the Class
Vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Timothy D. Battin, Esq.
     Nathan M. Cihlar, Esq.
     Christopher V. Le, Esq.
     STRAUS & BOIES, LLP
     4041 University Drive, 5th Floor
     Fairfax, VA 22030
     Tel.: (703)764-8700
     Fax: (703)764-8704
     E-mail: tbattin@straus-boies.com
             ncihlar@straus-boies.com
             cle@straus-boies.com

        - and -

     Jeffrey A. Bartos, Esq.
     GUERRIERI, DAYMAN, BARTOS & PARCELLI, PC
     1900 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036
     Phone: (202) 624-7400
     Fax: (202)624-7420

        - and -

     Daniel Zemans, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL ZEMANS, LLC
     500 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
     Chicago, IL 60611
     Phone: (312) 924-1320
     E-mail: dzemans@zemans-law.com


W.P. CAREY: To Defend Appeal in "Gaines" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P. Carey 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 intends to
defend the appeal in the case filed by Ira Gaines.

The Company said, "On December 31, 2013, Mr. Ira Gaines and
entities affiliated with him commenced a purported class action
(Ira Gaines, et al. v. Corporate Property Associates 16 - Global
Incorporated, Index. No. 650001/2014, N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County)
against us, WPC REIT Merger Sub Inc., CPA(R):16 - Global, and the
directors of CPA(R):16 - Global. On April 11, 2014, we and the
other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, as
amended, and on October 15, 2014, the judge granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its
entirety. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on November 24,
2014 and have until August 24, 2015 to file that appeal. We
currently believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit,
and if the plaintiffs file a timely appeal, we intend to continue
to defend the case vigorously."


WAL-MART STORES: "Pork & Beans" Brand Has No Pork, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart's house brand "Great Value Pork & Beans in Tomato Sauce"
has no pork in it, a class action claims in federal court in Santa
Ana, Calif., according to Courthouse News Service.


WANG DA 168: "Eu" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------
Tackfatt Eu, and all others similarly situated v. Wang Da 168
Corp. dba "Lotus Cafe", Ying Liu, Chang Da Zou, Jian Ping Wang,
and Teresa Doe, Case No. 2:15-cv-07084 (D.N.J., September 24,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of
the Federal Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and
Hour Law.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant doing business as
"Lotus Cafe" located in Hackensack, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keli Liu, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave. Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Fax: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


WESTCHESTER AMBULETTE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Tyeisha Hawkins, and all others similarly situated v. Westchester
Ambulette Service Inc., Case No. 6397/2014 (N.Y. Sup., April 24,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages, prejudgment interest,
maximum liquidated damages, fees and costs pursuant to the New
York Labor Law.

The Defendant provides medical transportation services to the
public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Tel: (718) 740-1000
      Fax: (718) 740-2000
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


XEROX STATE: Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------
South Peninsula Hospital, Alaska Speech and Language Clinic, Inc.,
Kenai Vision Center, LLC, and all others similarly situated v.
Xerox State Healthcare, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00177 (D. Alaska,
September 24, 2015), seeks damages for Defendant's alleged
negligence and/or reckless indifference, breach of contract,
Alaska unfair trade practice and consumer protection act.

Defendant, Xerox Healthcare Solutions, LLC, is a limited liability
corporation based in Atlanta, Georgia, and incorporated in
Delaware. It is the successor to ACS State Healthcare, LLC, which
entered into a contract to create a new MMIS with the Alaska
Department of Health and Social Services. Xerox has an office in
this District at 1835 Bragan Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99508. It
is a subsidiary of Xerox Corporation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Peter R. Ehrhardt, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF EHRHARDT & KELLEY
      215 Fidalgo Ave. Ste 201
      Kenai, AK 99611
      Tel: (907) 283-2876
      Fax: (907) 283-2896
      E-mail: peter@mail.kenailaw.com

          - and -

      Peter R. Kahana, Esq
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Fax: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: pkahana@bm.net


YAHOO! INC: Dismissal of "Buch" Stockholder Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss the action, Cathy Buch
v. David Filo, et al., Yahoo! 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 April 22, 2015, a stockholder action captioned Cathy Buch v.
David Filo, et al., was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against Yahoo and all current members of the Board of Directors.
The complaint asserts both derivative claims, purportedly on
behalf of Yahoo, and class action claims, purportedly on behalf of
the plaintiff and all similarly situated stockholders, relating to
the termination of, and severance payments made to, our former
chief operating officer, Henrique de Castro. The plaintiff alleges
that the board members breached their fiduciary duties by enabling
or acquiescing in the payment of severance to Mr. de Castro, and
by allowing Yahoo to make allegedly false and misleading
statements regarding the value of his severance. The plaintiff has
also asserted claims against Mr. de Castro. The plaintiff seeks to
recoup the severance paid to Mr. de Castro, an equitable
accounting, disgorgement in favor of Yahoo, monetary damages,
declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an award of attorneys'
fees and costs. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the
action.


YOU FIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pazanski" Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Pazanski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. You Fit, LLC d/b/a Youfit Health Clubs, Case
No. 9:15-cv-81388-DMM (S.D. Fla., October 7, 2015) seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of placing phone calls, and sending text
messages, using an automatic telephone dialing system or pre-
recorded or artificial voice to the cellular phones of Plaintiff
and the Class, without the express consent of Plaintiff and the
Class.

You Fit, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company, doing
business as Youfit Health Clubs, with its principle place of
business in Deerfield Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc A. Wites, Esq.
      Chad J. Robinson, Esq.
      WITES & KAPETAN, P.A.
      4400 North Federal Highway
      Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
      Telephone: (954) 570-8989
      Facsimile: (954) 354-0205
      E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com
              crobinson@wklawyers.com

         - and -

      Steven C. Holzman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN C. HOLZMAN
      4400 North Federal Highway
      Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
      Telephone: (561) 789-5366
      E-mail: scholzman@gmail.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  * * *