CAR_Public/151028.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, October 28, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 215


                            Headlines


ADEPT TECHNOLOGY: "Irvine" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ALLSTATE FIRE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Awards Interest
ANDREWS & COX: FDCPA Plaintiff Awarded Damages, Attorneys Fees
ATLAS RAILROAD: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Lipford" Suit Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Lawsuit Over Rothstein Ponzi Scheme

BANK OF AMERICA: Wins Dismissal of "Trionfo" Suit
BEAR CREEK: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BENECARD SERVICES: Motion to Dismiss "Longenecker-Wells" Granted
BIG HEART PET: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Alleged Slave Labor
BIG WATER RESORT: "Reed" Action Won't Proceed as Class Suit

BLACK DIAMOND AGGREGATES: Arbitration Bid in FLSA Suit Denied
BLACK KNIGHT INFOSERV: Court Trims Suit by Maverick Fund et al.
BLUE CARD: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Langermann vs. Seitz
BLYTH INC: "Berry" Suit Calls Acquisition Price "Unfair"
BOFI HOLDING: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Judge Slashes Mesh Verdict $10 Million
BRM RECOVERY: "Franklin" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT & Wages
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Watson" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
CARTER'S RETAIL: Court Denies Preliminary Approval of Settlement
CELLULAR SALES: CA Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Holick"

CHARLES SCHWAB: Must Face Investors' Suit, N.D. Cal. Judge Says
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: CA Revives "Lewings" Wage & Hour Class Action
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Bid for Interlocutory Appeal in "Turner" Denied
CHOCTAW INVESTMENT: "Curtin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CMH HOMES: Motion to Compel Arbitration Granted in Part

CREDIT ONE: Tenn. Judge Sends "Bibee" TCPA Case to Arbitration
DENTSPLY INT'L: Merger Devalues Sirona Stock, "Brown" Suit Says
DHL EXPRESS: Settlement in "Marshall" Case Wins Final Approval
DRAFTKINGS INC: Sued in Mass. Over Deceptive Business Practices
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices

DRAFTKINGS INC: Deceives Betting Customers, "Aguirre" Suit Says
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
EDEN PALACE: Unlawfully Retained Tips, "Cornejo" Suit Claims
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Seeks to Overturn Likeness Suit Ruling
ENSIGN UNITED STATES: "Brown" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Cochran" Suit Over Data Breach
EXXON MOBIL: Environmental Groups' Bid to Block Settlement Nixed
FIG & OLIVE: Sued Over Food-Positioning Outbreak
FIT AND FITNESS: Violates Privacy Under TCPA, Says "Elaine" Suit
FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs in "McDonald" Suit Seek Attorneys Fees

GC SERVICES: Cal. Appeals Court Upholds Denial of Class Cert. Bid
GLOBUS MEDICAL: Violates Securities Laws, "Silverstein" Suit Says
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL: Court Approves Settlement in TCPA Suit
INDIANA: Inmates Sue Over Attorney Caseload

INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL: Settles Suit Over Fertilizer Plant Blast
JANSSEN PHARMA: New Xarelto Claims Have Mass-Tort Potential
KROGER COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Bread Crumbs, Suit Says
LIVWELL INC: Marijuana Farm Faces Class Suit Over Pesticide Spray
LEE COUNTY, FL: Court Trims Suit Against Sheriff

LOS ANGELES, CA: Dismissal of Suit Over Court Budget Upheld
MARRIOTT INT'L: CA Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Room Rates
MENZIES AVIATION: Motion for Partial Stay Pending Appeal Denied
MINNESOTA: State Workers Sue Over OT Pay Calculation
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Third Circuit Hears Ticket Price Suit

NEW YORK: Court Adopts Recommendations in Suit Over LAST-1 Exam
NISSAN MOTOR: Ky. Supreme Court Upholds Punitive Damages Rule
NOBLE ENERGY: Court Adopts Recommendation in Royalties Suit
ODEBRECHT CONSTRUCTION: "White" Suit Claims for Unpaid Wages
POP'S CARWASH: "Henry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

POTEMKIN RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Judge Sends "Flushable" Definition Issue to FTC
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Falsely Advertises Cigarettes, Calif. Suit Says
RIVIERA GRILL: "Yan" Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages and OT
ROCHESTER ARMORED: "Guerra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

SEADRILL AMERICAS: "Boleware" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
STERNE AGEE GROUP: "Robinson" Suit Remanded to Bankruptcy Court
STONEBRIDGE INC: Court Tosses Objection, Denies Rehearing Bid
T. L. CANNON: Discovery Bid Okayed in Applebee's Staff Action
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: 3rd Cir. Revives Suit by King Drug et al.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Two Women Sue Drivers Over Alleged Rapes
UBER TECH: Faces Drivers' Class Suits in Los Angeles & Seattle
UNITED STATES: Judge to Dismiss Twitter's Suit v. NSA
VIRBAC CORPORATION: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Suit Claims
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces A to Z Suit in Wis. Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bonner" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Crook" Suit in Ala. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sells Defective Cars, "Uttecht" Suit Says
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Shareholders Suit Face Numerous Challenges
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Buyback of Emission-Affected Cars Proposed

WASHINGTON DC: Pregnant Woman Sues Over Health Benefits
WB HOLDINGS: Topples "Wasvary" TCPA Action in E.D. Mich.
WEATHERFORD INT'L: Fails to Pay OT, Houston Class Suit Says
WHITE CASTLE: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
WISCONSIN: Inmate May Proceed In Forma Pauperis

* CFPB Mulls Rule Against Consumer Contract Arbitration Clauses
* CFPB's Arbitration Ban May Spur Meritless Suits, Lawyer Says
* Consumer Lawyers Laud CFPB's Arbitration Proposal
* Gov. Urges Court to Address Arbitration Bill "Unfairness" Issue


                            *********


ADEPT TECHNOLOGY: "Irvine" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Irvine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Rob Cain, Benjamin A. Burditt, Martin M.
Hale, Jr., Michael P. Kelly, Herbert J. Martin, Omron Corporation,
Omron Management Center of America, Inc., Hoffman Acquisition
Corp., Defendants, Case No. 11587 (Del. Ch., October 7, 2015),
seeks to recover compensatory damages and secure a declaration
that the merger agreement between Omron and Adept Technology,
Inc., was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of
Omron's officers and directors.

On September 16, 2015, OMRON Corporation (President & CEO:
Yoshihito Yamada [TSE: 6645]) ("OMRON"), a global leader in the
field of automation based on its core sensing and control
technology, and Adept Technology, Inc. (President and Chief
Executive Officer: Rob Cain [NASDAQ: ADEP]) ("Adept"), a global,
leading provider of intelligent robots, autonomous mobile robot
solutions and services, announced that the two companies have
entered into an agreement whereby OMRON will acquire Adept.

On October 23, 2015, OMRON announced it has completed its
acquisition of Adept.

The shareholder class action alleges that Adept's President and
CEO Rob Cain forced through a sale of the Company in order to reap
personal benefits he negotiated with OMRON and to the detriment of
Adept's public stockholders. With the help of senior management,
and with the Board providing practically no oversight, Cain pushed
through a merger pursuant to which OMRON plans to acquire 100% of
the outstanding shares of Adept common stock through an all cash
tender offer, or a sales process, followed by a second-step
merger. OMRON offers Adept investors $13.00 per share of Adept
common stock.  The lawsuit contends that, rather than using
Adept's future to the advantage of shareholders by negotiating a
better purchase price, the Individual Defendants abused their
fiduciary duties by selling out the Company's shareholders in
exchange for a lucrative cashout for themselves.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
James R. Banko, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
Wilmington, DE 19807
Tel: (302) 482-3182
Fax: (302) 482-3612

          - and -

Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 983-9330
Fax: (212) 983-9331


ALLSTATE FIRE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Awards Interest
-------------------------------------------------------
Holly Shackleford, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Allstate Fire And Casualty Insurance Company, Case No.
2015-CH-14972 (Ill. Ch., October 13, 2015) seeks to recover on a
class-wide basis for Allstate's practice of not paying statutory
interest on arbitration awards.

Allstate Fire And Casualty Insurance Company owns and operates an
insurance company in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvin W. Block, Esq.
      Jerome E. Boyle, Esq.
      Rebecca R. Trayber, Esq.
      A.W. BLOCK & ASSOCIATES
      33 N. LaSalle Suite 3000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 346-5656


ANDREWS & COX: FDCPA Plaintiff Awarded Damages, Attorneys Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William T. Lawrence of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana awarded statutory
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in the case
captioned, JAMES GRUBBS, Plaintiff, v. ANDREWS & COX, P.C. et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:13-CV-1936-WTL-MJD.

On December 7, 2013, Plaintiff James Brent Grubbs filed suit
alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) violations
against American Financial Credit Services, Inc. (AFCS), Andrews &
Cox, P.C., d/b/a Bleecker, Brodey & Andrews (BB&A), Ronald B.
Brodey Professional Corporation (RBPC), and Eric S. Jungbauer. In
his amended complaint, Grubbs alleged that AFCS violated the FDCPA
by engaging in collection activity before mailing verification of
the debt. He further alleged that BB&A, RBPC, and Eric Jungbauer
violated the FDCPA by using false, deceptive, or misleading
representations in connection with the debt collection; making
false, deceptive, or misleading representations to Grubbs in
connection with the debt collection; using a false, deceptive, or
misleading means of collecting a debt; and using an unfair or
unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt.

BB&A and Grubbs filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On March
24, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part BB&A's
motion, and granted in part and denied in part Grubbs' motion. The
Court granted Grubbs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of
whether BB&A violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect interest
and on the issue of whether Grubbs had disputed the debt.

In his Order dated September 22, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/iDbbk2from Leagle.com, Judge Lawrence awarded Grubbs
$100.00 in statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1692k(a)(2)(A), finding that the frequency and persistence of
noncompliance is minimal and in nature favors Grubbs. He is
entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692k(a)(3) because Grubbs brought a
successful action under the FDCPA.

James Brent Grubbs is represented by Robert E. Duff, Esq. --
robert@robertdufflaw.com -- INDIANA CONSUMER LAW GROUP

Defendants are represented by:

Richard B. Gonon, Esq.
9465 Counselors Row # 200
Indianapolis, IN 46240
Tel: (317)805-4816


ATLAS RAILROAD: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Lipford" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipford, individually & on behalf of all similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Atlas Railroad Construction, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-01174-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., October 1,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Defendant conducts business in the State of New York. It provides
railroad construction and maintenance services at projects in
dozens of states, including New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407)420-1414
Email: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Lawsuit Over Rothstein Ponzi Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Kay, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that Bank of
America has settled a lawsuit filed by investors in disbarred
attorney Scott Rothstein's $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme who claimed
the bank knew about the fraud.

The confidential settlement was announced in Broward Circuit Court
on Oct. 7 but has not been signed by the parties.  The
announcement came with a six-week trial scheduled to start on
Oct. 12.

The settlement was confirmed by co-lead counsel Harley Tropin --
hst@kttlaw.com -- of Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton in Coral Gables.
William Scherer -- wscherer@conradscherer.com -- of Conrad &
Scherer in Fort Lauderdale, co-lead plaintiffs lawyer, declined
comment, saying the settlement is not yet final.

Eighty investors last year sued for $389 million plus punitive
damages, claiming the bank knew of the settlement financing fraud
but deliberately kept quiet about it.

A Bank of America spokesman confirmed the settlement on Oct. 9 but
had no comment on it.

Miami banking analyst Ken Thomas said he wasn't surprised the bank
settled.

"They have been through so much litigation, and their earnings are
coming out now," he said.  "This is a minor thing for them.  The
last thing a bank wants to do is face a jury.  Most everybody
dislikes banks, and Bank of America is at the top of the list --
too big to fail and too big to like."

Scherer previously settled with two banks where Rothstein kept his
money, TD Bank and Gibraltar Private Bank & Trust.  In 2012, he
reached a $170 million settlement with TD Bank and a $10 million
settlement with Gibraltar for dozens of victims in two investor
groups.

Mr. Rothstein is serving a 50-year prison sentence for
masterminding the giant Ponzi scheme from his 70-attorney Fort
Lauderdale labor and employment firm, Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler.

A TD Bank regional vice president with close ties to Rothstein
accepted a plea deal on Oct. 8 on a fraud conspiracy charges.

Except for Mr. Scherer's suit, Bank of America was not implicated
in the Rothstein case by federal prosecutors or the bankruptcy
trustee appointed to recover funds for victims.

Mr. Scherer said he sued last year because the allegations were
just discovered.  The suits were filed on eight grounds: fraud,
constructive fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, conspiracy to
defraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of fiduciary duty and violation of Florida's Securities and
Investor Protection Act.

The suit alleged Bank of America executives raised numerous red
flags about Rothstein before the fraud collapsed six years ago but
ignored them to induce him to deposit more money.

Named in the suit were Frederick Perry, a former Bank of America
senior vice president; Mark Maller, then Bank of America's Broward
County president; Brian Mormile, a former Bank of America private
wealth manager; and Douglas Divirgilio, Bank of America's regional
president of private banking.

The lawsuit details how one of the biggest victims, the Von Allmen
family, lost $82 million.  The family was a longtime customer of
Bank of America and turned to the bank for advice on investing
with Rothstein, according to the suit.

The bank performed due diligence on Mr. Rothstein's purported
investments in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

"The bank including Perry knew that Rothstein was 'dirty,' 'a
crook,' a 'bad guy of dubious provenance,' that 'it was never
believed to be if but rather when Rothstein would be caught doing
something illegal,' that Rothstein's law firm was 'a known bad
entity,' that Rothstein's investment scheme offered returns that
'were too good to be true' and 'couldn't get past the sniff test'
and that the bank should 'stay away from Rothstein,'" the suit
states.

The suit quoted Perry writing an email to his superiors the day
after news spread about the fraud that said "on numerous occasions
we have made our suspicions known to clients interested in doing
business with him or his firm."

Yet in 2009, the bank decided not to make its suspicions known to
the Von Allmens and "actively concealed what they knew about the
Rothstein fraud," according to the suit.

When former Bank of America senior vice president John Abbuhl
warned other bank executives about his Rothstein concerns, he was
ridiculed and forced to resign, Scherer alleges in his suit.  An
affidavit from Abbuhl was included in the suit.

The suit included emails sent between Bank of America executives
asking, "Is anyone familiar with the law firm Rothstein
Rosenfeldt?" Perry's reply was "stay away from these guys."

Other bank executives were instructed not to exchange emails about
Rothstein to avoid a paper trail, the suit alleges.

Due to Bank of America's alleged concealment of the fraud, victims
wound up keeping Rothstein's scheme afloat for six more months,
investing an additional $565 million, the suit states.


BANK OF AMERICA: Wins Dismissal of "Trionfo" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Frederick Motz of the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland granted Bank of America's
motion to dismiss in the case captioned, FRANK TRIONFO, et al., v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. JFM-15-925.

Plaintiffs Frank and Suzanne Trionfo own residential real property
in Fallston, Maryland. In September 2015, the plaintiffs received
a loan in the amount of $329,000 secured by a deed of trust on the
property from Intervale Mortgage Corporation. BAC Home Loans
Servicing LP was the original servicer of the loan.

On July 1, 2011 Bank of America became the servicer of the loan.
Mr. Trionfo suffered a back injury and, as a result, was laid off
from his landscaping job in 2010 and fell behind on their mortgage
payments. On December 31, 2014, Bank of America sent the
plaintiffs a letter indicating that their loan had been referred
to the Foreclosure Review Committee. Plaintiffs allege that the
letter provided that Bank of America had "not received past due
payments," despite the fact that, according to plaintiffs, they
were making payments.

Plaintiffs sued Bank of America, the servicer of their mortgage
loan, alleging violations of rules promulgated by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau under the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act
(MCPA). The complaint is styled as a class action. They define a
"nationwide class" as all persons in the country that submitted a
loss mitigation application to Bank of America after January 10,
2014 and a "Maryland class" as all persons in Maryland that
submitted a loss mitigation application to Bank of America after
March 31, 2012.

In the motion, Bank of America's primary argument to dismiss
hinges on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's application
of RESPA only to first-time loan modification applications.

In the Memorandum dated September 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/LdaMsOfrom Leagle.com, Judge Motz concluded that the
regulations do not apply to the plaintiffs' loan application and
found that plaintiffs have stated a claim and grant defendant's
motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs are Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq. -- jtycko@tzlegal.com --
Lorenzo Belmondo Cellini, Esq. -- lcellini@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO
AND ZAVAREEI LLP & Geoffrey Grant Bestor, Esq. --
gbesq@bestorlaw.com -- THE BESTOR LAW FIRM

Bank of America is represented by James W. McGarry, Esq. --
jmcgarry@goodwinprocter.com -- Keith Eric Levenberg, Esq. --
klevenberg@goodwinprocter.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP


BEAR CREEK: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bear Creek Services, LLC d/b/a Emerald Surf Sciences,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00438 (S.D. Tex., October 15, 2015) seeks to
recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Bear Creek Services, LLC operates a small fleet of vacuum trucks
and a saltwater disposal facility in North Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BENECARD SERVICES: Motion to Dismiss "Longenecker-Wells" Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William  W. Caldwell of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied Defendant's
motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(1) but
granted  Defendant's motion under Rule 12(b)(6) in the case
captioned, JOAN LONGENECKER-WELLS, et al., Plaintiffs v. BENECARD
SERVICES, INC., d/b/a BENECARD PBF, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:15-CV-00422.

Plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit by filing a class-action
complaint on February 26, 2015 for alleged data breach by unknown
third parties.  Plaintiffs raise state-law claims against the
defendants for negligence or, in the alternative, breach of
implied contract. According to the plaintiffs, before commencing
employment with, and/or utilizing the services of, the defendants,
they were required to provide private information such as their
full names, dates of birth, addresses, and social security
numbers.

As set forth in the amended complaint, the defendants are
subsidiaries of a Limited Partnership, each with registered
addresses in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. Collectively, the
defendants provide an array of prescription benefit administration
services. With respect to the plaintiffs, those named in the
amended complaint are Pennsylvania residents who are also former
employees and customer members of the defendants. The putative
class is to include (1) current and former employees and (2)
current and former customer members of the defendants.

In light of the defendants' alleged failures to adequately
safeguard and protect the plaintiffs' private information, the
more recent data breach purportedly resulted in unknown third
parties filing fraudulent tax returns in the plaintiffs' names for
the 2014 tax year. Plaintiffs, thus, aver that the IRS issued tax
refunds to the unknown third parties rather than to the
plaintiffs.  Also, plaintiffs claim that they have incurred
additional financial harm, including, but not limited to,
additional filing fees, accounting costs, and identity theft
protection. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs raise
claims for negligence (Count I) or, in the alternative, breach of
implied contract (Count II). Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of
$5,000,000, as well as attorney's fees and costs.

In the motion, the defendants first argue under Rule 12(b)(1) that
the amended complaint should be dismissed because the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction in that the plaintiffs do not have
standing to sue in order to satisfy the "case-or-controversy"
requirement of Article III, Sec. 2 of the United States
Constitution. Second, the defendants argue that the allegations in
the amended complaint fail to state a claim for negligence or
breach of implied contract under Pennsylvania law.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum dated September 22, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/LpUHmTfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Benjamin D. Andreozzi, Esq.
NATHANIEL L FOOTE, ANDREOZZI & ASSOCIATES, PC
111 N Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Tel: (717)686-9936

Gary F. Lynch, Esq. -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- CARLSON LYNCH
SWEET & KILPELA, LLP

Defendants are represented by Lauren M. Burnette, Esq. --
lmburnette@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN


BIG HEART PET: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Alleged Slave Labor
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
Los Angeles, California, claims Meow Mix and Big Heart Pet Brands
use slave labor in the supply chain for fish in their cat food. (A
similar claim against Purina was filed in August.)


BIG WATER RESORT: "Reed" Action Won't Proceed as Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David C. Norton of the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina adopted in part and denied in
part the Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued by United States
Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker and denied Plaintiffs' motion
to certify class without prejudice in the case captioned, WILLIAM
REED, DONNA REED, BONNIE YOUMANS, JANE YATES, and PHILLIP CAULDER,
all individually and for the benefit and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BIG WATER RESORT, LLC; TLC
HOLDINGS, LLC; RICHARD CLARK; JAMES THIGPEN; JIMMY "STEVE" LOVELL;
and OCOEE, LLC, Defendants. BIG WATER RESORT, LLC; TLC HOLDINGS,
LLC; RICHARD CLARK; JAMES THIGPEN; JIMMY "STEVE" LOVELL; and
OCOEE, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. M.B. HUTSON, a/k/a M.B.
HUDSON, Third-Party Defendant, Case No. 2:14-CV-1583-DCN.

Plaintiffs all purchased memberships in the club known as Big
Water Resort for approximately $8,400.00 per membership and were
promised that they would have a membership in a private club
operated at the Big Water Resort for their lifetime plus the life
of one survivor.  Plaintiffs further allege that the membership
contract promised "hat the club would be members only" and that
members "would have access to the land owned by TLC for the lives
of each member and their survivor. Plaintiffs, taking issue with
the state of their memberships, filed suit in this court on April
22, 2014. In their amended complaint, plaintiffs allege the
following causes of action: (1) declaratory and injunctive relief;
(2) breach of contract; (3) tortious interference with contract;
(4) fraudulent conveyance; (5) violation of time share statutes;
(6) negligence per se; (7) negligence; (8) negligent
misrepresentation; and (9) piercing the corporate veil.

On January 1, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class,
seeking class certification of all of their claims, other than
their claim for negligent misrepresentation. Defendants filed a
response on March 13, 2015, to which plaintiffs replied on April
15, 2015. The magistrate judge issued an R&R on August 3, 2015,
denying class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3).

In the motion, both parties object to the R&R. Plaintiffs argue
that the magistrate judge erred in: (1) denying plaintiffs' motion
for class certification; (2) "finding that common issues do not
predominate solely because of a potential statute of limitations
defense"; and (3) "finding that while the damages model presented
is reliable on a class-wide basis, it is inappropriate because it
omits too many relevant considerations to be a viable method."
Defendants argue that the magistrate judge erred in finding that:
(1) plaintiffs' proposed class is ascertainable; and (2)
plaintiffs complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a).

In his Order dated September 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/zNU9Zufrom Leagle.com, Judge Norton found that class
certification is inappropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) because
plaintiffs have admitted that their claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief seek to facilitate a monetary judgment.  The
parties have 90 days from the issuance of the order to engage in
discovery limited to the statute of limitations issue. At the
close of discovery, if appropriate, plaintiffs may re-file their
motion to certify class.

Plaintiffs are represented by Brady Ryan Thomas, Esq. --
bthomas@rpwb.com -- Christopher James Moore, Esq. --
cmoore@rpwb.com -- Terry Edward Richardson, Jr., Esq. --
trichardson@rpwb.com -- RICHARDSON PATRICK WESTBROOK AND BRICKMAN

     - and -

William R. Padget, Esq.
Carl David Hiller, Esq.
Harry L. Goldberg, Esq.
FINKEL LAW FIRM
1201 Main St #1800,
Columbia, SC 29201
Tel: (803)470-0118

Defendants are represented by Carlyle Richardson Cromer, Esq. --
ccromer@turnerpadget.com -- John Smith Wilkerson, III, Esq. --
jwilkerson@turnerpadget.com -- Jon Rene Josey, Esq. --
rjosey@turnerpadget.com -- Richard S. Dukes, Jr., Esq. --
rdukes@turnerpadget.com -- R. Wayne Byrd, Esq. --
wbyrd@turnerpadget.com -- TURNER PADGET GRAHAM AND LANEY


BLACK DIAMOND AGGREGATES: Arbitration Bid in FLSA Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend and denied Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration in the case captioned, EDWARD BORELLI, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
BLACK DIAMOND AGGREGATES, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants,
Case No. 2:14-CV-02093-KJM-KJN.

Plaintiff commenced a putative class action on September 9, 2014,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
California Labor Code. At a hearing, the court directed the
parties to meet and confer, and notify the court whether they
would stipulate to private mediation. Michael Ahmad and Patricia
Kelly appeared at hearing for plaintiff and Nevin Stanton-Trehan
and Barbara Cotter appeared for defendant. On April 3, 2015, the
parties filed a stipulation agreeing to private mediation, to be
completed by July 31, 2015. In accordance with the parties'
stipulation, the court referred the case to private mediation.

In the motion, Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint (1) to add
two additional class members, Christina Pitassi and James Munoz;
(2) to add an additional defendant, Basic Resources, Inc., in lieu
of a Doe defendant; and (3) to identify section 558 of the Labor
Code as a damages measure under the Private Attorney General Act
(PAGA) claim.

Defendant counters (1) plaintiff's motion is premature because the
pending motion to compel arbitration should be heard first; (2)
resolving disputes in this forum would undermine the purpose of
arbitration and would jeopardize defendant's right to arbitrate;
and (3) plaintiff's "tactical decision to forego naming Basic
Resources in the original [c]omplaint precludes the proposed 'Doe'
substitution."

In her Order dated September 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/M2Ia5dfrom Leagle.com, Judge Mueller found that
defendant does not cite any authority, binding or persuasive, that
requires or suggests that a court must decide a motion to compel
before a motion to amend a complaint.

Edward Borelli is represented by:

Harvey Sohnen, Esq.
Patricia Mary Kelly, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SOHNEN AND KELLY
2 Orinda Theatre Square #230,
Orinda, CA 94563
Tel: (925)258-9300

     - and -

Mary-Alice Coleman, Esq.
Michael Sasan Ahmad, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARY-ALICE COLEMAN
1109 Kennedy Pl # 2
Davis, CA 95616
Tel: (530)758-4234

Black Diamond Aggregates, Inc. is represented by Barbara A.
Cotter, Esq. -- bcotter@cookbrown.com -- Nevin Trehan, Esq. --
ntrehan@cookbrown.com -- COOK BROWN LLP


BLACK KNIGHT INFOSERV: Court Trims Suit by Maverick Fund et al.
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the United States District
Court for THE Middle District of Florida granted in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in the
case captioned, MAVERICK FUND, L.D.C., MAVERICK FUND USA, LTD.,
MAVERICK FUND II, LTD., MAVERICK NEUTRAL FUND, LTD., MAVERICK
NEUTRAL LEVERED FUND, LTD., MAVERICK LONG FUND, LTD., and MAVERICK
LONG ENHANCED FUND, LTD., Plaintiffs, v. LENDER PROCESSING
SERVICES INC., (n/k/a BLACK KNIGHT INFOSERV, LLC), JEFFREY S.
CARBIENER, FRANCIS K. CHAN, BLACK KNIGHT HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a
BLACK KNIGHT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.), SERVICELINK HOLDINGS, LLC
(f/k/a BLACK KNIGHT FINANCIAL SERVICES II, LLC), BLACK KNIGHT
FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, and FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:13-CV-1585-J-32LRK.

The plaintiffs are all private investment funds managed by the
same registered investment manager, non-party Maverick Capital,
Ltd.  Between October 23, 2009 and October 4, 2010, they allegedly
purchased millions of shares of a company then known as Lender
Processing Services, Inc.  According to Maverick, during the
period, LPS engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate
its revenue and stock price by relying on illicit business
practices and Maverick was damaged as a result.

On November 23, 2010, LPS shareholders filed a class action in the
Court alleging violations of federal securities fraud claims under
Sec. 10(b) and Sec. 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, and state law claims
for common law fraud, civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) under Georgia and Florida law, and
negligent misrepresentation under Florida and New York law.

After hearing argument from the parties, the Court granted the
motion without prejudice to Maverick repleading the complaint. The
Court memorialized its ruling in a written order, gave Maverick
until September 5, 2014 to file a third amended complaint, and set
in place a briefing schedule on any new motion to dismiss.

In the motion, the defendants in the now-settled class action had
moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the lead plaintiff
had not adequately pleaded (1) that the individual defendants had
"made" the allegedly false statements, (2) that the statements
were materially false or misleading, (3) a strong inference of
scienter on the part of each defendant, and (4) that the class
actually sustained a loss as the result of the alleged fraud.

In his Order dated September 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/YkKqpqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Corrigan found most of
the defendants' arguments not well-taken, except with respect to
scienter. Some but not all of Maverick's claims are due to be
dismissed with prejudice, and LPS is due to answer those claims
that remain. But what specific allegations in the lengthy Third
Amended Complaint remain to answer is unclear.

The Court directed to Maverick to replead its complaint to include
only those allegations not foreclosed by the Order on or before
October 30, 2015 and LPS to file its answer to the fourth amended
complaint on or before December 3, 2015.

Plaintiffs are represented by David A. Thorpe, Esq. --
david@dstlegal.com -- Matthew P. Siben, Esq. --
matthew@dstlegal.com -- DIETRICH SIBEN THORPE LLP

     - and -

Stephen E. Walker, Esq.
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP
303 Banyan Blvd #400,
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Tel: (561)842-2820

Defendants are represented by Charles P. Pillans, III, Esq. --
cpp@bedellfirm.com -- BEDELL, DITTMAR, DEVAULT, PILLANS & COXE,
PA, George E. Anhang, Esq. -- ganhang@cooley.com & Lyle Roberts,
Esq. -- lroberts@cooley.com -- COOLEY, LLP


BLUE CARD: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Langermann vs. Seitz
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the
judgment of the Nevada District Court dismissing the case filed by
Robert Langermann against the Hon. Patricia Seitz, District Judge
for the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

The case before the Ninth Circuit is captioned, ROBERT LANGERMANN,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PATRICIA SEITZ; et al., Defendants-
Appellees, Case No. 14-15216.

The case before the Nevada District Court is, ROBERT LANGERMANN,
Plaintiff, v. THE HONORABLE PATRICIA A. SEITZ, et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 2:11-CV-01438-KJD-GWF.

Robert Langermann appeals pro se from the district court's
judgment dismissing his action arising out of the administration
of a class action settlement, arguing that the district court
abused its discretion.

The Ninth Circuit, however, held that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Langermann's motion to transfer
this action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida because Langermann was enjoined from further
prosecuting the action.

"We reject Langermann's contentions regarding denial of access to
courts, the district court's sanction warning, and unequal
treatment by the district court and the Eleventh Circuit," the
Ninth Circuit said.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's Memorandum dated September 8, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/rvNXV6from Leagle.com.


BLYTH INC: "Berry" Suit Calls Acquisition Price "Unfair"
--------------------------------------------------------
Roger Berry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Robert B. Goergen, Robert B. Goergen, Jr.,
Jane Dietze, Andrew Graham, Brett M. Johnson, Ilan Kaufthal,
Howard E. Rose, James Williams III, The Carlyle Group L.P., CB
Shine Holdings, LLC, CB Shine Merger Sub, Inc., and Blyth, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 11543 (Del. Ch., September 25, 2015), seeks
injunctive relief to stop the acquisition plan of the Defendants
under the Securities and Exchange Commission.

According to the Complaint, this class action is brought against
the members of Blyth's board of directors, alleging breaches of
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition of
Blyth by The Carlyle Group L.P. through subsidiaries CB Shine
Holdings, LLC and CB Shine Merger Sub, Inc. The Acquisition price
is unfair because the $6.00 per share offer for the reasons that:

     (i) it does not account for the Company's book value,
         on-hand cash, and prospects for success;

    (ii) it falls far below very recent stock trading prices; and

   (iii) is nowhere near the $16.75 per share offer which the
         Company rejected not long ago.

Defendant Goergen founded Blyth in 1977 and since then has served
as Chairman of the Board. Goergen also served as Blyth's CEO from
1978 until November 2013 and as its President from March 1994 to
March 2004. Since 1979, Goergen has also served as a senior
managing member of RAM, a private equity investment group founded
and controlled by one of his sons, Todd A. Goergen, who is no
longer with the Company but in the past filled numerous roles at
Blyth. Goergen is Blyth's largest stockholder -- as of the 2015
Proxy Statement, Goergen owned more than 35% of the Company's
outstanding stock. Moreover, his wife separately owns an
additional 8.5% of the Company's outstanding shares and has
previously held a seat on the Board that she obtained through
Goergen's actions. Due to serious alleged misconduct relating to
Blyth and other entities, Goergen is currently the target of
numerous lawsuits brought under state and federal laws.

Defendant Goergen, Jr. is one of Goergen's sons and has served on
the Board since November 2013, when he became Blyth's President
and CEO. Immediately prior to that, Goergen, Jr. was the Company's
Chief Operating Officer, which he became in November 2012.
Goergen, Jr. first joined the Company in 2000 and since then has
served in numerous executive or managerial positions. As of the
2015 Proxy Statement, Goergen, Jr. owned nearly 15% of the
Company's outstanding stock, and his wife separately owns
thousands of shares. Like his father, Goergen, Jr. is also a
senior managing member of RAM. Like his father, due to serious
alleged misconduct relating to Blyth and other entities, Goergen,
Jr. is currently the target of numerous lawsuits brought under
state and federal laws.

Defendant Jane Dietze has served on the Board since March 2014 and
previously served on the Board from April 2012 until November
2012. Dietze serves as a member of the Board's Audit Committee.
Dietze has long been involved in the investment world, having
served as a managing director of Fortress Investment Group from
July 2006 until March 2012, as a general partner at NextPoint
Partners, an early-stage technology venture fund, from 2004 to
2006, and as a general partner at Columbia Capital, an information
technology and communications fund, from 1998 to 2004.

Defendant Andrew Graham has served on the Board since August 8,
2013, when the Board voted to expand from seven to eight members.
Graham serves on the Board's Audit Committee and Nominating &
Corporate Governance Committee. Graham is also an executive at The
Forum Corporation, a global learning and development firm
specializing in strategy execution for companies in a broad array
of industries.

Defendant Brett M. Johnson has served on the Board since May 2012.
Johnson chairs the Board's Compensation Committee. Johnson is also
an executive at Zealot Networks, Arizona United Soccer Club, and
Benevolent Capital.

Defendant Ilan Kaufthal has served on the Board since February 23,
2012. Kaufthal chairs the Board's Nominating & Corporate
Governance Committee and is also a member of the Compensation
Committee. Kaufthal is also the chairman at East Wind Advisors, a
small investment banking firm that focuses on media, education,
and consumer sectors.

Defendant Howard E. Rose has long been affiliated with the Company
as an executive and director for decades. Rose has served on the
Board since 1998 and served as its vice chairman from April 1998
to June 2000. Previously, Rose served as Blyth's Vice President
and CFO from 1978 to April 1998 and also as its Secretary from
1993 to 1996. Rose chairs the Board's Audit Committee and also
serves on the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee.

Defendant James Williams III has served on the Board since August
7, 2014. Since 1998, Williams has also been president and CEO of
Karlen Williams Graybill Advertising, Inc., a New York-based
advertising firm. Williams serves on the Compensation Committee.

Defendant Carlyle, with its numerous subsidiary and affiliated
entities, is a global alternative asset manager with $193 billion
of assets under management across 128 funds and 159 fund of funds
vehicles as of June 30, 2015. Through a web of subsidiary and
affiliated entities, including Carlyle U.S. Equity Opportunity
Fund, L.P., Carlyle controls Parent and Merger Sub.

Defendant Parent is a Delaware limited liability company and an
affiliate of Carlyle that was formed for the sole purpose of
effectuating the Acquisition. Parent does not independently
maintain any offices, employees, or operations of its own.

Defendant Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned
direct subsidiary of Parent that was formed for the sole purpose
of effectuating the Acquisition. Merger Sub does not independently
maintain any offices, employees, or operations of its own.

Defendant Blyth is a Delaware corporation that maintains its
headquarters in Greenwich, Connecticut. Blyth makes and sells
candles and other household fragrance products. Blyth was formed
over 40 years ago by the Family and, according to the Company's
own public statements, has been controlled by the Goergens since
its inception. Blyth is named as a defendant herein solely to
provide complete relief with respect to Plaintiff's claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

     - and -

W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 602-1592


BOFI HOLDING: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Golden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bofi Holding, Inc., Gregory Garrabrants, and Andrew J.
Micheletti, Case No. 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal., October 15,
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.

Bofi Holding, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI
Federal Bank, a provider of consumer and business banking products
through the Internet in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (818) 532-6449
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Judge Slashes Mesh Verdict $10 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a Delaware judge has slashed as "grossly disproportionate" a
$100 million award against Boston Scientific Corp. down to $10
million in a case over one of the company's pelvic mesh devices.

While upholding the verdict against Boston Scientific, Delaware
Superior Court Judge Mary Johnston, found on Oct. 9 that the
amount of the award was "sufficiently out of proportion to the
injury so as to shock the court's conscience and sense of
justice."

A jury on May 28 awarded $25 million in compensatory and $75
million in punitive damages to Deborah Barba, who alleged that
Boston Scientific's Pinnacle device and Advantage Fit sling caused
her pain and subsequent surgeries to remove the mesh, plus $45,260
in medical expenses.

Attorney Fred Thompson -- fthompson@motleyrice.com -- who
represents Ms. Barba, said he wasn't surprised or shocked about
the award reduction, especially given previous verdicts upheld in
Delaware on appeal.

"But we're gratified that she kept the jury's intent on the
punitive award -- that exact proportion --- and in essence took it
down a power of 10," said Mr. Thompson, a member of Motley Rice in
Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina.

Judge Johnston also rejected Boston Scientific's request for
judgment in its favor, or a new trial, based on arguments that it
shouldn't be subject to Ms. Barba's fraud claims over the actions
of her doctor and that evidence should not have been allowed at
trial attempting to show that U.S. Federal Drug Administration
approval of its device was based on fraud.

Boston Scientific spokesman Tom Keppeler said the company planned
to appeal.

"We appreciate that the trial court reduced the verdict by 90
percent; however, we believe there were factual and legal errors
underlying the verdict," he wrote in an email.

In reducing the award, Judge Johnston looked to other pelvic mesh
verdicts, which ranged from $250,000 to $6.7 million in
compensatory damages and, in cases in which they were awarded,
$1.75 million to $7.76 million in punitive damages.

She reduced Ms. Barba's compensatory damages to $2.5 million and
punitive damages to $7.5 million -- the same 3:1 ratio that the
jury found.

"Punitive damages are warranted in this case in order to punish
Boston Scientific and deter it from permitting other products to
enter the market without first taking steps to ensure the
product's safety and efficacy," Judge Johnston wrote.

The award is one of four against Boston Scientific over its pelvic
mesh devices.  Last year, a Texas state court jury awarded $73.4
million, and federal juries in Florida and West Virginia awarded
$26.7 million and $18.5 million, respectively.  Boston Scientific
also won two verdicts in Massachusetts state court.


BRM RECOVERY: "Franklin" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT & Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Yolanda Franklin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. BRM Recovery Services Inc. dba
Bankruptcy Resource Management, Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-02023
(C.D. Cal., October 1, 2015), seeks to recover statutory damages
and injunctive relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of BRM Recovery
Services Inc. in negligently, knowingly, and/or wilfully
contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy.

The proposed class is defined as: "All persons within the United
States who received any collection telephone calls from Defendant
to said person's cellular telephone made through the use of any
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice and such person had not previously consented to receiving
such calls within the four years prior to the filing of this
Complaint."

Defendant, BRM Recovery Services Inc. dba Bankruptcy Resource
Management, was incorporated in 2009 to meet the growing needs of
national and regional consumer credit operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, 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
Email: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
        sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
        abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Watson" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mavis Watson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Capital Management Services, L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-07855-RGK-KLS (C.D. Cal., October 7,
2015), seeks redress for herself and the putative class under the
Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The lawsuit alleges false, deceptive and unfair debt-collection
practices promulgated by Defendant, Capital Management Services,
L.P., in an effort to induce consumers to make a payment on
alleged consumer debts in which the applicable statute of
limitations has expired and thus renewing Breach of Contract
claims that Defendant and/or its creditor clients failed to bring
in a timely manner against consumers when they failed to advise
Plaintiff and consumers that the applicable statute of limitations
had previously expired when seeking to collect the alleged debt.
Plaintiff also brings this action against Defendant for charging
illegal interest to Plaintiff after the charge-off date.

The Defendant is a limited liability company based in Buffalo, New
York, which regularly in its ordinary course of business utilizes
instrumentalities of interstate commerce or the mails in its
business, the principal purpose of which is the collection of any
debts; it also regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly
or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due
another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, 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
Email: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
        sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
        abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


CARTER'S RETAIL: Court Denies Preliminary Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California denied
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement in the case captioned, JULIE DUDUM, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CARTER'S RETAIL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-00988-HSG.

On January 27, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Carter's
Retail, Inc. in the Superior Court for the County of San Mateo.
Plaintiffs alleged violations of California's Labor Code and
Business and Professions Code, including the failure to pay wages,
failure to pay split shift differential wages, failure to
reimburse business expenses, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, and
claims under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). Plaintiff
Julie Dudum also brought individual claims for retaliation,
disability discrimination, and wrongful termination. Carter's
removed the action to the District Court for the Northern District
of California on March 3, 2014.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement on July 24, 2015 after exchanging some discovery with
the Defendant with an experienced mediator and reaching settlement
on January 15, 2015. In the Settlement, Defendant agreed to pay
$472,000 which includes payments to class members for release of
their claims, any award of attorneys' fees and costs, the claims
administrator's costs, a $4,000 payment to the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency pursuant to PAGA and any incentive award to the
named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' counsel estimates that $274,500 will
be available for disbursement to the class after these amounts are
deducted from the total recovery.

In the Order dated September 4, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/e7fDuofrom Leagle.com, Judge Gilliam, Jr. found that
the limited information provided by Plaintiffs' counsel precludes
the Court from evaluating whether the Settlement Agreement
warrants preliminary approval and that Plaintiffs' counsel does
not discuss whether and why that damage analysis supports the
reasonableness of the Settlement Agreement reached in the case.
The Court cannot determine whether the $472,500 agreed upon is
sufficient to compensate the 466 class-members for the release of
the claims sought to be resolved.

The Court left the door open for the parties to file a renewed
motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Cary S. Kletter, Esq.
John Franklin McIntyre, Jr., Esq.
SHEA & MCINTYRE, A P.C.
2166 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Tel: (408)298-6611

Defendant is represented by Aurelio Jose Perez, Esq. --
aperez@littler.com -- Natalie Ann Pierce, Esq. --
npierce@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, PC


CELLULAR SALES: CA Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Holick"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Richard C. Wesley of the United States Court of
Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed district court's judgment
denying the motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned,
JAN P. HOLICK, JR., STEVEN MOFFITT, JUSTIN MOFFITT, GURWINDER
SINGH, JASON MACK, TIMOTHY M. PRATT, and WILLIAM BURRELL, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CELLULAR SALES OF NEW YORK, LLC, CELLULAR
SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 14-4323.

Timothy Pratt and William Burrell are two of the named plaintiffs
in this putative class action against Cellular Sales of New York,
LLC (Cellular Sales) and its parent company Cellular Sales of
Knoxville, Inc. (Cellular Sales of Knoxville). In their suit
brought under state and federal labor laws, Plaintiffs allege
that, during 2010 and 2011, they were unlawfully denied various
forms of compensation and benefits because Defendants improperly
classified them as independent contractors rather than employees.

Defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration
clause contained in Plaintiffs' subsequent employment agreements.
Judge Norman A. Mordue of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York denied the motion finding that
another contract that was in effect during the time when
Plaintiffs' claims arose supported a finding of non-arbitrability.

On appeal, Defendants-Appellants argue that the denial of their
motion to compel arbitration "conflicts with long-standing federal
precedent under which all doubts as to the intent of the parties
and the scope of an arbitration clause must be resolved generously
in favor of arbitration."

In her Decision dated September 22, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/2CqYEdfrom Leagle.com, Judge Wesley found that the
parties did not intend for the arbitration agreement to be
retroactive.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Ronald G. Dunn, Esq.
Daniel A. Jacobs, Esq.
GLEASON, DUNN, WALSH & O'SHEA
40 Beaver St
Albany, NY 12207
Tel: (518)432-7511

Defendants are represented by C. Larry Carbo, III, Esq. --
larry.carbo@chamberlainlaw.com -- Julie R. Offerman, Esq. --
julie.offerman@chamberlainlaw.com -- CHAMBERLAIN, HRDLICKA, WHITE,
WILLIAMS & AUGHTRY


CHARLES SCHWAB: Must Face Investors' Suit, N.D. Cal. Judge Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Charles Schwab owed investors a fiduciary duty not to deviate
from a set investment plan, a federal judge has ruled in San Jose,
California.

Northstar Financial Advisors, Inc. filed a putative class action
against Schwab in 2008, alleging the company broke away from
financial objectives tied to the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund by
investing too heavily in risky mortgage-backed securities that
accounted for more than 25 percent of the fund's assets.

The original plan involved tracking the Lehman Brothers U.S.
Aggregate Bond Index, and the deviation from that objective
allegedly cost shareholders tens of millions of dollars when the
housing bubble burst -- an affect triggered by relaxed industry
standards that led to bad loans made to homeowners who could not
pay them back.

The fund suffered a total negative return of 4.80 percent as a
result, according to Northstar, which notes the Lehman Index
enjoyed a positive 7.85 percent return for the same class period
between September 2007 and February 2009.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston initially found that Northstar
did not have standing to bring claims against Schwab because the
company only purchases shares for its clients, not for itself.
She granted with prejudice Schwab's motion to dismiss Northstar's
third amended complaint in August 2011.

The Ninth Circuit ruled in March 2015, however, that Northstar had
standing to sue Schwab even if it did not own shares of the fund
itself, because a client assigned his rights to the investment
advisory firm in a supplemental, post-complaint pleading.

Schwab disclosed in registration statements filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that tracking its benchmark was
"fundamental," and could not be changed without the approval of a
majority of the securities-holders.  Therefore, "until the
fundamental investment objectives were amended by the shareholder
vote, the investors had a contractual right to have the fund
managed in accordance with those objectives," U.S. District Judge
Edward Korman, a federal judge from New York sitting by
designation, wrote for the circuit.

Schwab filed a motion to dismiss Northstar's fifth amended
complaint in June 2015, and U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San
Jose granted the motion with prejudice on six of Northstar's 14
claims.  She threw out Northstar's claims for breach of contract
as third party beneficiary against the advisor, breach of contract
against the trust, breach of covenant of good faith and fair
dealing against the advisor and trustees, breach of contract as
third party beneficiary against the advisor, and breach of
covenant of good faith and fair dealing against the advisor and
trustees.

Koh, however, preserved Northstar's claims for fiduciary duty
against the Schwab defendants.

"The advisor did not operate at arm's length," she wrote in a 42-
page order. "Instead, the advisor worked under the supervision of
the trustees on behalf of the shareholders. As such, the advisor
ultimately owed the shareholder certain fiduciary duties."

Northstar also fulfilled the requirements for its aiding and
abetting claims, Koh said.

"The [complaint] and exhibits suggest that the trustees and the
advisor are to have a close working relationship," she explained.
"Schwab investments' 1997 proxy statement states, for instance,
that the trustees and the advisor worked together in proposing new
investment objectives for the fund."

She added that the statement, and others like it, "suggests that,
if a breach did in fact occur, one defendant knew what the other
defendant was doing, and may have helped facilitate the breach at
issue."

Koh noted that "the court's decision does not foreclose defendants
from challenging Northstar's aiding and abetting claims at a later
stage. It is possible, for instance, that defendants will be able
to show that the trustees did not actively participate in the
advisor's breach of the advisor's fiduciary duties to Northstar,"
she wrote.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: CA Revives "Lewings" Wage & Hour Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith Ashmann-Gerst of the Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, reversed, in part, the dismissal of the case
captioned, ASHANTE K. LEWINGS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
B255443.

Lewings appeals from the dismissal of her class action following
the successful demurrer of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Chipotle)
to Lewings's third amended complaint (TAC). The primary issue is
whether Chipotle violated Labor Code section 3751, a statute which
prohibits employers from receiving a contribution from an
employee, directly or indirectly, to cover any part of the cost of
workers' compensation.

As alleged, employees purchased nonslip shoes from a company
called Shoes For Crews, and Shoes For Crews extended warranties to
Chipotle to cover certain medical expenses in slip and fall
related workers' compensation cases. The allegations show that
Chipotle violated section 3751 because it knowingly received
warranties financed by its employees and specifically designed to
alleviate workers' compensation costs.

The Appeals Court concludes that a violation of section 3751
supports Lewings's fifth cause of action under Business and
Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (UCL). Moreover, the
Appeals Court concludes that Lewings's second, third, and fourth
causes of action pursuant to sections 201/202, section 226,
subdivision (a), and the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
(PAGA) should have survived demurrer, and that any Labor Code
violations also support the UCL allegations. Accordingly, the
Appeals Court reverses the dismissal as to the second through
fifth causes of action. As to the first cause of action for
violation of section 3751, however, the Court affirms. Though the
TAC alleges a violation of that statute, that statute does not
give rise to a private right of action.

A copy of the Court's Opinion dated September 22, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/3V5WPyfrom Leagle.com.

Ashante K. Lewings is represented by Stephen M. Harris, Esq. --
smh@kpclegal.com -- Gwen Freeman, Esq. -- gf@kpclegal.com -- Kevin
J. Stack, Esq. -- kjs@kpclegal.com -- Knapp, Petersen & Clarke

Defendants are represented by Richard J. Simmons, Esq. --
rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- Jason W. Kearnaghan, Esq. --
jkearnaghan@sheppardmullin.com -- Daniel J. McQueen, Esq. --
dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com -- Robert Mussig, Esq. --
rmussig@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Bid for Interlocutory Appeal in "Turner" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge John L. Kane of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado denied Defendant's motion to
certify for immediate interlocutory appeal and denied as moot
motion to stay all proceedings pending the appeal, in the case
captioned, LEAH TURNER, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-2612-JLK.

The principal allegation in the complaint is that Chipotle's
hourly employees were deprived of overtime pay by the operation of
a computer program, Aloha, that plaintiffs assert arbitrarily cuts
off the time clock at half past midnight, in some cases somewhat
later in the night, so that employees were not paid for hours
worked after the time clock stopped. On August 21, 2015 the Court
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order permitting a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In his Order dated September 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ndy5Q3from Leagle.com, Judge Kane concluded that the
Motion to Certify fails to meet, or even address, the statute and
that the essential certification in the order is lacking.

Plaintiffs are represented by Andrew Curry Quisenberry, Esq. --
aquisenberry@coloradolaw.com -- Darin Lee Schanker, Esq. --
dschanker@coloradolaw.net -- BACHUS & SCHANKER, LLC

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is represented by Adam Michael
Royval, Esq. Allison Joy Dodd, Esq. -- adodd@messner.com -- John
Karl Shunk, Esq. -- jshunk@messner.com -- MESSNER & REEVES LLP &
Richard J. Simmons, Esq. -- rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com --
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP


CHOCTAW INVESTMENT: "Curtin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Curtin, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Choctaw Investment Corporation d/b/a The
Living Room on Main, Fancy Pants, Inc., d/b/a The Living Room on
Main and Leta Rene Johnson, Case No. 8:15-cv-02436-JDW-MAP (M.D.
Fla., October 15, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage
compensation, recovery of employee tips, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate The Living Room on Main restaurant
in Pinellas County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan D. Barack, Esq.
      Michelle Erin Nadeau, Esq.
      KWALL, SHOWERS, BARACK & CHILSON, P.A.
      133 North Fort Harrison Avenue
      Clearwater, FL 33755
      Telephone: (727) 441-4947
      Facsimile: (727) 447-3158
      E-mail: rbarack@ksbclaw.com
              mnadeau@ksbclaw.com


CMH HOMES: Motion to Compel Arbitration Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted in
part Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings
in the case captioned, JACQUELYNN (JACKIE) L. JACKS, STUART L.
REES, Wife and Husband, HARLEY J. JACKS and JACQUELYNN (JACKIE) L.
JACKS, as Next Friend for T.J.M., a Minor, and A.J.J., a Minor,
Plaintiffs, v. CMH HOMES, INC., d/b/a OAKWOOD HOMES OKLAHOMA CITY
and as CLAYTON MOBILE HOMES; KARSTEN HOMES, a Division of CMH
MANUFACTURING, INC., and VANDERBILT MORTGAGE AND FINANCE, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. CIV-15-44-M.

On December 7, 2009, plaintiff Jacquelynn (Jackie) L. Jacks
purchased a 2010 Karsten Model 270 manufactured home from
defendant CMH Homes, Inc. Jackie Jacks financed the home through
defendant CMH Homes, Inc. under a Manufactured Home Retail
Installment Contract (RIC) which includes an arbitration
agreement. Plaintiffs allege that they suffered physical injury
and damage to personal property because the water system in the
home was negligently installed and repaired causing the recurring
growth of mold in the home, that the home was unreasonably
dangerous at the time it left the control of the CMH Defendants,
and that the home was not fit for human habitation. Additionally,
Jackie Jacks seeks to rescind her purchase of the home and to
rescind her agreement to pay the indebtedness incurred to purchase
the home.

On January 14, 2015, the CMH Defendants removed the case to the
federal District Court.

In the motion, CMH Defendants contend that a valid agreement to
arbitrate exists between the parties and that plaintiffs' claims
fall within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. The CMH
Defendants contend that all of plaintiffs' claims should be
compelled to arbitration and stayed pending the conclusion of the
arbitration.

In her Order dated September 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/caHwqNfrom Leagle.com, Judge Miles-LaGrange denied
the motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings as to the
claims of plaintiffs Stuart L. Rees, Harley J. Jacks, T.J.M. and
A.J.J., finding no equitable reason why the non-signatory
plaintiffs should be bound by the Arbitration Agreement; the non-
signatory plaintiffs have engaged in no conduct which would
equitably warrant that they be bound by the Arbitration Agreement,
and granted in part the motion to compel arbitration and stay
proceedings as to the claims of Jackie Jacks.  The Court said a
valid agreement to arbitrate exists between the CMH Defendants and
Jackie Jacks, that Jackie Jacks' claims fall within the scope of
the Arbitration Agreement, and that all of Jackie Jacks' claims
should be compelled to arbitration and any proceedings regarding
those claims should be stayed pending the conclusion of the
arbitration.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Michael M. Reynolds, Esq.
DEBOIS SHERRILL & REYNOLDS
15 N 9th St #205
Duncan, OK 73533
Tel: (580)255-4840

Defendants are represented by James E. Dunn, Esq. --
jamesdunn@usattorney.com -- JAMES E. DUNN & ASSOCIATES


CREDIT ONE: Tenn. Judge Sends "Bibee" TCPA Case to Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Todd J. Campbell of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted Defendant's
motion to dismiss and compel arbitration in the case captioned,
WALTER BIBEE v. CREDIT ONE BANK, Case No. 3-15-0734.

The action was filed by Plaintiff against Defendant for alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Defendant has moved to dismiss and compel arbitration, arguing
that Plaintiff agreed to binding arbitration of any and all
disputes arising out of his Credit Card Agreement with Defendant.
The Agreement provides that "You and we agree that either you or
we may, without the other's consent, require that any controversy
or dispute between you and us (all of which are called "Claims"),
be submitted to mandatory, binding arbitration."

Plaintiff opposes Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Compel
Arbitration because (1) he has stated a claim under the TCPA; (2)
Defendant has not carried its burden to prove the existence of an
enforceable arbitration agreement; and (3) the arbitration
provision is unconscionable.

In his Memorandum dated September 4, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/U37gjLfrom Leagle.com, Judge Campbell found that the
terms of the arbitration provision are not unconscionable and is
not one-sided.

Warren Bibee is represented by:

Amy Lynn Bennecoff Ginsburg, Esq.
KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C.
30 E Butler Ave
Ambler, PA 19002
Tel: (215)540-8888

     - and -

Michael J. McNulty, Esq. -- Michael@McNultyAssociatesTN.com --
MCNULTY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

Credit One Bank is represented by Claire V. Thomas, Esq. -
cthomas@lewisthomason.com -- LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG &
WALDROP, P.C.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Merger Devalues Sirona Stock, "Brown" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. David K. Beecken, William K. Hood, Dr.
Thomas Jetter, Arthur D. Kowaloff, Harry M. Jansen Kraemer, Jr.,
Jeffrey T. Slovin, Timothy P. Sullivan, DENTSPLY International
Inc., and Dawkins Merger Sub Inc., Defendants, Case No. 11560 (Ch.
Del., October 1, 2015), seeks to secure an injunctive relief to
stop Defendants from consummating the allegedly illegal proposed
transaction.

DENTSPLY and Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. announced on Sept. 15,
2015, that the Boards of Directors of both companies have
unanimously approved a definitive merger agreement which will
result in the world's leading manufacturer of professional dental
products and technologies. The combination will create a combined
company with the largest sales and service infrastructure in
dental with 15,000 employees globally.

A copy of Sirona's statement on the merger is available at
http://is.gd/Br23hv

The stockholder class action alleges that the Defendants conspired
through the Merger Agreement to sell Sirona stocks below its
actual trading price. Plaintiff contends the Merger Consideration
greatly undervalues Sirona's prospects; the Merger Consideration
is below Sirona' trading price of $98.09 the day before the
announced Proposed Transaction and well below its trading price in
June, July and August, which exceeded $100.00 per share reflecting
the Company's success and prospects for future growth.

DENTSPLY designs, develops, manufactures, and markets various
consumable dental products for the professional dental market. The
company provides dental consumable products, including dental
supplies and devices as well as computer aided design and
machining ceramic systems, and porcelain furnaces.

Non-party Defendant Sirona is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of Delaware, with its principal executive offices
located at 30-47th Avenue, Suite 500, Long Island City, New York
11101. Sirona is a dental equipment manufacturer that was spun off
in 1997 from the German conglomerate Siemens Medical Technology
Division, merged with Schick Technologies Inc. in 2006. Most of
its development and manufacturing occurs in Bensheim Germany.

The Defendant David K. Beecken has served as a member of the board
of directors since 2006 and is Chairman of the Audit Committee.

The Defendant William K. Hood has served as a member of the board
of directors since 2002 and is a member of the Audit Committee.

The Defendant Dr. Thomas Jetter is the current chairman of the
board, has served as a member of the board of directors since
2009, and is been a Member of its Nominating and Corporate
Governance Committee.

The Defendant Arthur D. Kowaloff has served as a member of the
board of directors since 2004 and is a member of its Audit,
Finance and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees.

The Defendant Harry M. Jansen Kraemer, Jr. has served as a member
of the board of directors since 2006 and is member of its
Compensation Committee, and Chairman of its Nominating and
Corporate Governance Committee. In addition Kraemer serves as an
Executive Partner of Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC, a private
equity investment firm based in Chicago which invests in
management buyout and other private equity transactions across a
broad spectrum of industries.

The Defendant Jeffrey T. Slovin has served as a member of the
board of directors since December 1999, and is President and CEO.
From June 2006 until September 2010, Slovin served as Executive
Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of U.S. Operations.

The Defendant Timothy P. Sullivan has served as a member of the
board of directors since 2006, and is Chairman of the Compensation
Committee, and is a member of its Finance and Nominating and
Corporate Governance Committees. In addition Sullivan serves as a
Managing Director of Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC, a private
equity investment firm based in Chicago which invests in
management buyout and other private equity transactions across a
broad spectrum of industries.

Defendant DENTSPLY International Inc., is a Delaware corporation,
based in Pennsylvania that designs, develops, manufactures and
markets dental products.

Defendant Dawkins Merger Sub Inc. is a Delaware corporation and
wholly-owned subsidiary of DENTSPLY that was created for purposes
of effectuating the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
Wilmington, DE 19807
Tel: (302) 482-3182
Email: jbanko@faruqilaw.com
        dfarrell@faruqilaw.com


DHL EXPRESS: Settlement in "Marshall" Case Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Raymond J. Dearie of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York granted final approval
of the class settlement in the case captioned, DIONNE MARSHALL and
LUCIA GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. DEUTSCHE POST DHL and DHL EXPRESS (USA)
INC., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-1471(RJD)(JO).

Plaintiffs brought this action on March 20, 2013, on behalf of
similarly-situated current and former hourly paid and non-exempt
service agents of DHL at John F. Kennedy International Airport,
Los Angeles International Airport, and Miami International
Airport. According to the complaint, DHL undercompensated its
employees by configuring the time clocks to round down,
automatically reducing 30 minutes for meal breaks, and requiring
that employees perform work before clocking in or after clocking
out. Near the end of discovery, class counsel moved for
certification of the case as a collective action pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Sec. 216(b). DHL opposed the motion. While the motion was
fully briefed, Judge Orenstein stayed its disposition so that the
parties could try to settle the case. The parties mediated, and
after a series of negotiations, settled the case on November 11,
2014.

The settlement releases the class's claims against DHL in exchange
for $1,500,000. Section 4.2 of the settlement agreement provides
that class counsel's attorneys' fees and costs, services payments
to class representatives, DHL's portion of payroll taxes,
settlement administrative costs, and a payment to the California
Workforce Development Agency (a "PAGA" payment) will be deducted
from the total settlement amount. If the total sum of these
individual settlement payouts exceeds the remaining total of the
settlement then each claimant's payout is reduced on a pro rata
basis.

In the motion, Plaintiffs move for final approval of the
settlement, an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and an award of
service payments to the named plaintiffs. Counsel report that they
billed 1,325 hours on the case for a total lodestar of
$591,571.25. They request a fee award of $500,000, which
represents one third of the settlement amount. Counsel also seeks
to be reimbursed for $33,371.39 in costs, which were largely
incurred on travel, deposition transcripts, mediation fees, and
photocopy expenses. Plaintiffs seek service awards of $5,000 each
for a total of $15,000.

In his Memorandum and Order dated September 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/3y8xlFfrom Leagle.com, Judge Dearie granted final
approval of the settlement finding it substantively fair and
adequate. The Court awarded $370,236.50 in fees to class counsel;
$33,371.39 in reimbursement for costs to class counsel; $5,000 to
each of the plaintiffs as a service award; and $5,000 as PAGA
payment.

Plaintiffs are represented by Brett Gallaway, Esq. --
bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com -- Lee S. Shalov, Esq. --
lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com -- Neil Barry Solomon, Esq. --
nsolomon@mclaughlinstern.com -- Wade Christopher Wilkinson, Esq. -
- wwilkinson@mclaughlinstern.com -- MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP

     - and -

Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
Matthew Cohen, Esq.
LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
The Woolworth Building
233 Broadway, Suite 2220
New York, NY 10279
Tel: (212) 406-3630

Defendants are represented by Christina Jane Fletcher, Esq. --
CJFletcher@duanemorris.com -- Julie A. Vogelzang, Esq. --
Jvogelzang@duanemorris.com -- Kevin E. Vance, Esq. --
Kvance@duanemorris.com -- Michael Tiliakos, Esq. --
Mtiliakos@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP


DRAFTKINGS INC: Sued in Mass. Over Deceptive Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Wicksman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DraftKings, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-13559-LTS
(D. Mass., October 13, 2015) seeks declaratory, injunctive and
monetary relief on behalf of all Players victimized by DraftKings'
cynical and deceptive business practices, which promises that when
the Player signs up, he will "automatically get" the additional
matching deposit.

DraftKings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates an online
fantasy sports contests.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Roddy, Esq.
      Elizabeth Ryan, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      99 High Street, Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 439-6730
      Facsimile: (617) 951-3954
      E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com
              eryan@baileyglasser.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Gomez, Ricardo Alejandro Garcia, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly-situated v. DraftKings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-23858-PCH (S.D. Fla., October 15, 2015) seeks
declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of all
Players victimized by DraftKings' cynical and deceptive business
practices, which promises that when the Player signs up, he will
"automatically get" the additional matching deposit.

DraftKings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates an online
fantasy sports contests.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christos Lagos, Esq.
      John Priovolos, Esq.
      LAGOS & PRIOVOLOS PLLC
      66 West Flagler Street, Suite 1000
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 960-1990
      Facsimile: (305) 891-2610
      E-mail: Lagos@attainjustice.com
              john@priolaw.com

         - and -

      Ervin A. Gonzalez, Esq.
      Patrick S. Montoya, Esq.
      COLSON HICKS EIDSON COLSON MATTHEWS MARTINEZ GONZALEZ
      KALBAC & KANE
      255 Alhambra Circle
      Penthouse
      Coral Gables, Florida 33134
      Telephone: (305) 476-7400
      Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
      E-mail: Ervin@colson.com
              Patrick@colson.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: Deceives Betting Customers, "Aguirre" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Aguirre, Plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class, vs.
DraftKings, Inc., Defendant., Case No. 1:15-cv-13476-NMG (S.D.
Fla., September 29, 2015), seeks injunctive relief against
Defendants for deceptive trade practices and fraud, violating the
Florida Free Gift Advertising Law.

According to the Complaint, as part of this advertising scheme,
DraftKings entices fantasy sports players with promotions intended
to make individuals believe that up to $600 of their initial
deposits will be immediately matched by the site. DraftKings
thereby signals to potential customers that if, for example, they
deposit $200, they will immediately have $400 with which to wager.
When potential customers go to DraftKings.com, they encounter a
banner headline proclaiming, "Receive a 100% First-Time Deposit
Bonus." Directly below, the user is directed to a heading entitled
"CLAIM FREE OFFER >>." Upon clicking on the "CLAIM FREE OFFER"
heading, customers are routed to a page designed to register new
users. After choosing a username and password and providing
demographic information, the customer is directed to click on a
heading entitled "Register." But customers receive no money upon
depositing. They discover, instead, that they must incur an
additional and substantial monetary obligation in order to
"double" their deposit.

DraftKings, Inc. is an online fantasy sports gambling business
incorporated under the laws of Delaware. The corporation's
headquarters, nerve center, and principal place of business is the
city of Boston in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. DraftKings
legally hosts online fantasy sports betting for residents of 45 of
the 50 United States and the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Mason Kerns, Esq.
Jerrod M. Paul, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MASON KERNS
3178 New York Street
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: 305.725.8300
Email: masonkernslaw@gmail.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Haroldson and Aaron Schiro, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DraftKings, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
13581-IT (D. Mass., October 15, 2015) seeks declaratory,
injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of all Players victimized
by DraftKings' cynical and deceptive business practices, which
promises that when the Player signs up, he will "automatically
get" the additional matching deposit.

DraftKings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates an online
fantasy sports contests.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef C. Culik, Esq.
      CULIK LAW PC
      18 Commerce Way, Suite 2850
      Woburn, MA 01801
      Telephone: (617) 830-1795
      E-mail: jculik@culiklaw.com

         - and -

      Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
      Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
      LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
      975 E. Jefferson Avenue
      Detroit, MI 48207
      Telephone: (313) 392-0025
      E-mail: info@LDclassaction.com


EDEN PALACE: Unlawfully Retained Tips, "Cornejo" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Cornejo and Carlos Cornejo on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Eden Palace Inc.; Palace Of
Eden Inc.; Emmanuel Roth; Jeff Rosenbaum; and any other related
entities, Defendants, Case No. 606364 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty,
October 1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the Labor
Law and the Hospitality Wage Order.

Defendant Eden Palace Inc., is a domestic company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York and is authorized
to do business in the State of New York, with a headquarters and
principal place of business located at 420 Flushing Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York 11205 and is engaged in the hospitality
industry.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Seeks to Overturn Likeness Suit Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Blum, writing for The Recorder, reports that attorneys for
Electronic Arts Inc. are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn
a ruling that cleared a path for retired football players to sue
the video game maker over the unauthorized use of their likenesses
as avatars.

The company's appellate lawyers at Jenner & Block argue the case
presents a "collision" of the First Amendment and state right-of-
publicity law and that lower courts are in urgent need of
guidance.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled earlier this
year in Electronic Arts v. Davis that the depiction of the players
in E.A.'s popular Madden NFL game was not sufficiently
transformative to qualify for First Amendment protection because
the former players were represented accurately in the setting that
gave rise to their fame.

E.A.'s lawyers call the test "constitutionally perverse" and argue
that it will chill expression generally viewed as artistic.  "If
the realistic portrayal of a person in an expressive work can
strip the work of First Amendment protection, then countless
creative works are at risk of suit," writes E.A.'s lead lawyer
Paul Smith -- psmith@jenner.com -- chair of Jenner & Block's
appellate and Supreme Court practice.

The lawyers also argue the Ninth Circuit is out of step with state
and federal circuit courts, which have held that the First
Amendment protects celebrity portrayals within an expressive work
unless they are unrelated to the work or used to suggest a
celebrity endorsement.

"These conflicting legal rules have real-world consequences:
without this court's guidance, artists, musicians, and other
content creators will remain unsure what standards apply," the
brief states.

Joining Mr. Smith on the petition are Jenner partners Kenneth
Doroshow and Matthew Price as well as Davis Wright Tremaine
partner Alonzo Wickers IV, who argued the appeal, and a Keker &
Van Nest team.

E.A. pays to license the likenesses of current professional
football players for its Madden NFL series.  From 2001 to 2009,
the games also included historic teams.  Although the thousands of
former players represented in different versions of the game were
not identified by name, their appearances and descriptions matched
real-life players.

Retired National Football League players Michael Davis, Vince
Ferragamo and Billy Joe Dupree sued in 2010 for conversion,
trespass to chattels and unjust enrichment.  Electronic Arts tried
to get the suit thrown out in 2011 by invoking California's anti-
SLAPP law, which shields defendants from lawsuits that target
protected speech.

Ruling in January, Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Raymond Risher and
Marsha Berzon of the Ninth Circuit rejected E.A.'s First Amendment
defenses, leaning heavily on a prior ruling involving college
football players.

The company's lawyers write in their petition for certiorari that
right-of-publicity suits have proliferated since the 1950s, when
courts first recognized the claim. Among those targeted have been
musicians, filmmakers, authors, magazines, greeting card companies
and artists.


ENSIGN UNITED STATES: "Brown" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Prim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Ensign United States Drilling, Inc.
Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-02156 (D. Colo., September 30, 2015),
seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages owed to Defendant's
workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The proposed class is defined as: "All current and former hourly
employees of ensign United States Drilling, Inc., during the past
three years that received hourly pay and a non-discretionary
bonus."

Defendant Ensign operates an oilfield in Colorado and throughout
the United States.

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
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: 713-751-0025
Facsimile: 713-751-0030
Email: 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
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Cochran" Suit Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Cochran and Enjoli Alexander, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions,
Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01659-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal., October 15, 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:

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

         - and -

      Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
      ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY
      320 S. Boston Ave., Suite 1130
      Tulsa, OK 74103
      Telephone: (918) 588-3400
      E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com


EXXON MOBIL: Environmental Groups' Bid to Block Settlement Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a Superior Court judge has rejected a bid by environmental groups
to intervene and block New Jersey's controversial $225 million
settlement with Exxon Mobil Corp. over contamination claims.

Judge Michael Hogan, who has been hearing the case between the
state Department of Environmental Protection and Exxon Mobil,
denied a motion to intervene by five groups that object to the
settlement.  Judge Hogan also denied a motion for reconsideration
of his prior order denying state Sen. Raymond Lesniak, D-Union,
leave to intervene.

Judge Hogan said Mr. Lesniak and the five groups -- New Jersey
Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, Delaware Riverkeeper, Delaware
Riverkeeper Network and Environment New Jersey -- could not
intervene because they lacked standing to bring suit under either
the Spill Compensation and Control Act or the Environmental Rights
Act. And even if the senator and the environmental groups did have
standing, they are not entitled to intervene because the DEP
adequately represents their interests, Judge Hogan said.  And
Lesniak cannot intervene due to the separation of powers provision
of the New Jersey Constitution, Judge Hogan said.

The groups sought permission to intervene so they could appeal the
settlement, which Hogan approved Aug. 25, to the Appellate
Division.  Opponents to the settlement have argued that damages in
the case were estimated as high as $8.9 billion, although lawyers
for the state and for Exxon Mobil have disputed that figure and
said that the $225 million, which includes about $44 million in
attorney fees, was appropriate.  The $225 million figure
represents the damages caused at the company's refinery facility
in Bayonne and at the Bayway Refinery in Linden, as well as at all
of its service stations and several other facilities in the state.
The environmental groups and Mr. Lesniak said that instead of
appealing the settlement, they will appeal the decision denying
their motion to intervene in the case.

Judge Hogan said in his Oct. 9 ruling that only the DEP can bring
suit under the Spill Act. He also said private parties can bring
some suits under the ERA but the moving parties could not bring
the underlying complaint in the Exxon Mobil case.

Alternatively, Judge Hogan said, if the moving parties did have
standing, private parties that want to bring concurrent cases are
ousted from standing when a trial court determines the DEP has
"properly and adequately acted to enforce environmental statutes,"
a condition met in the present case, Judge Hogan said.

In addition, allowing Mr. Lesniak to intervene would "implicate
significant separation of powers concerns," Judge Hogan said.
"The DEP has decided that, in this particular case, enforcement of
the Spill Act is best served through settlement rather than the
uncertainties of continued litigation and prolonged appeals,"
Judge Hogan said.  "To allow Senator Lesniak, or any other
legislator, to intervene to oppose the proposed consent judgment
would set a precedent whereby individual legislators could
intervene to oppose any agency settlement, thereby potentially
nullifying virtually every litigation decision that the executive
branch makes."

Mr. Lesniak said that, in addition to appealing the ruling denying
him the right to intervene, he would file a separate suit under
his own name "that will blow the settlement to smithereens."

"Judge Hogan has denied the public its right to appeal the biggest
environmental contamination case in the history of the state,"
Mr. Lesniak said in a statement.  "This miscarriage of justice
will not stand."

Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, said his
group was not surprised by Hogan's ruling.

"Very rarely does a judge let you intervene to try to overturn one
of his decisions. We expected that," Mr. Tittel said.

The Attorney General's Office declined to comment on the ruling.
Exxon Mobil spokesman Todd Spitler issued a statement on behalf of
the company, which said, "We agree with the court's decision
approving the $225 million settlement between the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Exxon Mobil for natural
resource damages.  This settlement has brought this case to a fair
and reasonable conclusion.  Both parties will now have the benefit
of the certainty and finality that comes from this settlement."


FIG & OLIVE: Sued Over Food-Positioning Outbreak
------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that on
Aug. 31, Venable associate Elizabeth Lowe dined out with a client
at the downtown Washington restaurant Fig & Olive.  Her meal
included croquettes with truffle oil.  Two days later, she said,
she fell violently ill and was hospitalized.

Ms. Lowe tested positive for salmonella and sued Fig & Olive for
alleged food poisoning.  She is one of six Fig & Olive patrons to
sue the upscale eatery in federal courts in Washington and Los
Angeles within the past three weeks.  More lawsuits are expected,
according to lawyers involved.

And Ms. Lowe isn't the only attorney to lawyer up.  According to
her lawyer, Brendan Flaherty -- Brendan@pritzkerlaw.com -- of
PritzkerOlsen in Minneapolis, half of the roughly 10 clients who
have hired him so far in connection with suspected Fig & Olive-
related food poisoning in Washington are lawyers.  He said he has
about 10 more clients in Los Angeles.

Why so many lawyers? Fig & Olive is within walking distance of
some of Washington's largest law firms, and it's part of the
CityCenter complex that includes Covington & Burling's new office.
The odds were good that the legal community would be affected by a
food-poisoning outbreak at a fine-dining downtown restaurant.

William Marler, the managing partner of Marler Clark in Seattle,
is involved in five lawsuits -- three in Washington and two in Los
Angeles -- against Fig & Olive.

Like Mr. Flaherty, he said that half of the dozen clients he has
so far in Washington related to the Fig & Olive situation are
lawyers.

"One was a group of four attorneys who were out having dinner
together," he said.  He has another dozen clients in Los Angeles
and two who ate at a Fig & Olive restaurant in New York.

The restaurant has yet to respond to the lawsuits in court.  No
lawyers have entered appearances for the parent company in the
cases filed so far.  The D.C. restaurant referred questions to a
spokesman, who did not return a request for comment.  Fig & Olive
has eight locations in New York, California, Washington and
Chicago.

Fig & Olive said in a statement in late September that it was
"confident we have adequately addressed the situations" in
Washington and Los Angeles.  The company brought in a third-party
food safety firm to make sure all food preparation and safety
standards were being followed.

Ms. Lowe said she'd been to the restaurant once for drinks, but
her Aug. 31 visit was the first time she ate dinner there.  Four
weeks later, Ms. Lowe said, she hasn't fully recovered.

She has eaten at other restaurants in the meantime, though.  It
would be difficult not to eat out, she said, given the dining
culture at law firms -- when a client visits, they're usually
taken out for dinner.

MULTIPLE LOCATIONS

According to Ms. Lowe's lawsuit, the salmonella strain she tested
positive for matched a strain of salmonella found in food-
poisoning victims who also ate at the Fig & Olive location in Los
Angeles.  Investigations by public health departments in
Washington and Los Angeles found a correlation between the food-
poisoning outbreak and items that contained truffle oil, according
to the lawsuits.

Ms. Lowe, who has an international trade practice, said she was
able to do some work from home during the three weeks that she was
more sick, but it "was difficult."  She did not specify the dollar
amount she's seeking from Fig & Olive.

"My firm is very understanding and definitely let me focus on
getting healthy, but at the same time there are demands from
clients and so I tried to do what I could," she said.  "But
obviously it was substantially reduced from what I'm able to do
normally."

Ms. Lowe said that when she decided to seek advice from a lawyer,
she found PritzkerOlsen through a search online.  Food poisoning
is "somewhat of a foreign area of law for me," she said.

The six Fig & Olive patrons who filed lawsuits so far ate
different meals, according to the complaints, but each consumed
one item that included truffle or truffle oil.  Mr. Marler and
Flaherty said they believe the truffle oil used at the restaurants
was made at a central site and then shipped out to the various
locations.

One of the D.C. plaintiffs, Laura Donahue, said in the suit that
she filed on Sept. 22 that she collapsed at the finish line of a
half-marathon a few days after eating at Fig & Olive. Her Sept. 2
meal included truffle mushroom risotto.  The two other D.C.
plaintiffs ate at the restaurant on Sept. 5, according to their
lawsuits.  Josseline De Saint Just said she had a truffle mushroom
croquette with her meal that day, according to her Sept. 24
complaint, as did plaintiff James Lloyd, who filed suit on Oct. 7.

Fig & Olive's Washington restaurant closed for six days in
September after a salmonella outbreak was identified. According to
the D.C. Department of Health, more than 60 people were reported
ill, and another 150 possible cases were being investigated.

More than three dozen people reported getting sick after eating at
the Fig & Olive in West Hollywood, California, in early September
-- including attendees at two weddings hosted by the restaurant --
and there were at least six confirmed cases of salmonella
poisoning, according to Ms. Lowe's complaint.

The community of lawyers who handle food poisoning cases is small.
Flaherty, who also has a broader personal injury practice, said he
expected to work with the other lawyers involved in Fig & Olive
lawsuits to come up with an efficient way to gather evidence.

Mr. Marler has handled foodborne illness litigation for three
decades and won more than $600 million for clients.


FIT AND FITNESS: Violates Privacy Under TCPA, Says "Elaine" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Elaine, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Fit And Fun Fitness Transformation
Academy, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-07664 (C.D. Cal., September 30,
2015), seeks for damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages from the
illegal actions of defendant Fit and Fun Fitness Transformation
Academy, LLC, in negligently and willfully contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Defendant Fit and Fun Fitness Transformation Academy, LLC is a
California corporation with its principal place of business at
8885 Venice Boulevard, Suite 203, Los Angeles, California 90034.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

John P. Kristensen, Esq.
David L.Weisberg, Esq.
KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Tel: 310-507-7924
Fax: 310-507-7906
Email: john@kristensenlaw.com
        david@kristensenlaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs in "McDonald" Suit Seek Attorneys Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that customers want Ford Motors ordered to pay attorneys' fees to
cover the costs of a class action they say forced the company to
recall more than 70,000 vehicles last year.

Lead plaintiff Jean McDonald sued Ford in June 2013, claiming it
concealed its knowledge of defective coolant pumps in certain
hybrid models from 2005 to 2008.  McDonald claimed vehicles with
the Motor Electronic Cooling System "contain defective coolant
pumps that cause the vehicles to unexpectedly shut down," and that
Ford knew of the defect since at least 2005 but failed to disclose
it.

Ford issued a nationwide recall of the coolant pumps for 70,209
Ford Escapes and Mercury Mariners in September 2014.

During an Oct. 13 hearing, plaintiffs' attorney Tarek Zohdy said
the lawsuit was a major factor in Ford's decision to issue the
recall, and that the timeline shows it.

"Plaintiffs don't have to be the only reason there was a recall,"
Zohdy said. "They just have to be a significant reason."

Zohdy said Ford avoided issuing a recall until after the judge
partly denied its motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' second amended
complaint, in March 2014.

Ford attorney John M. Thomas denied that the lawsuit played a role
in Ford's decision to recall the pumps. He said the recall came
because Kenneth Lilly, with Ford's automotive safety office, found
a coding error in his data reports, which revealed the rate of
coolant pump problems was "four times higher than previously
believed."

"They have no evidence that this lawsuit played any role
whatsoever in Ford's decision to issue this recall," Thomas said.
"Mr. Lilly testified he did not even know of this lawsuit at the
time he put this recall into motion."

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar allowed Ford to show video evidence
of Lilly's deposition from June 2015 during the hearing, but
stopped the video after a few minutes.

"I take your point," Tigar said, adding that he understands the
defense intended to use the video to humanize a witness whose
credibility the plaintiffs called into question.

During the deposition, Ford attorneys asked Lilly several
questions about his methods of assessing the rate of customer
complaints for various vehicle model parts and conditions.

"Unlike juries, I'm very attuned to leading questions," Tigar said
before ending the brief, video-testimony portion of the hearing.

Thomas said the plaintiffs are not entitled to attorneys' fees
because a lawsuit was not the only avenue for them to obtain
relief in the form of a recall. He said they could have filed a
complaint with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

But Zohdy said the NHTSA received numerous complaints about the
defective pumps on its website, and that Ford knew of the problem
for nearly 10 years without taking any action.

"This is a poster case where there was a necessity for private
action in the court, as opposed to public action," Zohdy said.

He said Ford has presented no evidence to rebut his chronology of
events: that a recall was not issued until 15 months after his
clients filed suit, and six months after the judge denied Ford's
motion to dismiss.

Ford claims the lawsuit contained no new information that would
have triggered the recall.

Tigar asked: "The question before the court today is, 'Did that
information have a catalyzing effect on Ford?'"

Tigar ended the hearing after about an hour and a half of debate.

After the hearing, Zohdy declined to comment on how much money his
clients seek in attorneys' fees.


GC SERVICES: Cal. Appeals Court Upholds Denial of Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marla Miller of the Court of Appeals of California, First
District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court's denial of class
certification in the case captioned, RICHARD HOWARD, Plaintiff and
Appellant, v. GC SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case
No. A140351.

Plaintiff Richard Howard sued Defendant GC Services, Inc., an
entity that provides debt collection services for Los Angeles
County, alleging that defendant had sent him a letter that falsely
stated plaintiff owed Los Angeles County Superior Court
unadjudicated bail in connection with a red-light camera citation
and demanded payment. Plaintiff alleged that various
representations in the letter were false and misleading and did
not reflect the policies of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint alleges five causes of
action: (1) negligence; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3)
fraud; (4) declaratory relief; and (5) unfair business practices
under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). In his declaratory relief
cause of action, plaintiff sought a declaration that defendant
must refrain from making these representations and a "declaration
of rights and duties regarding whether Defendants were debt
collecting under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices
Act. The Plaintiff moved to certify a class of all California
residents who had received letters from the defendant containing
similar representations.

On May 7, 2013, defendant filed its opposition to the class
certification motion. Defendant argued that plaintiff's claims
were atypical of those of the purported class because plaintiff
had received the letter as a result of alleged identity theft,
knew he had not run a red light, and did not pay the requested
balance.

The trial court found that plaintiff had failed to produce
sufficient evidence that defendant's liability could be
established by common proof such that common issues predominated
over individual issues.

On appeal, Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in
concluding that he had failed to establish the standard
requirements in certifying a class.

In the Order dated September 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/UXsgiCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Miller held that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying class
certification ruling, and that plaintiff failed to meet his burden
of demonstrating that common issues predominated, that his claims
were typical of the class, and that his attorney was adequate to
serve as class counsel.


GLOBUS MEDICAL: Violates Securities Laws, "Silverstein" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Silverstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Globus Medical, Inc, Da Yid C.
Paul, Richard A. Baron, David M. Demski, and Steven M. Payne,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-05386-WB (E.D. Pa., September 29,
2015), seeks monetary losses and damages under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the Complaint, Defendants' fraudulent acts, including
the preparation and dissemination of materially false and/or
misleading information in a press release, caused Plaintiffs to
incur substantial monetary losses and damages. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose:

     (1) that the Company's relationship with a significant
         distributor was deteriorating;

     (2) that the deterioration was negatively impacting the
         Company's financial performance; and

     (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
         statements about Globus' business, operations, and
         prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
         a reasonable basis.

Globus is a medical device company in Delaware that develops
products to treat patients with musculoskeletal disorders. The
Company is currently focused on products to treat patients with
spine disorders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Jacob Golberg, Esq.
Gonen Haklay, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 203
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Tel: (215) 600-2817
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: jgo ldberg@rosenlegal.com

      - and -

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
        pkim@rosenlegal.com

      - and -

Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
GLANCY PRON GAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 201-9150
Fax: (310) 201-9160


HIGHGATE HOTELS: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Hernandez, on behalf of himself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated v. Highgate Hotels, L.P.,
and Highgate Holdings, Inc., Park Central Hotel, LLC, Mahmood
Khimji, and Mehdi Khimji, Case No. 1:15-cv-08144-JGK (S.D.N.Y.,
October 15, 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 Park Central Hotel located at 870
7th Avenue, New York, New York, 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: jrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL: Court Approves Settlement in TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Paul Kelly, Jr. of the United States District Court
for District of New Mexico approved parties' class action
settlement agreement in the case captioned, Jacqueline Jones, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
I.Q. Data International, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 1:14-CV-00130-
PJK-RHS.

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Defendant for
making unsolicited calls directed to a number assigned to a unique
cellular telephone by using an automatic telephone dialing system
or an artificial or prerecorded voice from February 11, 2010
through February 11, 2014 in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.  On January 14, 2015, the parties reached a
settlement agreement and Plaintiff filed her unopposed motion to
finally approve the class action settlement and her unopposed
motion for attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and an incentive
award and was granted and finally approved the class action
settlement.

The Court also certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
"All persons and entities throughout the United States (1) to whom
I.Q. Data International, Inc. made or caused to be made calls, (2)
directed to a number assigned to a unique cellular telephone, by
(3) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial
or prerecorded voice, (4) from February 11, 2010 through February
11, 2014."

In his Final Order and Judgment dated September 23, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/57Vxa2from Leagle.com, Judge Kelly, Jr. found
that the parties' notice of class action settlement, and the
distribution thereof, satisfied the requirements of due process
under the Constitution and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e),
that it was the best practicable notice under the circumstances,
and that it constitutes due and sufficient notice to all persons
entitled to notice of class action settlement. The Court also
appointed Jacqueline Jones as a class representative and Aaron D.
Radbil Michael L. Greenwald of Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC as
Class Counsel.

The Court directed the Defendant to establish a settlement fund in
the amount of $1,000,000 wherein Plaintiff and the Class Members
are awarded:

     $568,214.40 as damages,
      $98,120.59 as costs and expenses of administrating
                 the class action settlement,
     $300,000.00 as attorneys' fees to Class Counsel,
      $13,665.01 as costs and expenses that Plaintiff and Class
                 Counsel incurred litigating the matter, and
      $20,000.00 as incentive award to Plaintiff.

Jacqueline Jones is represented by Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. --
aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com -- Michael Greenwald, Esq. --
mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com -- GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC

     - and -

Anita Marie Kelley, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ANITA M. KELLY
913 5th St NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Tel: (505)750-0265

I. Q. Data International, Inc. is represented by Gregory D.
Steinman, Esq. -- gds@madisonlaw.com -- Holly E. Armstrong, Esq.
-- hea@madisonlaw.com -- MADISON, HARBOUR & MROZ, P.A.

     - and -

Charles R. Messer, Esq.
David J. Kaminski, Esq.
Stephen A. Watkins, Esq.
CARLSON & MESSER, LLP
5959 W Century Blvd # 1214,
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Tel: (310)242-2200


INDIANA: Inmates Sue Over Attorney Caseload
-------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that accused felons in Indiana
have filed a class action complaining that the system of
overworking public defenders tramples their right to counsel.

Filed by lead plaintiff Kenneth Alford, the class action takes aim
at four judges, seven public defenders and the commissioners of
Johnson County.  Claiming that the defendants have failed to
ensure that accused criminals are receiving proper defense, Alford
contends that the attorney caseloads exceed the standards set by
the Indiana Public Defender Commission.

Alford and six co-plaintiffs, all of whom have cases pending in
Johnson County's circuit and superior courts, filed their suit in
Marion County.

"Since every judge in the Johnson County Superior and Circuit
Court system is a defendant in this lawsuit venue in Johnson
County is not appropriate," the complaint states under a section
regarding jurisdiction.

The class notes that one defendant, public defender John Wilson,
was assigned 176 felony cases in 2014, while maintaining his
private practice in Greenwood. The case load exceeds the
recommended amount of 120 felony cases for full-time or 60 cases
for a part-time public defender lacking adequate support staff.
For public defenders with sufficient support staff, the guidelines
recommend 150 and 75 felony cases for full-time and part-time,
respectively.

Wilson was assigned to represent plaintiff Wardell Strong when the
latter was charged with a felony this past June. Though Strong
says he met Wilson at his initial hearing, he claims their
communications since then has amounted to one phone call.
Insisting that he is innocent of the charges against him, Strong
wrote the attorney for discovery and a suppression hearing. He
says Wilson tried to withdraw but the court ordered him reinstated
on Oct. 1.

Wilson has done nothing to provide a defense, has not followed up
on the leads Strong provided, won't respond to his letters and has
not requested a bond-reduction hearing, according to the
complaint.

Strong and the other plaintiffs blame their sparse contact with
their public defenders to the high caseloads counsel face. In some
cases, this pressure makes the attorneys force their clients into
accepting plea deals, even if the accused maintained their
innocence, according to the complaint.

"The current public defender system employed in Johnson County
does not meet the basic standards of quality indigent criminal
defense that have been required for over 150 years by the Indiana
Supreme Court," the complaint says.

Another one of the plaintiffs, Terry Hasket, says he was accused
of a felony in July and was assigned defendant Michael Bohn as his
attorney. The complaint alleges that Bohn spoke to Hasket once on
the telephone, and visited him only a single time to discuss the
case. Hasket also claims that he felt pressure to accept a plea
deal, and that Bohn ignored his request for a speedy trial.

The lack of communication caused the class to be deprived of basic
legal services like expert witnesses, according to the complaint.
The plaintiffs say the system provides indigent detainees with
public defenders who are not properly prepared for trial.

In addition to class-action status, the plaintiffs seek
injunctions that require the county to provide constitutionally
required legal defense, and for the creation of the public
defender services that are not under the court's supervision of
financial control.

As to the second request, the plaintiffs note that public
defenders in Johnson County are selected and contracted with a
specific judge, a practice that the lawsuit claims compromises the
independence of the defenders.

The class is represented by Jonathan Little of Saeed & Little and
Michael Sutherlin.  Mr. Little may be reached at:

     Jonathan Little, Esq.
     SAEED AND LITTLE, LLP
     1433 North Meridian Street, Suite 202
     Indianapolis, IN 46202
     Tel: 317.721.9214
     E-mail: info@sllawfirm.com


INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL: Settles Suit Over Fertilizer Plant Blast
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that settlements
were recently reached, halting the start of the first scheduled
trial in civil litigation stemming from the April 17, 2013,
explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, according to lead
plaintiffs counsel.

The explosion left 15 dead, including 12 first responders, and
more than 200 people injured.

At the scheduled trial, the plaintiffs, surviving family members
of three men who first responded to the blast and then died, were
expected to allege negligence and seek damages from a long list of
defendants, including the chemical manufacturers of products
allegedly in the plant at the time of the blast.

"We are very limited in what we can say," said Steve Harrison, a
partner in Harrison Davis Steakley Morrison, a firm based in Waco,
just 30 minutes south of West.

Mr. Harrison and Zona Jones, his co-lead plaintiffs counsel, who
is an attorney in Beaumont's Provost Umphrey, represent the three
men's surviving family members.

"The litigation is resolved, that is the only thing we can say,"
said Ms. Jones, when pressed for details about the terms of the
settlements.

Both Ms. Jones and Mr. Harrison noted that litigation continues
for some 250 other claimants who are seeking damages based on
allegations related to the blast.

Defense lawyers included Marc A. Young, a principal in San
Antonio's Cokinos Bosien & Young, who leads the firm's tort
litigation section and represents International Chemical Co., and
John McCoy, a partner in McCoy Leavitt & Laskey of Waukesha,
Wisconsin, who represents Adair Grain, which does business as West
Fertilizer.  Neither returned a call for this story.
In previous answers, filed with the court, defendants have denied
the allegations.


JANSSEN PHARMA: New Xarelto Claims Have Mass-Tort Potential
-----------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
suit against Janssen Pharmaceuticals over the blood thinner
Xarelto is making novel claims that, if taken only once a day, the
medication might not be effective for a full 24 hours.

The new claims were filed separately from the ongoing mass-tort
program in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas that focuses on
allegations that the anticoagulant causes uncontrollable bleeding.
But, according to the plaintiffs' attorneys and others practicing
in the products liability field, a significant number of
plaintiffs could soon begin looking into filing similar claims.

On Oct. 8, the suit Mothena v. Janssen Research & Development was
filed in Philadelphia by a plaintiff with non-valvular atrial
fibrillation who suffered a stroke four days after starting on the
medication.

The 74-page complaint, filed by Brian J. McCormick --
bmccormick@rossfellercasey.com -- of Ross Feller Casey, alleges
strict liability for defective design and warnings, as well as
negligence, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment and
deceptive trade practices. The complaint also heavily references
the marketing campaign that focuses on once-a-day use, and
recommends the pill as an alternative to rival drugs that required
users to take multiple doses a day and undergo monitoring.

According to Mr. McCormick, the firm has several more cases that
will be filed in the next 10 days, and numerous others that are
being considered and investigated.

He said the blockbuster status of the drug alone, which, according
to the complaint, did about $2 billion in sales in 2013, could
signify that there will be many more cases that follow.

"I do think it has the potential of a mass tort, just because of
the huge number of patients being prescribed it, and the recent
publicity about the fact that strokes still occur," Mr. McCormick
said.

Duane Morris attorney Alan Klein -- AKlein@duanemorris.com -- who
focuses on products liability litigation, said he expects
attorneys will likely start looking into filing cases involving
these claims, but whether the cases reach mass tort status or fade
away will depend on how solid the science is behind the novel
claims.

"With these types of claims it boils down to the science,"
Mr. Klein said.  "I doubt there will be a stampede unless the
science supports the plaintiff's argument."

If the claims result in a significant amount of new filings,
whether those will be separated out into their own mass tort
program, or merged into the existing mass-tort program involving
Xarelto, is a matter of some debate at this point.

Mr. McCormick said the claims differ enough that they would more
likely be a separate program, but products liability attorney
Claudine Q. Homolash of CQH Firm and Stephen Sheller of Sheller
P.C. said the claims could be wrapped into the existing mass tort
to further judicial efficiency.

Complex Litigation Center Director Stanley Thompson said the court
typically has to evaluate whether certain claims should be rolled
into, or out of, an existing mass-tort program.  He noted that, in
the program related to the Paxil litigation, the court decided to
split the claims into those involving plaintiffs who took the
drug, and the children whose parents took the drug during
pregnancy.

"We would look to what exactly the claim is," Mr. Thompson said.
Mr. Homolash agreed the potential for the new Xarelto claims
depend on the expansiveness of the population taking the drug, and
the number of people who also suffered a stroke.  While it may be
too early to tell the size of that group, the drug was a
blockbuster, and it is still on the market and being heavily
advertised, so that group potentially could be large, Mr. Homolash
said.

"I would imagine there's going to be more cases filed,"
Mr. Homolash said.

A spokeswoman for Janssen said Xarelto protects against life-
threatening blood clots, and the company will defend against the
claims.

"After more than three years on the U.S. market, and more than 2.9
million patients prescribed in the U.S. to date, the benefit-risk
profile of Xarelto remains favorable and consistent with clinical
trials," Kristina Chang said in a statement.

The existing mass tort involving Xarelto is the newest program in
Philadelphia's Complex Litigation Center.  Plaintiffs in those
cases claim Xarelto caused uncontrollable and sometimes fatal
bleeding in patients.  Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen
Pharmaceuticals and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals are the
defendants in the litigation.

Since the city's first Xarelto case was filed in February 2014,
filings have risen steadily. With 12 suits having been filed so
far in October, the most recent numbers show that there are 422
Xarelto-related cases pending, according to Thompson.

Ross Feller has cases pending in the ongoing mass-tort program
involving Xarelto, and Mr. McCormick said that, while they were
investigating some of those claims, a number of patients appeared
to suffer complications similar to David Mothena, the plaintiff
raising the novel claims.

Those findings, Mr. McCormick said, were bolstered by a recent
report issued by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices.
Mr. McCormick added the report could also raise awareness of the
novel claims.

"The report certainly should be putting people on notice that the
once-a-day dosing is dangerous and the heavy advertising is in
direct contravention to what this study found," Mr. McCormick
said.

Fellow Ross Feller attorney Mark A. Hoffman, who also worked on
the Mothena case, said that, although the report was not peer-
reviewed, it analyzed incident reports to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.  He said the analyses raise questions about the
approval process of the drug, particularly with regard to the
clinical reviewers' findings.

"I think the FDA looked at the data, and, to the extent the FDA
could make global judgments, they made the judgments they made,
but with severe hesitation," Mr. Hoffman said.

Mr. Klein, however, said the FDA approval could be a strong
defense for Janssen.

"If the drug claims to be effective for 24 hours, I would think
the FDA was persuaded that it was effective for 24 hours," Klein
said.  "I think Janssen will respond quite vigorously."


KROGER COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Bread Crumbs, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Shavonda Hawkins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. The Kroger Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-02320-JM-BLM
(S.D. Cal., October 15, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the
consumers who purchased Kroger Bread Crumbs that were falsely
marketed by the Defendant as "0g Trans Fat". When in fact the
products contain partially hydrogenated oil ("PHO"), a food
additive banned in many parts of the world due to its artificial
trans-fat content.

The Kroger Company is a Delaware corporation that owns and
operates a supermarket chain in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
      David Elliot, Esq.
      THE WESTON FIRM
      1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Telephone: (619) 798-2006
      Facsimile: (313) 293-7071
      E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com
              david@westonfirm.com


LIVWELL INC: Marijuana Farm Faces Class Suit Over Pesticide Spray
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Gannon at Courthouse News Service reported that one of the
biggest legal marijuana farms in the world sprayed thousands of
plants with an unapproved pesticide that breaks down into hydrogen
cyanide when it's smoked, two Coloradans claim in a class action.

Brandan Flores and Brandie Larrabee sued LivWell Inc., which runs
11 marijuana stores and "one of the largest cannabis grow
facilities in the world," according to the Oct. 5 lawsuit in
Denver County Court.

Flores and Larrabee claim LivWell sprayed a chemical cocktail
called "Eagle 20" on thousands of its marijuana plants between
January and April this year. Flores bought recreational marijuana
and Larrabee bought medicinal marijuana, according to the lawsuit.
They seek to represent "hundreds, if not thousands," of members in
two classes: one for recreational users and one for medicinal
users.  Among other things, they want LivWell ordered to warn
customers that "Eagle 20 [is] a dangerous fungicide that
ultimately breaks down into hydrogen cyanide, a well-known poison,
when it is heated with a standard cigarette lighter."

Neither plaintiff claims that he, she or anyone else has become
ill from this, but they say Colorado has not approved the chemical
for use in tobacco or cannabis products.

Eagle 20 is used to fight problems typical to marijuana grown
indoors: mold, viruses, mites and fungus. Its most active
ingredient, Myclobutanil, inhibits the growth of fungi that
threaten marijuana crops.

LivWell has recorded using Eagle 20 since early this year, but
Flores and Larrabee claim the company is "likely" to have used it
"for many months, if not years, earlier."

The issue made news in April, when the Colorado Department of
Environmental Health put a hold on 60,000 LivWell plants when the
state discovered the company was using the antifungal chemicals.

The plants were released after LivWell had them tested privately
through Gobi Analytical, a cannabis testing company. But Flores
and Larrabee say that did not put to rest their concern that heat
can break the chemical down into hydrogen cyanide.

"(I)t is unclear whether LivWell's plants tested negative for
residue or simply tested below thresholds commonly accepted for
vegetation that will not be heated to a point of combustion," the
complaint states.

LivWell owner John Lord told the public that his company had
stopped using Eagle 20 long before the April hold, but the lawsuit
calls that claim "demonstrably false."

"LivWell's own grow logs show that LivWell applied Eagle 20 to
thousands of its plants throughout March of 2015," the complaint
states. "His statements, and Livwell's other public statements,
have given the public the false impression that LivWell's cannabis
plants were safe, when in reality they had been repeatedly treated
with Eagle 20 and consumers would ingest hydrogen cyanide if they
smoked such cannabis."

Issues surrounding marijuana pesticides have dogged Colorado's
marijuana industry since its legalization for recreation boom in
2013. Several other dispensaries have been or are being
investigated for using unapproved pesticides.

Flores and Larrabee seek class certifications, an injunction
against use of Eagle 20, disgorgement, restitution and damages for
fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, breach of faith,
breach of warranty, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and
conspiracy.  They are represented by Steven Woodrow and Robert
Corry Jr., both of Denver.


LEE COUNTY, FL: Court Trims Suit Against Sheriff
------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sheri Polster Chappelll granted in part, and
denied, in part, the request of defendant Mike Scott to dismiss
the amended complaint in, MABEL LOPEZ, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. MIKE SCOTT, in his
official capacity as Sheriff of Lee County, Florida, Defendant,
CASE NO. 2:15-CV-303-FTM-38MRM.

Specifically, the Court held that Plaintiff's Count 3, alleging
negligence, is dismissed without prejudice.  The remainder of the
Motion to Dismiss is denied.

The action alleged that Lee County Sheriff's Office use unapproved
radar guns that resulted in thousands of individuals being
unlawfully stopped, detained, and seized over an eleven year
period. Florida law governs what devices may be used to determine
the speed of a motor vehicle on a public road. As one of the
individuals who was pulled over after having their speed detected
using a Python Series II radar gun, Lopez brought the instant
action against Sheriff Scott on behalf of himself and all others
who were stopped, detained, and seized using this unapproved
equipment. The Amended Complaint asserts four counts: Violation of
Lopez's Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (Count 1); Common
Law False Imprisonment (Count 2); Negligence (Count 3); and
Violation of Lopez's Constitutional Rights under Article I,
Section 12 of the Florida Constitution (Count 4).

In the motion, Sheriff Scott argues the Sec. 1983 claim must be
dismissed because  (1) Supreme Court precedent forbids plaintiffs
from obtaining damages under Sec. 1983 if a judgment would
necessarily imply the invalidity of her conviction or sentence;
(2) Lopez was not unreasonably seized, as probable cause existed
for the underlying traffic stop; (3) Lopez's conviction for the
underlying traffic offense conclusively establishes probable
cause; (4) Lopez failed to comply with the notice requirements
pursuant to Fla. Stat. Sec. 768.28; and (5) of the Florida
Constitution violation claim on the basis that there is no cause
of action for monetary damages based on a violation of the Florida
Constitution. Lopez concedes that her negligence claim should be
dismissed without prejudice, but opposes the remainder of the
Motion.

A copy of the Court's Opinion dated September 8, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/04Lw9lfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by Richard A. Rothschild, Esq. --
rrothschild@wclp.com -- Sue L. Himmelrich, Esq. --
shimmelrich@wclp.com -- Navneet Grewal, Esq. -- ngrewal@wclp.com -
- WESTERN CENTER ON LAW & POVERTY

Defendants are represented by Robert A. Naeve Esq. --
rnaeve@jonesday.com -- Nathaniel P. Garrett, Esq. --
ngarrett@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY


LOS ANGELES, CA: Dismissal of Suit Over Court Budget Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen of the United States Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the district court's dismissal of
Plaintiffs' complaint in the case captioned, BRENDA MILES; DANE
SULLIVAN; UNION DE VECINOS, a non-profit corporation; COALITION
FOR ECONOMIC SURVIVAL, a non-profit corporation; PEOPLE ORGANIZED
FOR WESTSIDE RENEWAL, a non profit corporation; INDEPENDENT LIVING
CENTER OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a non-profit corporation,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DAVID S. WESLEY, in his official
capacity as Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court;
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official
capacity as Governor of California; SHERRI R. CARTER, Esquire, in
his official capacity as Executive Officer/Clerk of the Los
Angeles Superior Court, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 13-55620.

From 2008 to 2012, LASC lost $110 million in state funding. In
response, LASC closed courtrooms, furloughed employees, increased
filing fees, and curtailed services to the public. After LASC
announced the consolidation plan (and prior to its
implementation), Plaintiffs Brenda Miles, Dane Sullivan, and
numerous non-profit organizations filed a class-action challenge
to one aspect of it, the consolidation of unlawful detainer
(tenant eviction) actions into hub courts. Plaintiffs allege
various statutory and constitutional violations on the ground that
reducing the number of courthouses handling unlawful detainer
cases disproportionately impacts poor, disabled, and minority
residents. Plaintiffs sued the State of California, the governor,
LASC's presiding judge, and the executive officer of the court,
challenging the plan's closure of neighborhood courtrooms handling
unlawful detainer actions.

On March 26, 2013, the district court dismissed the case on
abstention grounds under O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974).

On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that adjudicating their claims
requires "only a single prospective determination."

In the Opinion dated September 8, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/81Y5wjfrom Leagle.com, Judge Nguyen concluded that
the district court properly abstained under O'Shea from
interfering with LASC's allocation of resources to address
historic budget shortfalls.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Richard A. Rothschild, Esq.
Sue L. Himmelrich, Esq.
Navneet Grewal, Esq.
WESTERN CENTER ON LAW & POVERTY
3701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 208
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213)235-2611

Defendants are represented by Robert A. Naeve, Esq. --
rnaeve@jonesday.com -- Nathaniel P. Garrett, Esq. --
ngarrett@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY


MARRIOTT INT'L: CA Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Room Rates
------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge Michael Farrell of the United States Court of Appeals
for District of Columbia affirmed the judgment of the Superior
Court in the case captioned, DONALD ROTUNDA, Appellant, v.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellee, Case No. 14-CV-618.

Donald Rotunda brought this suit for damages against Marriott
International, Inc. under D.C. Code Sec. 28-3905 (k)(1) (2012
Repl.) part of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection
Procedures Act (CPPA), on behalf of himself and the "general
public."  He alleged deception in quoting prices for rooms at its
Russian hotels in U.S. dollars, when payment at checkout was
required to be in Russian rubles at an internal exchange rate
invariably more favorable to the hotel than that day's Central
Bank exchange rate. The suit was brought on behalf of Rotunda
personally and all those members of "the general public," D.C.
Code Sec. 28-3905 (k)(1), who had allegedly been victimized by
this practice. It sought statutory or actual damages.

The case came before the Hon. Frederick H. Weisberg, associate
judge for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, on
Marriott's motion to dismiss the representative action because
Rotunda had expressly declined to seek class certification and
compliance with the procedures of Rules 23 and 23-I.

On appeal, Rotunda challenged the dismissal contending that
nothing in the CPPA prevents members of the general public who
decline statutory damages from bringing an independent action to
prove a claim and recover whatever damages that person asserts are
due.

In the Opinion dated September 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/TTWplhfrom Leagle.com, Judge Farrell found that
Rotunda has furnished the Court with no unambiguous evidence, in
the 2000 amendments or the supporting legislative history, that
the Council meant to displace the Rule 23 framework in favor of
improvised due process and management devices for a whole sub-set
of representative actions.

Plaintiff is represented by Paul D. Cullen, Sr., Esq. --
pdc@cullenlaw.com -- Joyce E. Mayers, Esq. -- jem@cullenlaw.com
-- Toni J. Ellington, Esq. -- the@cullenlaw.com -- THE CULLEN LAW
FIRM, PLLC

Defendant is represented by Holly Drumheller Butler, Esq. --
holly.butler@dlapiper.com -- Charles P. Scheelerwere, Esq. --
charles.scheeler@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER, Bruce V. Spiva, Esq. -
- BSpiva@perkinscoie.com -- Rhett P. Martin, Esq. --
RMartin@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLP


MENZIES AVIATION: Motion for Partial Stay Pending Appeal Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California denied Menzies
Aviation's motion for partial stay in the case captioned, JESSICA
JIMENEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MENZIES AVIATION INC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-02392-WHO.

In June 2010, Jessica Jimenez, a Menzies employee, filed this
putative class action in San Francisco Superior Court alleging,
among other thing, that Menzies failed to pay its San Francisco
International Airport non-exempt employees minimum wage and
overtime. In 2011, during the pendency of this employment class
action, Menzies implemented an ADR policy requiring employees to
arbitrate their employment claims.  Orlando Mijos signed onto the
new ADR policy shortly after its adoption. Although the class
action complaint was filed in 2010, Mijos was not added on as a
class representative until 2015 when a second amended complaint
(SAC) was filed to accommodate a subgroup of putative class
members that were entitled to additional overtime-related damages.

Menzies removed the case and filed a motion to compel individual
arbitration of Mijo's claims which was denied by the Court.

In the motion, Menzies seeks partial stay pending its appeal of
the Order. It asserts that: "(1) there would never have been a
need to add a new class representative to this case if Ms. Jimenez
could represent all claims already at issue in the case; (2) there
would have been no need to add new factual allegations to support
legal theories properly at issue in the case; and (3) there would
never have been a need to define a subclass to be represented
exclusively by Mijos if all these contentions had been at issue in
the case before the second amended complaint.

In his Order dated September 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/8GnK0hfrom Leagle.com, Judge Orrick concluded that
Menzies failed to raise any new arguments and has not presented a
strong showing of success on the merits. Whatever modest savings
Menzies might achieve if its appeal was successful is outweighed
by the impact on plaintiffs and the potential loss of evidence
occasioned by the delay. And there is no strong public policy
factor that supports Menzies's request.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Graham Stephen Paul Hollis, Esq.
Vilmarie Cordero, Esq.
GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
3555 5th Ave
San Diego, CA 92103
Tel: (619)692-0800

Defendants are represented by Archana R. Acharya, Esq. --
aacharya@foley.com -- Christopher Gary Ward, Esq. --
cward@foley.com -- FOLEY & LARDNER LLP


MINNESOTA: State Workers Sue Over OT Pay Calculation
----------------------------------------------------
Minnesota stiffs state workers by omitting their shift
differential (i.e., 65 cents an hour for late shifts) from their
overtime pay calculations, a class action claims in Federal Court
in Minneapolis.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Third Circuit Hears Ticket Price Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
when the NFL withheld nearly all available Super Bowl XLVIII
tickets from the general public, Josh Finkelman was forced to pay
$4,000 to resellers for two seats at New Jersey's MetLife Stadium,
his lawyer argued in federal court on Oct. 8.

Bruce Nagel, who presented Mr. Finkelman's case in Philadelphia
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, told the
three-judge panel that the National Football League -- which
allows some tickets to be sold to the general public through a
lottery while the majority are distributed among its 32 teams,
media outlets and sponsors -- limited Super Bowl tickets available
to the public to only 1 percent of the nearly 80,000 total.  The
case went up to the appeals court after U.S. District Judge Peter
Sheridan of the District of New Jersey declined to grant Mr.
Finkelman's case class action status.

From the outset of Nagel's argument, the judges questioned whether
Mr. Finkelman had actually lost anything by purchasing the marked-
up tickets or if there had been a violation of New Jersey's
consumer protection laws as Nagel had asserted.

Mr. Nagel replied that the fractional amount of tickets offered to
those participating in the lottery drove up prices in the resale
market.  "He suffered a direct, ascertainable loss," Mr. Nagel
told the panel, "he suffered an increased price of tickets."

But Third Circuit Judge Julio Fuentes said Mr. Finkelman didn't
even enter into the lottery, and therefore he didn't try to buy
tickets at face value.

"Had he applied, he wouldn't have gotten a ticket?" Judge Fuentes
asked.  There was an "enormous amount" of applicants for only 900
tickets, Nagel responded, noting that the likelihood of
Mr. Finkelman getting tickets was remote.

When Judge Fuentes' colleague, Judge D. Brooks Smith, reiterated
that it wouldn't have mattered because Mr. Finkelman started
looking for tickets in November 2013, months after the lottery had
ended, Mr. Nagel said the issue was that the NFL offered less than
5 percent of the Super Bowl tickets to the general public -- and
that, according to Nagel, violated New Jersey law.

Judge Fuentes then posed a hypothetical: Say members of the
general public line up at the stadium to purchase from a pool of
50,000 tickets.  The first four people in line buy 49,999, the
next person buys one, and Mr. Finkelman is next in line. Does he
suffer a loss?

Mr. Nagel said yes, and repeated that the violation lies within
the NFL's choice to limit the amount of tickets available for
purchase by the general public in the first place.

Judge Fuentes said he was sympathetic to Nagel's argument that the
NFL's offering of less than 5 percent of the tickets to lottery
participants was a violation, but again asked him to show what
Finkelman lost.

"What's the ascertainable loss? It's easy," Mr. Nagel replied.
"When Finkelman paid $2,000 for [each] ticket that ran $800 to
$1,000 at face value he suffered a loss because the NFL limited
tickets to the public."

After Mr. Nagel sat down, the NFL's attorney, Jonathan D.
Pressment, took the podium to present the league's argument to the
court -- that the NFL did not violate New Jersey's consumer
protection laws.

Mr. Pressment said the NFL, like a theater that offers seats to
subscribers or members, can determine to whom tickets are sold. To
that end, Mr. Pressment said that while the lottery is available
to anyone, once a participant buys into the lottery they are no
longer considered part of the general public.

"So if you don't put any on sale to the general public, by
definition you have not withheld?" Judge Maryanne Trump Barry
asked.

Mr. Pressment said yes, but Fuentes countered that such an
argument could lead to ticket-sellers gaming the system.

"The system is not designed to affect tickets never intended from
the get-go to be available to the general public," Mr. Pressment
said.

He added that if the court ruled against the NFL in the case, then
it would have the practical effect of outlawing season tickets in
New Jersey since those seats are reserved for subscribers and not
open to the general public.

However, on rebuttal Mr. Nagel said the statute was intended to
deter the very thing that the NFL had done.

The legislature said, according to Nagel, "We are stopping the
power of the promoters to hold and determine what you buy."


NEW YORK: Court Adopts Recommendations in Suit Over LAST-1 Exam
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimba M. Wood of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York adopted the Special Master's
recommendations in the case captioned, GULINO, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 96-CV-8414(KMW).

Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on November
8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII. The
Court appointed Special Master John S. Siffert to oversee the two-
stage remedial phase, which includes resolution of both classwide
and individual issues. On July 17, 2015, Special Master Siffert
issued an Interim Report and Recommendation, which recommends
granting Defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to individuals
employed as paraprofessionals and denying the motion in all other
respects. The Report further recommends denying Defendant's
motions to permit classwide calculation of attrition and to cut
off damages for claimants who failed to obtain a teaching position
after ultimately passing the LAST-1.

In the motion, Defendant Board of Education of the New York City
School District (BOE) filed objections to the Report's
recommendations on the Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to
permit classwide calculation of attrition.

In the Opinion and Order dated September 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/OtqGwZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Wood agreed with the
Special Master that (1) a claimant need not have been employed by
the BOE at the time s/he failed the LAST-1; (2) per diem
substitutes can be part of the class if they establish that they
intended to become, and would have become, permanent teachers, but
for failing the LAST-1; and (3) claimants who failed the LAST-1
prior to June 29, 1995 may seek recovery if discriminatory effects
of the test were felt on or after June 29, 1995.

Plaintiffs are represented by Joshua Samuel Sohn, Esq. --
joshua.sohn@mishcon.com -- MISHCON DE REYA NEW YORK, LLP & Anthony
David Gill, Esq. -- anthony.gill@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP

Defendant is represented by Bryan David Glass, Esq. --
bg@glasskrakower.com -- GLASS KRAKOWER, LLP


NISSAN MOTOR: Ky. Supreme Court Upholds Punitive Damages Rule
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that the Kentucky
Supreme Court has sided with the nation's largest tort reform
groups seeking to uphold a general rule that companies sued over
products that meet government regulatory standards shouldn't be
subjected to punitive damages.

Groups including the American Tort Reform Association and the DRI
filed amicus briefs in a case alleging that Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.
designed and failed to warn of a seat belt that is defective when
worn by someone heavier than the 171-pound dummies used in
federally mandated safety tests.

In a reversal, the Kentucky Supreme Court found on Sept. 24 that a
company complying with regulatory standards still could be liable
for punitive damages given enough evidence of malice.  In this
case, however, the court found that the plaintiff "failed to
introduce any evidence that should have put Nissan on notice that
either its seat belt or seat system was unsound, or that the
requisite regulatory testing was irrelevant or invalid."

Richard Hay of the Law Office of Richard Hay in Somerset,
Kentucky, who represents the plaintiff, Amanda Maddox, said he
planned to petition the high court for a rehearing.  Nissan's
attorney, John Tate, co-chairman of the torts and insurance
practice group at Stites & Harbison in Louisville, declined to
comment.

The ruling keeps in place the general rule that companies
following federal safety regulations shouldn't be hit with
punitive damages, said Eric Boorstin -- eboorstin@horvitzlevy.com
-- of Los Angeles-based Horvitz & Levy, who filed the DRI's amicus
brief.

"That's a principal that isn't always adhered to, so getting a
supreme court to say clearly in an opinion is a notable event," he
said.  "If a company complies with those standards, it is evidence
the company did care about safety and is completely inconsistent
with the idea there is maliciousness."

Maddox and her husband were in a 2001 Nissan Pathfinder when a
drunk driver slammed into them.  The driver died, and Maddox's
husband, who weighed 170 pounds, had minor injuries.  Maddox, who
weighed 240 pounds, sued the drunk driver's estate and Nissan,
claiming that the nine inches of webbing of her seat belt that
spooled out during the accident -- much more than normal -- caused
her to slip under the seat belt, resulting in severe intestinal
injuries.

A jury had initially awarded $2.6 million in compensatory damages
and $2.5 million in punitive damages against Nissan, which was
found 70 percent at fault.

The state court of appeals upheld the verdict but split, 2-1, on
whether the jury's instruction on punitive damages was proper.

In a dissent in the Kentucky Supreme Court ruling, Justice David
Allen Barber agreed with the appellate court that punitive damages
could be warranted since Nissan destroyed evidence of additional
developmental tests it claims to have done on heavier passengers.


NOBLE ENERGY: Court Adopts Recommendation in Royalties Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert E. Blackburn of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado overruled Plaintiff's
objections to the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge and adopted the Recommendation in the case captioned, PHELPS
OIL AND GAS, LLC, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly
situated royalty owners, Plaintiff, v. NOBLE ENERGY, INC. and DCP
MIDSTREAM, LP, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-2604-REB-CBS.

The plaintiff, Phelps Oil and Gas, LLC, receives royalties from
the natural gas drilling operations of defendant Noble Energy,
Inc. on certain mineral leases. DCP buys natural gas from Noble,
processes the gas to make it ready for sale, and then sells the
gas. Under percentage-of-proceeds agreements (POP agreements)
between Noble and DCP, Noble receives from DCP a percentage of the
proceeds from the sale of the gas subject to the POP agreements.
Some of the gas that is subject to the agreements between Phelps
and Noble goes through the DCP post-wellhead services prior to
sale.

In its complaint, Phelps alleges that DCP has failed to pay to
Noble the proper amounts due to Noble under the POP agreements
between DCP and Noble. As a result, Phelps alleges, Noble has not
paid Phelps the full amount of royalties due to Phelps under the
contracts between Phelps and Noble. On this basis, Phelps alleges
against DCP a claim for breach of contract, with Phelps claiming
to be a third-party beneficiary of the POP agreements between DCP
and Noble. Phelps also asserts a claim seeking declaratory
judgment for a determination of rights under the POP agreements
between DCP and Noble. In the alternative, Phelps alleges a claim
for unjust enrichment against DCP.

The Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge dated April 24,
2015, concludes that the facts alleged by Phelps, including the
content of the relevant POP contracts, are insufficient to state a
claim for breach of contract because the allegations and the POP
contracts do not show that Phelps or the class of royalty
interests it seeks to represent are third-party beneficiaries of
the POP contracts between DCP and Noble.  The Magistrate Judge
further recommends granting Defendant's motion to dismiss.

In his Order dated September 22, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ajB5HJfrom Leagle.com, Judge Blackburn found that
the Magistrate Judge provides in the recommendation a thorough
description of relevant allegations and the terms of the POP
agreements and provides an accurate application of the law to
those allegations and contract terms. Nothing in the objections of
the plaintiff vitiates the reasoning and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge.

Phelps Oil and Gas, LLC is represented by:

George A. Barton, Esq.
Robert G. Harken, Esq.
GEORGE A. BARTON, P.C.
800 W 47th St #700
Kansas City, MO 64112
Tel: (816)300-6250

Noble Energy, Inc. is represented by Michael John Gallagher, Esq.
-- mike.gallagher@dgslaw.com -- Jonathan William Rauchway, Esq.
-- jrauchway@dgslaw.com -- Terry R. Miller, Esq. --
terry.miller@dgslaw.com -- DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS, LLP


ODEBRECHT CONSTRUCTION: "White" Suit Claims for Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert White, Jr., William Stuckey, and Demetrice Jones,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Odebrecht Construction, Inc., and Zachry
Construction Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-02947 (S.D.
Tex., October 7, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime pays and
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Odebrecht Construction is a foreign entity that is
headquartered in Coral Gables, Florida and may be served with
process through its registered agent, Registered Agent Solutions,
Inc., 1701 Directors Blvd, Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78744.

Defendant Zachary Construction is a Texas based corporation that
is headquartered in San Antonio, Texas and may be served with
process through it registered agent, CT Corporation System, 1999
Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Terrence B. Robinson, Esq,
Keenya R. Harrold, Esq.
2603 Augusta Dr., Ste. 1450
Houston, TX 77057
Tel: 713.742.0900
Fax: 713.742.0951
Email: terrence.robinson@kennardlaw.com
        keenya.harrold@kennardlaw.com


POP'S CARWASH: "Henry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Toya Henry, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Pop's Carwash Inc. and Robert White, Case No. 1:15-cv-
23854-DPG (S.D. Fla., October 15, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Pop's Carwash Inc. is a Florida corporation that operates a car
wash in South Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rebecca Radosevich, Esq.
      THE TICKTIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      600 West Hillsboro Boulevard
      Suite 220
      Deerfield Beach, FL 33441-1610
      Telephone: (954) 570-6757
      Facsimile: (954) 570-6760
      E-mail: Rradosevich@LegalBrains.com


POTEMKIN RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caleb Clark, Oscar Majano, Greg Vaganov, Halyna Vzhva, Ilya
Karaliou, Nicholas Rotter, Rafeal Airabetov, Yuliya Vasylenko,
Joseph Bateau, Ginette Cadet, Anton Dobrygin, Mirlene Laguer, and
Maksim Lenin v. Potemkin Restaurant, Vladislav Reznykov, and
Daniel Estrin, Case No. 1:15-cv-23849-JAL (S.D. Fla., October 15,
2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate IKRA restaurant in Sunny Isles,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq.
      WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      300 Southeast Thirteenth Street
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 463-2001
      Facsimile: (954) 463-0410
      E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Judge Sends "Flushable" Definition Issue to FTC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Keshner, writing for Law.com, reports that Procter &
Gamble's Charmin Freshmates were advertised as flushable wipes.
Faced with a slew of consumer class action suits over supposedly
flushable wipes but no consensus on the meaning of the word
"flushable," a judge has decided to pause one of the cases to get
a definition of the term from federal regulators.

Eastern District Judge Jack Weinstein stayed Belfiore v. The
Procter & Gamble Company, 14-cv-4090, and referred the issue of an
appropriate definition of "flushable" to the Federal Trade
Commission.

Noting a range of pending suits from consumers and municipalities
across the country over wipes -- a multi-billion-dollar market --
Judge Weinstein said, "Whether wipes should be labeled 'flushable'
is a national issue that requires a single national resolution. .
. . An FTC determination will enable courts to determine whether
different manufacturers' and sellers' labeling was accurate. This
will save significant resources."

Judge Weinstein also paused a plaintiff bid in Belfiore to certify
class certification and a defense bid to decertify, saying he
would "likely deny certification of a damages class but certify an
injunctive class" based on the information he had in front of him
at the moment.

Separate from the Belfiore case, Judge Weinstein scheduled an Oct.
9 order to show cause for five other class action flushable wipes
cases before him on why their cases should not be stayed and
referred to the Federal Trade Commission.

Consumer Anthony Belfiore said Procter & Gamble's "Charmin
Freshmates," were advertised as "flushable" and "septic safe."

But after using the wipes, Mr. Belfiore said he experienced
plumbing problems at his Great Neck home.  A plumber removed the
wipes and other materials from Mr. Belfiore's sewer pipes and
charged him $526.

In 2014, Mr. Belfiore filed a putative class action suit that
complained of false advertising in breach of New York General
Business Law Sec. 349.  His suit also moved to block Procter &
Gamble from calling the product "flushable" and "safe for sewer
and septic systems."

In March, Judge Weinstein said even though Mr. Belfiore stopped
using the wipes, he still had standing to bring the suit (NYLJ,
March 24).

But Judge Weinstein has five additional pending putative class
actions against other retailers and manufacturers.  He noted other
consumer class action cases winding their way through the federal
court system nationwide and listed a number of pending cases where
municipalities sued Procter & Gamble and other defendants over the
wipes.

Apart from litigation, the wipes have been the subject of proposed
laws and municipal warnings against flushing.

Judge Weinstein noted the Federal Trade Commission, tasked with
protecting consumers from anticompetitive, deceptive or unfair
business practices, has already taken some action.

In May, it filed a complaint against one manufacturer, Nice-Pak
Products, and released a proposed agreement and consent order days
later soliciting public comment.

Under the proposed agreement terms, Nice-Pak would not make
representations the product was, among other claims, safe for
sewer and septic systems and able to break apart shortly after
flushing.

According to court papers that Procter & Gamble filed in Belfiore,
it said the FTC "informally" had inquired about the
"'flushability'-related claims that appear on the Freshmates
label." The company said it voluntarily turned over documents and
test data and had met with agency representatives.

On the question of referral, Weinstein turned to the primary
jurisdiction doctrine. Black's Law Dictionary says that under the
doctrine, "a court tends to favor allowing an agency an initial
opportunity to decide an issue in a case in which the court and
the agency have concurrent jurisdiction."

Arguing for Procter & Gamble, Covington & Burling said Weinstein
would be well in his discretion to invoke the doctrine and pause
the certification issue pending conclusion of the regulator's
inquiry.

Mr. Belfiore, through his attorneys at Wolf Popper, had asked
Judge Weinstein to refrain from invoking the doctrine.

Judge Weinstein observed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit laid out four factors pertaining to the doctrine's
application.  The factors included whether the issue was in the
"conventional experience of judges" or involved an agency's
particular expertise. Other factors related to whether the issue
was in the agency's discretion, if there was a "substantial danger
of inconsistent rulings" and if a prior application to the agency
had been made.

Judge Weinstein said the question of what a reasonable consumer
would expect "flushable" to mean was in the ken of judges.  Yet he
noted that New York General Business Law Sec. 349 said it was a
complete defense if the act or practice at issue complies with the
Federal Trade Commission's rules and regulations.

The commission's determinations "would, at a minimum, be important
to proceedings in this court and could be conclusive," the judge
said.  And with all the litigation pending, he said there was a
"substantial danger of inconsistent rulings."

Judge Weinstein also noted that resolution by the commission "as
compared to the court, is in the public interest.  The [FTC]
allows for public comment, while an individual class action
generally does not."

Mr. Belfiore is represented by Lester Levy and Michele Fried
Raphael, partners at Wolf Popper and associates Matthew Insley-
Pruitt, Robert Scott Plosky and Sean Zaroogian.

Procter & Gamble was represented by Emily Henn -- ehenn@cov.com
-- a partner in Covington's Redwood Shores, California, office;
Cortlin Lannin -- clannin@cov.com -- a San Francisco-based
associate, and Andrew Schau, of counsel in the Manhattan office;
and associates Claire Catalano Dean and Michael Sochynsky.

Mitchell Katz, a spokesman for the FTC, declined to comment on the
referral.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Falsely Advertises Cigarettes, Calif. Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
San Francisco, California, claims Reynolds American and Santa Fe
Natural Tobacco Cos. falsely advertise their cigarettes as organic
and additive-free.


RIVIERA GRILL: "Yan" Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages and OT
-----------------------------------------------------
Richard Karel Yan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Riviera Grill & Sushi LLC And
Alexander Podolnyy, Defendants, Case No. 512207/2015 (N.Y. Sup.,
October 7, 2015), seeks to recover overtime pays and minimum wages
under the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants owned and operated a Russian themed restaurant
located at 3100 Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn, NY, 11235.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
2747 Coney Island Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11235
Tel: (718) 808-2224
Fax: (800) 789-9396
Email: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


ROCHESTER ARMORED: "Guerra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Guerra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rochester Armored Car Company, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-
00235 (S.D. Tex., October 15, 2015) seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska, Rochester Armored Car Company,
Inc., specializes in providing armored car services to the Mid-
American region.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Timothy D. Raub, Esq.
      RAUB LAW FIRM, P.C.
      814 Leopard Street
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 880-8181
      Facsimile: (361) 887-6521
      E-mail: timraub@raublawfirm.com


SEADRILL AMERICAS: "Boleware" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Boleware, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Seadrill Americas, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-02875 (S.D. Tex., October 1, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

According to the Complaint, Seadrill Americas violated the FLSA by
employing Boleware and other similarly situated nonexempt
employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours but refusing to
compensate them] for their employment in excess of forty hours
. . . at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular
rate at which [they are or were] employed." Specifically, Seadrill
requires each hourly shift employee under its control to arrive at
least thirty minutes prior to each shift begins in order to attend
a mandatory shift meeting, however, the employees are not paid for
this shift meeting.

Seadrill Americas is a Texas corporation engaged in the business
of offshore deepwater drilling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Melissa Moore, Esq.
Rochelle Owens, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
Lyric Center
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


STERNE AGEE GROUP: "Robinson" Suit Remanded to Bankruptcy Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. of the United States District
for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Sterne Agee Group's
motion to withdraw reference and remanded the case to the United
States Bankruptcy Court in the case captioned, BRUCE E. ROBINSON,
TRUSTEE, et al, Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. STERNE AGEE GROUP,
INC., Counterclaim Defendant, Case No. 3:15CV382-JAG-3.

In December 2011, SAG entered an Agreement to merge its assets
with Anderson & Strudwick, Inc.  The Agreement provided that
Anderson would indemnify SAG against Anderson's liabilities with
the Escrow funds, held in trust in the event that SAG faced claims
relating to the asset acquisition. In May 2014, an involuntary
bankruptcy proceeding began against Anderson and SAG became the
target of two class action lawsuits alleging successor-in-interest
liability for Anderson's underwriting of the Initial Public
Offering of Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and in May 2014, Downs (a
defendant in the Tibet litigation) filed an involuntary bankruptcy
petition against Anderson.

In December 2014, SAG filed an action against the Trustee and
Debtor to obtain a declaration from the Bankruptcy Court that the
Escrow Funds were not a part of the Debtor's estate and not
subject to the bankruptcy proceeding. On January 2, 2015, the
Trustee filed counterclaims alleging: 1) SAG is liable for all of
Anderson's obligations under successor liability; or,
alternatively, 2) the asset purchase is voidable as a fraudulent
transfer under Virginia law. On January 30, 2015, SAG filed a
motion to dismiss the Trustee's counterclaims. The Bankruptcy
Court denied SAG's motion on April 8, 2015, holding the Trustee
had standing and the Trustee had properly alleged its fraudulent
conveyance claims.

In the motion, SAG claims that the Court should grant either
mandatory or permissive withdrawal because the Bankruptcy Court
does not have the authority to hear and decide the Trustee's
counterclaims.

In his Opinion dated September 4, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/hghFP7from Leagle.com, Judge Gibney, Jr. found SAG's
claim untimely and ineligible for mandatory withdrawal. In
addition, because the counterclaims are core claims, the factors
for permissive withdrawal dictate that the matter should remain in
bankruptcy court.

Bruce E. Robinson is represented by Corey S. Booker, Esq. --
corey.booker@leclairryan.com -- Vernon Eugene Inge, Jr., Esq. --
Vernon.inge@leclairryan.com -- LECLAIR RYAN PC

Defendants are represented by Augustus Charles Epps, Jr., Esq. --
aepps2@cblaw.com -- Jennifer McLain McLemore, Esq. --
jmclemore@cblaw.com -- Michael David Mueller, Esq. --
mmueller@cblaw.com -- CHRISTIAN & BARTON LLP


STONEBRIDGE INC: Court Tosses Objection, Denies Rehearing Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael H. Schneider of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas overruled Defendants'
Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
denying Defendants' motions to dismiss; and denied a joint motion
for rehearing and reconsideration of the motions to dismiss
plaintiff's second amended complaint and petition for class
certification in the case captioned, FERNANDO VERDE, Individually
and on behalf of putative class members, Plaintiff, v. STONERIDGE,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:14-CV-225-MHS KNM.

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, which
includes a thorough discussion and analysis of claim splitting,
its relation to res judicata, and whether the "rule" is
discretionary. After concluding that the Court retains discretion
to dismiss a case on the basis of claims splitting, the Report
discusses its bases for declining to exercise its discretion to
dismiss Mr. Verde's case.

Defendants argue that the Report commits legal error by finding
that this action is not barred by the "rule against claims
splitting and that the Court should not "make new law" by creating
an exception for Mr. Verde and allowing him to "flagrantly violate
the prohibition against claim splitting." Defendants contend that
the rule against claim splitting is not discretionary.
Additionally, Defendants argue that res judicata applies and that
the Report improperly applies a blanket exception for claim
splitting in class actions.

In his Order and Recommendation dated September 22, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/FT9m1Rfrom Leagle.com, Judge Schneider adopted
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation finding that the
Report provides a thorough and well-reasoned analysis of all
grounds for its recommendation for disposition of the Motions to
Dismiss, denied Defendants' Motion for Rehearing and FTE's and
Stoneridge's Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's second amended
complaint and petition for class certification and defendant Arrow
Manufacturing Co's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and
for failure to state a claim. Mr. Verde's indemnitor liability
claim against Arrow is dismissed with prejudice.

Fernando Verde is represented by Frederick Leighton Durham, Esq. -
- ldurham@kdplawfirm.com -- Kirk Louis Pittard, Esq. --
kpittard@kdplawfirm.com -- DURHAM & PITTARD & Jeffrey Todd Embry,
Esq. -- jeff@hossleyembry.com -- HOSSLEY & EMBRY LLP

Defendants are represented by Scott P. Drake, Esq. --
scott.drake@nortonrosefulbright.com -- William Patrick Courtney,
Esq. -- William.courtney@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE
FULBRIGHT US LLP, D. Bowen Berry, Esq. -- collier@berryfirm.com
-- Gary D. Lykins, Esq. -- segovia@berryfirm.com -- THE BERRY
FIRM, P.L.L.C.


T. L. CANNON: Discovery Bid Okayed in Applebee's Staff Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson of the United States District
Court for the Western District of New York granted Plaintiffs'
motion to compel discovery in the case captioned, ASHLEY HICKS, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. T.L. CANNON MANAGEMENT CORP., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-6455W.

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action seeking compensatory,
declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of current and former
tipped employees of Applebee's restaurants against various owners
and operators of those restaurants in New York for alleged
violations of the New York Minimum Wage Act, New York Labor Law
(NYLL) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

By decision and order dated August 5, 2014, the district court
granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment and denied defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed the pending motion seeking an order
compelling defendants to provide discovery relating to their good
faith affirmative defense including disclosure of communications
with counsel. Defendants oppose disclosure of attorney-client
communications.

In the motion, Plaintiffs seek to compel defendants to produce
"any communications related to the defendants' good faith defense"
and to require defendants' corporate representative to respond to
deposition questions relating to the defense.  They argue that
defendants have waived their right to assert attorney-client
privilege on three independent bases: first, by pleading and
asserting a good faith defense; second, by partially disclosing
during the corporate representative's deposition the content of
privileged communications; and, third, by failing to provide a
complete privilege log.

A copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated September 3, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/COHzLxfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
O'HARA O'CONNELL & CIOTOLI
7207 E Genesee St,
Fayetteville, NY 13066
Tel: (315)451-3810

     - and -

J. Nelson Thomas, Esq. -- nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com --
Jared K. Cook, Esq. -- jcook@theemploymentattorneys.com -- Michael
J. Lingle, Esq. -- mlingle@theemplomentattorneys.com -- THOMAS &
SOLOMON LLP

Defendant is represented by Craig R. Benson, Esq. --
cbenson@littler.com -- Elena Paraskevas-Thadani, Esq. --
ethadani@littler.com -- Jessica F. Pizzutelli, Esq. --
jpizzutelli@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: 3rd Cir. Revives Suit by King Drug et al.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Anthony Joseph Scirica of the United States Court of
Appeals, Third Circuit, vacated the judgment of the district court
granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a rule-of-reason
claim under Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and reversed the action for further
proceedings in the case captioned, KING DRUG COMPANY OF FLORENCE,
INC.; LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., INC., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM
CORPORATION, doing business as GLAXOSMITHKLINE; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, Case No. 14-
1243.

Plaintiffs, a putative class represented by King Drug Company of
Florence, Inc., and Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc., sued GSK
and Teva in federal court in February 2012 and filed their
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint the following June.
They allege that defendants, by their no-AG agreement, in effect,
a "reverse payment" from GSK to Teva, violated section 1 of the
Sherman Act by conspiring to delay generic competition for
Lamictal tablets and section 2 by conspiring to monopolize the
lamotrigine tablet market.

In late January 2005, the parties tried the patent case before
Judge Bissell, who ruled that the patent's main claim, for the
invention of lamotrigine, was invalid. Plaintiffs allege that "it
was highly likely that Teva would prevail with respect to the
remaining patent claims," which "were extremely weak in view of
Judge Bissell's ruling that claim 1 was invalid.

In February 2005, the parties settled their dispute before Judge
Bissell could rule on the validity of the '017 patent's remaining
claims. GSK agreed to allow Teva to market generic lamotrigine
chewables by no later than June 1, 2005, or 37 months before the
patent was to expire on July 22, 2008.

On appeal, Plaintiffs contend that under the so-called Actavis
antitrust scrutiny is not limited to reverse payments of cash.
They assert the antitrust laws may be violated when a brand-name
drug manufacturer induces a would-be generic competitor to delay
market entry by agreeing not to launch an authorized generic to
compete with the generic.

In the Opinion dated September 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/fAnO9xfrom Leagle.com, Judge Scirica concluded that
the no-AG agreement falls under Actavis's rule because it may
represent an unusual, unexplained reverse transfer of considerable
value from the patentee to the alleged infringer and may therefore
give rise to the inference that it is a payment to eliminate the
risk of competition and that the kind of settlements in the action
are subject to the rule of reason.

Plaintiffs are represented by Peter S. Pearlman, Esq. --
psp@njlawfirm.com -- COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF

Defendants are represented by Jonathan D. Janow, Esq. --
jonathan.janow@kirkland.com -- John C. O'Quinn, Esq. --
john.oquinn@kirkland.com -- Karen N. Walker, Esq. --
kwalker@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Two Women Sue Drivers Over Alleged Rapes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that two women
who claim they were sexually assaulted by Uber drivers have filed
a lawsuit claiming Uber Technologies Inc. allowed the crimes by
putting "profits over safety."

The women, identified as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, were assaulted
in Boston and Charleston, South Carolina, according to the
complaint.  Both drivers are accused of taking the women to a
secluded area, locking the car doors, and forcing themselves on
their passengers.

The victims' lawyers at Wigdor LLP and Anderson & Poole sued Uber
on Oct. 8 in the Northern District of California for assault,
battery, false imprisonment, fraud and negligence.

In an emailed statement, an Uber representative wrote both drivers
named in the complaint have been permanently removed from the Uber
platform.

"Our thoughts remain with the victims of these two terrible
incidents," the representative wrote.  "We proactively worked with
law enforcement in Massachusetts and South Carolina at the time to
share information and aid their investigations."

Wigdor, a New York-based firm, also sued Uber over an alleged
driver rape of a woman in Delhi, India.  That case was resolved
last month under confidential terms.

The Jane Doe suit claims Uber partners with Mothers Against Drunk
Driving to market itself as a safe alternative to drinking and
driving.  But what Uber is really doing is marketing to young
women who have been drinking, according to the complaint.

"Unfortunately, despite its self-proclaimed 'commitment to
safety,' opening the Uber app and setting the pick-up location has
proven to be the modern day equivalent of electronic hitchhiking,"
the lawyers wrote.  "Buyer beware -- we all know how those horror
movies end."

Uber fails to adequately screen its drivers, according to the
complaint. The company doesn't require a fingerprint background
check for criminal history, but instead runs a check more similar
to a credit report, using drivers' Social Security numbers to
check records going back seven years.  If a driver commits a crime
after the initial background check, Uber will not be notified,
according to the complaint.

And the lawyers claim Uber fails to exercise supervision over
drivers while they are working.

Jane Doe 1, who is 20 years old, called for an Uber at about 2:30
a.m. Feb. 8 in Boston. She claims her driver, Abderrahim Dakiri,
told her he "really like her" and began groping and kissing her
while stopped a red light.  The victim says she texted several
friends for help, and told them her Uber driver was trying to rape
her.  Dakiri, who is 6 feet, 3 inches tall and weighs more than
200 pounds, then pulled over, locked the doors and climbed on top
of her, according to the complaint. Jane Doe 1 says she eventually
manipulated the door lock and ran out of the car.  She says Uber
then refunded her charge of $27 for the ride.  Dakiri was charged
with indecent assault and battery the next day, according to a
Boston Globe article.

Jane Doe 2 contacted Uber for a ride to a bar at around 5 p.m. on
Aug. 9 in Charleston, and when she was dropped off, the Uber
driver followed her into the bar, according to the complaint.
About five hours later the driver, Patrick Aiello, gave her and a
friend a ride home. After dropping off the victim's friend, Aiello
began driving in the wrong direction and told the victim she "owed
him a blow job" as payment for the ride, according to the
complaint.  The victim claims he told her he had her cellphone and
wasn't going to give it back. She says he then took her to a
parking lot and proceeded to "viciously rape her."  After the
attack, Jane Doe 2 ran out onto the highway, where she was hit by
a passing vehicle, according to the complaint.  She was taken to
the hospital, where she became suicidal and was transferred to the
psychiatric unit.

Aiello was a middle school social studies teacher at the time of
the attack, according to an article by The Post and Courier.  He
was arrested on charges of kidnapping and first-degree criminal
sexual conduct.

The two assaults are part of a pattern of "similarly heinous, but
avoidable attacks," the Jane Does' lawyers wrote.  They claim more
than 30 sexual assaults by Uber drivers against passengers have
been reported in the media over the past two years.

The suit attempts to pre-empt a bid for arbitration by Uber,
arguing the company's arbitration clause in its terms and
conditions is not binding because riders are not required to
affirmatively consent.

The plaintiffs lawyers pointed out Uber's attempt to disclaim
responsibility for its driver's conduct on its website, by
stating: "You may be exposed to transportation that is potentially
dangerous, offensive, harmful to minors, unsafe or otherwise
objectionable."

Plaintiffs lawyers called the disclaimer unbelievable. "Sadly,"
they wrote, "plaintiffs were victims of 'unsafe,' 'dangerous' and
'offensive' conduct by Uber drivers."


UBER TECH: Faces Drivers' Class Suits in Los Angeles & Seattle
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that another class action against
Uber accuses it of underpaying drivers, overcharging them for cell
phone use and stiffing them for bonuses promised for referring new
drivers, in Superior Court in Los Angeles.

In another report, Courthouse News Service said a class action
against Uber accuses it of filching tips from its drivers, in King
County Court in Seattle, Washington.


UNITED STATES: Judge to Dismiss Twitter's Suit v. NSA
-----------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reported that a federal
judge in Oakland, Calif., said Oct. 13 that she will dismiss
Twitter's lawsuit against the National Security Agency because of
the "new landscape" created by legislation that limits government
surveillance -- but asked Twitter to amend its claims anyway.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said at the outset of
the Oct. 13 hearing that she will grant the government's motion to
dismiss Twitter's action, but will ask that the social networking
service amend its claims.

"I understand that you have strenuously argued that the issues are
not moot," she told Twitter attorney Michael Sussmann. "I
disagree, having read everything. That's not to say there isn't
some issue there. But I do think the landscape has changed, and
the complaint needs to be changed to reflect the current
landscape."

The USA Freedom Act of 2015 reinstated parts of the Patriot Act on
which the government's surveillance program was based. Though it
banned the bulk collection of data such as phone records and
Internet searches, it allows the government to request data for a
specific person. It also permits private companies such as Twitter
to be more transparent about how often the feds request such
information.

Twitter claimed in an October 2014 lawsuit that it received a
letter from the U.S. attorney general barring it from publishing a
"transparency report" on the number of surveillance requests it
received. The attorney general said the information was classified
and cannot be released.

Sussmann said that despite the USA Freedom Act's alleged
permissiveness, the feds are still trying to block Twitter from
publishing its report, and continue to rely on the nondisclosure
provisions of U.S. Code Sec. 2709(c), which Twitter claims
"remains virtually unchanged" by the USA Freedom Act.

"Twitter still wants to say more than it is being allowed to say,
and defendants' application of Sec. 2709(c) is at least part of
the reason it cannot say what it wants to say," Sussmann wrote in
his brief. "Significantly, defendants have not suggested that Sec.
2709(c) no longer prohibits the speech in which Twitter wishes to
engage."

Sussmann told the judge: "We looked at what an amended [motion]
would look like. The allegations would change very little. We
would still make the same allegation that Sec. 2709(c) remains an
unconstitutional prohibition on speech."

Sussmann added: "Less restrictive language is not a panacea for
all companies."

But Gonzalez Rogers said she wanted to start afresh.

"My view is, it's better to have it more clean than trying to
assume what your theories are."


VIRBAC CORPORATION: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Fauley, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. Virbac Corporation, Virbac, Inc.,
Virbac AH, Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-09125 (N.D.
Ill., October 15, 2015) seeks to put an end of the Defendant's
practice of sending unsolicited advertisements via facsimile
transmission in violation of the Junk Fax Prevention Act.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company with their
principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
              rkelly@andersonwanca.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces A to Z Suit in Wis. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
A to Z Autosports, LLC, and MSI Auto Sales And Repair, Inc.,
individually and as representatives of the classes v. Volkswagen
Group Of America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00664 (W.D. Wis., October
15, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged intentional
installation of defeat devices in certain model year 2009 through
2015 diesel vehicles, which were designed to bypass, defeat, or
render inoperative elements of the vehicles' emission control
system to comply with the Clean Air Act emission standards.

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:

      Eric J. Haag, Esq.
      ATTERBURY, KAMMER & HAAG, S.C.
      8500 Greenway Boulevard, Suite 103
      Middleton, WI 53562
      Telephone: (608) 821-4600
      Facsimile: (608) 821-4610
      E-mail: ehaag@wiscinjurylawyers.com

         - and -

      W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, Esq.
      Archie I. Grubb II, Esq.
      H. Clay Barnett, Esq.
      BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
      218 Commerce Street
      Montgomery, AL 36104
      Telephone: (334) 269-2343
      Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
      E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
              archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com
              clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bonner" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Bonner, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-00225-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., October 15, 2015) arises out of
the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of defeat devices
in certain model year 2009 through 2015 diesel vehicles, which
were designed to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative elements of
the vehicles' emission control system to comply with the Clean Air
Act emission standards.

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:

      Steven L. Nicholas, Esq.
      William E. Bonner, Esq.
      CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC
      1601 Dauphin St.
      Mobile, AL 36604
      Telephone: (251) 471-6191
      Facsimile: (251) 479-1031
      E-mail: sln@cunninghambounds.com
              web@cunninghambounds.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Crook" Suit in Ala. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Irene Crook, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-01807-AKK (N.D. Ala., October 15, 2015) arises
out of the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of defeat
devices on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold
in the United States since 2009.

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:

      Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
      D. Anthony Mastando, Esq.
      MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC
      301 Washington Street, Suite 302
      Huntsville, AL 35801
      Telephone: (256) 532-2222
      Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
      E-mail: Artrip@mastandoartrip.com
              Tony@mastandoartrip.com

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sells Defective Cars, "Uttecht" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Uttecht And Marc Stewart, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Volkswagen Group Of
America, Inc., and Volkswagen AG, Defendants., Case No. 2:15-cv-
13529-VAR-EAS (E.D. Mich., October 7, 2015), seeks to secure
injunctive relief and damages under the US Environmental
Protection Agency as redress for the fraud perpetrated against
them.

Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation doing
business in all 50 states and is organized and incorporated under
the laws of New Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a
corporation doing business in all 50 states and is organized and
incorporated under the laws of New.

Defendant Volkswagen AG is the sole owner of Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. and tightly controls the actions of its agent to
perform the critical tasks of selling the Class Vehicles,
including developing, manufacturing, distributing, and marketing
the Class Vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

      - and -

Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
Kevin R. Budner, Esq.
Phong-Chau Nguyen, Esq.
Robert L. Lieff, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
Email: ecabraser@lchb.com
        kbudner@lchb.com
        pgnguyen@lchb.com
        rlieff@lchb.com

      - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Shareholders Suit Face Numerous Challenges
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Volkswagen A.G.'s emissions scandal has sent the German
company's stock tumbling, but shareholders looking to recover
their losses have a difficult road ahead in court.

Volkswagen's stock has dropped significantly since Sept. 18, when
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notified the automaker
that some of its diesel cars made since 2009 had a "defeat device"
in them designed to cheat emissions tests in violation of the
Clean Air Act.  The device was in about 11 million vehicles
worldwide, including 482,000 in the United States. One day
earlier, Volkswagen was trading at 167 euros per share. Since the
scandal, it has plunged to as low as 92 euros.  Yet shareholder
suits against Volkswagen face numerous challenges, largely due to
the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Morrison v. National
Australia Bank, which held that investors who purchase a foreign
company's stock on a foreign exchange lack standing to sue in U.S.
courts.

In the wake of Morrison, U.S. suits against Volkswagen, which is
traded on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, have been limited to
smaller classes of holders of American depositary receipts, or
ADRs, which are U.S. securities that represent shares of a foreign
company.  Outside investors make up about 12 percent of the
company, of which U.S. ADRs are a small part, according to Kevin
LaCroix's blog, The D&O Diary, which is following the Volkswagen
shareholder litigation.

Joseph Grundfest, a professor at Stanford Law School, said that
"as a practical matter, the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison
limits U.S.-based class action lawsuits to investors who purchased
Volkswagen's ADRs in U.S. markets." He added, however, "That said,
there is absolutely nothing in U.S. law that bars U.S.
shareholders or U.S. law firms from suing VW anywhere else in the
world where they can find jurisdiction and a court that will
support a claim.  VW's lawyers should expect to be busy worldwide
pretty much wherever its cars or shares were being sold."

To that end, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, based in Los
Angeles, announced on Oct. 7 its first partnership with litigation
funding firm Bentham Europe to bring a suit against Volkswagen in
a German court on behalf of U.S. and foreign institutional
investors.  Bentham Europe is a joint venture between IMF Bentham
Ltd. and funds managed by U.S. advisory firm Elliott Management
Corp.

"Morrison is a bar to a lot of the Volkswagen investors suing in
the U.S., so this would be different from all those actions, and
it will be suits filed in Germany under Germany law," said
Shon Morgan -- shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com -- chairman of the
class action practice group at Quinn Emanuel.

So far, Volkswagen has been hit with three U.S. suits alleging
securities fraud against the company and several of its
executives, including former CEO Martin Winterkorn and Michael
Horn, president and CEO of Volkswagen Group of America, who
testified before a House subcommittee in Washington on Oct. 8.

The first shareholder case against Volkswagen was filed on Sept.
25 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
where the company's U.S. operations are headquartered in Herndon.

The case alleges that Volkswagen's executives touted its "clean
diesel" vehicles, primarily in press releases, while failing to
disclose it had developed a device to cheat emissions tests.

The case, which seeks damages on behalf of a class of purchasers
from Nov. 19, 2010, to Sept. 21, 2015, names Volkswagen;
subsidiary Audi of America; Winterkorn; Horn; Herbert Diess,
chairman of Volkswagen's passenger cars brand; and four other
current and former Volkswagen executives in the United States.

Two similar cases were filed on Sept. 29 and Oct. 2 in U.S.
District Court for New Jersey, where Volkswagen Group of America
is incorporated.

None of the lawyers who filed those suits -- Darren Robbins, a
partner at San Diego's Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd; Mark Hanna,
founding partner of Murphy Anderson in Washington; or James Notis
of Gardy & Notis in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey -- responded to
requests for comments.  A Volkswagen spokeswoman also did not
respond to a request for a comment.

The cases site hundreds if not thousands of investors.  Still,
only a small fraction of a foreign company's shareholders purchase
ADRs.

In the shareholder litigation against Toyota Motor Corp. filed
following its sudden-acceleration recalls, for instance, Morrison
wiped out much of the class by limiting plaintiffs to ADR
purchasers.

CHALLENGES FOR ANY CLASS

For Volkswagen, whose ADRs aren't even listed on a U.S. stock
exchange and are traded over-the-counter, the class could face
even more challenges, said Blair Nicholas, a partner in Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann's San Diego office who settled the
Toyota case for $25.5 million.  Unlike Volkswagen's ADRs, Toyota's
were traded on the New York Stock Exchange, and Toyota, whose
common stock was traded on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, was required
to file annual periodic reports with the SEC.

Whether unlisted ADRs purchased over-the-counter are subject to
Morrison is an issue that's come up in other cases, most recently
in a shareholder action against Tesco PLC, a grocery store chain
based in the United Kingdom.  Tesco has moved to dismiss the
shareholder litigation, arguing that Morrison precludes securities
fraud claims brought on behalf of purchasers of its ADRs, which,
like Volkswagen's, are unlisted and traded over-the-counter.

"The primary question for the court ultimately will be whether or
not the ADR transaction involved here, which is an unlisted ADR,
is sufficiently domestic to satisfy the requirements of Morrison,"
Nicholas said.

Quinn Emanuel, meanwhile, has been boosting its presence in
Germany since Morrison came out.  Its case, which hasn't yet been
filed, would be managed by Nadine Herrmann, managing partner of
the firm's Hamburg and Brussels offices and chairwoman of its
European Union and German competition law practice, and Richard
East, co-managing partner of the London office, Mr. Morgan said.

Although there are no class actions in Germany, the case could
involve several hundred potential plaintiffs, given that numerous
institutional funds own Volkswagen shares through foreign
exchanges, Mr. Morgan said.

"The only way this gets off the ground is if you have enough
significant investors who want to participate," Mr. Morgan said.
"Bentham will take on some of the costs of the litigation and
offer indemnity agreements out of pocket for the funds or whoever
wants to participate."

The suit represents another investor action for the firm, which
has obtained $20 billion in settlements for the Federal Housing
Finance Agency in cases against the nation's largest financial
institutions following the 2008 recession.

Mr. Morgan said the Volkswagen scandal provided an opportunity.
"This is a very unusual case in which right out of the box
Volkswagen admitted they did this," he said.  "There was no
dispute about this."


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Buyback of Emission-Affected Cars Proposed
------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers
with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan have upped the ante in their legal battle against
Volkswagen A.G., demanding the company buy back half a million
vehicles affected by the recent emissions scandal.

The lawyers claim Volkswagen hasn't proposed an adequate fix for
cars that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency determined were
emitting pollutants at up to 40 times the legal limit.  Rather
than forcing deceived consumers to drive the faulty cars,
Volkswagen is obliged to buy back the vehicles at market prices,
the lawyers argue in filings submitted on Oct. 12 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

Plaintiffs paid a premium for cars advertised as "clean diesel"
vehicles because they took pride in helping to reduce pollution,
said Quinn Emanuel partner Shon Morgan.

Now that Volkswagen has admitted the cars came equipped with so-
called defeat devices that cheated emissions tests, plaintiffs are
"disgusted and ashamed," Mr. Morgan said.  "They don't want to
drive these cars. And [Volkswagen] isn't giving them an option not
to drive these cars."

Volkswagen's chief executive officer, Michael Horn, told Congress
that it will take the company years to fix affected cars,
according to the Oct. 12 motion seeking a preliminary injunction.
Horn testified that the company will start on the project next
year, the lawyers wrote, but as a plan has not yet been designed
or approved, there's no telling how long it will take or whether
it will be successful.

Class members shouldn't have to stand for this "foot-dragging,"
the lawyers wrote.  They've demanded Volkswagen buy back the cars
at pre-scandal price levels from all plaintiffs in the putative
nationwide class.

"It's unusual, but the facts here are unusual," said Steve Berman
of Hagens Berman.

Berman and Morgan also filed a second suit on Oct. 12 on behalf of
California Volkswagen owners under the state's emissions warranty
law, which expressly authorizes buyback relief.  Plaintiffs seek a
preliminary injunction in the California case as well.

So far Hagens Berman has filed five suits against Volkswagen, and
has teamed up with Quinn Emanuel on two.


WASHINGTON DC: Pregnant Woman Sues Over Health Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------
Tim Ryan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Minerva Nolasco was seven months pregnant when she learned her
health benefits had been canceled unexpectedly.  Nearly a year
earlier, Maria Amaya Torres lost nearly two-thirds of her
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Plan (SNAP) benefits.  In a
class action the women filed in D.C. Superior Court, they blame
their loss of services on the failure of the district's Department
of Human Services to provide them with a translator in meetings,
despite knowing that neither spoke English.

The 21-page complaint claims that the Department of Human Services
"runs roughshod " over a Washington law that requires agencies to
provide language services to people who speak little to no
English.  Under the Language Access Act of 2004, D.C. residents
who speak a language other than English are entitled to services
from public agencies, including translations of document
translations and outreach programs. The law also establishes the
Office of Human Rights as the judge of agency compliance with the
act.  That office found in field tests that the Department of
Human Services did not translate critical documents into other
languages and refused to provide interpretations to non-English
speakers, despite the requirements of the Language Access Act,
according to the complaint.

As a result of these failures, the Office of Human Rights scored
the Department of Human Services zero out of five for the
"quality" of its language-access services in a 2014 report,
according to the complaint.

"DHS's failure to provide translation and interpretation services
is more than just an inconvenience -- it is illegal," the
complaint states. "On this point, the law is unequivocal."

Under Washington law, the Department of Human Services must
provide people who are either not proficient in English or who
don't speak it at all with "oral language services," according to
the complaint.

This includes the agency putting bilingual staff in positions that
require interacting with the public as well as providing trained
staff interpreters either through private telephone services, in-
person interpreter services or interpreters provided by community
service organizations, according to the complaint.

The class claims the Department of Human Services has ignored
these rules for years, forcing people who do not speak English to
fill out forms and interact with Department of Human Services
employees in something other than their native language.

"The fact that DHS has a 'comprehensive system in place for
identifying and tracking [non-English speaking] customers' yet
regularly fails to provide language access services demonstrates
that DHS's discrimination is intentional," the class claims. "DHS
can and does carefully track which residents need translation or
interpretation services, but it nonetheless refuses to provide
these services to these residents."

Nolasco and Torres note as an example that one Spanish-speaker
called the department eight times in one day to ask about her SNAP
benefits. Each time she asked for help in Spanish, and each time
she was either immediately hung up on or put on hold for 10 to 15
minutes, after which time her call was dropped.

Another woman ended up in tears, according to the complaint, after
the department told her could not speak with a Spanish-speaking
DHS agent and she later learned that her application for SNAP
benefits had never been processed.

"Upon information and belief, this is just the top of the
iceberg," the complaint states. "DHS has a track record of failing
to provide required translation and interpretation services."

The agency has not improved its language-services access in recent
years, despite attention from former interim director Deborah
Carroll, according to the complaint.

In addition to the District of Columbia, the class action names
Laura Zeilinger, the director of the Department of Human Services,
as a defendant.

Closed for the Columbus Day weekend, the Department of Human
Services did not respond to a request for comment.


WB HOLDINGS: Topples "Wasvary" TCPA Action in E.D. Mich.
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sean F. Cox of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan granted Defendants' motion to
strike or deny Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
motion to dismiss in the case captioned, Mark Wasvary,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. WB Holdings, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-10750.

Plaintiff Mark Wasvary, acting through counsel, filed this
putative class action on March 2, 2015. Wasvary is the only named
plaintiff. The named Defendants, which are all corporate entities,
are alleged to "comprise an organization of companies who own and
operate several indoor trampoline parks in Michigan under the
assumed names 'Airtime Trampoline & Game Park' and 'Michigan
Airtime.'"  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending him unsolicited
advertisements, via text messages. Wasvary alleges that he
received four different texts in violation of the TCPA. He seeks
an award of $2,000 or, if the Court determines the conduct was
willful or intentional, $6,000 as statutory damages and an
injunction prohibiting Defendants from violating the TCPA in the
future.

Defendants asked the Court to strike or deny Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification, and to grant their Motion to Dismiss.

In his Opinion and Order dated September 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/JBfzUafrom Leagle.com, Judge Cox found that there is
neither a procedural rule nor any Sixth Circuit authority that
allows a party to file an admittedly premature, "placeholder"
motion and that although the Sixth Circuit's position as to the
theory of the mootness-by-unaccepted-offer-of-judgment may well be
reversed in the near future, by the United States Supreme Court in
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, the Court is currently bound by
existing Sixth Circuit authority.

Mark Wasvary is represented by Christopher Phillip Taylor Tourek,
Esq. -- Christopher@bockhatchllc.com, James M. Smith, Esq. --
jim@bockhatchllc.com -- Phillip A. Bock, Esq. --
phil@bockhatchllc.com -- BOCK & HATCH, LLC, Jason J. Thompson,
Esq. -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.

Defendants are represented by:

David H. Fink, Esq.
Isaac S. Sternheim, Esq.
FINK & ASSOCIATES
38500 Woodward Ave #350
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Tel: (248)971-2500


WEATHERFORD INT'L: Fails to Pay OT, Houston Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Weatherford International
works oil rig employees 12 or more hours a day for 10 to 20 days
in a row without paying them overtime, a class action claims in
Federal Court in Houston, Texas.


WHITE CASTLE: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District
Court for Southern District of Ohio denied Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the case captioned, RICHARD WAGNER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. WHITE CASTLE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:14-CV-00994.

Plaintiffs Richard Wagner and Derek Mortland bring this action,
individually and on behalf of all other mobility-impaired
individuals similarly situated, against Defendant White Castle
System, Inc. alleging that 54 Ohio White Castle restaurant sites
are places of public accommodation that subject customers to
violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of "individuals with
mobility impairment," specifically, patrons who use wheelchairs or
scooters "who desire to use Defendant's White Castle locations in
Ohio."

In the motion, Plaintiffs moved for class certification requesting
certification of the following class: "All individuals with
disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility
who, during a specified time period to be determined by this
Court, were denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of
disability, full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of White
Castle corporate restaurants in Ohio."

Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint the named Plaintiffs,
Mr. Wagner and Mr. Mortland, as class representatives, and appoint
the law offices of Fuller, Fuller, & Associates, P.A. and Owen B.
Dunn Jr., as class counsel. Defendant opposes, first asserting
that Plaintiffs lack standing on behalf of the entire proposed
class seeking injunctive relief. Defendant also argues that
Plaintiffs' motion is "unsupported by evidence and fails to
satisfy the requirements of [Fed.R.Civ.P.] Rule 23(a) and Rule
23(b)(2)."

In the Opinion and Order dated September 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/amPaCDfrom Leagle.com, Judge Marbley found that a
review of Plaintiffs' class claims as currently pled does not
demonstrate that the alleged White Castle ADA violations would be
effectively addressed in a single class action. Plaintiffs have
not met their burden under Rule 23(a)(2) and Plaintiffs have
presented no evidence of the years in which the 54 challenged
White Castle restaurants were built and, therefore, which legal
standard applies.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Owen Benton Dunn, Jr., Esq.
Lawrence A. Fuller, Esq.
FULLER, FULLER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
12000 Biscayne Blvd
North Miami, FL 33181
Tel: (305)445-7150

White Caslte System, Inc. is represented by Michael Joseph
Underwood, Esq. -- munderwood@porterwright.com -- Jamie A.
LaPlante, Esq. -- jlaplante@porterwright.com -- PORTER WRIGHT
MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP


WISCONSIN: Inmate May Proceed In Forma Pauperis
-----------------------------------------------
District Judge Pamela Pepper of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted Plaintiff's motions
to proceed in forma pauperis and to waive the initial partial
filing fee, but denied Plaintiff's motion to have defendants
receive filings through PACER and to publish all decisions in the
case captioned, PATRICK JAMES WERNER, Plaintiff, v. EDWARD F.
WALL, Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-114-PP.

Patrick James Werner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Oshkosh
Correctional Institution, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1983, alleging violations of his civil rights. The plaintiff
was incarcerated when he filed his complaint. On January 30, 2015,
the court issued an order requiring the plaintiff to pay an
initial partial filing fee of $10.16. The plaintiff brings his
sworn complaint against Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC)
Secretary Edward Wall in his individual and official capacity.

The complaint indicates that on August 23, 1999, he was sentenced
to serve ten years in prison for sexual assault of a child, to be
served consecutively to a two-year sentence imposed in another
case. He also was sentenced to a term of ten years of probation
for child enticement-sexual contact, to run consecutively to the
ten years of incarceration. The plaintiff completed the ten-year
prison term, began to serve the ten-year probation term and then
was revoked "for ONLY rule violations, of which NONEwere new
crimes." He is challenging three of his supervision rules (1)
requires him to comply with Wis. Stat. Sec.301.45(2)(a)(6m)
wherein Section 301.45 is the sex offender registration statute;
(2) "You shall not purchase, possess, nor use a computer,
software, hardware, nor modem without prior agent approval,"; and
(3) "you shall not have in your possession or utilize a cell phone
or other electronic device that has Internet capacity."

In the motion, he argues that he did not use a computer "in the
commission of his present or past criminality." Id. at 4. He
claims he has no record of abusing digital or electronic
communications.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 18, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/YBVGFJfrom Leagle.com.


* CFPB Mulls Rule Against Consumer Contract Arbitration Clauses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for Law.com, reports that The Roberts
Court's dislike of class actions and its loyalty -- sometimes
divided -- to arbitration have levied knock-out blows to consumers
and small businesses.  But a counterpunch may be on the way.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Oct. 6 announced it is
considering a proposed rule that would ban companies from
including arbitration clauses blocking class actions in their
consumer contracts.  This would apply to most consumer financial
products and services in markets that the consumer bureau
oversees.

"It would have a gigantic effect on some of the Supreme Court's
decisions on class actions in arbitration for a huge section of
the economy, depending on what [the CFPB] does," said F. Paul
Bland Jr., executive director of Public Justice.

The Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 was designed to ensure
enforcement of arbitration agreements and arbitral awards in the
face of judicial hostility towards arbitration.

From 1925 until the mid-1990s, arbitration clauses were rare in
consumer cases.  A few states, mainly California, allowed class
action, or group, arbitrations.  But, as one scholar described the
procedure, class action arbitration was a "mythical beast: half
litigation, half arbitration and rarely seen."

The Supreme Court in 2003 indirectly opened the door to more class
arbitrations with its decision in Green Tree Financial Corp. v.
Bazzle.  A plurality held that the arbitrator must decide whether
a contract forbids class arbitration, but it left open what rule
the arbitrator should apply in making that decision and also said
it was a matter of state law.

Through that newly opened door rushed more than 300 class
arbitrations for the American Arbitration Association to handle.

The advent of the Roberts Court marked a departure in tone and
substance, arbitration scholars said.

"I would say it is a departure -- certainly from the way the court
viewed arbitration in the 1980s," said Jean Sternlight, director
of the Saltman Center for Conflict Resolution at the William S.
Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

In Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler (1986), the court held that where an
international contract had a broad arbitration clause, the policy
favoring arbitration overrode domestic policy disfavoring
arbitration of antitrust claims. But the high court made clear
that arbitration was not to result in the elimination of remedies,
she said.

"The court basically said, 'You'll be able to get in arbitration
everything you would have gotten in litigation,'" Ms. Sternlight
said.  That was the belief that underlay other pro-arbitration
decisions of that era, she said.

A strong pro-arbitration view also prevailed across ideological
divisions on the high court. Liberal icons William Brennan Jr.,
Thurgood Marshall and other colleagues wrote some of those
decisions based on the belief that arbitration offered a path to
justice for people who could not afford court litigation.

Class barriers

The departure from the court's rather "hands-off" class
arbitrations and its nonideological views of arbitration came with
three Roberts Court decisions beginning in 2010.

In Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds International, Justice Samuel
Alito Jr., joined by the chief justice and Justices Antonin
Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, held that an
arbitrator cannot require a party to submit to a class arbitration
unless there is evidence in the contract that the party had
consented to class arbitration.  The court made a point of noting
that its decision did not follow from its 2003 decision in Green
Tree.

Stolt-Nielsen set the stage for AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion in
2011.  The Concepcions argued that AT&T's arbitration agreement
was invalid under California law because it prohibited class
actions. They wanted to proceed in a class because the individual
amount of their claim against the phone company was small but much
larger if consumers affected by the alleged fraud could join
together.

Justice Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito, held
that the Federal Arbitration Act pre-empted California law.

"The overarching purpose of the FAA, evident in the text of Secs.
2, 3, and 4, is to ensure the enforcement of arbitration
agreements according to their terms so as to facilitate
streamlined proceedings," Justice Scalia wrote.  "Requiring the
availability of classwide arbitration interferes with fundamental
attributes of arbitration and thus creates a scheme inconsistent
with the FAA."

For the dissenters, Justice Stephen Breyer said California law
"sets forth circumstances in which the California courts believe
that the terms of consumer contracts can be manipulated to
insulate an agreement's author from liability for its own frauds
by 'deliberately cheat[ing] large numbers of consumers out of
individually small sums of money.' Why is this kind of decision
-- weighing the pros and cons of all class proceedings alike --
not California's to make?"

Concerned about the Concepcion decision and others affecting
individuals' access to justice, the Senate Judiciary Committee in
2011 held a hearing on the impact of those rulings.  Mayer Brown's
Andrew Pincus, who had successfully argued for AT&T, told the
committee that the Concepcion decision was "far from radical" and
that more than 20 states would have upheld a similar arbitration
clause.

The decision, he added, "rejected an erroneous interpretation of
the Federal Arbitration Act that deviated significantly from the
court's precedents and would have had the practical effect of
eliminating arbitration as a fair and economical alternative to
the litigation system."

Radical or not, the decision appeared to lay the groundwork for
the third major blow to class arbitrations -- a bitterly divided
decision in American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant (2013).

In that case, a group of merchants who accepted American Express
cards challenged the company's class action ban in its arbitration
agreement.  They claimed the company violated federal antitrust
laws by using its monopoly power in the market for charge cards to
force merchants to accept credit cards at rates approximately 30
percent higher than the fees for competing credit cards.

Fighting the company's motion to compel individual arbitration,
the merchants submitted an economist's report that the cost of an
expert analysis necessary to prove the antitrust claims would be
"at least several hundred thousand dollars, and might exceed $1
million," while the maximum recovery for an individual plaintiff
would be $12,850, or $38,549 when trebled. Without the class
action, they argued, they could not go forward to vindicate their
rights.

The federal appellate court held that because the merchants had
established that "they would incur prohibitive costs if compelled
to arbitrate under the class action waiver," the waiver was
unenforceable and the arbitration could not proceed.

A 5-4 Supreme Court reversed. Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy,
Thomas and Alito, held that the Federal Arbitration Act did not
permit courts to invalidate a contractual waiver of class
arbitration on the ground that the plaintiff's cost of
individually arbitrating a federal statutory claim exceeds the
potential recovery.

In a sharp dissent, Justice Elena Kagan called the decision a
"betrayal of our precedents, and of federal statutes like the
antitrust laws."  In prior decisions, the court, she said, had
created a mechanism -- called the effective-vindication rule --
"to prevent arbitration clauses from choking off a plaintiff's
ability to enforce congressionally created rights.  That doctrine
bars applying such a clause when (but only when) it operates to
confer immunity from potentially meritorious federal claims."

Applying that doctrine, she said, would ensure that American
Express' arbitration clause did not prevent the merchants from
vindicating their right to a remedy for antitrust harms.  But the
majority's response, she added: "admirably flaunted rather than
camouflaged: Too darn bad."

The CFPB takes a stance

The bitter division in the decision, Nevada-Las Vegas' Justice
Sternlight said, may reflect the dissenting justices' awareness
that mandatory arbitration is not always the cheaper, quicker path
to justice that it was thought to be decades ago.

"When I looked through the various justices' opinions, I don't
think many of them had a crystal ball as to where arbitration was
heading, only one -- Justice [John Paul] Stevens had a sense of
where it would go," Justice Sternlight said.  "Justices Kagan,
[Sonia] Sotomayor and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg are more nervous about
it but not to the point they are reversing prior Supreme Court
decisions."

The high court's three decisions have had an "enormous" impact on
consumer and employment claims, blocking many worthy cases, Bland
of Public Justice said. Where there is an arbitration clause,
class actions have been eliminated "unless a company has done
something really stupid in writing the clause," he added.

In March, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released a
study showing that arbitration clauses restrict consumers' relief
for disputes with financial service providers by allowing
companies to block group lawsuits.  The study also found that very
few consumers individually seek relief through arbitration or the
federal courts, while millions of consumers are eligible for
relief each year through group settlements.

As the first step towards a potential rulemaking on clauses
banning class actions, the CFPB now is collecting input from
business, consumer and other groups.

"I think it will be very interesting to see what the CFPB is going
to do on this front," Justice Sternlight said.  "They may be
willing to tackle at least part of the problem.  It would only be
as to consumers in the financial context."


* CFPB's Arbitration Ban May Spur Meritless Suits, Lawyer Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for Law.com, reports that mandatory
arbitration as we know it is on the way out.  The Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau on Oct. 6 announced that it plans to
propose rules that would prevent consumer financial services
companies from using arbitration clauses to block class actions.

The CFPB stopped short of seeking a ban on all mandatory
arbitration.  Banks, credit card issuers, private student loan
providers and other companies that fall under the CFPB's
jurisdiction can still force individual consumers to arbitrate
disputes.  But they wouldn't be able to do what matters most: use
arbitration to kill class actions.

"Although many consumer financial violations impose only small
costs on each individual consumer, taken as a whole, these
unlawful practices can yield millions or even billions of dollars
in revenue for financial providers," CFPB director Richard Cordray
said, according to an advance copy of his remarks, set to be
delivered in Denver on Oct. 7.  "Arbitration clauses that bar
group lawsuits protect these ill-gotten gains by enabling
companies to avoid being held accountable for their misdeeds."

Mr. Cordray quoted Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, who put it succinctly: "The
realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million
individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or
a fanatic sues for $30."

Will the CFPB rule, once finalized, be a windfall for plaintiffs
lawyers? Some defense lawyers say yes.

"I strongly believe that if the CFPB bans the use of arbitration
provisions or class action waivers, that will result in an
avalanche of meritless class actions, which will drive up dispute
resolution costs without providing any benefit to anyone except
plaintiffs class action lawyers," said Alan Kaplinsky --
kaplinsky@ballardspahr.com -- who heads Ballard Spahr's consumer
financial services group and helped pioneer the use of pre-dispute
arbitration provisions in consumer contracts.

Maybe. But the CFPB in a 728-page study released in March made it
clear that arbitration can be a lousy deal for consumers.

As part of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress required the CFPB to
conduct such a study and gave the bureau the power to issue
regulations that are in the public interest, for the protection of
consumers and consistent with the study's findings.

Among those findings: Over a two-year period, American Arbitration
Association neutrals issued 341 decisions in disputes that
involved credit cards, checking accounts, prepaid cards, payday
loans, private student loans and mobile wireless contracts.

Consumers won awards in 32 cases -- less than 10 percent -- and
obtained debt forbearance in 46 cases.  The total combined relief
in all cases: under $400,000.

Compare that to the results obtained via class actions.  According
to the CFPB, over the last five years, financial services
companies paid an average of $540 million a year to settle class
actions.  Between 2008 and 2012, courts approved 422 settlements,
yielding more than $2.7 billion in cash, in-kind relief, expenses
and fees -- with about 18 percent going to lawyers.

The difference is beyond glaring. It's shameful.

As the next step in enacting a rule, the CFPB plans to convene a
small business review panel to gather feedback from small industry
stakeholders.

According to current agency thinking, any proposed rule would
require arbitration clauses to "say explicitly that they do not
apply to cases filed as class actions unless and until the class
certification is denied by the court or the class claims are
dismissed in court," according to the agency.

Such a provision is in line with rules that the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority applies to broker-dealers, with the approval
of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The potential CFPB rule would also require that companies submit
the arbitration claims filed and awards issued to the agency for
review and possible publication.  "This will allow the bureau to
monitor consumer finance arbitrations to ensure that the process
is fair for consumers," the CFPB said.

Mr. Cordray in his speech gave what amounted to a spirited defense
of class (make that "group") actions.  He laid out an example of
two bank customers, Maria and Kate, who both got hit with illegal
overdraft fees on their checking accounts.

Maria, who was not bound by an arbitration clause, "succeeds in
bringing a group claim and obtaining a settlement with her bank on
behalf of 2 million customers.  As a group, the customers are
eligible to receive upward of a $100 million refund for the fees
they were wrongfully charged, and their bank agrees to change its
practices so these harms cannot continue.

"By contrast, Kate's lawsuit is dismissed.  So far as we know,
Kate gets nothing for herself, and the other customers of the bank
are left without relief, despite the fact that her bank engaged in
similar practices and used similar disclosures.  The difference is
that Kate's bank had an arbitration clause that gave it a free
pass from her efforts to pursue relief by blocking her group
claims."

Kudos to the CFPB for putting an end to the free pass and giving
consumers their day in court.


* Consumer Lawyers Laud CFPB's Arbitration Proposal
---------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that new
regulations proposed on Oct. 7 by the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau would be a major win for plaintiffs lawyers in
their on-going fight against arbitration.

During a Denver hearing, the CFPB announced its intention to
prohibit financial institutions, including banks, credit card
companies and lenders, from forcing class actions into
arbitration. Implementation is a long way off -- the proposal is
preliminary and the CFPB is soliciting recommendations from the
business community before drafting a final version.  But the news
has heartened consumer plaintiffs attorneys who have seen their
business dwindle as more companies use arbitration clauses to
pre-empt class actions.

"If this rule comes in, it will re-open possibilities," said
Lori Andrus of San Francisco's Andrus Anderson, an attorney
specializing in consumer class actions.

The 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
tasked the CFPB with studying the use of arbitration clauses in
consumer financial markets. The study, released in March, found
"arbitration clauses restrict consumers' relief for disputes with
financial service providers by allowing companies to block group
lawsuits," according to a CFPB release.  More than 75 percent of
consumers surveyed didn't know whether their contracts contained
arbitration clauses, and less than 7 percent realized the clauses
restricted their ability to sue in court, according to the study.

The proposed rules would require companies to specify that their
arbitration clauses do not apply to class actions unless and until
class certification is denied or the class claims are dismissed in
court.  They would also require companies to report to the CFPB on
arbitration claims filed and awards issued, so the agency can
conduct oversight.

William Molinski -- wmolinski@orrick.com -- head of Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe's global commercial litigation practice,
said his firm will be watching the progress of the proposed CFPB
rules with trepidation.
"It will open the floodgates to frivolous class actions once
again," he said.

Pro-arbitration rulings such as the Supreme Court's 2011 decision
in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion have prompted more companies to
institute arbitration agreements with class bans, making it
difficult for plaintiffs lawyers to bring class actions.  That
often means the cases are never filed at all, as the recovery for
an individual plaintiffs is rarely worth a lawyer's time.
"The only way this system works is if we're able to combine the
losses of these plaintiffs," Ms. Andrus said.

San Diego plaintiffs lawyer Mark Ankcorn said he essentially gave
up filing class actions against financial institutions in 2012.

After Concepcion, he had three or four cases forced into
arbitration, and he pulled the plug on another two dozen he had in
the pipeline.

"Regulatory change in this area is long overdue," Mr. Ankcorn
said.

Horvitz & Levy partner John Querio -- jquerio@horvitzlevy.com --
said the new rules, if passed, likely will scare banks and other
financial institutions into exercising extreme caution in their
day-to-day dealings.  But companies have a window of opportunity.
The way the current proposal is written, the rules would go into
effect 210 days after they are issued.  So companies considering
new arbitration agreements might want to meet that deadline.

"Anything before then," Mr. Querio said, "would be immune."


* Gov. Urges Court to Address Arbitration Bill "Unfairness" Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that Gov. Jerry
Brown dashed the hopes of plaintiffs lawyers and organized labor
on Oct. 9 when he vetoed legislation that would have barred
companies from forcing new hires to sign workplace arbitration
pacts as a condition of employment.

In his veto message, Gov. Brown wrote that although he is
concerned about fairness in settling workplace disputes, Assembly
Bill 465 was too "far-reaching."

"California courts have addressed the issue of unfairness by
insisting that employment arbitration agreements must include
numerous protections to be enforceable," Gov. Brown wrote.  "If
abuses remain, they should be specified and solved by targeted
legislation, not a blanket prohibition."

The legislation would not have outlawed voluntary employment
arbitration agreements, but it would have subjected employers to
injunctive relief and attorneys' costs if a worker could prove
that he or she was coerced or threatened into signing a no-sue
contract.

Legislative Democrats and the Consumer Attorneys of California had
tried, and failed, in previous sessions to restrict mandatory
arbitration clauses in various settings.  This year, however, the
effort attracted the active backing of the powerful California
Labor Federation, which complained that low-income workers are
increasingly being barred from filing wage claims with the labor
commissioner's office because their hiring paperwork included
arbitration clauses.

The bill, authored by Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, D-West Covina,
pitted the consumer attorneys and the labor federation against the
state Chamber of Commerce, which labeled AB 465 one of its 19
pieces of "job-killer" legislation.  That the governor waited
until the last day he was constitutionally allowed to act on
legislation suggests the enormous lobbying pressure that both
sides applied.

"This veto is a slap in the face of working Californians,"
consumer attorneys president Brian Chase said in an email.
Bill opponents said the measure would have been pre-empted by pro-
arbitration federal law.

"Had it passed, it would have created years of legal turmoil,"
said Kim Stone, president of the Civil Justice Association of
California.

The governor noted that the U.S. Supreme Court is considering two
cases involving pre-emption of California arbitration policies
under the Federal Arbitration Act: Direct TV v. Imburgia and MHN
Government Services v. Zaborowski.

"Before enacting a law as broad as this," Gov. Brown said of AB
465 in his veto message, "and one that will surely result in years
of costly litigation and legal uncertainty, I would prefer to see
the outcome of those cases."


                            *********

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  * * *