CAR_Public/151029.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, October 29, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 216


                            Headlines


6D GLOBAL: Faces Investors' Class Suit in Manhattan
ABC CORP: "Suazo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
AIR CARGO SHIPPING: Settlement, Attorneys' Fees Approved
AIQ INC: "Rush" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
AMERICAN GOLF: Suit Alleges Business & Professions Code Violation

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL: Settlement in Fee Litigation Has Final OK
APPLE INC: Judge to Outline Next Steps in Warranty Suit
ARGUELLO DELIVERY: Faces "Huete" Suit Over FLSA Violation
ASIA 2031: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation

BARCLAYS PLC: Settles Mortgage Securities Claims for $325MM
BCBG MAX: Faces Suit Alleging Unfair Competition Law Violations
BIG HEART: "Hughes" Suit Alleges Unfair Competition Law Violation
BUMBLE BEE FOODS: "Lybarger" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Unlawful Employment Practices

CALL-MAINE FOODS: Ct. Cert. Direct Purchasers Shell Egg Subclass
CHINACACHE INT'L: "Xu" Suit Alleges Securities Law Violations
COMMERCIAL SAVINGS: Summary Judgment Order Affirmed in Part
COOK COUNTY, IL: Motion for Injunctive Relief Granted in Part
DAIICHI SANKYO: $8.2MM Settlement in "Wellens" Action Okayed

EMC CORP: Being Sold to Dell Too Cheaply, Suit Claims
FABER BROTHERS: "Nesti" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
FANDUEL INC: Illegally Operates Betting Business, Suit Claims
FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Fresh Attack on Profit Sweep in E.D. Ky.
FIRST STUDENT: Faces "Spencer" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

FRED ALLEN: Faces "Meraza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued in Cal. Over Inadequate Headlights
H2S HOLDINGS: Sued in Ga. Over Failure to Timely Pay Employees
HITACHI LTD: Faces Irving Suit Over Alternator-Price Fixing
ILLINOIS: Court Narrows Claims in Class Suit by Deaf Inmates

ILLINOIS: ISTHA Sued Over Failure to Pay Toll Collectors Overtime
IMAGE DIRECT: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ISLAND TENNIS: "Magalhaes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
JWS OF NEW MEXICO: "Corman" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
KIMBERLY-CLARK: City of Perry, Iowa Sues Over Bathroom Wipes

LANDRY'S INC: Fla. Judge Trims Discovery Bid in Employee Suit
LEAFGUARD OF KENTUCKY: Arbitration Bid Granted in Part
LEAN CULINARY: "Whiteman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
LIBERTY PEST: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Springer" Suit Says
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Calif. Labor Code Violation

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Motion to Remand "Yhudai" Suit Granted
NATIONAL HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Motion for Preliminary Class Cert. Denied
NORTH AMERICAN MIDWAY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PAGE BROTHERS: "Kindred" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

PETER G. MILNE: Class Cert. Ruling in "Ryan" Reversed in Part
PHH CORP: Bid for Interlocutory Appeal of Dismissal Order Denied
PMC-SIERRA: Sued in Delaware Over Proposed Skyworks Merger
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Motion to Modify Class Definition Granted
SET ENTERPRISES: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims

SHELLCO CONSTRUCTION: "Mendez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
SUNTRUST BANKS: Ct. Denies Bid to Dismiss "Freedman" Class Action
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Faces "Malone" Suit Over Plan Mismanagement
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Faces "Richards" Suit Over Plan Mismanagement
TINDER INC: "Warner" Suit Alleges EFTA Violations

UNITED MAINTENANCE: Faces "Pollard" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
UNITED STATES: Settlement of Counsel Fees Dispute Approved
UNITED STATES: Suit Against SSA May Proceed as Class
VAUGHN ENERGY: "Wedel" Case Wins Conditional Certification
VIRTUAL MEDIA: "Sosa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Turner" Suit Alleges Fraudulent Concealment
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Merz" Suit Alleges Fraud by Concealment
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Knowles" Suit Alleges Fraud
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Wallace" Suit Alleges RICO Violation
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Weitzman" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Malon" Suit in Maine Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Marks" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Morgan" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Factors for Evaluation of Class Settlement
WASTE MANAGEMENT: "Navarro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

WAWANESA GENERAL: Illegally Withholds Claims Profit, Suit Says
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: "Esquivel" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
WEINSTEIN PINSON: 2nd Amended Complaint in "Marquez" Dismissed
WELLS FARGO: Hearing Today in Homebuyers' Class Suit
WEST HEMPSTEAD: "Pena" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

WILD WEST GAS: "Jeter" Plaintiffs May Revise Complaint
WILLIAM FITZGERALD: "Velasquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
XEROX CORP: Court Trims Claims in "Gunther" Suit
YODLEE INC: Sued in Delaware Over Proposed "Envestnet" Merger
ZAGA PROPERTIES: "Clavijo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation


                            *********


6D GLOBAL: Faces Investors' Class Suit in Manhattan
---------------------------------------------------
Ann Babe, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
Wall Street executive who recently made headlines as the subject
of a criminal indictment on securities violations and an $18
million civil verdict for sexual harassment now faces a federal
class action by 6D Global Technologies Investors who claim they
were defrauded.

The complaint, filed in Manhattan federal court, claims 6D Global
and its directors allowed Benjamin Wey to control the company and
together engaged in an "ongoing scheme of stock price
manipulation, fraud, violations of SEC rules and regulations, and
undisclosed related party transactions."

According to the suit, when the scheme was revealed through a
federal indictment unsealed Sept. 10 and an SEC action filed the
same day, "NASDAQ halted trading of 6D Global securities, freezing
the stock price at $2.90."

As a result, 6D Global stock was rendered "illiquid and virtually
worthless thereby damaging investors," the investors say in the
complaint.

A separate private action filed Sept. 28 by Discover Growth Fund
accuses 6D Global directors of making false statements to induce
the fund to enter into a $10 million stock purchase agreement,
only later disclosing 6D Global was in fact controlled by Wey.

By concealing his ownership through reverse mergers between
Chinese companies and U.S. shell companies, Wey was able to sell
at artificially inflated prices and make tens of millions,
according to the federal indictment of Wey.

Phillip Kim of The Rosen Law Firm filed the suit on behalf of "a
class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased the
publicly traded common stock of 6D Global or its predecessor
CleanTech Innovations, Inc. from Nov. 3, 2010 to Sept. 10, 2015."

"Our goal is to seek recovery for the numerous investors that have
been damaged by this fraud," Kim told Courthouse News in an email.

6D Global did not immediately respond to a request for comment,
and Wey's attorney could not be reached by press time.

The putative class seeks certification, compensatory damages
against all defendants "jointly and severally" and costs.


ABC CORP: "Suazo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Byron Suazo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
ABC Corp. d/b/a Papa Giro's Pizzeria Ristorante, Pasquale Vetrano,
Lucieta Vetrano, Guiseppe Vetrano, Pasquale Vetrano, Jr. and John
Does 1-3, Case No. ______ (N.Y. Super. Ct., _____) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the New York
Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1624 Marcus
Avenue, New Hyde Park, New York 11040.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
      MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
      91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
      Hempstead, NY 11550
      Telephone: (516) 280-4600
      Facsimile: (516) 280-4530
      E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com


AIR CARGO SHIPPING: Settlement, Attorneys' Fees Approved
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Gleeson granted the request for attorneys'
fees and approved the proposed settlement, allocation and
incentive awards in the case captioned IN RE: AIR CARGO SHIPPING
SERVICES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL
CASES, MDL No.: 1775, NO. 06-MD-1775 (JG) (VVP), (E.D.N.Y.)

This multi-district putative antitrust class action stems from an
investigation by governmental authorities of worldwide price-
fixing in the air cargo industry. Defendants are domestic and
foreign airlines that provide airfreight shipping services around
the world. Plaintiffs are direct purchasers of allegedly price-
fixed airfreight shipping services from defendants.

Plaintiffs seek final approval of four settlement agreements with
the following defendants:

     (1) Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. (Korean Air);

     (2) Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines
         Cargo PTE, Ltd. (Singapore Air);

     (3) Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. (Cathay Pacific)
         settlement; and

     (4) China Airlines, Ltd. (China Air).

The Korean Air Lines settlement in the amount of $115 million (to
be paid in three installments) is the largest settlement amount to
date. Under the agreement, Korean Air will provide extensive
cooperation to the plaintiffs in aid of their claims against the
remaining defendants, including providing witnesses,
authenticating documents, and meeting with counsel.

The Singapore Airlines settlement is for $92,492,442, the second
largest settlement to date, less a $29,958,302 reduction for class
members that settled with Singapore Airlines before the class
settlement was reached, for a net fund of $62,534,140.00, plus up
to $250,000 for notice costs. It, too, requires cooperation on the
part of Singapore Airlines.

The Cathay Pacific settlement is in the amount of $65 million, and
Cathay Pacific has also agreed to provide its cooperation.

China Airlines has agreed to settle for $90 million, plus $200,000
for notice and settlement administration costs. As part of the
settlement, it has agreed to cooperate with the plaintiffs.

In addition to the substantial monetary amounts, the settling
defendants have agreed to provide certain cooperation that will
aid plaintiffs in the prosecution of their case against the
remaining defendants. Plaintiffs also seek approval of their
proposed plan of allocation, as well as an interim fee award of
22% of the gross settlement proceeds obtained since the last fee
award on August 2, 2012.

In his Memorandum and Order dated October 9, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/6zhIM7from Leagle.com, Judge Gleeson granted the
request for attorneys' fees. Class counsel is awarded $73,157,510
in fees and expenses of $5,266,384.55. The Air Cargo 4
Settlements, plan of allocation and incentives awards are
approved. The Court found out that the Korean Air, Singapore Air,
Cathay Pacific, and China Air settlements are procedurally fair
because they are the products of arm's-length negotiations between
experienced and able counsel. The China Air, Singapore Air, and
Korean Air settlements (ranging from $90 million to $115 million)
are the largest settlements reached in this case by gross
settlement amount and create an obvious benefit for the class.
Additionally, all four of the defendants have agreed to cooperate
to help the plaintiffs prosecute their claims against the
remaining defendants. And though the monetary value of the
agreements to cooperate with plaintiffs have not been factored
into the overall value of these settlements, that value is no
doubt significant.

Besrat J. Gebrewold, Esq., of Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC,
Allan Steyer, Esq. -- asteyer@steyerlaw.com -- of Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Craig C. Corbitt, Esq. --
ccorbitt@zelle.com -- of Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP,
Douglas A Millen, Esq. -- dmillen@fklmlaw.com -- of FREED KANNER
LONDON & MILLEN LLC, Eric S. Berman, Esq. -- esberman@Venable.com
-- of Howrey LLP, Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq., of Zelle Hofmann
Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP, Gerald J. Rodos, Esq., of BARRACK,
RODOS & BACINE, Henry P. Gonzalez, Esq., of Rodriguez O'Donnell
Ross Gonzalez & Williams, Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq. --
jgittleman@barrack.com -- of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Joel C.
Meredith, Esq. -- jmeredith@m-npartners.com -- of Meredith &
Associates, Lisa M. Port, Esq. -- lport@barrack.com -- of Barrack,
Rodos & Bacine and Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. --
sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com -- of Meredith Cohen Greenfogel &
Skirnick serve as counsel for In Re Air Cargo Shipping Services
Antitrust Litigation


AIQ INC: "Rush" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
James T. Rush, Thomas J. Morgan, Ryan B. Katz, Graham E. E.
Thomas, and all others similarly-situated v. AIQ, Inc., Nicholas
W. Stuller, T. Gary Liberman, William O'Connor and Esther Gold,
Case No. 160320 (N.Y. Sup., October 8, 2015), seek treble damages
for unpaid wages, salary, commissions, and benefits, interest,
costs of the litigation, and attorneys' fees, pursuant to Mass.
Gen. Laws c. 149 section 150 and New York Labor Law section 663.

The Defendants provide online databases and advisor market
information. It offers Meridian-IQ that provides database and
workflow tools for selling, recruiting, marketing, and
understanding the advisor marketplace

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lanni, Esq.
      THE JACOB D. FUCHSBERG LAW FIRM, LLP
      500 Fifth Avenue, 45th Floor
      New York, NY 10110
      Tel: (212) 869-3500
      Fax: (212) 398-1532
      E-mail: j.lanni@fuchsberg.com


AMERICAN GOLF: Suit Alleges Business & Professions Code Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Uvaas, and all others similarly-situated v. American Golf
Corporation and Does 1 through 20, Case No. BC 597122 (Cal.
Super., October 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay the service charges to its event servers in
violation of the Business and Professions Code section 17200.

The Defendants operate the country clubs, full-services
restaurants, banquet facilities, food and beverage concessions,
and bars and lounges at the golf courses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Geralyn L. Skapick, Esq.
      SKAPIK LAW GROUP
      5861 Pine Avenue, Suite A-1
      Chino Hills, CA 91709
      Tel: (909) 398-4404
      Fax: (909) 398-1883


AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL: Settlement in Fee Litigation Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John D. Bates granted the motion for final class
certification and final approval of the settlement in the case
captioned In re: APA Assessment Fee Litigation. ELLEN G. LEVINE,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, INC.,
et al., Defendants. ERIC S. ENGUM, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Defendants. IRA GROSSMAN,
Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No.: 10-1780 (JDB), NO. 10-1898 (JDB),
CONSOLIDATED WITH CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1780 (JDB), NO. 13-2034
(JDB), (D.D.C.)

Plaintiffs are members of the American Psychological Association
(APA) who claim that for many years that organization misled
members into overpaying their dues. Specifically, they allege that
the APA falsely represented on annual dues statements and on the
organization's website that practicing clinical psychologists were
required to pay an annual "Practice Assessment" to remain APA
members -- when, in fact, the assessment was required only for
membership in a sister organization, the APA Practice Organization
(also a defendant here). Plaintiffs say that if APA members had
understood the truth about the assessment -- which ran between
$110 and $140 in the years in question -- they would not have paid
it.

Plaintiffs filed the first two of these class actions (Levine and
Engum) in late 2010, seeking to represent all APA members who had
paid the assessment since 2000. Before these consolidated cases
reached the class certification stage, however, this Court granted
the APA's motion to dismiss, concluding that plaintiffs had failed
to state viable claims.  On remand, plaintiffs filed an amended
class action complaint that put forth claims of unjust enrichment,
fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation. A third
case (Grossman), which was transferred to this Court while the
first two were pending on appeal, raised essentially identical
claims premised on the same facts. In October 2014, the Court
granted the parties' joint request to stay all three cases while
they pursued settlement negotiations.

Plaintiffs filed their unopposed motion for final approval of the
class action settlement and certification of the proposed
settlement class, and Plaintiffs' unopposed motions for attorney's
fees, costs, and incentive awards.

On February 12, 2015, the Court entered an Order preliminarily
approving the parties' proposed settlement and preliminarily
certifying the settlement class. Following entry of that Order,
the parties sent notice to the settlement class. No class members
have filed objections, timely or otherwise, to the proposed
settlement, or to plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees. The
Court held a fairness hearing on August 13, 2015, at which it
heard argument from the parties on the pending motions.

Thereafter, the Court requested, and received, supplemental
briefing on one issue.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated October 14, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ILdOeQfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bates found the
settlement, which it finds fair, reasonable, and adequate. The
Court granted plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees of
$2,706,000, costs and expenses of $43,126.27, and incentive awards
of $5,000 to each of the four representative plaintiffs: Ellen G.
Levine, Ruth Fallenbaum, Eric S. Engum, and Ira Grossman.

Gary Edward Mason, Esq. --  gmason@wbmllp.com -- of WHITFIELD
BRYSON & MASON LLP -- Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. --
hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- of TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP -- Amy E. Keller,
Esq. -- aek@wexlerwallace.com -- of WEXLER WALLACE LLP -- Ann L.
Miller, Esq. -- alm@millerlawpc.com -- of MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.;
Edward A. Wallace, Esq. -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- of WEXLER
WALLACE LLP -- Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
-- of GREG COLEMAN LAW PC -- Ian J. Barlow, Esq. --
ian@kctlegal.com -- of KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP; Mark S.
Baumkel, Esq., of LAW OFFICES OF MARK S. BAUMKEL & ASSOCIATES;
Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq., of WEXLER WALLACE, LLP and Neha Duggal,
Esq. -- neha.duggal@boe.ca.gov -- of WEXLER WALLACE, LLP serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Ellen G. Levine

David William Ogden, Esq. -- david.ogden@wilmerhale.com --
Francesco Valentini, Esq. -- francesco.valentini@wilmerhale.com
-- and Jonathan Edward Paikin, Esq. --
jonathan.paikin@wilmerhale.com -- of WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
& DORR LLP serve as counsel for Defendant American Psychological
Association, Inc.


APPLE INC: Judge to Outline Next Steps in Warranty Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that customers who accuse Apple of concealing its use of
refurbished parts and products in warranty claims face a "high
hill to climb" for class certification, a federal judge in San
Francisco said Oct. 14.

Lead plaintiff Patricia Sue Adkins sued Apple in November 2013,
claiming it falsely represented that its AppleCare warranty plans
guaranteed customers new parts and products for repairs and
replacements.

During an Oct. 14 hearing, U.S. District Judge William Orrick
rattled off a long list of problems he has with the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and overall case, including
concerns about adequacy of counsel.

"The way this case has been litigated from the get-go has been
very troublesome," Orrick said.

The judge took issue with the way some plaintiffs, including
former lead plaintiff Adkins, left the case while new plaintiffs
who bought plans under different circumstances were added. Orrick
also was concerned about discovery issues and that the motion for
a class certification hearing was delayed repeatedly.

The plaintiffs' new attorney, Curtis Cutter, assured Orrick that
he and his law firm -- Kershaw, Cutter & Rattinoff -- are seasoned
in class action litigation and can rally the resources of other
firms to take on Apple.

"We're committed to this case," Cutter said. "We're going to see
this case through. I think the merits are strong, and we're used
to these fights."

But Apple attorney Penelope Preovolos said the case has dragged on
for nearly two years, and that the plaintiffs have not provided a
shred of evidence that any customers did not receive the service
they were promised under the AppleCare and AppleCare+ warranties.

The extended warranty plans promise repairs with "new or
refurbished parts" and replacements that are "new or equivalent to
new in performance and reliability," according to the plaintiffs'
third amended complaint.

"The product at issue here is the service plan," Cutter said.
"That service plan contains a core false statement: that the
phones you receive are new or equivalent to new. That's false. By
Apple's own admission, less than half of the phones you get are
likely to be new."

Cutter said that Apple fails to disclose its use of refurbished
parts and replacements until after it has "taken your money," when
it issues post-sale emails and receipts to customers.

Preovolos countered that Apple expends extraordinary resources on
manufacturing high-quality products and that the "remanufacturing
process" is practically identical to the process of building a new
iPhone.

"There's no evidence in the record that people would have
understood new or equivalent to new to mean anything other than
refurbished," Preovolos said.

The Apple attorney added that one plaintiff, Fabrienne English,
acknowledged in a deposition that she did not understand the
phrase "new or equivalent to new in performance and reliability."

"There was no common understanding or common exposure to these
terms," Preovolos said.

Orrick cited a major problem with the motion for class
certification: that Apple traced the serial number of English's
replacement phone and found that she had received a new phone for
her warranty replacement, not a used one.

"If Mrs. English got a new phone instead of a used one, I see
adequacy problems with that," Orrick said.

Cutter responded that the plaintiffs can find another class
representative who did get a used phone under that plan to add to
the case. He said that does not change the fact that English
bought a warranty plan under the false pretense that repairs and
replacements would be made with new parts and products.

"She received a lottery ticket for potentially a new phone,
potentially a used phone," Cutter said. He said a subclass of
plaintiffs who received used phones as replacements can be part of
the larger class that overpaid for falsely presented warranty
plans.

But Orrick said the plaintiffs seem to lack sufficient evidence to
show a uniformity of conduct by Apple, which is required for class
certification.

"I don't think there's a theory of liability that provides a basis
for certifying a class," Orrick said.

Cutter, given the last word in the hour-long debate, said the
plaintiffs have "more than enough evidence" to show that Apple's
core phrase of "new or like-new" for warranty repairs and
replacements is materially false.

Orrick said he will outline the next steps for both parties in the
case when he issues his ruling on the motion for class
certification.


ARGUELLO DELIVERY: Faces "Huete" Suit Over FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Jose Huete, and all others similarly-situated v. Arguello
Delivery and Cargo Corporation, and Gustavo A Arguello, Case No.
1:15-cv-23806 (S.D. Fla., October 12, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and manage a carrier company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASIA 2031: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Estanislaw Perez, and all others similarly-situated v. Asia 2031,
Corp. dba Bird Road Auto Center and Cesar A. Rodriguez, Case No.
33124758 (Fla. Cir., October 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and minimum wage compensation, an additional equal amount
as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendants operate an auto service and repair shop.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08149 (S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2015) arises
out of the Defendants' alleged collusive manipulation of the
yields and pricing of U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds as
well as the prices paid for futures and options on Treasury
Securities on the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange ("CME") and with Treasury Securities.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Martin, Esq.
      Irving Scher, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      165 Broadway, Suite 2301
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (646) 357-1195
      Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
      E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com
              ischer@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
      William P. Butterfield, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
      E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
              wbutterfield@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 633-1908
      Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
      E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
              bsweeney@hausfeld.com
              clebsock@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Gary I. Smith Jr., Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      325 Chestnut St., Suite 325
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 985-3270
      Facsimile: (215) 985-3271
      E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      520 Third Street, Suite 108
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Telephone: (415) 968-8999
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: lweaver@blockesq.com


BARCLAYS PLC: Settles Mortgage Securities Claims for $325MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that British bank Barclays said it will pay $325 million to settle
claims over its sale of residential mortgage-backed securities to
U.S. credit unions.  The underlying lawsuits stem from the
National Credit Union Administration's appointment as conservator
for five credit unions that failed during the 2008 financial
crisis.

After an investigation revealed that the credit unions failed
largely because they had purchased mortgage interests that were
worth much less than represented, the NCUA pursued the
underwriters of the mortgages, including Barclays Capital, to
recover the credit unions' losses.

Between 2005 and 2008, Barclays underwrote approximately $39
billion in mortgage securitizations in the U.S., according to a
New York Times report.

The 10th Circuit allowed NCUA's claims to proceed in March,
despite the fact that the lawsuits were filed more than five years
after the mortgages in question were sold, and more than three
years after the NCUA became conservator for the credit unions.

The NCUA argued, and the appeals court agreed, that Barclays made
promises during settlement negotiations to exclude time spent in
efforts to settle the cases from a statute of limitations defense.

Barclays did not admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement.
The bank announced the $325 million agreement in a Monday press
release.

The NCUA continues to pursue lawsuits against other banks involved
in selling resident mortgage-backed securities, including Credit
Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and UBS, according to an
agency press release.

"In order to help minimize losses and future costs to the credit
union system, NCUA is committed to pursuing recoveries against
financial firms we maintain contributed to the corporate crisis,"
NCUA chairwoman Debbie Matz said in a statement.


BCBG MAX: Faces Suit Alleging Unfair Competition Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robynette Robinson, and all others similarly-situated v. BCBG Max
Azria Group, LLC and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC597311 (Cal.
Super., October 8, 2015), seeks damages for Defendants' failure to
pay reporting time pay, failure to pay all wages earned at
termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements and
violations of the Unfair Competition Law.

The Defendants operate women's clothing chain featuring designer
collections ranging from chic workwear to evening gowns.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick McNicholas, Esq.
      MCNICHOLAS & MCNICHOLAS, LLP
      10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90024-4338
      Tel: (310) 474-1582
      Fax: (310) 475-7871

          - and -

      Jason M. Frank, Esq.
      EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP
      520 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1400
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Tel: (949) 706-7000
      Fax: (949) 706-7050

          - and -

      Richard K. Bridgford, Esq.
      BRIDGFORD GLEASON & ARTINIAN
      26 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Tel: (949) 831-6611
      Fax: (949) 831-6622


BIG HEART: "Hughes" Suit Alleges Unfair Competition Law Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Hughes, and all others similarly-situated v. Big Heart Pet
Brands and Meow Mix, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-08007 (C.D. Calif.,
October 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, Consumers
Legal Remedies Act and the False Advertising Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that forced labor is used to produce Meow
Mix Cat Food.

Defendant Big Heart Pet Brands is a nationwide manufacturer and
distributor of petfood products. Defendant Big Heart Brands is
incorporated in Delaware with its principle place of business
located at 1 Maritime Plaza, San Francisco, CA 94111.

Defendant Meow Mix, LLC is a nationwide manufacturer and
distributor of Meow Mix brand pet foods. Meow Mix, LLC is
incorporated in the state of Rhode Island with its principal place
of business located in Providence, Rhode Island.

Defendants develop, market, and distribute the Meow Mix cat food
line through pet stores, grocery stores, and online in California
and nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Tel: (213) 330-7150
      E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com


BUMBLE BEE FOODS: "Lybarger" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Lybarger, and all others similarly-situated v. Bumble
Bee Foods LLC, StarKist Company, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, and King
Oscar, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02278 (S.D. Calif., October 12,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged conspiracy to
raise, fix, stabilize or maintain prices as well as allocate
customers, and restrict capacity within the market for the sale of
packaged seafood products (PSPs) in violation of the Sherman Act,
the Clayton Act, and state antitrust and unfair competition law.

The Defendants are the three largest domestic manufacturers of
packaged seafood products.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
      FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      750 B Street, Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 239-4599
      Fax: (619) 234-4599
      E-mail: rickert@whafh.com

          - and -

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


CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Unlawful Employment Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Park and Grace Choi v. California University of
Management and Sciences a/k/a CALUMS, et al., Case No. BC597911
(Cal. Super. Ct., October 14, 2015) is an action for damages as a
proximate result of the Defendants' alleged unlawful employment
practices in the form of verbal harassment, discrimination,
humiliation, wrongful termination, and withholding of vested
benefits.

California University of Management and Sciences is a private
university in the County of Orange in the State of California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jae S. Kim, Esq., Esq.
      Jacklyn J. Kim, Esq.,
      LAW FIRM OF J.S. KIM & ASSOCIATES
      3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 91.4
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 389-0884
      Facsimile: (213) 389-0885
      E-mail: jskim4u21@gmail.com


CALL-MAINE FOODS: Ct. Cert. Direct Purchasers Shell Egg Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gene E. K. Pratter of the United States District
Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified the proposed
subclass of purchasers of shell eggs but not the proposed subclass
of purchasers of egg products in IN RE: PROCESSED EGG PRODUCTS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL DIRECT
PURCHASER ACTIONS, Case No. 08-MD-2002.
The nation's major egg producers are accused by those who purchase
eggs directly from them of conspiring to control and limit the
supply of eggs and thereby increase the prices of eggs. The claims
allege that the Defendants accomplished this objective through
three principal means: (1) a series of explicit, short-term
production-restriction programs, such as slaughtering hens
prematurely; (2) a pretextual animal-welfare program; and (3) a
series of exports of eggs at below-market prices.
Plaintiffs have sought certification of the following class and
subclasses:

"All individuals and entities that purchased eggs, including shell
eggs and egg products, produced from caged birds in the United
States directly from Defendants during the Class Period from
September 24, 2004 through the present. a.) Shell Egg Subclass All
individuals and entities that purchased shell eggs produced from
Defendants during the Class Period from September 24, 2004 through
the present. b.) Egg Products Subclass All individuals and
entities that purchased egg products produced from shell eggs that
came from caged birds in the United States directly from
Defendants during the Class Period from September 24, 2004 through
the present. Excluded from the Class and Subclasses are the
Defendants, their co-conspirators, and their respective parents,
subsidiaries, and affiliates, as well as any government entities.
Also excluded from the Class and Subclasses are purchasers of
specialty shell eggs or egg products (such as organic, free range,
or cage free) and purchasers of hatching eggs, which are used by
poultry breeders to produce breeder stock or growing stock for
laying hens or meat."

In his Memorandum dated September 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/6XgnC1from Leagle.com, Judge Pratter ruled that the
Court will certify the proposed class in part. The Court will not
certify the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Egg Products Subclass.
The Court will certify the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Shell Egg
Subclass but will deny without prejudice with respect to the class
period proposed by the Plaintiffs. The parties are instructed to
submit supplemental briefing

Plaintiffs are represented by Jan P. Levine, Esq. --
levinej@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
Sandra A. Jeskie is represented by Sandra A. Jeskie, Esq. --
Jeskie@duanemorris.com -- DUANE, MORRIS LLP


CHINACACHE INT'L: "Xu" Suit Alleges Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guangyi Xu, and all others similarly-situated v. ChinaCache
International Holdings Ltd., Song Wang, Jing An, and Ken Vincent
Qingshi Zhang, Case No. 2:15-cv-07952 (C.D. Calif., October 9,
2015), seeks to pursue remedies against the Defendants for
violations of federal securities laws.

The class action is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates,
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of ChinaCache
traded on the NASDAQ Stock Market from April 11, 2015 to August
20, 2015, inclusive.

Defendant ChinaCache is purportedly the leading total solutions
provider of Internet content and application delivery services in
the People's Republic of China. ChinaCache is headquartered in
Beijing, China and maintains an office at 21700 Copley Drive Suite
300, Diamond Bar, California 91765. Its American Depository Shares
trade on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "CCIH."

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of
ChinaCache.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 785-2610
      Fax: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


COMMERCIAL SAVINGS: Summary Judgment Order Affirmed in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justice John R. Willamowski affirmed in part and reversed in part
the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Wyandot County
granting summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees in the appeal
case captioned TIMOTHY H. COOPER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v.
COMMERCIAL SAVINGS BANK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES. TIMOTHY H.
COOPER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. COMMERCIAL SAVINGS BANK, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, Nos. 16-14-04, 16-14-08, (Ohio App. Ct.,
Wyandot County)

On August 18, 2005, Cooper borrowed $334,175.00 from CSB to
purchase two commercial real estate parcels and signed a note
payable to the bank.  At all relevant times, Cooper was a resident
of Delaware County, Ohio.  The real property that is the subject
of the mortgage was located in Delaware County and the mortgage
was recorded in Delaware County.

Cooper filed a complaint against the City of Westerville and other
defendants, including CSB, in Delaware County. An amended
complaint was then filed on July 18, 2011. A second amended
complaint was filed on March 14, 2012.

On November 22, 2011, CSB filed a counterclaim against Cooper
alleging that he had failed to make payments as required by the
note. CSB subsequently filed for summary judgment on its
counterclaim.

Cooper filed a complaint against Appellees.  The complaint alleged
that all parties had engaged in abuse of the legal process,
negligence, breach of statutory duty, civil conspiracy,
misrepresentation, fraud, and malicious civil prosecution. Cooper
also alleged that R.C. 2323.13 was unconstitutional as applied to
him and other similarly situated persons.

One of the defendants, Charles Bartholomew, filed a motion for
summary judgment.

A copy of Justice Willamowski's Opinion dated October 5, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/ZLDt75from Leagle.com.

Ambrose Moses, III, Esq. -- info@MosesLaw.pro -- serves as counsel
for Appellant

John C. Nemeth, Esq., of John C. Nemeth & Associates serves as
counsel for Appellees Commercial Savings Bank and Sean Martin


COOK COUNTY, IL: Motion for Injunctive Relief Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert W. Gettleman granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief in the case
captioned JOHNATHAN LACY, KENNETH FARRIS, MARQUIS BOWERS, MAURICE
BOSTON, KEVIN DAWSON, individually and for all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS DART, SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY, COOK
COUNTY, ILLINOIS, SGT. JOHNSON, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER NAWARA,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LOPEZ, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WILSON,
Defendants, No.: 14 C 6259, (N.D. Ill.)

Plaintiffs Jonathan Lacy, Kenneth Farris, Marquis Bowers, Maurice
Boston, and Kevin Dawson, filed a putative class action amended
complaint against defendants Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook County,
Illinois, Cook County, Illinois, Sergeant Johnson, and
correctional officers Nawara, Lopez, and Wilson, alleging
violations of section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), 42 U.S.C. Section 12132, section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act (Rehab Act), 29 U.S.C. Section 794(a), and 42 U.S.C. Section
1983. Following oral arguments and an extensive evidentiary
hearing on plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunctive relief,
the court certified a class under Fed. R. Civ. P 23(b)(2) of "All
Cook County Jail detainees who have been assigned and currently
use a wheelchair."

Since originally seeking a preliminary injunction in September
2014, plaintiffs have sought various types of relief.  Plaintiffs
ask the court to enter a final declaratory judgment that detainees
are being denied rights secured by the ADA and the Rehabilitation
Act when they are transported to and from the Jail and court
appearances and enter a permanent injunction requiring the Sheriff
to change Order 11.14.35.0 to require: "Employees of the Sheriff
shall push each detainee who is using a wheelchair up and down
ramps in all courthouses." In the alternative, plaintiffs request
that the court "grant this relief in the form of a preliminary
injunction."

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 8, 2015
available at http://is.gd/WPWwtIfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gettleman
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs' request for declaratory
judgment is denied. Plaintiffs' request for mandatory injunctive
relief requiring defendants to alter Sheriff's Order 11.14.35.0 to
state that: "Employees of the Sheriff shall push each detainee who
is using a wheelchair up and down ramps in all courthouses, is
denied." Defendant Sheriff is directed to ensure that wheelchair-
using detainees are consistently assisted when maneuvering
courthouse ramps that are not compliant with the ADA, explaining
clearly what exigent circumstances would excuse such assistance.

The Court has directed the Sheriff to submit a proposed amended
order on or before October 29, 2015. Defendants also have been
ordered to submit a verified report on the status of the ADA-
related construction at the six courthouses in question on or
before October 29, 2015. Plaintiffs may respond to defendants'
submissions on or before November 12, 2015.  A hearing is set for
November 18, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.


DAIICHI SANKYO: $8.2MM Settlement in "Wellens" Action Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in San Francisco, Calif., preliminarily approved
on Oct. 16 an $8.2 million settlement of a class action accusing
Daiichi Sankyo pharmaceuticals of discriminating against women,
Courthouse News Service reported.

The case is SARA WELLENS, KELLY JENSEN, JACQUELINE PENA, BERNICE
GIOVANNI, LARA HOLLINGER, and JENNIFER BENNIE on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
DAIICHI SANKYO, INC. Defendant. Case No. C 13-00581 WHO (N.D.
Cal.).


EMC CORP: Being Sold to Dell Too Cheaply, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling EMC
Corp. to Dell too cheaply through an unfair process, in a deal
valued at $67 billion, shareholders claim in a class action in
Middlesex County Court.


FABER BROTHERS: "Nesti" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Nesti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Faber Brothers, LLC and David Faber, Case No. 0:15-cv-
62180-JEM (S.D. Fla., October 15, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, post-judgment interest, and
reasonable attorneys' fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in Broward
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Militzok, Esq.
      MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
      Wells Fargo Building
      4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 780-8228
      Facsimile: (954) 719-4016
      E-mail: bjm@militzoklaw.com


FANDUEL INC: Illegally Operates Betting Business, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aissa Khirani, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FanDuel, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-08119-GBD (S.D.N.Y.
October 15, 2015) is brought on the behalf of a nationwide class
of persons who have sustained ascertainable losses arising out of
FanDuel's alleged operation of an illegal online sports betting
business within the State of New York.

FanDuel, Inc. is a domestic corporation with its principal place
of business located in New York, New York that operates an online
sports business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hunter Shkolnik, Esq.
      Annie Causey, Esq.
      NAPOLI LAW PLLC
      1301 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 397-1000
      E-mail: hunter@napolilaw.com
              acausey@napolilaw.com

         - and -

      Brittany Weiner, Esq.
      IMBESI LAW P.C.
      450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (212) 736-0007
      E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com


FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Fresh Attack on Profit Sweep in E.D. Ky.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnetia Joyce Robinson sued the Federal Housing Finance Agency and
the U.S. Treasury, challenging the legality of the government's
effective nationalization of and claim to 100% of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac's future earnings under what is known as the Third
Amendment Sweep.  The lawsuit says FHFA's duty as the GSEs'
conservator is to rehabilitate the companies, but the Net Worth
Sweep guarantees that this can never be accomplished.  This latest
lawsuit seeking to undo the Net Worth Sweep and restore to
minority shareholders the property rights the federal government
has unlawfully expropriated for itself is captioned Robinson v.
FHFA, Case No. 15-cv-00109 (E.D. Ky.).  Robert B. Craig at Taft
Stettinius & Hollister LLP represents the GSE shareholder-
plaintiff.

An updated chart is available at no charge at:

     http://bankrupt.com/gselitigationsummary201510.pdf

to help organize information about the many lawsuits challenging
the Third Amendment and Net Worth Sweep, including the cases
challenging the sweep as a confiscation of private property for
public use by our government without just compensation in
violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution before
Judge Sweeney in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims; the proceedings
pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit;
Saxton v. FHFA, Case No. 15-cv-00047 (N.D. Iowa); and Jacobs v.
FHFA, Case No. 15-cv-00708 (D. Del.).

Jurisdictional discovery continues in Fairholme v. U.S., Case No.
13-465 (Ct. Fed. Cl.), and (subject to further extensions),
jurisdictional discovery is currently scheduled to wrap up by Dec.
31, 2015.  Completion of jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme --
on whatever date it actually happens -- will unleash a flurry of
activity in Judge Sweeney's court including Fairholme filing its
response to the government's motion to dismiss its complaint and
other pre-trial filings by the government and other aggrieved
shareholders.

Briefing in the appellate proceedings before the D.C. Circuit has
been stayed pending resolution of a motion to supplement the
record based on newly discovered evidence the shareholders say
Judge Lamberth should have considered last year when he dismissed
lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.

FHFA and Treasury have filed motions to dismiss the Saxton lawsuit
in Iowa.  The Saxton Plaintiffs have responded to those motions,
encouraging Chief Judge Reade to reject the "you can't ever sue
us" meaning the government ascribes to HERA's anti-injunction
provision and draw a clear distinction between (a) enabling a
conservator to make efficient decisions that affect the day-to-day
operations of a company, and (b) shielding a conservator that
undertakes actions at the behest of one dominant shareholder which
explicitly undermine the express purpose of any conservatorship
and the interests of all other shareholders.  FHFA and Treasury's
replies are due by Nov. 23, 2015.  Fairholme has asked for
permission to file an amicus brief in Saxton and the government is
resisting that request.

In Jacobs v. FHFA, where shareholders tell Judge Sleet the terms
of the Net Worth Sweep are impermissible under Delaware General
Corporate Law, briefing on Treasury and FHFA's motions to dismiss
is scheduled to be completed by Feb. 16, 2016.


FIRST STUDENT: Faces "Spencer" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Spencer, et al v. First Student Management LLC, and
First Student Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-09069 (N.D. Ill., October 13,
2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate out of approximately 40 separate bus yards
in the state of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karl W. Roth, Esq.
      William P. Foley, Esq.
      ROTH LAW GROUP LLC
      150 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 800
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 419-9599
      E-mail: kwr@rothlawgroup.com
              wpf@rothlawgroup.com


FRED ALLEN: Faces "Meraza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria De Los Angeles Meraza, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Fred Allen Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Allen
Tire Company, Allen Enterprises, Inc., and Does 1 through 100,
Inclusive, Case No. BC597868 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 14, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants are in the business of selling and installing tires
within the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Nourmand, Esq.
      James A. De Sario, Esq.
      THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
      8822 West Olympic Boulevard
      Beverly Hills, CA 9021
      Telephone (310) 553-3600
      Facsimile (310)553-3603


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued in Cal. Over Inadequate Headlights
-------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action in San Diego, Cal., claims General Motors
2015 Sierras have dangerously inadequate headlights, Courthouse
News Service reported.


H2S HOLDINGS: Sued in Ga. Over Failure to Timely Pay Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Villanueva v. H2S Holdings, LLC, Here To Serve Restaurants,
Inc., Oasis Outsourcing, Inc., Leigh Catherall, and Thomas
Catherall, Case No. 1:15-cv-03624-WSD (N.D. Ga., October 13, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay and timely
pay wages for hours worked during the period September 1, 2015
through October 6, 2015.

The Defendants own and operate Prime Restaurant and Coast
Restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher B. Hall, Esq.
      Andrew Lampros, Esq.
      HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
      1230 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 950
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 876-8100
      Facsimile: (404) 876-3477
      E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com
              alampros@hallandlampros.com


HITACHI LTD: Faces Irving Suit Over Alternator-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Irving Levine Automotive Distributors, Inc., individually and
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-13634-DML-EAS (E.D. Mich., October 15, 2015)
arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to rig bids and fix, raise,
maintain, or stabilize prices of Alternators sold in the United
States and elsewhere at supra-competitive levels.

Hitachi, Ltd. is an industrial equipment supplier with its
principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Fink, Esq.
      Darryl Bressack, Esq.
      FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
      38500 Woodward Ave; Ste. 350
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
      Telephone: (248) 971-2500
      E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
              dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com

         - and -

      Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
      Randall B. Weill, Esq.
      Jonathan G. Mermin, Esq.
      Michael S. Smith, Esq.
      PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
      One City Center
      P.O. Box 9546
      Portland, ME 04112-9546
      Telephone: (207) 791-3000
      E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
              rweill@preti.com
              jmermin@preti.com
              msmith@preti.com

         - and -

      Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
      William E. Hoese, Esq.
      Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
      KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
              whoese@kohnswift.com
              dabrahams@kohnswift.com

         - and -

      Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
      William H. London, Esq.
      Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
      2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015
      Telephone: (224) 632-4500
      E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
              wlondon@fklmlaw.com
              mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

         - and -

      Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
      William G. Caldes, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 496-0300
      E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
              bcaldes@srkw-law.com
              jjagher@srkw-law.com
              jspector@srkw-law.com

         - and -

      Carl E. Person, Esq.
      225 E. 36th Street - Suite 3A
      New York, N.Y. 10016-3664
      Telephone: (212) 307- 4444
      E-mail: carlpers2@gmail.com

         - and -

      Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
      COHEN & MALAD, LLP
      One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 636-6481
      E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com

         - and -

      Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN
      2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Telephone: (877) 515-7955
      E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
      CERA LLP
      595 Market St., Suite 2300
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 777-5189
      E-mail: scera@cerallp.com


ILLINOIS: Court Narrows Claims in Class Suit by Deaf Inmates
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marvin E. Aspen granted in part and denied in part
Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the case captioned
RALPH HOLMES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SALVADOR A. GODINEZ,
Defendant, No.: 11 C 2961, (N.D. Ill.)

Plaintiffs, 11 deaf or hard of hearing prisoners, brought this
proposed class action on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated against Defendant Salvador A. Godinez, the Acting
Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections.  Plaintiffs
allege that IDOC has denied them hearing accommodations needed to
effectively communicate with IDOC staff and others, participate in
IDOC programs and services, and follow safety warnings and
directives. The complaint alleges violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, the Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and the United
States Constitution.

Before the Court are Defendant's motion to exclude the expert
testimony of Elizabeth Stanoshek, the former ADA Coordinator for
the Nebraska prison system and a current area director for Prison
Fellowship Ministries; Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
and Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 8, 2015
available at http://bit.ly/1kbn8dbfrom Leagle.com, Judge Aspen
granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment. Defendant's motion to exclude the expert
testimony of Stanosheck as unreliable is denied, with prejudice;
and the motion to exclude her testimony as cumulative is denied,
without prejudice.

In addition, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the
class certification requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2).
Daniel Baxter and Curtis Foster, however, are inadequate class
representatives and are dismissed from the case. Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is granted with modification to the
class definition.

Finally, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied in part
and granted in part. Summary Judgment is denied as to Counts I
(ADA), II (Rehabilitation Act), III (RLUIPA), V (free exercise),
and VIII (due process), and is granted as to Counts IV (free
speech) and VII (equal protection). As for Count VI (cruel and
unusual punishment), summary judgment is granted to the extent the
claim is based on Plaintiffs' allegations that IDOC placed them in
communicative isolation and failed to notify them of non-emergency
events, and is denied as to Plaintiffs' allegations that IDOC
failed to notify them of emergency events and to provide adequate
medical care. Accordingly, Counts IV and VII are dismissed, as are
the aspects of Count VI related to communicative isolation and
non-emergency notifications. The case will proceed as a class
action on Counts I, II, III, V, VIII, and the remaining aspects of
Count VI.

Alan S. Mills, Esq. -- alanmills@comcast.net -- of Uptown People's
Law Center, Howard A. Rosenblum, Esq. -- howrose@aol.com -- of
National Association of the Deaf, Robert L. Michels, Esq. --
rmichels@winston.com -- Ryan Marc Dunigan, Esq. --
rdunigan@winston.com -- Joelle Lynn Ross, Esq. --
jross@winston.com -- Joseph Laurence Motto, Esq. --
jmotto@winston.com -- Kevin P. McCormick, Esq. --
kmccormick@winston.com -- Mary Teresa Mccarthy, Esq. --
mmccarthy@winston.com -- and Nicole E Wrigley, Esq. --
nwrigley@winston.com -- of Winston & Strawn LLP -- Amy F.
Peterson, Esq. -- amy@equipforequality.org -- Barry Charlton
Taylor, Esq. -- barry@equipforequality@org -- Laura J. Miller,
Esq., and Rachel M. Weisberg, Esq. -- rachelw@equipforequality.org
-- of Equip for Equality serve as counsel for Plaintiff Ralph
Holmes

Kevin R. Lovellette, Esq. and Thomas A. Ioppolo, Esq. of Illinois
Attorney General's Office serve as counsel for Defendant
Salvador A. Godinez


ILLINOIS: ISTHA Sued Over Failure to Pay Toll Collectors Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shelly Stivers, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. The Illinois State Toll
Highway Authority, Case No. 1:15-cv-09030 (N.D. Ill., October 13,
2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay toll
collectors or senior toll collectors' overtime wages in violation
of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority is an administrative
agency of the State of Illinois. It is responsible for overseeing
and operating the tollways and highways located within Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradley Manewith, Esq.
      Marc J. Siegel, Esq.
      Anne K. Schmidlin, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP LTD.
      150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1100
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 878-3210
      Facsimile: (312) 878-3211
      E-mail: bmanewith@msiegellaw.com
              msiegel@msiegellaw.com


IMAGE DIRECT: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Smith, Lusio Barraza, Rafael Barraza, Shaun Niles, Eric
Flores, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Image Direct Sales, LLC, Verizon Communications, Inc.
and Does 1 to 100, Case No. BC597794 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 13,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Image Direct Sales, LLC operates a marketing and advertising
company with its principal place of business in Los Angeles
County.

Verizon Communications, Inc. operates a broadband and
telecommunications company qualified to do business in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Starr, Esq.
      Adam M. Rose, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT STARR
      23277 Ventura Boulevard
      Woodland Hills, CA 91364
      Telephone: (818)225-9040
      Facsimile: (818)225-9042
      E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com
              adam@starrlaw.com


ISLAND TENNIS: "Magalhaes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Magalhaes, and all others similarly-situated v. Island
Tennis, Inc., Island Tennis, LP dba Sportime, Claude Okin, John
McEnroe Tennis Academy, John McEnroe, Mark McEnroe, Lawrence
Kleger, Dan Beccaria, Joe Siegel, Jay Harris, and John Does Nos.
1-3., Case No. 2:15-cv-05859 (E.D.N.Y., October 12, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.

The Defendants operate tennis facilities in New York State, with
over 160 indoor and outdoor courts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
      MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
      91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 1150
      Tel: (516) 280-4600
      Fax: (516) 280-4530
      E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com


JWS OF NEW MEXICO: "Corman" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Corman, and all others similarly-situated v. JWS of New
Mexico, Inc. and K.P. Kauffman Company, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00913 (D. N.M., October 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant JWS of New Mexico, Inc. is an unregistered oil field
services corporation doing business in New Mexico.

Defendant K.P. Kauffman Company, Inc. is a foreign for-profit oil
field services corporation doing business in the State of New
Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandt Milstein, Esq.
      595 Canyon Boulevard
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Tel: (303) 440-8780
      E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK: City of Perry, Iowa Sues Over Bathroom Wipes
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the city of Perry, Iowa, is
behind a federal class action filed in Manhattan against Procter &
Gamble, Kimberly-Clark and others over the plumbing problems
associated with bathroom wipes that are supposed to be flushable.
Similar claims have been making a stink in San Francisco and
Brooklyn for years.


LANDRY'S INC: Fla. Judge Trims Discovery Bid in Employee Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed granted in part on Plaintiffs'
motion to compel in the case captioned JEFFREY GRIFFITH, JONATHAN
BLOCHER and ANNETTE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiffs, v. LANDRY'S, INC. and
CHLN, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:14-CV-3213-T-35JSS, (M.D. Fla.)

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, filed this action against Defendants to recover unpaid
minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and and
the Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA). Plaintiffs each formerly
worked as "tipped employees" at either Landry's Seafood House or
Chart House. Plaintiffs have limited their putative class to
Florida employees who worked for Defendants at any time from
December 11, 2009, to the present. Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants deducted $9.50 from Plaintiffs' bi-weekly paychecks
($4.75 per week) for their voluntary participation in an Employee
Discount Program (EDP), which allegedly caused them to earn less
than the applicable reduced minimum wage for tipped employees.
Plaintiffs also allege that, when they did not earn enough through
direct wages to cover the bi-weekly $9.50 EDP payment, Defendants
improperly deducted that amount from their tips. Plaintiffs assert
that Defendants' retention of tipped employees' tips in this
manner violates the FLSA and the FMWA.

Plaintiffs served requests for production and interrogatories on
Defendants. In response, Defendants produced documents, answers
and objections, and a privilege log for all documents withheld as
privileged. Plaintiffs deemed Defendants' responses insufficient
and, consequently, filed their Motion to Compel Responses to
Plaintiffs' First Requests for Production of Documents and First
Set of Interrogatories on September 9, 2015.  Defendants objected
to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel.

In her Order dated October 9, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Vgi2zufrom Leagle.com, Judge Sneed granted in part
Plaintiffs' motion to compel. Specifically, Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel is granted as to Interrogatory Number 2, and Defendants
must identify the putative class member employees using a unique
identifier. Defendants must also identify the specific
restaurants, wage rates, and EDP deductions of the putative class
members. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is granted as to
Interrogatory Number 10 in part as Defendants must identify
Defendants' human resources managers with specialized knowledge
regarding the EDP. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is granted as to
Interrogatory Number 11 in part as Defendants must identify non-
publically available, responsive information concerning lawsuits,
claims, grievances, governmental investigations, administrative
actions and charges brought against Defendants concerning alleged
EDP-related minimum wage violations.

The Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory
Numbers 3 through 5 and 14 without prejudice. Plaintiffs' Motion
to Compel is granted in part as to Request for Production Numbers
4, 8, 9, 12 through 15, 17 through 19, 21 and 25. Specifically,
the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as to Request for
Production Number 4 to the extent that documents identifying
Defendants' hierarchical management must be produced. Defendants
must also produce documents identifying Defendants' human resource
managers who have specialized knowledge concerning the operation
of the EDP. The Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as to
Request for Production Number 17 in part as Defendants must
produce documents that show their actual costs for the EDP in
their eight Florida restaurants during the putative class period.
The Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as to Request for
Production Number 18 in part as Defendants must produce non-
publically available, responsive information concerning all
lawsuits, claims, grievances, governmental investigations,
administrative actions and charges brought against Defendants
concerning alleged EDP-related minimum wage violations.

The Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as to Request for
Production Numbers 1, 3, and 20 as Defendants represented that no
such documents exist or can be located as of this date. If
documents responsive to these requests become available,
Defendants must supplement their responses and produce the
responsive documents. The Court denies, without prejudice,
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as to Request for Production Numbers
5 and 16. In regard to Defendants' privilege log, the Court finds
that the entries included are insufficiently specific in that they
do not allow Plaintiffs to assess whether the communications or
documents identified are properly withheld as privileged. The
Court directs Defendants to specify with more clarity the entries
included in their privilege log. In doing so, Defendants must
identify the documents that are responsive to Plaintiffs'
discovery requests and include Bates stamp numbers and dates for
each document.

Hillary Schwab, Esq. -- hillary@fairworklaw.com -- of Fair Work,
P.C. -- Loren Bolno Donnell, Esq., Sam Jones Smith, Esq., and
Tamra Carsten Givens, Esq., of Burr & Smith, LLP serve as counsel
for Plaintiff Jeffrey Griffith

Brett T. Lane, Esq. -- laneb@gtlaw.com -- David W. Long-Daniels,
Esq. -- long-danielsd@gtlaw.com -- and Richard C. McCrea, Jr.,
Esq. -- mccrear@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. serve as
counsel for Defendant Landry's, Inc.


LEAFGUARD OF KENTUCKY: Arbitration Bid Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Danny C. Reeves granted in part and denied in part
the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay the entire
action pending arbitration in the case captioned LEAFGUARD OF
KENTUCKIANA, INC., Plaintiff, v. LEAFGUARD OF KENTUCKY, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No.: 5: 15-237-DCR, (E.D. Ky.)

LeafGuard of Kentuckiana filed suit against Englert, Chambers, and
LeafGuard of Kentucky in the Fayette Circuit Court. Shortly
thereafter, the action was removed to the federal district court.
The plaintiff alleges that Englert breached the Distributor
Agreement, breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing, and
interfered with the Purchase Agreement involving the sale of
LeafGuard of Kentuckiana's Distributor Agreement to LeafGuard of
Kentucky. Further, the plaintiff asserted breach of contract
claims against LeafGuard of Kentucky and Chambers and sought
injunctive relief enforcing both the Distributor Agreement and the
Purchase Agreement. By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
September 2, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiff's claims for
injunctive relief. On the same day that Englert removed the case
to federal court, it also moved the Court to compel arbitration
and stay the entire action pending completion of arbitration
between Englert and LeafGuard of Kentuckiana.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 9, 2015
available at http://bit.ly/1jtcOgQfrom Leagle.com, Judge Reeves
granted in part and denied in part Defendant Englert's motion to
compel arbitration and stay the entire action pending arbitration.
Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Englert are stayed, pending
the completion of arbitration proceedings. The plaintiff is
required to prosecute all of its claims arising out of the
Distributor Agreement in accordance with the terms of the
arbitration provision of that document. The claims and
counterclaims between the plaintiff, and Defendants LeafGuard of
Kentucky and John Chambers remain pending in district court until
resolution of motions for summary judgment.  Englert and Plaintiff
are directed to file status reports concerning arbitration each 60
days following the entry of this Order and upon the completion of
arbitration. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply
is granted.

The Court held that, to challenge the validity of the entire
agreement would be undermine the plaintiff's breach of contract
claim against Englert. Because LeafGuard of Kentuckiana opposes
enforcement of the arbitration clause itself, not the contract as
a whole, the Court said state law will apply to determine whether
the arbitration agreement is valid and binding. The Court rejected
the plaintiff's argument that Englert somehow waived enforcement
of the choice-of-law clause by waiting to assert it is
unconvincing.

Jessica Katherine Winters, Esq. -- jwinters@gettylawgroup.com --
and Richard A. Getty, Esq. -- rgetty@gettylawgroup.com -- of The
Getty Law Group, PLLC serve as counsel for Plaintiff LeafGuard of
Kentuckiana, Inc.

William W. Allen, Esq. -- wallen@gmalaw.com -- of Gess, Mattingly
& Atchison, P.S.C. serves as counsel for Defendant LeafGuard of
Kentucky, LLC


LEAN CULINARY: "Whiteman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Onkemetse Whiteman, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Lean Culinary Concepts, LLC d/b/a Deliverlean, Olga
Kuzenkov and Scott Harris, Case No. 9:15-cv-81407-WJZ (S.D. Fla.,
October 13, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Lean Culinary Concepts, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company
specializing in the preparation, cooking, and delivery of
customized meals primarily to residential customers' homes through
orders placed electronically and over the Internet via the
commercial website and over the telephone.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      2300 Glades Road, Suite 360W
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 299-3703
      Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com


LIBERTY PEST: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Springer" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Springer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Liberty Pest Specialists, Inc., d/b/a Liberty Pest
Control, Case No. 1:15-cv-05883 (E.D.N.Y., October 13, 2015) is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek.

Liberty Pest Specialists, Inc. owns and operates a pest control
services company located at 8220 17th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
      John A. Blyth, Esq.
      HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
      185 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 213-8311
      Facsimile: (212) 779-0028
      E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
              jblyth@hrsclaw.com


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Calif. Labor Code Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dashanna Wilson, and all others similarly-situated v. Molina
Healthcare, Inc., Molina Healthcare of California and Does 1
through 100, Case No. BC597358 (Cal. Super., October 8, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate a managed care organization headquartered
in Long Beach, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce Kokozian, Esq.
      KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC
      9440 South Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 510
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Tel: (323) 857-5900


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Motion to Remand "Yhudai" Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Margaret M. Morrow granted Plaintiff's motion to
remand and denied Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case
captioned MOSHE YHUDAI, Plaintiff, v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a suspended corporation, BANK OF
AMERICA N.A an unknown business entity; BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS
OF THE ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005-51, MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-51, an unknown business entity; NATIONAL
DEFAULT SERVICING CORPORATION AS TRUSTEE FOR BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON, F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE
HOLDERS OF THE ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005-51, MORTGAGE PASS-
THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-51, an unknown business entity;
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. an unknown business entity and
Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. CV 15-05035 MMM (JPRX),
(C.D. Cal.)

Moshe Yhudai initially filed this action in Los Angeles Superior
Court against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Bank
of America N.A.; Bank of New York Mellon, f/k/a The Bank of New
York, as trustee on behalf of the holders of the Alternative Loan
Trust 2005-51; National Default Servicing Corp. as trustee for
BNY; Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.; and certain fictitious
defendants.

Yhudai alleges that defendants do not have a right to sell his
property at foreclosure because they were not parties to the
original mortgage loan. He also asserts that all defendants
conspired unlawfully to foreclose on the property, and that each
defendant acted in the course and scope of its agency for the
remaining defendants with full knowledge and consent of the co-
defendants. Yhudai pleads claims for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code Section 1788.1(a);
unlawful foreclosure in violation of the California Homeowner Bill
of Rights (HBOR); slander of title; fraud-intentional
misrepresentation; quiet title; declaratory and injunctive relief;
and unlawful business practices under California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.

Yhudai filed a motion to remand, asserting that the notice of
removal had been filed more than 30 days after the service of the
complaint on certain defendants, and that not all defendants had
consented to removal. Yhudai also contends that the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction because his complaint presents no
federal question and the citizenship of the parties is not
completely diverse.

In her Order dated October 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/hSVZ4Efrom Leagle.com, Judge Morrow granted the
Plaintiff's motion to remand and denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss. The court concludes that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. The clerk is directed to remand the action to Los
Angeles Superior Court. Although not ultimately persuasive, the
court does not find defendants' arguments so objectively
unreasonable as to warrant an award of attorneys' fees. The
removal statute is strictly construed against removal, and all
doubts respecting jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of
remand. Because it appears Yhudai seeks full settlement of the
$960,000 note and return of all monies paid pursuant thereto, and
because he does not dispute that the amount in controversy
requirement is satisfied, the court concludes that defendants have
shown that this requirement for diversity jurisdiction is met.

Moshe Yhudai, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Gwen H Ribar, Esq. -- gribar@wrightlegal.net -- and Marvin Belo
Adviento, Esq. -- madviento@wrightlegal.net -- of Wright Finlay &
Zak LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc.


NATIONAL HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Denise Loveland-Bowe, and all others similarly-situated v.
National Healthcare Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-01084 (M.D.
Tenn., October 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant National Healthcare Corporation is a Delaware
corporation headquartered at 100 East Vine Street City Center,
Murfreesboro, Tennessee. NHC provides home health services in
Tennessee, Florida, South Carolina and Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON
      MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Tel: (615) 244-2202
      Fax: (615) 252-3798
      E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Motion for Preliminary Class Cert. Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary determination on class certification and
preliminary approval of the class settlement in the case captioned
BRADLEY GOOD et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No.: 14-4295, (E.D. Pa.)

Plaintiffs Bradley Good and Edward Soucek, on behalf of a putative
class, and Defendant Nationwide Credit, Inc., have negotiated and
agreed to a class action settlement that will resolve the instant
matter, which involves allegations that Defendant mailed
Plaintiffs and others collection notices including language that
is false, deceptive, or misleading under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA).

The Settlement Agreement provides for a settlement class defined
as:

"All persons with addresses in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania[]
who were sent one or more collection letters from NCI[] that
stated GE Capital Retail Bank, Synchrony Bank, or American Express
is required to file a form 1099C with the Internal Revenue Service
for any cancelled debt of $600 or more, or a substantially
identical statement[,] where the underlying debt being collected
was incurred primarily for personal, family or household use; the
letter(s) bear(s) a send date from July 16, 2013 through July 1,
2015; and the letter(s) were not returned as undeliverable.  . . .
Plaintiffs represent that the class will include approximately
15,225 individuals."

The Settlement Agreement provides that Defendant will deposit
$257,000 with a class administrator to create the settlement fund.
This fund will then be distributed by the class administrator in
equal shares to each of the class members who have not opted out
of the class and whose class notice is not returned as
undeliverable and without a forwarding address.  Thus, each class
member will receive at least $16.89, and possibly more if some
class members opt out or some class notices are returned as
undeliverable. Settlement checks will be mailed automatically to
class members no later than twenty days after the final judgment
date; class members need not take any action, such as filing a
claim form, to receive payment.

While the original settlement agreement provided that half of any
unclaimed funds would be awarded to Legal Aid of Southeastern
Pennsylvania and half to Mid-Penn Legal Services as a cy pres
remedy, the parties have since revised the Settlement Agreement to
allow the Court to determine the recipient, or recipients, of the
cy pres fund once distribution to the class has been completed.

The Defendant also will pay the class representatives, Plaintiffs
Good and Soucek, a settlement for their individual FDCPA claims in
the amount of $1,000 each.  In addition, Defendant will pay the
class representatives a service award of $1,000 each. Id. These
payments, $4,000 in total, are in addition to and separate and
apart from the class settlement fund.

The Defendant will pay class counsel approved reasonable
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses in an amount not to exceed
$125,000.  As with the payments to the class representatives, the
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses is in addition to and
separate and apart from the amount that Defendant will pay to the
class.  Defendant will also pay the costs of class notice and
administration of the settlement.

In exchange for the benefits provided in the Settlement Agreement,
settlement class members agree to release any and all claims that
they may have against Defendant Nationwide Credit, Inc., and
Defendant's clients, American Express Company, GE Capital Retail
Bank, and Synchrony Bank, on whose behalf it sent dunning letters,
as well as their privies, in connection with the challenged
language in collection letters mailed by Defendant.

Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for an order (1) granting
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement; (2)
granting preliminary certification of a settlement class; (3)
appointing class representatives and class counsel; (4) approving
the dissemination of a proposed form of class notice; and (5)
scheduling a fairness hearing.

In his Memorandum dated October 5, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/f2zrhzfrom Leagle.com, Judge Robreno rejected the
proffered Settlement Agreement, saying the settlement fund made
available to the class subverts Congress's directive in setting a
cap on class damages in 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692k(a)(2)(B). The Court
does not believe that Congress intended for the statutory damages
cap to apply only to awards obtained after trial, and not to
settlements, particularly when a substantial number -- if not the
majority -- of FDCPA class actions are resolved through
settlement.  And, of course, it is not up to the Court to question
the wisdom of the policy. Therefore, approving a settlement in
excess of the statutory cap -- a cap arrived at through the pull
and tug of the legislative dance among stakeholders and
legislators -- would frustrate the congressional purpose of
protecting debt collectors from outcomes that might force them out
of business.

Cary L. Flitter, Esq., and Andrew M. Milz, Esq., of Flitter Lorenz
PC and Carlo Sabatini, Esq., of Sabatini Law Firm LLC serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Bradley Good

Alfred W. Putnam, Jr., Esq. -- alfred.putnam@dbr.com -- and Andrew
P. Reeve, Esq., andrew.reeve@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle & Reath
LLP and Clay J. Pierce, Esq. -- clay.pierce@dbr.com -- of
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP serve as counsel for Defendant
Nationwide Credit, Inc.


NORTH AMERICAN MIDWAY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Thompson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. North American Midway Entertainment- All Star
Amusement, Inc., Case No. 2015CH15131 (Ill. Ch., October 14, 2015)
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
premium pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

North American Midway Entertainment- All Star Amusement, Inc.
operates a traveling carnival company that provides food, rides,
and games for carnivals around the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
      Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
      Deane B. Brown, Esq.
      HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
      Three First National Plaza
      70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 580-0100
      E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com
              cwilmes@hsplegal.com
              dbrown@hsplegal.com


PAGE BROTHERS: "Kindred" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kindred and other similarly situated individuals v. Page
Brothers, Associates Inc. d/b/a Coral Springs Auto Mall, et al.,
Case No. 0:15-cv-62178-JAL (S.D. Fla., October 15, 2015) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Page Brothers, Associates Inc. is a retailer of new and used
automobiles, with its main place of business in Broward County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PETER G. MILNE: Class Cert. Ruling in "Ryan" Reversed in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Ralph K. Burgess partially reversed the trial court's
order certifying the class claims in the appeal case captioned
PETER G. MILNE, P.C., PETER G. MILNE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND HEALY,
MILNE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Appellants, v. VAL RYAN AND JOY RYAN,
Appellees, No.: 06-14-00106-CV, (Tex. App. Ct.)

The Ryans' claims arose from the unauthorized practice of law by
Richard Hicks and his businesses, Elder Advisory Services, Elder
Tax Advisory Group, LLC, and Elder Tax Advisory Services, LLC,
(collectively referred to as the Hicks Defendants) and their
alleged affiliation with the Milne Defendants.

Peter G. Milne (Milne), Peter G. Milne, P.C. (the PC), and Healy,
Milne & Associates, P.C. (Healy), -- the Milne Defendants --
challenge the trial court's decision to certify class-action
claims brought by Val and Joy Ryan.

This appeal concerns the portion of the certification order that
defined the class, certified breach of fiduciary duty and
unconscionability claims against the Hicks Defendants, and
certified class claims for declaratory relief against both the
Hicks and Milne Defendants.

In his Opinion dated October 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/bYk7IKfrom Leagle.com, Justice Burgess affirmed the
trial court's certification of class claims of breach of fiduciary
duty against the Hicks Defendants. However, the Court of Appeals
found that the Ryans failed to meet the commonality and
predominance requirements with respect to the unconscionability
claims and that the trial court erred in certifying claims for
declaratory relief. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the
portion of the trial court's order that certified these claims.

The Court of Appeals said the trial court erred in certifying a
class action under Rule 42(b)(3) as to the Ryans' DTPA
unconscionability claim and in certifying a class action under
Rule 42(b)(2) as to the Ryans' declaratory judgment claim. The
Court of Appeals said the trial court correctly certified a class
action under Rule 42(b)(3) as to the Ryans' breach of fiduciary
duty claims against the Hicks Defendants.  Accordingly, the Court
of Appeals (1) reversed the portion of the trial court's order
certifying class claims of unconscionability against the Hicks
Defendants and creating a mandatory Rule 43(b)(2) class, (2)
affirms the remainder of the trial court's certification order,
and (3) remand the matter to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with the opinion.


PHH CORP: Bid for Interlocutory Appeal of Dismissal Order Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, EFRAIN MUNOZ, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PHH
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:08-CV-00759-AWI-BAM,
(E.D. Cal.), Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1292(b) of a court order dismissing Plaintiffs' putative
tolling subclass and its representative Marcella Villalon from the
present action with prejudice.

Plaintiffs Efrain Munoz, Leona Lovette, and Stephanie Melanie
filed a class action complaint against Defendants for alleged
violations of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)
section 8.  Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (FAC),
which included arguments for a subclass of plaintiffs, for whom
the complaint was not timely filed within one year of obtaining
their home loan, for the application of equitable tolling and
equitable estoppel to RESPA's statute of limitations for section 8
claims. The FAC lacked a named plaintiff for the putative tolled
class of plaintiffs. On May 30, 2013, Plaintiff-intervenor
Marcella Villalon filed a motion to intervene on behalf of the
tolling class of individuals who obtained mortgage loans and
private mortgage insurance through PHH's alleged captive mortgage
reinsurance arrangements between January 1, 2004 and June 1, 2007.
Defendants filed a motion for a Rule 12(c) partial judgment on the
pleadings. As for equitable tolling, Plaintiff-intervenor alleged
that "borrowers were not put on notice of their claims and,
despite exercising reasonable due diligence, reviewing their loan
documents, reasonably could not have discovered their claims
within the applicable statute of limitations" and that she was
"able to discover the underlying basis for the claims alleged
herein only with the assistance and investigation of counsel."

After the partial motion to dismiss was granted, the Court
subsequently certified the remainder of the class action.

Defendants opposed Plaintiffs' motion for interlocutory appellate
certification.

In his Order dated October 1, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/RSUQ8Tfrom Leagle.com, Judge Ishii said Plaintiffs
have failed to present a substantial ground for difference of
opinion.

Alan R. Plutzik, Esq. -- aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com -- of Bramson
Plutzik Mahl & Birkhaeuser, LLP -- Amanda R. Trask, Esq. --
atrask@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Donna
Siegel Moffa, Esq. -- dmoffa@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer
and Check LLP, Eric G Calhoun, Esq. -- eric@calhounmorganlaw.com
-- of Travis and Calhoun, P.C., James Maro, Esq. -- jmaro@ktmc.com
-- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP; Jennifer S Rosenberg,
Esq. -- jrosenberg@bramsonplutzik.com -- of Bramson, Plutzik,
Mahler & Birkhaeuser, Johnston Whitman, Esq. -- jwhitman@ktmc.com
-- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Natalie Lesser, Esq. --
nlesser@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Robert
M. Bramson, Esq., of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Edward W.
Ciolko, Esq. -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check LLP, Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- of
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Joshua A. Materese, Esq. --
jmaterese@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and
Terence S. Ziegler, Esq. -- tziegler@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiff Efrain Munoz

David M. Souders, Esq. -- souders@thewbkfirm.com -- and Sandra B.
Vipond, Esq. -- vipond@thewbkfirm.com -- of Weiner Brodsky Kider
PC and Joseph S. Genshlea, Esq. -- joe@genshlealaw.com -- of Joe
Genshlea Law and Mediation serve as counsel for Defendant PHH
Corp.


PMC-SIERRA: Sued in Delaware Over Proposed Skyworks Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Pietrus Industries Limited, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. PMC-Sierra, Inc., et al., Case No. 11610
(Del. Ch., October 14, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the
public stockholders of PMC-Sierra, Inc. to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of PMC by Skyworks Solutions, Inc., through a flawed
process and an inadequate consideration.

PMC-Sierra, Inc. is a semiconductor and software solution
innovator and maintains its principal executive offices 1380
Bordeaux Drive, Sunnyvale, California 94089.

Skyworks Solutions, Inc. is a semiconductor company headquartered
in Woburn, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Motion to Modify Class Definition Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John W. Darrah granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
modify the class definition and denied the Defendant's motion to
decertify classes in the case captioned NACOLA MAGEE and JAMES
PETERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 12-CV-1624, (N.D. Ill.)

Plaintiffs Nicola Magee and James Peterson brought this class
action against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA) for
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA).  Plaintiffs have filed a motion to modify the class
definitions of the classes that were certified on February 5,
2015. Defendant filed a response opposing Plaintiffs' Motion and
filed a Motion to Decertify the Classes.

PRA is a business that engages in the purchasing of defaulted
debts originally owed to others and incurred for personal, family,
or household purposes. Plaintiffs allege that PRA violated the
FDCPA by sending letters demanding payment of time-barred debt
without disclosing that the debt was time-barred and threatening
credit reporting after a time that a debt can no longer be
reported. Plaintiffs seek actual and statutory damages pursuant to
the FDCPA.

Plaintiffs request that the class definitions of the certified
classes be modified to only include those who actually paid in
response to the collection letters, those who have not received a
subsequent letter from PRA informing them that the debt is time-
barred or no longer can be reported on their credit report, and
those who have filed a lawsuit. Defendant filed a response in
opposition as well as a Motion to Decertify the Classes.

Many of the class members have already received notice. Plaintiffs
argue that the value of notice is no longer an added benefit for
those class members and that narrowing the class to those who have
actually paid or those who have not yet been informed that their
debts are time-barred or not subject to credit reporting, will
increase the amounts paid to each class member.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 8, 2015
available at http://is.gd/ZTbrDNfrom Leagle.com, Judge Darrah
said a modification to a more limited group would be consistent
with Plaintiffs' obligation to protect the best interests of the
class, making the class size more manageable and allowing counsel
to help those class members that may have suffered harm to receive
a proportional recovery. This is not evidence that Plaintiffs'
counsel is inadequate.

The Court held that Defendant's argument against eliminating those
class members that have notice that their debts are time-barred is
not persuasive. These class members have received what could be
the most substantial part of their relief if they remained in the
class. Defendant claims Plaintiffs' procedural decision to file a
motion to modify class definition rather than amend their
complaint will injure Defendant. Defendant fails to explain or
otherwise support their assertion that narrowing the class would
result in "serious impacts" on potential class members' rights to
"maintain an FDCPA claim under the tolling principles applicable
to putative class claims" resulting in an injury to PRA.

While it is possible that the class could decrease if the statute
of limitations period "clock" begins again, Defendant does not
explain why this injury should form a basis for decertification of
the classes, the Court continued. The individual issues of whether
each class member was deceived by the letters at issue and made a
payment due to that deception do not predominate over the common
questions of whether the collection letters would mislead or
deceive a unsophisticated consumer.

Daniel A. Edelman, Esq., Cassandra P. Miller, Esq., Cathleen M.
Combs, Esq., and James O. Latturner, Esq., of Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin LLC serve as counsel for Plaintiff Nacola
Magee

David M Schultz, Esq. -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Avanti Deepak
Bakane, Esq. -- abakane@hinshawlaw.com -- Jennifer W. Weller, Esq.
-- jweller@hinshawlaw.com -- and Katherine Hannah Tresley, Esq.,
of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP of Defendant Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC


SET ENTERPRISES: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Shaw, Rebecca Wiles, Jennifer Scott, and Ashley Howell,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
The Set Enterprises, Inc. and Joe Rodriguez, Case No. 0:15-cv-
62152-WPD (S.D. Fla., October 13, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Set Enterprises, Inc. is a domestic corporation doing business
in Florida for the purpose of accumulating monetary profit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Morgan, Esq.
      Scott J. Hertz, Esq.
      ROETZEL & ANDRESS, ALPA
      2320 First Street, Suite 1000
      Fort Myers, FL 33901
      Telephone: (239) 338-4218
      Facsimile: (239) 337-3850
      E-mail: jmorgan@ralaw.com
              shertz@ralaw.com

         - and -

      John B. Gallagher, Esq.
      2631 East Oakland Park Boulevard
      Suite 201
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306
      Telephone: (954) 524-1888
      Facsimile: (954) 524-1887
      E-mail: ga12701@aol.com


SHELLCO CONSTRUCTION: "Mendez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose M. Mendez, Francisco Mendez Sanchez, Pedro Aguilar, and other
similarly situated individuals v. Shellco Construction Corp. and
Jean Chardon, Case No. 33250691 (11th Ct. Fla., October 14, 2015)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in Miami-
Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005


SUNTRUST BANKS: Ct. Denies Bid to Dismiss "Freedman" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the United States
District Court for District of Columbia denied Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss and denied Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Limited
Surreply in the case captioned, SHANA FREEDMAN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff. v. SUNTRUST
BANKS, INC. and SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:14-CV-01575(CKK).
Plaintiff Shana Freedman (Plaintiff) is a Florida resident who
unsuccessfully sought a home loan from SunTrust Mortgage
(SunTrust) in the fall of 2012. Plaintiff, whose income consists
of long-term Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), was
ultimately unable to submit a loan application for processing due
to a SunTrust policy requiring her to provide firm assurances that
her disability benefits would continue. Plaintiff filed this
lawsuit as a putative class action on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated borrowers whose income derives from long-term
disability assistance. Plaintiff alleges that SunTrust's policy of
requesting sensitive medical information regarding an applicant's
disability violates the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601
et seq., and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C.
Section 1691 et seq.

Defendants argued that it has insufficient contacts with the
District of Columbia to support jurisdiction. Plaintiff opposes
Defendants' motion and requested in the alternative that the Court
permit jurisdictional discovery or transfer the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1406, or in the alternative, to 28 U.S.C. Section
1631.

In her Memorandum Opinion dated September 21, 2015, available at
http://is.gd/znzjSmfrom Leagle.com, Judge Kollar-Kotelly found
that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants and
that jurisdictional discovery is not warranted but that it is in
the interest of justice to transfer the matter to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1406(a) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1631.

Shana Freedman is represented by Jamie L. Crook, Esq. --
jcrook@relmanlaw.com, Sasha Samberg-Champion, Esq. -- ssamberg-
champion@relmanlaw.com & John Peter Relman, Esq. --
jrelman@relmanlaw.com -- RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX, PLLC
Defendants are represented by Syed M. Reza, Esq. --
mohsin.reza@troutmansanders.com & David N. Anthony, Esq. --
david.Anthony@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP


TEACHERS INSURANCE: Faces "Malone" Suit Over Plan Mismanagement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Malone and Patricia Mckeough, on Behalf of The University
of Chicago Retirement Income Plan for Employees, Nova Southeastern
University 403(b) Plan, and All Other Similarly Situated Plans v.
Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, Case No.
1:15-cv-08038 (S.D.N.Y., October 13, 2015) arise from the failure
of the Defendant to comply with Employee Retirement Income
Security Act's prohibited transaction rules, to discharge its
duties with respect to the Plans solely in the interests of the
participants and beneficiaries of the Plans and for the exclusive
purpose of providing them with benefits and defraying reasonable
expenses of administering the Plans; and to exercise the required
care, skill, prudence and diligence in administering the Plans and
the Plans' assets.

Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America is a company
that provides life insurance and retirement annuities with its
principal place of business is New York, NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Barrett, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      137 Betsy Brown Road
      Port Chester, NY 10573
      Telephone: (646) 776-8580
      E-mail: kbarrett@baileyglasser.com

         - and -

      Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
      Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 463-2101
      Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
      E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
              rjenny@baileyglasser.com

         - and -

      Robert A. Izard, Esq.
      Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
      IZARD NOBEL LLP
      29 South Main Street, Suite 305
      West Hartford, CT 06107
      Telephone: (860) 493-6292
      Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
      E-mail: rizard@izardnoble.com
              mkindall@izardnoble.com


TEACHERS INSURANCE: Faces "Richards" Suit Over Plan Mismanagement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Richards-Donald and Michelle Deprima, individually and on
behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, and on
behalf of the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of
America Code Section 401(k) Plan and the Teachers Insurance and
Annuity Association of America Retirement Plan v. Teachers
Insurance and Annuity Association Of America, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-08040 (S.D.N.Y., October 13, 2015) arise from the failure
of the Defendant to comply with Employee Retirement Income
Security Act's prohibited transaction rules, to discharge its
duties with respect to the Plans solely in the interests of the
participants and beneficiaries of the Plans and for the exclusive
purpose of providing them with benefits and defraying reasonable
expenses of administering the Plans; and to exercise the required
care, skill, prudence and diligence in administering the Plans and
the Plans' assets.

Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America is a company
that provides life insurance and retirement annuities with its
principal place of business is New York, NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Kevin Barrett, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      137 Betsy Brown Road
      Port Chester, NY 10573
      Telephone: (646) 776-8580
      E-mail: kbarrett@baileyglasser.com

         - and -

      Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
      Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 463-2101
      Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
      E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
              rjenny@baileyglasser.com

         - and -

      Major Khan, Esq.
      MAJOR KHAN LLC
      1120 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 4100
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (646) 546-5664
      Facsimile: (646) 546-5755
      E-mail: mk@mk-llc.com


TINDER INC: "Warner" Suit Alleges EFTA Violations
-------------------------------------------------
Billy Warner, and all others similarly-situated v. Tinder, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-23790 (S.D. Fla., October 9, 2015), seeks
damages, injunctive relief and equitable remedies for the
Defendant's alleged misleading business practices in violations of
the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

The Defendant is a worldwide company that promotes itself as a
free online dating application. Its principal place of business is
in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
      WADSWORTH HUOTT, LLP
      14 N.E. 1st Avenue
      10th Floor
      Miami, FL 33132
      Tel: (305) 777-1000, ext. 208
      Fax: (305) 777-1001
      E-mail: rrd@wadsworth-law.com


UNITED MAINTENANCE: Faces "Pollard" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Pollard, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. United Maintenance Company, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC597809 (Cal. Super. Ct., October
14, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

United Maintenance Company, Inc. owns and operates an employment
agency headquartered at 1550 S. Indiana Avenue, Chicago, Illinois
60605.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
      Evelina M. Serafini, Esq.
      HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APC
      555 W. 5th Street, 31st Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90013
      Telephone: (213)533-4160
      Facsimile: (213)533-4167
      E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com
              eserafmi@hamnerlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Settlement of Counsel Fees Dispute Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dolly M. Gee approved a settlement agreement
resolving Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs in the
case captioned JOSE ANTONIO FRANCO-GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs-
Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, et al.,
Defendants-Respondents, Case No. CV 10-2211 DMG (DTBX), (C.D.
Cal.)

Plaintiffs did not seek the full $15,000,000 in fees and costs of
which they gave notice to the Class, and instead filed a Motion
for Attorneys' Fees and Costs seeking $11,632,425.73 in attorneys'
fees and $81,701.73 in costs.

In her Order dated October 8, 2015 available at
http://bit.ly/1PnW07Pfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gee awards Plaintiffs
$9,500,000 in attorneys' fees and costs, subject to the terms set
forth in the Fee Settlement Agreement. The Fee Settlement
Agreement is a compromise reached by the Parties as a result of
arms'-length negotiations, including negotiations after Defendants
had the opportunity to review Plaintiffs' entire Fee Motion, which
contained voluminous time records and supporting materials. The
Fee Settlement Agreement does not prejudice the Class and was not
the result of collusion between the Parties. The Class has
received notice of Plaintiffs' Fee Motion that complied with the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1), and no
Class Member has objected to the Fee Motion. The Court finds the
award to be fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Parties are
ordered to implement the terms of the Fee Settlement Agreement.
The Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing
compliance with the terms of the Fee Settlement Agreement.

The matter arises from the Settlement Agreement is entered into by
all Plaintiffs and all Defendants in the class action lawsuit,
Franco-Gonzalez, et al. v. Lynch, et al. Case No. CV 10-2211-DMG
(DTBx).  Plaintiffs are individuals who are, or were during the
relevant period, in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement ("ICE") in Arizona, California, or Washington, who
have serious mental disorders, and who lack or lacked counsel in
their immigration proceedings. Defendants are Loretta Lynch,
United States Attorney General, Juan Osuna, Director of the
Executive Office for Immigration Review ("EOIR"), Jeh Johnson,
Secretary of Homeland Security, Sarah Saldana, Director of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), and David Jennings,
Field Office Director for the Los Angeles District of ICE.

Carmen G Iguina, Esq. of ACLU of Southern California, John David
Loy, Esq., ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties; Antonia
Stamenova-Dancheva, Esq. -- stamenovaa@sullcrom.com -- Alexa M
Lawson-Remer, Esq. -- lawsonr@sullcrom.com -- Michael P Murtagh,
Esq. -- murtaghm@sullcrom.com -- and Michael H Steinberg, Esq. --
steinbergm@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan and Cromwell LLP -- Ahilan
T Arulanantham, Esq. -- aarulanantham@aclu-sc.org -- of ACLU
Foundation of Southern California; Bardis Vakili, Esq. --
bvakili@aclusandiego.org -- of ACLU Foundation of San Diego and
Imperial Counties; James Duff Lyall, Esq. of ACLU Foundation of
Arizona; James J Preis, Esq., of Mental Health Advocacy Services
Inc.; Judy London, Esq., of Public Counsel; Judy Rabinovitz, Esq.,
of American Civil Liberties Union; Matt Adams, Esq., of Northwest
Immigrant Rights Project; Stephen Bonggyun Kang, Esq., ACLU
Immigrants' Rights Project & Talia R Inlender, Public Counsel
serve as counsel for Petitioner Jose Antonio Franco-Gonzalez

August E Flentje, Esq., Jeffrey S Robins, Esq., Erez Reuveni,
Esq., and Sarah S Wilson, Esq., of US Department of Justice serve
as counsel for Respondent Eric H. Holder, Jr.


UNITED STATES: Suit Against SSA May Proceed as Class
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the case captioned KEVIN HART, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-00623-
JST, (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs sued Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin in her capacity as
Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, challenging
the SSA's alleged reliance on consultative examinations performed
by Dr. Frank Chen, a physician who is now disqualified, in denying
or terminating disability benefits. Plaintiffs seek declaratory
and injunctive relief requiring the SSA to cease relying on Dr.
Chen's reports, to reopen any benefits determination that relied,
at least in part, on a report prepared by Dr. Chen, and to notify
those individuals whose benefits have been denied or terminated.

In his Order dated October 9, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ePt4pufrom Leagle.com, Judge Tigar granted
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class consisting of all persons
whose SSI or SSDI benefits were either denied or terminated and
for whom a consultative examination was prepared by Dr. Chen. In
the joint case management statement due on November 5, 2015, the
parties are ordered to propose a schedule for the remainder of the
case through trial. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs have
satisfied their burden of showing that there exists questions of
law or fact common to the proposed class members and that
determination of the truth or falsity of these common questions
"will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one
of the claims in one stroke."

In particular, Plaintiffs' claim asks the Court to determine
whether the SSA-wide policy instructing adjudicators to continue
to "consider" Dr. Chen's CE reports following his removal from the
CE panel violated the Social Security Act, its implementing
regulations, and the Due Process Clause. Resolution of this
question will not depend on the individual facts of each
Plaintiff's claims because Plaintiffs argue that any consideration
of Dr. Chen's report whatsoever violated the law, the Court said.

William Lewis Stern, Esq. -- wstern@mofo.com -- Claudia Maria
Vetesi, Esq. -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- Robert Travis Petraglia, Esq.
-- rpetraglia@mofo.com -- and Elizabeth Gilmore Balassone,  Esq.
-- ebalassone@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP, Anna
Margaret Rich, Esq. -- arich@justiceinaging.org -- Gerald Andrew
McIntyre, Esq. -- gmcintyre@nsclc.org -- and Kathryn Rose Lang,
Esq. -- klang@justiceinaging.org -- of Justice in Aging -- Trinh
Phan, Esq. and Hope Gisele Nakamura, Esq. --
hnakamura@legalaidsmc.com -- of Legal Aid Society of San Mateo
County serve as counsel for Plaintiff Kevin Hart

Michael Andrew Zee, Esq. of United States Department of Justice
serves as counsel for Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin


VAUGHN ENERGY: "Wedel" Case Wins Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos adopted the memorandum and
recommendation granting the Plaintiff's opposed motion for
conditional certification and notice to potential class members in
the case captioned DUSTIN WEDEL, et al, Plaintiffs, v. VAUGHN
ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No.:  2:15-CV-93,
(S.D. Tex.)

United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued a Memorandum
and Recommendation (M&R), recommending that Plaintiff's Opposed
Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice to Potential Class
Members be granted. Defendant filed objections to the M&R and
Plaintiff filed a response to the objections.

In his Order dated October 9, 2015 available at
http://bit.ly/1Xaljvqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Ramos adopted the
Memorandum and Recommendation granting the Plaintiff's opposed
motion for conditional certification and notice to potential class
members. The Court after having reviewed the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendations set forth in the
Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation, as well as
Defendant's objections, and all other relevant documents in the
record, and having made a de novo disposition of the portions of
the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation to which
objections were specifically directed, the Court overruled
Defendant's objections and adopted as its own the findings and
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.

The Court ordered the parties to file a proposed joint notice to
potential plaintiffs and a proposed joint notice of consent.
According to the Court, Defendant's argument that Plaintiff's
declaration is insufficient to satisfy the similarly situated
requirement because it is not as specific as the declaration
submitted by Defendant is without merit.  The Court explained that
the lenient standard for conditional class certification
acknowledges that it is unreasonable to require a plaintiff to
submit in-depth evidence of an employer's policies and pay
practices before the plaintiff has had a chance to conduct
discovery.

Michael A Josephson, Esq., Andrew Dunlap, Esq., Jessica Marie
Bresler, Esq., and Lindsay Rae Itkin, Esq., of Fibich Leebron et
al., and Richard J Burch, Esq., of Bruckner Burch PLLC serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Dustin Wedel

Frederick J McCutchon, Esq., of Wood Boykin et al and Vernon
George Schimmel, III, Esq., of Wood Boykin Wolter serve as counsel
for Defendant Vaughn Energy Services, LLC


VIRTUAL MEDIA: "Sosa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Krista Sosa and other similarly situated individuals v. Virtual
Media Telecom, LLC and John Tobon, Case No. 33250926 (11th Ct.
Fla., October 14, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Virtual Media Telecom, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company
that is engaged in interstate business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Turner" Suit Alleges Fraudulent Concealment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kay Turner, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen AG,
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, and Audi of America,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01660 (D.D.C., October 9, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for alleged fraud/fraudulent concealment.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants utilized a sophisticated
software program to deceive purchasers, as well as the
Environmental Protection Agency and state regulators, about the
true nature of the emissions from these Clean Diesel cars.

Volkswagen AG and other Defendants, each of which is a direct or
indirect subsidiary and agent of Volkswagen AG, manufactured,
distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Defeat Device
Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the
nation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott E. Gant, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      333 Main Street
      Armonk, NY 10504
      Tel: (914) 749-8200
      Fax: (202) 749-8300
      E-mail: sgant@bsfllp.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Merz" Suit Alleges Fraud by Concealment
----------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Merz, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Audi Of America LLC, and
Audi Of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-13572 (E.D. Mich., October
12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for alleged fraud by
concealment and breach of contract.

The nationwide class action concerns the intentional installation
of so-called defeat devices on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen
and Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009 ("Defeat
Device Vehicles").

Volkswagen AG and other Defendants, each of which is a direct or
indirect subsidiary and agent of Volkswagen AG, manufactured,
distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Defeat Device
Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the
nation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tana Lin, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Tel: (206) 623-1900
      Fax: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: tlin@kellerrohrback.com

          - and -

      William M. Audet, Esq.
      AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
      221 Main Street, Suite 1460
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Tel: (415) 568-2555
      Fax: (415) 568-2556
      E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Knowles" Suit Alleges Fraud
----------------------------------------------
Donna Knowles, Wayne Mitchell Newton, and all others similarly-
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-
02969 (S.D. Tex., October 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for alleged violation of the Clean Air Act, defrauding
customers, and engaging in unfair competition under state and
federal laws when it manufactured and sold vehicles with "defeat
devices."

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation doing business
in all 50 states and is organized under the laws of the State of
New Jersey, with its principal place of business located at 2200
Ferdinand Porsche Dr., Herndon, Virginia 20171. At all times
relevant to this action, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed,
sold, leased, and warranted the Subject Vehicles under the
Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dennis Reich, Esq.
      REICH AND BINSTOCK, LLP
      4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
      Houston, TX 77027
      Tel: (713) 622-7271
      E-mail: dreich@reichandbinstock.com

          - and -

      Richard Schechter, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD SCHECHTER, P.C.
      One Greenway Plaza, Suite 740
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 623-8919
      Fax: (713) 622-1680
      E-mail: richard@rs-law.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Wallace" Suit Alleges RICO Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Wallace, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG and Robert Bosch GmbH,
Case No. 5:15-cv-01766 (N.D. Ala., October 9, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), false
advertising and consumer fraud.

The class action concerns the intentional installation of so-
called "defeat devices" on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles sold in the United States since 2009. As of October 8,
2015, Volkswagen representatives conceded that the emissions fraud
affected as many as 11 million Volkswagen vehicles worldwide,
including at least 480,000 vehicles sold in the United States.

Defendant Volkswagen USA is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business
at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171.
Volkswagen regularly conducts business in the Northern District of
Alabama.

Defendant Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, doing business as
Volkswagen Group and/or Volkswagen AG, is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of Germany, with its principal place
of business located in Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen AG is the
parent corporation of Volkswagen
USA.

Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted
vehicles.

Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH is a German multinational engineering
and electronics company, headquartered in Stuttgart Germany. At
all times from at least January 1, 2007 through the present, Bosch
supplied the defeat device to Volkswagen.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George N. Davies, Esq.
      QUINN CONNOR WEAVER
      DAVIES & ROUCO LLP
      2-20th Street North, Suite 930
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      E-mail: gdavies@qcwdr.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Weitzman" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Betsy Weitzman, Seth Allison, Caren Goldstein, Gertrude Punaro
Thomas, and Cristin Webster, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-05588-SD (E.D. Penn., October 13, 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. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Boni, Esq.
      Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
      John E. Sindoni, Esq.
      BONI & ZACK LLC
      15 St. Asaphs Road
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Telephone: (610) 822-0200
      Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
      E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
              jsnyder@bonizack.com
              jsindoni@bonizack.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Malon" Suit in Maine Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc G. Malon II and Adam Kessler, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00421-NT (D. Maine, October 15, 2015) arises out
of the Defendant's alleged intentional installation of defeat
device in the vehicles of some 482,000 consumers in the United
States, to produce up to 40 times the maximum allowable pollution
in real-world use thereby cheating on legally required air
emissions tests.

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:

      Jon Hinck, Esq.
      LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      183 Middle Street, Suite 200
      Portland, ME 04101
      Telephone: (207) 874-7407
      Facsimile: (207) 874-4930
      E-mail: jhinck@lewissaul.com

                - and -

      Kevin M. Fitzgerald, Esq.
      LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      183 Middle Street, Suite 200
      Portland, ME 04101
      Telephone: (207) 874-7407
      Facsimile: (207) 874-4930
      E-mail: kfitzgerald@lewissaul.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Marks" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Marks, on behalf of herself and of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:15-cv-02140 (C.D. Cal., October 15, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of defeat device in
over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the
United States, to create the impression of high fuel efficiency
and high performance with extremely low emissions.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Arbogast, Esq.
      ARBOGAST LAW
      A Professional Corporation
      8117 W. Manchester Ave., Suite 530
      Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
      Telephone: (310) 477-7200
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0416
      E-mail: david@arbogastlawpc.com

                - and -

      Vincent D. Howard, Esq.
      Gregory H. D. Alumit, Esq.
      HOWARD LAW, PC
      2099 S. State College Blvd., Suite 600
      Anaheim, CA 92806
      Telephone: (800) 872-5925
      Facsimile: (888) 533-7310
      E-mail: vhoward@howardlawpc.com
              galumit@howardlawpc.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Morgan" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha E. Morgan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
07506-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 15, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of defeat device in
over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the
United States, to create the impression of high fuel efficiency
and high performance with extremely low emissions.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Factors for Evaluation of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DANIEL McGARRY, Plaintiff, v. VOLKSWAGEN
GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, AUDI AG,
Defendants, Case No. C 15-04541 WHA, (N.D. Cal.), District Judge
William Alsup notified the parties regarding the factors to be
evaluated for any proposed class settlement.

Counsel should review the following substantive and timing factors
that the undersigned judge will consider in determining whether to
grant preliminary and/or final approval to a proposed class
settlement. Many of these factors have already been set forth in
In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation, 654 F.3d
935, 946-47 (9th Cir. 2011)

In his Notice dated October 9, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/uoTvxKfrom Leagle.com, Judge Alsup advised the
counsel to review the Procedural Guidance for Class Action
Settlements, which is available on the website for the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance When a
settlement proposal is made prior to formal class certification,
there is a risk that class claims have been discounted, at least
in part, by the risk that class certification might be denied.

Absent class members, of course, should be subject to normal
discounts for risks of litigation on the merits but they should
not be subject to a further discount for a risk of denial of class
certification, such as, for example, a denial based on problems
with a proposed class representative, including a conflict of
interest or a prior criminal conviction. This is a main reason the
Court prefers to litigate and vet a class certification motion
before any settlement discussions take place. That way, the class
certification is a done deal and cannot compromise class claims.
Only the risks of litigation on the merits can do so.

The Court also reminds that when one undertakes to act as a
fiduciary on behalf of others (the absent class members), one must
perform adequate due diligence before acting. It will require an
analysis of the specific proof, such as a synopsis of any
conflicting evidence on key fact points. It will also require a
final class-wide damage study or a very good substitute, in sworn
form. If little discovery has been done to see how strong the
claim is, it will be hard to justify a substantial discount on the
mere generalized theory of "risks of litigation." A coupon
settlement will rarely be approved. Where there are various
subgroups within the class, counsel must justify the plan of
allocation of the settlement fund. The release should be limited
only to the claims certified for class treatment. Language
releasing claims that "could have been brought" is too vague and
overbroad. The specific statutory or common law claims to be
released should be spelled out. Class counsel must justify the
release as to each claim released, the probability of winning, and
its estimated value if fully successful. Typically, defendants
vigorously oppose class certification and/or argue for a narrow
class. In settling, however, defendants often seek to expand the
class, either geographically (i.e., nationwide) or claim-wise
(including claims not even in the complaint) or person-wise (e.g.,
multiple new categories).

A settlement that allows for a reversion of settlement funds to
the defendant(s) is a red flag, for it runs the risk of an
illusory settlement, especially when combined with a requirement
to submit claims that may lead to a shortfall in claim
submissions. A settlement that imposes a claim procedure rather
than cutting checks to class members for the appropriate amount
may (or may not) impose too much of a burden on class members,
especially if the claim procedure is onerous, or the period for
submitting is too short, or there is a likelihood of class members
treating the notice envelope as junk mail.

To avoid collusive settlements, the Court prefers that all
settlements avoid any agreement as to attorney's fees and leave
that to the judge. If the defense insists on an overall cap, then
the Court will decide how much will go to the class and how much
will go to counsel, just as in common fund cases. Please avoid
agreement on any division, tentative or otherwise. A settlement
whereby the attorney seems likely to obtain funds out of
proportion to the benefit conferred on the class must be
justified. In order to have a better record to evaluate the
foregoing considerations, it is better to develop and to present a
proposed compromise after class certification, after diligent
discovery on the merits, and after the damage study has been
finalized. On the other hand, there will be some cases in which it
will be acceptable to conserve resources and to propose a
resolution sooner. A borderline settlement cannot be justified
merely because absent class members may opt out if they wish.

Class litigation proceeded well for many decades before the advent
of requests for "incentive payments," which too often are simply
ways to make a collusive or poor settlement palatable to the named
plaintiff. A request for an incentive payment is a red flag.
Counsel will please see from the foregoing that the main focus
will be on what is in the best interest of absent class members.

Frank Mario Pitre, Esq. -- fpitre@cpmlegal.com -- Nancy L.
Fineman, Esq. -- nfineman@cpmlegal.com -- Alison Elizabeth
Cordova, Esq. -- acordova@cpmlegal.com -- and Joseph W. Cotchett,
Esq. -- jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP
-- Joseph Charles Wilson, V, Esq., and Michelle Therese Duval,
Esq. -- mduval@curialewilson.com -- of Curiale Wilson LLP serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Daniel McGarry


WASTE MANAGEMENT: "Navarro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Navarro, and all others similarly-situated v. Waste
Management of Dade County dba Waste Management Inc. of Florida,
Timothy B. Hawkins, David M. Mythan, Thomas G. Carroll and Don P.
Carpenter, Case No. 33135339 (Fla. Cir., October 12, 2015), seeks
damages for unpaid wages under Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide waste disposal and recycling solutions that
create clean, renewable energy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler St., Suite 220
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: (305) 416-5000
      Fax: (305) 416-5005


WAWANESA GENERAL: Illegally Withholds Claims Profit, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Ocampo and Rosa Ocampo, individuals, on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wawanesa General
Insurance Company and Does 1-100, Case No. BC597582 (Cal. Super.
Ct., October 14, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the residential
insurance policyholders in the State of California, charging that
Wawanesa breached its contracts, breached the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and committed unfair business practices by
improperly withholding overhead and profit from actual cash value
claims payments.

Wawanesa General Insurance Company transacts insurance business in
the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Parisi, Esq.
      Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
      PARISI & HAVENS LLP
      212 Marine Street, Suite 100
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (818) 990-1299
      Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
      E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
              shavens@parisihavens.com


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: "Esquivel" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Esquivel, Gustavo A. Carrasco, and all others similarly-
situated v. Weatherford International, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-02971
(S.D. Tex., October 12, 2015), seeks back pay damages and
prejudgment interest, liquidated damages, litigation costs,
expenses and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendant provides equipment and services used in the
drilling, evaluation, completion, production, and intervention of
oil and natural gas wells worldwide. It maintains its corporate
headquarters in Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon J. Carson, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Fax: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


WEINSTEIN PINSON: 2nd Amended Complaint in "Marquez" Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. granted the Defendants' motions
to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case captioned
ERICK MARQUEZ, IRAIDA GARRIGA, formerly known as IRAIDA ORTIZ, and
DORIS RUSSEL, on behalf of plaintiffs and a class, Plaintiffs, v.
WEINSTEIN, PINSON & RILEY, P.S.; EVAN L. MOSCOV, and NCO FINANCIAL
SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants, No.: 14 C 00739, (N.D. Ill.)

In this purported class action under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) the Court previously dismissed the
plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Marquez v. Weinstein, Pinson & Riley, P.S., No. 14 C
00739, 2015 WL 4637952 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2015).  The plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Complaint, and the defendants -- Weinstein,
Pinson & Reilly and Moscov jointly, and NCO Financial Systems for
itself -- moved to dismiss once more.

The Second Amended Complaint reprises all the same allegations of
the First Amended Complaint and adds a handful of new paragraphs.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used false, deceptive,
or misleading means to attempt to collect their alleged debts
because in the underlying state court collections actions, the
complaints contained the following paragraph: "Pursuant to 11
U.S.C. Section 1692g(a) (sic as to the Title), Defendants are
informed that the undersigned law firm is acting on behalf of
Plaintiff to collect the debt and that the debt referenced in this
suit will be assumed to be valid and correct if not disputed in
whole or in part within 30 days from the date hereof."

In his Order dated October 8, 2015 available at
http://bit.ly/1MJfK43from Leagle.com, Judge Tharp, Jr. said the
Second Amended Complaint does not plead any matter that changes
the Court's previous analysis. Given the Court's legal
conclusions, further pleading will not produce a viable claim;
therefore, the dismissal is with prejudice.

Daniel A. Edelman, Esq., Cathleen M. Combs, Esq., James O.
Latturner, Esq., and Tiffany Nicole Hardy, Esq., of Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC serve as counsel for Plaintiff
Erick Marquez

David M Schultz, Esq. -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- and Justin M
Penn, Esq. -- jpenn@hinshawlaw.com -- of Hinshaw & Culbertson
serve as counsel for Defendant Weinstein, Pinson & Riley, P.S.


WELLS FARGO: Hearing Today in Homebuyers' Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco, California, has said he
does not believe Wells Fargo breached contracts or misled
homebuyers, but he's not sure he can deny borrowers class
certification on that basis.

Karen and Jeffrey Lucia et al. say Wells Fargo failed to offer
permanent loan modifications to homeowners who participated in the
federal Home Affordable Mortgage Program from April 2009 to March
2010.  A trial period agreement required the bank to notify
borrowers if they qualified for permanent loan changes within
three months, the plaintiffs say.

In August 2013 the Ninth Circuit reversed dismissal of two class
actions accusing Wells Fargo of offering temporary loan
modifications with no intention to make them permanent. Offering
borrowers permanent loan modifications was one of two conditions
the bank agreed to when it accepted federal bailout money in 2008,
according to the lawsuits.

On Oct. 15, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria heard two hours of
arguments on a motion for class certification for three related
class actions, filed the Lucias, Phillip R. Corvello and Amira
Jackmon.

Plaintiffs' attorney Thomas Loeser said Wells Fargo steered
troubled borrowers into the HAMP to soak money from them, without
ever intending to permanently modify their loans as promised.

"They took people that were in default and converted them into
cash cows and made millions and millions of dollars," Loeser said.
Loeser added that the proposed class members made timely payments
to the bank during the trial period, fulfilling their obligations
under the terms of the contract. At the same time, he said, Wells
Fargo breached the temporary period plan (TPP) contract by failing
to permanently modify the loans or notify borrowers of their
eligibility within the required three months.

Wells Fargo attorney Irene Freidel told the judges that Wells
Fargo followed federal guidelines, which prohibit the bank from
ending trial periods until eligibility is determined.

Because making three timely trial payments was a condition for
obtaining a permanent loan modification, Freidel said, it was
impossible to qualify borrowers for the loan changes before the
trial period ended.  She said that several borrowers did not
submit documentation on time, which made it unfeasible to qualify
those homeowners within three months.

"You have to look at each borrower individually to see if they
experienced any actual harm," Freidel said.  But because all
borrowers signed the same TPP agreement with Wells Fargo, Loeser
said, determining whether that document was deceptive is a common
question applicable to all of them.

"You must certify the class to answer that question," Loeser said.
"It applies to the contract claim as well."

But Chhabria said unambiguously that he did not find the contract
misleading, nor that it required the bank to qualify borrowers for
permanent loan alterations within the three-month trial period.

"My strong inclination is to agree with you about the meaning of
the contract, but should I deny class certification based on
that?" Chhabria asked the Wells Fargo attorney.

Freidel said he should, because it speaks to the standard of the
defendant's liability for class certification.

Plaintiffs' co-counsel Timothy Blood disagreed, saying if Chhabria
were to rule that way, the Ninth Circuit would find that he
improperly ruled on the merits at the class certification stage.

Freidel asked the judge if he could stay the motion for class
certification and entertain a motion for summary judgment, but
Chhabria denied that.

Nonetheless, "If you look at this document, it's not misleading
the way the plaintiffs say it is," Chhabria said.

Blood said that if the judge plans to make that determination, the
plaintiffs should be allowed to introduce expert testimony on the
deceptiveness of the contract and its requirements.

Chhabria acknowledged that he has limited experience handling
class actions and asked both parties to submit supplemental briefs
on whether he can rule on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims in
his ruling on the motion for class certification.

Wells Fargo must submit its supplemental brief on within 14 days,
and the plaintiffs will have 14 days to respond.

There's another hearing set for Oct. 29 at 10:00 a.m.

The cases are, KAREN LUCIA and JEFFREY LUCIA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A. d/b/a WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE and DOES 1
through 10, Defendants, No. 4:10-CV-04749-VC; PHILLIP R. CORVELLO,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. d/b/a WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE d/b/a
AMERICA'S SERVICING COMPANY, Defendant. No. 4:10-CV-05072-VC; and
AMIRA JACKMON, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICA'S SERVICING
COMPANY and WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., Defendants. No. 3:11-cv-03884-
VC (N.D. Cal.).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Phillip R. Corvello and Amira Jackman and
the proposed Classes:

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
STEVE W. BERMAN, Esq.
THOMAS E. LOESER, Esq.
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 330
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: 206/623-7292
Fax: 206/623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
        toml@hbsslaw.com

     - and -

LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN
PETER B. FREDMAN, Esq.
125 University Ave., Suite 102
Berkeley, CA 94710
Tel: 510/868-2626
Fax: 510/868-2627
E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com

     - and -

BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
TIMOTHY G. BLOOD, Esq.
THOMAS J. O'REARDON II, Esq.
SARAH BOOT, Esq.
701 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 338-1100
Fax: (619) 338-1101
E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
        toreardon@bholaw.com
        sboot@bholaw.com


WEST HEMPSTEAD: "Pena" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
John Pena, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Michael Lisi, Kevin Hordern, West Hempstead Beverage Corp., ABC
Corp. d/b/a Monarch Beverage and John Does 1-3, Case No.______
(N.Y. Super. Ct., _____) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate liquor stores in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
      MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
      91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
      Hempstead, NY 11550
      Telephone: (516) 280-4600
      Facsimile: (516) 280-4530
      E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com


WILD WEST GAS: "Jeter" Plaintiffs May Revise Complaint
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KEVIN JETER, JOE A. JETER, BARBARA LUCAS,
JAMES H. MILLER, SHARON RIGSBY MILLER, LARRY SMITH, and JANICE SUE
PARKER, individually and as Class Representatives on Behalf of All
Similarly-Situated Persons, Plaintiffs, v. WILD WEST GAS, LLC,
WILD WEST GAS, INC., BULLSEYE ENERGY INC., FOUNTAINHEAD, LLC, and
KRS&K, an Oklahoma General Partnership, Defendants, Case No. 12-
CV-411-TCK-PJC, (N.D. Okla.), District Judge Terence C. Kern
granted the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add
parties and assert additional claims.

Plaintiffs allege that they and members of the putative class
"have owned or currently own oil, gas, and mineral interests in
lands and producing wells that have been drilled on land that is
located" in the Northern District of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants Wild West Gas, Inc., Wild West Gas, LLC, Bullseye
Energy, Inc., Fountainhead LLC, and KRS&K "own or owned, and/or
control or controlled the Leases and/or working interests created
by the Leases" and that they "act or acted as, and/or control or
controlled, operators of the wells that were drilled pursuant to
the Leases."  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "have taken and
continue to take unauthorized and unlawful deductions from the
royalties belonging to Plaintiffs and the Class," resulting in
underpayment.

Meanwhile, the Court denied the request of Defendants Wild West
Gas, LLC, Wild West Gas, Inc., Bullseye Energy Inc., and KRS&K to
decline to exercise jurisdiction.

A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated October 14, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/nxcrgKfrom Leagle.com.

Charles Loy Richardson, Esq., Gary L Richardson, Esq., Jason
Charles Messenger, Esq., and Mbilike Mwafulirwa, Esq., of
Richardson Richardson Boudreaux Keesling PLLC; Charles Robert
Burton, IV, Esq. -- cburton@mbfc.com -- Burton Law Firm PC and
Kevin Duane Adams, Esq. -- LawyerAdams@me.com -- of Kevin D Adams
PLLC serve as counsel for Plaintiff Kevin L Jeter

Bruce Wayne Robinett, Esq. -- bwrobinett@robinettking.com -- of
Brewer Worten Robinett et al -- J Kevin Hayes, Esq. --
khayes@hallestill.com -- and Pamela S Anderson, Esq. --
panderson@hallestill.com -- of Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden &
Nelson serve as counsel for Defendant Wild West Gas, LLC


WILLIAM FITZGERALD: "Velasquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Velasquez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. William Fitzgerald, Lori Fitzgerald and John Does 1-3, Case No.
______ (N.Y. Super. Ct., October ____) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 86 South
Tyson Avenue, Floral Park, New York 11001.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
      MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
      91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
      Hempstead, NY 11550
      Telephone: (516) 280-4600
      Facsimile: (516) 280-4530
      E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com


XEROX CORP: Court Trims Claims in "Gunther" Suit
------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied in part and granted
in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment, or in the
alternative, partial summary judgment regarding Daniel Gunther in
the case captioned DANIEL GUNTHER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. XEROX
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-04596-HSG, (N.D. Cal.)

This is an employment discrimination case brought by Plaintiffs
Daniel Gunther and Sakeenah McCullough against Defendant Xerox
Corporation and various Doe defendants. Both Plaintiffs assert
causes of action for race discrimination, unlawful retaliation,
declaratory relief, and wrongful termination under California's
Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 12920, et
seq. (FEHA). After Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint
(FAC), Xerox removed the action to the Court.

Xerox filed a motion for summary judgment as to Daniel Gunther.

In his Order dated October 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/xbZweyfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gilliam, Jr. denied in
part and granted in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment,
or in the alternative, partial summary judgment regarding Daniel
Gunther.  Specifically, the Court denied Defendant's motion for
summary judgment as to Gunther on his First, Third, and Fourth
Causes of Action and on his prayer for punitive damages. The Court
grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment on Gunther's Second
Cause of Action for Unlawful Retaliation. The Court overrules
Defendant's vaguely asserted objections without prejudice to the
assertion of proper objections, made to specific statements, at
the time of trial or in connection with a future motion.

Xerox responds that those claims regarding Xerox's failure to
promote and compensate him cannot constitute a "continuing
violation" because they achieved a degree of permanence as soon as
someone else was selected for the positions in question. The Court
finds that Gunther's discrimination complaints based on Xerox's
failures to promote him achieved "permanence" prior to February 7,
2011, and cannot be part of a continuing violation.  The Court
finds that all of Gunther's pre-February 7, 2011 discrimination
claims are time barred under Section 12960.

In light of this evidence, the Court finds that Xerox has not
satisfied its burden on summary judgment of demonstrating that
Gunther cannot make a prima facie showing as to each of the
elements of his FEHA claim. The Court finds that Gunther has met
his "hardly onerous" burden of showing that triable issues of fact
exist.  The Court concludes that Gunther has presented enough
evidence to raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether
Xerox violated FEHA in terminating Gunther. As a result, Xerox's
motion for summary judgment as to Gunther's wrongful termination
claim is denied.

The Court finds that Plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief
meets this standard. Further, Gunther has put forth sufficient
evidence to raise a disputed issue of material fact as to
Defendant's motives that, if resolved in his favor at trial, could
justify the requested declaration. Whether this cause of action is
"redundant" can be addressed at trial if necessary. For these
reasons, Defendant's motion for summary judgment on Gunther's
Third Cause of Action is denied.

The motivation of Gunther's managers in deciding to terminate him
is an inherently fact-intensive inquiry to be resolved by a jury,
and Xerox has not presented any argument that would entitle it to
summary judgment on the punitive damages claims as a matter of
law. The Court finds it would be premature to dismiss Gunther's
request for punitive damages, and therefore denied summary
judgment on this claim.

Elizabeth Louise Riles, Esq. -- eriles@strikebacklaw.com -- of
Bohbot & Riles, LLP serves as counsel for Plaintiffs Sakeenah
Mccullough and Daniel Gunther

Kerry McInerney Freeman, Esq. -- kmf@millerlawgroup.com -- and
Janine Syll Simerly, Esq. -- jss@millerlawgroup.com -- of Miller
Law Group serve as counsel Defendant Xerox Corporation


YODLEE INC: Sued in Delaware Over Proposed "Envestnet" Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Guillaume Wieland-Paquet, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Yodlee, Inc., et al., Case No. 11611 (Del.
Ch., October 14, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Yodlee, Inc. to enjoin the proposed acquisition of
all the outstanding shares of Yodlee common stock in a cash and
stock transaction by Envestnet, Inc., through a flawed process and
inadequate consideration.

Yodlee, Inc. operates a technology and applications company whose
platform powers dynamic, cloud-based digital financial services.

Envestnet, Inc. is a financial services company that provides
wealth management software and services to independent financial
advisors and financial institutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com

                - and -

      W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 802-1486
      E-mail: ScottH@JohnsonandWeaver.com


ZAGA PROPERTIES: "Clavijo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Eddy Clavijo, and all others similarly-situated v. Zaga Properties
Inc., Z.G. Properties Inc. and Jennifer Zaga, Case No. 1:15-cv-
23796 (S.D. Fla., October 12, 2015), seeks to recover monetary
damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees
for willful violations of overtime wages and minimum wages under
the laws of the United States, the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants performed through unified operation in remodeling
homes/buildings and/or common control through the management of
Jennifer Zaga who is president of both corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


                            *********

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  * * *