CAR_Public/151109.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 9, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 223


                            Headlines


99 CENTS: Faces "Guerra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend "Schmidt" Case
ABT SRBI: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Young" Suit Claims
ADIEZA CORPORATION: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Securities Action Sought

AETNA INC: Verified Class Action Filed Over Humana Merger
ALP LIQUIDATING: Continues to Defend Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Case
ALPHA 22: "Popovic" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Levin Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN APPAREL: Defending Against "Rodriguez" Action in Del.

AMERICAN APPAREL: Hirschberg Dismissed as Class Suit Plaintiff
AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Customer Action in San Diego
ARTISTIC WELDING: Faces "Zuniga" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AUTHENTIC ENTERTAINMENT: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Says
BAKER HUGHES: Faces "Hebert" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

BEACH HOUSE: Faces "Recinos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BLUE BUFFALO: South Carolina & Louisiana Cases Transferred to MDL
BONDED WATERPROOFING: Sued Over Home Improvement Contract Breach
BROOKFIELD DTLA: Supplemental Brief Filed in Calif. Class Suit
BUMBLE BEE: Faces Thyme Suit Over Canned Seafood-Price Fixing

CAFEPRESS INC: Settlement in Shareholder Case Wins Final Approval
CAMBRIDGE CAPITAL: MOU Reached in Florida State Court Action
CANNAVEST CORP: Management to Defend Against "Sallustro" Action
CHINA COMMERCIAL: "Dennison" Class Action Remains Pending
COATZINGO BAKERY: Faces "Avila" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

COMMUNICAR INCORPORATED: Sued Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
CORPORATE CATERERS: "Aquila" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
COTY INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending
DATA SOFT: Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Northwest Suit Says
DOLLAR TREE: Paid $280,000 to Stockholder Plaintiffs' Counsel

DOORDASH INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Menu Prices
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "Firestone" Suit Over Fantasy Sports
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "Leonard" Suit in Mass. Over Fantasy Sports
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "Pomeroy" Suit in Mass. Over Fantasy Sports
EAI INC: "Sciarra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

EL POLLO: Faces "Huston" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
EL POLLO: Defending Calif. Class Action by Former Employee
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Immerman" Suit Over Data Breach
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Schroeder" Suit Over Data Breach
EXTREME NETWORKS: Class Action in Early Stages of Discovery

FARMER BROS: "Hernandez" Case Stayed Until November 17 Conference
FLOWERS FOODS: Sued Over Failure to Reimburse Drivers' Expenses
FOUR OAKS: Continues to Defend Payday Lending Suits
GYRODYNE CO: Stipulation Reached with Plaintiff in NY Action
HAKKASAN NYC: Faces "Das" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages

HD SUPPLY: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
HOOPER HOLMES: Magistrate's Ruling on Hold Pending Mediation
HSP OF SOUTH FLORIDA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
HUDSON PACIFIC: Defending Fundamental Partners Class Action
HYDROCARBON FLOW: "Favors" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

ICHIBAN MEI: Faces "Zhu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
IDI INC: Named as Defendants in "Heim" Class Action
ISORAY INC: Multiple Complaints in E.D. Wash. Consolidated
KNIGHTED VENTURES: Sued Over Failure to Reimburse Badge Expenses
KO HUTS: Faces "Tiffany" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages

LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Class Actions in California Ongoing
LEVITY ENTERTAINMENT: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
MAHANAIM FACILITY: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MANUEL'S ORIGINAL: Faces "Trujillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MEDBOX INC: Settlement Reached in Securities Class Actions

METALICO INC: Facing Actions Related to Total Merchant Merger
MUNCHIES CAFE: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Village Suit Over Out-of-Market Games
NEW SOURCE: Faces "Vaccaro" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
ON-LINE ADMINISTRATORS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims

PACIFIC VIEW: Faces "Valdespino" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PENNSYLVANIA: DHS Sued Over Failure to Provide Mental Health Care
PIER 1: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports
PREMIER AUTOMOTIVE: Sued in Cal. Over Trade-in Lien Overcharging
PS CONTRACTING: "Agolli" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

PULTE HOME: Sued Over Condominium Project Design Deficiencies
QUIRCH FOODS: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ROLSO INC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Mercado" Suit Says
ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Facing Class Action in C.D. California
ROSS DRESS: "Castellanos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

RUNOUT INC: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Villanueva" Suit Says
SCOOBEEZ INC: Faces "Truong" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SELFHELP COMMUNITY: Summoned to Answer Complaint in New York
SPENDSMART NETWORKS: Defendant in "Marchelos" Action
SPENDSMART NETWORKS: "Telford" Action Resolved for $34,000

STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Faces "Zambrano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TD BANK: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Martinez" Suit Claims
TECO ENERGY: Suits vs. NMGC to be Resolved on Individual Basis
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
TORRANCE MEMORIAL: Overly Charges Self-Pay Patients, Suit Claims

TOSCANOVA 2: "Zavala" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TOWERS WATSON: B.C. Court Approved Settlement in "Weldon" Action
TOWERS WATSON: Faces NJ Building Laborers' Suit Over Willis Deal
TOWERS WATSON: Faces City of Atlanta Complaint Over Willis Merger
TOWERS WATSON: Faces Cyndy Cordell Complaint Over Willis Merger

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Narsis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
UNDER ARMOUR: Involved in Consolidated Stockholders Class Action
UNITED JEANS: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Brodie" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Cleveland Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Dekle" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fela" Suit in Tenn. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Gardner" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Goodwin" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lally" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Strause" Suit Over Defeat Devices
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Class Actions
WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Reporting Time
XPO LAST: Faces "Taveras" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

YAHOO! INC: Illegally Operates Betting Business, Weber Suit Says
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Expert Discovery to be Completed by Jan. 15


                            *********


99 CENTS: Faces "Guerra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Guerra, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC599119 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
October 26, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate two separate 99 Cents Only Store locations
in Oxnard, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
      Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, Esq.
      Brandon K. Brouillette, Esq.
      BOUCHER LLP
      21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903
      Telephone: (818)340-5400
      Facsimile: (818)340-5401
      E-mail: ray@boucher.la
              bhujwala@boucher.la
              brouillette@boucher.la

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818)609-0807
      Facsimile: (818)609-0892
      E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend "Schmidt" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Abeona Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company continues
to defend a class action filed by Alan Schmidt.

Alan Schmidt ("Schmidt"), a former shareholder of Genaera
Corporation ("Genaera"), and a former unitholder of the Genaera
Liquidating Trust (the "Trust"), filed a purported class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in June 2012. The lawsuit named thirty defendants,
including Abeona, MacroChem Corporation, which was acquired by
Abeona in February 2009, Jeffrey Davis, the then-CEO and currently
a director of Abeona, and Steven H. Rouhandeh and Mark Alvino,
both of whom are Abeona directors (the "Abeona Defendants").

With respect to the Abeona Defendants, the complaint alleged
direct and derivative claims asserting that directors of Genaera
and the Trustee of the Trust breached their fiduciary duties to
Genaera, Genaera's shareholders and the Trust's unitholders in
connection with the licensing and disposition of certain assets,
aided and abetted by numerous defendants including the Abeona
Defendants. Schmidt seeks monetary damages, disgorgement of any
distributions received from the Trust, rescission of sales made by
the Trust, attorneys' and expert fees, and costs.

On December 19, 2012, Schmidt filed an amended complaint (the
"Amended Complaint") which asserted substantially the same
allegations with respect to the Abeona Defendants. On February 4,
2013, the Abeona Defendants moved to dismiss all claims asserted
against them. On August 12, 2013 the court granted the Abeona
Defendants' motions to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of
the Abeona Defendants on all claims. On August 26, 2013, Schmidt
filed a motion for reconsideration. On September 10, 2013 Schmidt
filed a Notice of Appeal with the District Court. On September 17,
2013, Schmidt filed his appeal with the U.S. Third Circuit Court
of Appeals (the "Third Circuit"). On September 25, 2013, the
District Court denied Schmidt's motion for reconsideration. On
October 17, 2013, Schmidt amended his appeal to include the
District Court's denial of his motion for reconsideration.

On March 20, 2014, Schmidt filed his Brief and Joint Appendix. On
May 22, 2014, the Abeona Defendants filed their Oppositions to
Schmidt's Brief. On May 29, 2014, Schmidt was granted an extension
of time until June 23, 2014 to file his Reply Brief and filed his
Reply Brief on that date. The Third Circuit held oral argument on
September 12, 2014. On October 17, 2014, in a split decision, the
Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decision holding,
among other things, that the District Court's determination that
the Amended Complaint was time-barred on statute of limitations
grounds was premature. The Third Circuit did not rule upon any of
the other grounds for dismissal advanced in the District Court and
on appeal. The Third Circuit remanded the case to the District
Court for further proceedings.

On January 6, 2015, the District Court ordered the parties to file
supplemental briefs on all remaining arguments for dismissal, and
further ordered that a hearing on the motions to dismiss would be
held on February 3, 2015. On January 23, 2015, the Abeona
Defendants filed their Supplemental Brief.

At the February 3, 2015 hearing, Schmidt sought and was granted
leave to amend his complaint for a second time. Schmidt filed his
Second Amended Complaint on February 3, 2015. The Second Amended
Complaint asserts substantially the same factual allegations with
respect to the Abeona Defendants, but eliminates all causes of
action against the Abeona Defendants except for aiding and
abetting the Genaera directors' and officers' purported breaches
of fiduciary duties, a claim for "punitive damages" and a claim
for rescission of a settlement agreement between the Trust and the
Abeona Defendants.

On March 20, 2015, the Abeona Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint. The Abeona Defendants' motion to
dismiss is fully briefed, and oral argument on the motion was
scheduled for September 30, 2015.

"We intend to continue contesting the claims vigorously," the
Company said.


ABT SRBI: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Young" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
James A. Young, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ABT SRBI Inc., Case No. 2015CH15641 (Ill. Ch. Ct.,
October 28, 2015) seeks to put an end on the Defendant's alleged
illegal conduct in making calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system to the cellular telephone numbers of plaintiff and
others.

ABT SRBI Inc. is an international market and opinion research firm
whose business involves, among other things, conducting surveys by
telephone.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
      Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq.
      BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
      155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 729-5288
      Facsimile: (312) 729-5289
      E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com
              dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com


ADIEZA CORPORATION: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Isaias Pena Rodriguez and other similarly situated individuals v.
Adieza Corporation and Joaquin Diez, Case No. 1:15-cv-23977-FAM
(S.D. Fla., October 22, 2015) is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, Florida 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Securities Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company
filed a motion to dismiss a class action.

In January 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging
certain misstatements and omissions related to the marketing of
JUXTAPID and the Company's financial performance in violation of
the federal securities laws.

On March 11, 2015, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel. On April 1, 2015, the Court entered an order permitting
and setting a schedule for co-lead plaintiffs to file an Amended
Complaint within 60 days, and for defendants to file responsive
pleadings, co-lead plaintiffs to file any opposition, and
defendants to file reply briefs. Accordingly, co-lead plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on June 1, 2015. The amended complaint
filed against the Company and certain of its former executive
officers alleges that defendants made certain misstatements and
omissions during the first three quarters of 2014 related to the
Company's revenue projections for JUXTAPID sales for 2014, as well
as data underlying those projections, in violation of the federal
securities laws.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for
failure to state a claim on July 31, 2015.


AETNA INC: Verified Class Action Filed Over Humana Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
On July 2, 2015, Aetna Inc., Humana Inc. ("Humana"), Echo Merger
Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Aetna ("Merger Sub 1"),
and Echo Merger Sub, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Aetna
("Merger Sub 2"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which, subject to the
satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions, Merger Sub 1 will be
merged with and into Humana, with Humana surviving the merger as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Aetna (the "First Merger"), and
immediately following the First Merger, Humana will be merged with
and into Merger Sub 2, with Merger Sub 2 surviving the merger as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Aetna (the "Second Merger" and together
with the First Merger, the "Mergers"). At the effective time of
the Second Merger, Merger Sub 2 will be renamed Humana LLC.

Aetna Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 14, 2015, that a purported
Aetna shareholder filed on September 3, 2015, a Verified
Shareholder Class Action and Derivative Petition challenging the
Mergers in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania, against the individual members of the Aetna board of
directors (the "Aetna Board") and Aetna. The complaint is
captioned Tomasulo v. Bertolini et al., Case No. 2015-24374 (the
"Complaint"). The Complaint asserts both putative class action
claims (purportedly on behalf of a class of Aetna shareholders)
and derivative claims (purportedly on behalf of Aetna) against the
individual members of the Aetna Board. The Complaint generally
alleges, among other things, that the Aetna Board breached its
fiduciary duties by negotiating and entering into the Merger
Agreement because the Mergers overvalue Humana, the negotiation
process leading to the Mergers was flawed, the Mergers represent
an effort by the Aetna Board to avoid being acquired by the
company referred to as Party A in Aetna's registration statement
on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on August 28, 2015, Aetna senior
management preferred a transaction with Humana to a transaction
with Party A given concerns over their post-transaction continued
employment, and Aetna's registration statement on Form S-4 omits
certain material information.

The Complaint generally seeks, among other things, declaratory and
injunctive relief, preliminary injunctive relief prohibiting or
delaying the defendants from consummating the Mergers, other forms
of equitable relief and unspecified amounts of damages. In
addition, the Aetna Board has received demands from Mr. Tomasulo
(who filed the Complaint) and another purported Aetna shareholder
to investigate and remedy potential or alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties in connection with the Mergers.

In response to these demands, and the subsequently filed
Complaint, the Aetna Board, in accordance with Pennsylvania law
and procedure, appointed a special litigation committee (the
"SLC"), consisting of Edward J. Ludwig (Chairperson), Roger N.
Farah, Ellen M. Hancock and Richard J. Harrington, to, among other
things, investigate and evaluate such demands and the Complaint,
including the allegations and requests for action contained
therein. The SLC has retained independent counsel to assist and
advise it in connection with its investigation and evaluation.
Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the Merger
Agreement and/or the Mergers may be filed in the future.

The merger transaction is valued at approximately $37 billion.

In its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2015, Aetna said it expects the transaction to close in the
second half of 2016 and to finance the cash portion of the
purchase price through a combination of cash on hand and by
issuing approximately $16.2 billion of new debt, including senior
notes, term loans and commercial paper.

On October 19, 2015, Aetna and Humana each obtained the approval
of their respective shareholders necessary for the acquisition of
Humana.


ALP LIQUIDATING: Continues to Defend Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALP Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company continues
to defend the case, Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al.

The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties
as well as other unrelated parties have been named defendants in
an action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case
No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. In this suit
that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003, plaintiffs
purport to bring a class action allegedly arising out of
construction defects occurring during the development of Camellia
Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes.

On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just
and proper. Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the
homes were not adequately built, that the homes were not built in
conformity with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file
with Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly
attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer from
improper shutter storm protection systems. Plaintiffs have filed a
motion to expand the class to include other homes in Weston. The
motion to expand the class was withdrawn.

The case went to mediation on March 11, 2010. The case did not
settle. The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the
amended complaint. The Arvida defendants believe that they have
meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend themselves.

The court concluded its hearings on the motion to certify the
class covering the homes in Camellia Island and certified the
class by order dated September 16, 2010.

On October 15, 2010, the Partnership filed its notice of appeal
challenging the certification order. On June 1, 2011, the
appellate court affirmed the trial court's order certifying the
class. The case has been returned to the trial court for further
proceedings including trial. The parties are engaged in settlement
discussions, but there are no assurances that such discussions
will result in a settlement. The case does not currently have a
trial date. The defense of the case is proceeding.

The Partnership intends to vigorously defend itself. The
Partnership is not able to determine what, if any, loss exposure
that it may have for this matter.

This case has been tendered to one of the Partnership's insurance
carriers, Zurich American Insurance Company (together with its
affiliates collectively, "Zurich"), for defense and indemnity.
Zurich is providing a defense of this matter under a purported
reservation of rights. The Partnership has also engaged other
counsel in connection with this lawsuit. The ultimate legal and
financial liability of the Partnership, if any, in this matter
cannot be estimated with certainty at this time. The Partnership
is unable to determine the ultimate portion of the expenses, fees
and damages, if any, which will be covered by its insurance.


ALPHA 22: "Popovic" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Popovic and other similarly situated individuals v. Alpha 22
LLC d/b/a La Terrasse Restaurant and Sophien Bennaceur, Case No.
33586472 (Fla. 11th Ct., October 22, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade 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) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rapattorncvs.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Levin Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levin Simes LLP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-01816 (D. Colo., October 26, 2015) arises from the Defendants'
and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy
to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic
airline tickets.

The Defendants own and operate the largest airline companies in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig Briskin, Esq.
      MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
      1250 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 300
      Washington, D20036
      Telephone: (202) 822-5100
      E-mail: cbriskin@findjustice.com

         - and -

      Daniel T. LeBel, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW PRACTICE OF DANIEL T. LEBEL
      3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 513-1414
      Facsimile: (415) 563-7848
      E-mail: danlebel@consumerlawpractice.com

         - and -

      Robert Schubert, Esq.
      Willem Jonckheer, Esq.
      Noah Schubert, Esq.
      SCHUBERT, JONCKHEER, KOLBE LLP
      3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 788-4220
      Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
      E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
              wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com


AMERICAN APPAREL: Defending Against "Rodriguez" Action in Del.
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that former employee and
purported shareholder Eliana Gil Rodriguez filed on April 30,
2015, a putative class action lawsuit against Company directors, a
former Company officer, and Standard General L.P. in the Delaware
Chancery Court (Case No. 10944). The lawsuit alleges breach of
fiduciary duty claims in connection with the Company's 2014 annual
meeting, its secondary offering, the Standstill Agreement, the
2014 adoption of a rights plan, and certain amendments to the
bylaws against the former and current Company directors and the
named former Company officer. In addition, the lawsuit alleges
that Standard General aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and requests
that the Court order a revote of the Class A directors.

The Company believes that all such claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously dispute the validity of these claims. The
Company is unable to predict the financial outcome of this matter
at this time, and any views formed as to the viability of these
claims or the financial exposure which could result may change
from time to time as the matter proceeds through its course.
Accordingly, adjustments, if any, that might result from the
resolution of this matter have not been reflected in the
consolidated financial statements. However, no assurance can be
made that this matter together with the potential for reputational
harm, will not result in a material financial exposure, which
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Hirschberg Dismissed as Class Suit Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that former employees Carlos
Hirschberg, Cesar Antonio Palma Cordero, and Dominga Valencia
filed on April 16, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit against
the Company in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California (Case No. 2:15-CV-02827), asserting: (i)
violation of the WARN Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 2101 et seq.); (ii)
violation of the California WARN Act (Labor Code Sec. 1400 et
seq.), and (iii) unfair business practices under California
Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq.). The judge in
this matter has since dismissed Mr. Hirschberg as a plaintiff.

The Company believes that all such claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously dispute the validity of these claims. The
Company is unable to predict the financial outcome of this matter
at this time, and any views formed as to the viability of these
claims or the financial exposure which could result may change
from time to time as the matter proceeds through its course.
Accordingly, adjustments, if any, that might result from the
resolution of this matter have not been reflected in the
consolidated financial statements. However, no assurance can be
made that this matter together with the potential for reputational
harm, will not result in a material financial exposure, which
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Customer Action in San Diego
----------------------------------------------------
American Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a purported customer of
the Company filed on April 2, 2015, a putative class action, (in
San Diego Superior Court (Case No. 37-2015-00011243), for
violations of California Civil Code Sec. 1747.08 relating to the
Company's alleged practices for collecting e-mail addresses in
connection with credit card transactions at its retail stores.

The Company intends to aggressively defend against this matter.
The Company is unable to predict the financial outcome of this
matter at this time, and any views formed as to the viability of
these claims or the financial liability which could result may
change from time to time as the matter proceeds through its
course. Accordingly, adjustments, if any, that might result from
the resolution of this matter have not been reflected in the
consolidated financial statements. However, no assurance can be
made that this matter together with the potential for reputational
harm, will not result in a material financial liability, which
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows.


ARTISTIC WELDING: Faces "Zuniga" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Zuniga v. Artistic Welding, George R. Sandoval, and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC598499 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
October 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate a California corporation that is engaged in
commerce throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Norton, Esq.
      MATTHEW NORTON & ASSOCIATES
      444 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 800
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 624-2894

         - and -

      Matthew F. Archbold, Esq.
      David D. Deason, Esq.
      DEASON & ARCHBOLD
      17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
      Huntington Beach, CA 92647
      Telephone: (949) 794-9560
      E-mail: matthew@yourlaborlawyers.com
              david@yourlaborlawyers.com


AUTHENTIC ENTERTAINMENT: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimi Gupta, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Authentic Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. BC598803 (Cal.
Super. Ct., October 22, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Authentic Entertainment, Inc. owns and operates a production
company that produces and sells reality and documentary television
programming for profit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John P. Kristensen, Esq.
      David L. Weisberg, Esq.
      KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
      12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310)507-7924
      Facsimile: (310)507-7906
      E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
              david@kristensenlaw.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Michael V. Pundeff, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL V. PUNDEFF
      501 W. Broadway, Suite 1780
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 788-5660
      E-mail: mvp@mvplawfirm.com


BAKER HUGHES: Faces "Hebert" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frederique Hebert, and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Baker Hughes Incorporated a/d/b/a Baker Hughes Inteq Drilling
Fluids, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-02566 (W.D. Lo., October 22, 2015)
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Baker Hughes Incorporated operates an oil field services company
at 1100 Baker Hughes Drive, Broussard, LA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth D. St. Pe, Esq.
      KENNETH D. ST. PE, LLC
      311 West University Avenue, Suite A
      Lafayette, LO 70506
      Telephone: (337) 534-4043


BEACH HOUSE: Faces "Recinos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zoila Recinos, and other similarly situated individuals v. Beach
House Hotel, LLC d/b/a Grand Beach Hotel Surfside, 5 Star Service,
Inc., and Gladys Fundora, Case No. 1:15-cv-23971-JAL (S.D. Fla.,
October 22, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate hotels in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, Florida 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


BLUE BUFFALO: South Carolina & Louisiana Cases Transferred to MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the United
States Judicial Panel (the "Panel") on Multi-district Litigation
has issued a Conditional Transfer Order transferring the newly
filed class actions in South Carolina and Louisiana to the MDL.

The Company said, "On May 6, 2014, Nestle Purina Petcare Company
("Nestle Purina") filed a lawsuit against us in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that
we have engaged in false advertising, commercial disparagement and
unjust enrichment (the "Nestle Purina litigation"). Nestle Purina
asserts that, contrary to our advertising and labeling claims,
certain BLUE products contain chicken or poultry by-product meals,
artificial preservatives and/or corn and that certain products in
the BLUE grain-free lines contain grains. Nestle Purina also
alleges that we have made false claims that our products
(including LifeSource Bits) provide superior nutrition and health
benefits compared to our competitors' products."

"In addition, Nestle Purina contends that we have been unjustly
enriched as consumers have paid a premium for BLUE products in
reliance on these alleged false and misleading statements, at the
expense of our competitors. Nestle Purina seeks an injunction
prohibiting us from making these alleged false and misleading
statements, as well as treble damages, restitution and
disgorgement of our profits, among other things. In addition,
Nestle Purina has issued press releases and made other public
announcements, including advertising and promotional
communications through emails and internet and social media
websites that make claims similar to those contained in their
lawsuit. Nestle Purina seeks a declaratory judgment that these
statements are true and do not constitute defamation. Nestle
Purina later amended its complaint a second time to supplement
certain allegations and to add a claim regarding the advertising
for one of our pet treats.

"In addition, eleven related consumer class action lawsuits were
filed on various dates from May 2014 to June 2015, making
allegations similar to Nestle Purina's and seeking monetary
damages and injunctive relief. Other than two consumer class
actions, one of which was recently filed on June 22, 2015 in the
Orangeburg County Court of Common Pleas in the State of South
Carolina and the other on June 29, 2015 in the Orleans Parish
District Court in the State of Louisiana, all of the related
consumer class actions have been consolidated under a Multi-
District Litigation file also pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (the "MDL").

"On August 10, 2015 the United States Judicial Panel (the "Panel")
on Multi-district Litigation issued a Conditional Transfer Order
transferring the newly filed South Carolina and Louisiana cases to
the MDL. Per the procedures of the Panel, the order is stayed for
a 7-day period pending the filing of any opposition and the stay
will be continued until further order of the Panel if a notice of
opposition is filed.

"On May 14, 2014, we filed a lawsuit against Nestle Purina in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
alleging that Nestle Purina has engaged in false advertising,
unfair competition, unjust enrichment and defamation. We allege
that the statements made by Nestle Purina advertising the
allegations of their lawsuit are false and misleading, and we deny
that our product formulas contain chicken or poultry byproduct
meals, artificial preservatives or corn and we deny that any of
our grain-free products contain grains. We also assert that Nestle
Purina's statements falsely imply that our products are not made
in the United States and are subject to quality control issues. We
allege that Nestle Purina's conduct as described in this lawsuit
is aimed at destroying the reputation and goodwill of the BLUE
brand and may induce consumers to make purchasing decisions based
on Nestle Purina's false and misleading representations about the
composition and sourcing of BLUE products. Our complaint in this
lawsuit seeks, among other things, a preliminary and permanent
injunction prohibiting Nestle Purina from disseminating such false
information, as well as damages (including punitive damages),
restitution and disgorgement of all profits attributable to their
false and deceptive advertising. On June 4, 2014, this lawsuit was
consolidated with the Nestle Purina lawsuit. We have since amended
our pleading to name as additional defendants the two advertising
and public relations agencies that assisted Nestle Purina with its
advertising campaign.

"In the course of pretrial discovery in the consolidated Nestle
Purina lawsuit, beginning in September 2014 documents and
information were revealed that indicate that a facility owned by a
major supplier of ingredients to the pet food industry, including
Blue Buffalo, for a period of time, had mislabeled as "chicken
meal" or "turkey meal" ingredients that contained other poultry-
based ingredients that were inappropriate for inclusion in
"chicken meal" or "turkey meal" under industry standards, and it
appears that this mislabeling was deliberate. This conduct was
undertaken by the supplier without our knowledge, and we have
since ceased purchasing ingredients from this supplier. This
supplier was one of our primary sources of chicken meal and turkey
meal. As a result of the supplier's conduct, our advertising
claims of "no chicken or poultry by-product meals" were inaccurate
as to products containing the mislabeled ingredients. Therefore,
we may be exposed to false advertising liability to Nestle Purina
and others to the extent a claimant can prove they were injured by
our actions. Such liability may be material. We have brought
third-party indemnity and damages claims, with respect to the
Nestle Purina lawsuit, against the supplier that mislabeled the
ingredients, as well as the broker for such mislabeled
ingredients, and also have insurance coverage for some of the
Nestle Purina lawsuit claims. We also have brought damages and
indemnity claims against such supplier and broker with respect to
the class action lawsuits. However, we may not be able to fully
recover from such supplier, broker or from our insurance the full
amount of any damages we might incur in these matters.

"On October 15, 2014, we initiated a separate lawsuit against
Nestle Purina in state court in Connecticut. Nestle Purina
subsequently removed the case to the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut, and the Connecticut District
Court then granted Nestle Purina's motion to transfer this matter
to the same court where Nestle Purina's lawsuit against us is
pending. Our complaint in this matter alleges that Nestle Purina
has intentionally engaged in false advertising, unfair trade
practices and unjust enrichment in the promotion and advertisement
of numerous of its products. In particular, our complaint alleges
that Nestle Purina is deceptively advertising that certain high-
quality, wholesome ingredients are present in certain of Nestle
Purina's most popular pet food products in greater amounts, or are
more prevalent in the products in relation to other ingredients,
than is actually the case. In addition, our complaint alleges that
Nestle Purina is deceptively advertising certain of its products
as healthy and nutritious when in fact Nestle Purina knew that
these products were unsafe and were responsible for illness and
even death in many of the dogs that consumed them. And our
complaint alleges that Nestle Purina falsely claims its "Just
Right" brand of dog food is personalized to match each dog's
unique nutritional needs when it consists of only a limited set of
basic ingredient formulas, each of which is substantially similar
to the others. Our complaint seeks an injunction prohibiting
Nestle Purina from continuing these false and misleading
advertisements, as well as damages and disgorgement of profits,
among other things. The matter is in the very early stages of
discovery and pleadings.

"On July 31, 2015, Nestle Purina filed an amended answer in this
case that also asserted counterclaims against us. Nestle Purina
asserted that our complaint does not state viable claims, but that
if a ruling is entered against it then "in the alternative" it
asserts counterclaims that relate to the advertising of a variety
of our products, which Nestle Purina contends are misleading or
deceptive as to the amounts of certain ingredients in those
products. We have not yet responded to or answered Nestle Purina's
counterclaims and believe them to be without merit.

"We believe Nestle Purina's claims and the related class action
lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend
ourselves. Although we have determined that a loss contingency
with respect to the Nestle Purina litigation and related class
action lawsuits is reasonably possible, such litigation and
lawsuits are still in their early stages and the final outcome is
uncertain. In particular, we have determined that the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss resulting from Nestle Purina
proceedings and each of the related class action claims cannot be
reasonably estimated due to the following reasons: (1) the early
stages of the proceedings, (2) the lack of specific damages sought
by the plaintiffs, (3) the uncertainty as to plaintiffs' support
for their damages claim, (4) the uncertainty as to factual issues,
(5) the uncertainty of number of plaintiffs in the related class
action claims and (6) our claims against third party defendants
and counterclaims against Nestle Purina. In the normal course of
business, we are subject to proceedings, lawsuits and other claims
and assessments, which typically include consumer complaints and
post-termination employment claims. We have assessed such
contingent liabilities and believes the potential of these
liabilities is not expected to have a material, if any, effect on
our financial position, our results of operations or our cash
flows."


BONDED WATERPROOFING: Sued Over Home Improvement Contract Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Mann, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Bonded Waterproofing Systems, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No.
L-3603-15 (N.J. Super. Ct., October 21, 2015) is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendants' violation of a home
improvement contract.

Bonded Waterproofing Systems, LLC is a New Jersey limited
liability company that provides professional basement
waterproofing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, New Jersey 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      Facsimile: (973) 244-0019


BROOKFIELD DTLA: Supplemental Brief Filed in Calif. Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Investor Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015,
that parties in a California state court class action filed a
supplemental brief in support of a joint motion and amended form
of notice to the class.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated as of April 24, 2013, as amended (the "Merger
Agreement"), seven putative class actions were filed against
Brookfield Office Properties Inc. ("BPO"), Brookfield DTLA,
Brookfield DTLA Holdings LLC, Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust
Inc., Brookfield DTLA Fund Properties (collectively, the
"Brookfield Parties"), MPG Office Trust, Inc., MPG Office, L.P.,
and the members of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors.
Five of these lawsuits were filed on behalf of MPG Office Trust,
Inc.'s common stockholders: (i) two lawsuits, captioned Coyne v.
MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507342 (the "Coyne Action"),
and Masih v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507962 (the
"Masih Action"), were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in Los Angeles County (the "California State Court") on
April 29, 2013 and May 3, 2013, respectively; and (ii) three
lawsuits, captioned Kim v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No. 24-
C-13-002600 (the "Kim Action"), Perkins v. MPG Office Trust, Inc.,
et al., No. 24-C-13-002778 (the "Perkins Action") and Dell'Osso v.
MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-003283 (the "Dell'Osso
Action") were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland on May 1, 2013, May 8, 2013 and May 22, 2013,
respectively (collectively, the "Common Stock Actions"). Two
lawsuits, captioned Cohen v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No.
24-C-13-004097 (the "Cohen Action") and Donlan v. Weinstein, et
al., No. 24-C-13-004293 (the "Donlan Action"), were filed on
behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on June 20, 2013 and
July 2, 2013, respectively (collectively, the "Preferred Stock
Actions").

In each of the Common Stock Actions, the plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by
failing to maximize the value of MPG Office Trust, Inc. and
ignoring or failing to protect against conflicts of interest, and
that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and
abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Kim Action further
alleges that MPG Office, L.P. also aided and abetted the breaches
of fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors,
and the Dell'Osso Action further alleges that MPG Office Trust,
Inc. and MPG Office, L.P. aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors. On
June 4, 2013, the Kim and Perkins plaintiffs filed identical,
amended complaints in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland. On June 5, 2013, the Masih plaintiffs also filed an
amended complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
in Los Angeles County. The three amended complaints, as well as
the Dell'Osso Action complaint, allege that the preliminary proxy
statement filed by MPG Office Trust, Inc. with the SEC on May 21,
2013 is false and/or misleading because it fails to include
certain details of the process leading up to the merger and fails
to provide adequate information concerning MPG Office Trust,
Inc.'s financial advisors.

In each of the Preferred Stock Actions, which were brought on
behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders, the
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that, by entering into the
Merger Agreement and tender offer, MPG Office Trust, Inc. breached
the Articles Supplementary, which governs the issuance of the MPG
preferred shares, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a merger agreement
that violated the preferred stockholders' contractual rights and
that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and
abetted those breaches of contract and fiduciary duty. On July 15,
2013, the plaintiffs in the Preferred Stock Actions filed a joint
amended complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland that further alleged that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board
of directors failed to disclose material information regarding
BPO's extension of the tender offer.

The plaintiffs in the seven lawsuits sought an injunction against
the merger, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the
merger has been consummated, an award of fees and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees, and other relief.

On July 10, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the Brookfield Parties and
the other named defendants in the Common Stock Actions signed a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU"), regarding a proposed
settlement of all claims asserted therein. The parties
subsequently entered into a stipulation of settlement dated
November 21, 2013 providing for the release of all asserted
claims, additional disclosures by MPG concerning the merger made
prior to the merger's approval, and the payment, by defendants, of
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to
exceed $475,000. After a hearing on June 4, 2014, the California
State Court granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the
settlement, and entered a Final Order and Judgment, awarding
plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount
of $475,000, which was paid by MPG Office LLC on June 18, 2014.
BPO is seeking reimbursement for the settlement payment from MPG's
insurers.

In the Preferred Stock Actions, at a hearing on July 24, 2013, the
Maryland State Court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the tender offer. The plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on November 22, 2013 that added
additional arguments in support of their allegations that the new
preferred shares do not have the same rights as the MPG preferred
shares. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint on December 20, 2013, and briefing on the motion
concluded on February 28, 2014. At a hearing on June 18, 2014, the
Maryland State Court heard oral arguments on the defendants'
motion to dismiss and reserved judgment on the decision. On
October 21, 2014, the parties sent a joint letter to the Maryland
State Court stating that since the June 18 meeting, the parties
have commenced discussions towards a possible resolution of the
lawsuit, requesting that the court temporarily refrain from
deciding the pending motion to dismiss to facilitate the
discussions, and stating that the parties will report to the court
within 45 days of the October 21 letter regarding the status of
their discussions.

Counsel for the parties have reached an agreement to settle the
Preferred Stock Actions on a class-wide basis and dismiss the case
with prejudice in exchange for the payment of $2.25 per share of
Series A preferred stock of accumulated and unpaid dividends to
holders of record on a record date to be set after final approval
of the settlement by the Maryland State Court, plus any attorneys'
fees awarded by the Maryland State Court to the plaintiffs'
counsel. The dividend will reduce the amount of accumulated and
unpaid dividends on the Series A preferred stock, and the terms of
the Series A preferred stock will otherwise remain unchanged. The
agreement is subject to a number of conditions precedent, further
documentation, and approval of the Maryland State Court, after
notice to the class. The parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU") on March 30, 2015 memorializing the
agreement to settle the Preferred Stock Actions, which has been
filed with the Maryland State Court.

On June 1, 2015, the parties filed, with the Maryland State Court,
a joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement ("Joint
Motion") and a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and
Settlement entered into by the parties on May 29, 2015 (the
"Stipulation"), together with ancillary documents. In the
Stipulation, plaintiff's counsel stated, among other things, that
it intends to petition the Maryland State Court for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses of up to $5,250,000. On July 31,
2015, the parties filed a supplemental brief in support of their
Joint Motion and amended form of notice to the class.

While the final outcome with respect to the Preferred Stock
Actions cannot be predicted with certainty, in the opinion of
management after consultation with external legal counsel, any
liability that may arise from such contingencies would not have a
material adverse effect on the financial position, results of
operations or liquidity of Brookfield DTLA.


BUMBLE BEE: Faces Thyme Suit Over Canned Seafood-Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thyme Cafe & Market, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Triunion Seafoods LLC,
and Starkist Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-02411-GPC-DHB (S.D. Cal.,
October 26, 2016) arises out of the Defendants' alleged conspiracy
to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for shelf-stable
seafood products that are sold in cans, pouches, or ready-to-eat
serving packages within the United States.

The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John H. Donboli, Esq.
      Alex M. Outwater, Esq.
      DEL MAR LAW GROUP, LLP
      12250 El Camino Real, Suite 120
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 793-6244
      Facsimile: (858) 793-6005
      E-mail: jdonboli@delmarlawgroup.com
              aoutwater@delmarlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
      Joel Davidow, Esq.
      Daniel M. Cohen, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
              joel@cuneolaw.com
              danielc@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 226-1015
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1819
      E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Taylor Asen, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com


CAFEPRESS INC: Settlement in Shareholder Case Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CafePress Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court entered a
judgement and order granting final approval to the settlement in a
class action lawsuit.

On July 10, 2013, a complaint captioned Desmarais v. CafePress
Inc., et al. CIV-522744 was filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Mateo naming the Company as defendants,
along with certain of its directors, its chief executive officer,
its chief financial officer and certain underwriters of our IPO.
The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers
of shares issued in the IPO and generally alleges that the
registration statement for the IPO contained materially false or
misleading statements. The complaint purports to assert claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief. On July 14, 2013 a similar
compliant making substantially identical allegations and captioned
Jinnah v. CafePress Inc., et al. CIV-522976 was filed in the same
court against the same defendants.

On April 10, 2015, the Company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement (the "Settlement"), reflecting the previously disclosed
terms of the settlement of the class action securities lawsuits
that were consolidated under the caption In re CafePress Inc.
Shareholder Litigation , Master File No. CIV522744 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Mateo Cty.). The proposed Settlement calls for a payment
of $8.0 million to the plaintiffs in resolution of all claims
against the Company and its officers and directors. The Company
paid $500,000 to the Settlement; the balance will be paid by the
Company's directors and officers liability insurance. While the
Company and the other defendants continue to deny each of the
plaintiffs' claims and deny any liability, the Company agreed to
the Settlement solely to resolve the disputes, to avoid the costs
and risks of further litigation and to avoid further distractions
to management. On August 11, 2015 the court entered a judgement
and order granting final approval to the Settlement.


CAMBRIDGE CAPITAL: MOU Reached in Florida State Court Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Cambridge Capital Acquisition Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
defendants in a class action lawsuit have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding.

On March 24, 2015, the Company, the members of the Company's board
of directors and Parakou were named as defendants in a putative
class action and derivative lawsuit captioned Brian Levy v.
Cambridge Capital Acquisition Corp., et al., No. 2015 CA 003339.
The complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial
Circuit of Palm Beach County, Florida (the "Action") by a person
identifying himself as a stockholder of Cambridge.

The complaint generally alleged, among other things, that the
members of the Cambridge board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Cambridge stockholders by approving the
Mergers. The complaint also alleged that there were various
conflicts of interest in the transaction and that such conflicts
of interest were not adequately disclosed to stockholders in the
definitive proxy statement/prospectus that the Company filed with
the SEC on March 27, 2015 (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus"). The
Action sought injunctive relief, damages and reimbursement of
costs, among other remedies.

On April 9, 2015, the plaintiff in the Action filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin temporarily the closing
of the Mergers. On April 15, 2015, the circuit judge set a hearing
date of April 17, 2015 for an emergency hearing on the motion for
preliminary injunction.

The Company, under the advice of legal counsel, believed that the
Action was without merit and that no further disclosure was
required to supplement the Proxy Statement/Prospectus under
applicable laws. However, to eliminate certain burdens, expenses
and uncertainties, on April 16, 2015, defendants in the Action
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the
settlement of claims asserted in the Action and on April 17, 2015,
the plaintiff in the Action filed a notice of withdrawal of its
emergency motion for preliminary injunction and unopposed motion
to cancel the hearing. The Memorandum of Understanding outlines
the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and
release all claims which were or could have been asserted in the
Action. In consideration of the settlement and release, the
parties to the Action agreed, among other things, (i) that the
Company would make certain supplemental disclosures to the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus and (b) to negotiate in good faith to agree
upon a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the court for
approval. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to
customary conditions, including approval by the court, which will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the court will approve
the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such a
stipulation. In that event, the proposed settlement will be null
and void and of no force and effect. If the court approves the
settlement, then the court has the discretion and authority to
award reasonable attorney's fees to plaintiff's counsel.

The Company believes that it is reasonably possible that the
Action could result in a material loss. However, the Company is
not able to estimate the amount. At June 30, 2015, no amounts have
been accrued on the Company's condensed consolidated financial
statements in connection with this Action.


CANNAVEST CORP: Management to Defend Against "Sallustro" Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
CannaVest Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that management intends to
vigorously defend the allegations in a class action lawsuit filed
by Tanya Sallustro.

On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action
complaint (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking
compensatory damages including litigation costs. Ms. Sallustro
alleges that between March 18 and 31, 2014, she purchased 325
shares of the Company's common stock for a total investment of
$15,791. The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and
Current Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April
3, 2014 and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended
previously disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000
were restated to $1,082,375 - reduction of $192,625) and restated
goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero).
Additionally, the Complaint states after the filing of the
Company's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the
following press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30 per
share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share." Subsequent
to the filing of the Complaint, six different individuals filed a
motion asking to be designated the lead plaintiff in the
litigation.

On March 19, 2015, the Court issued a ruling appointing Steve
Schuck as lead plaintiff. Counsel for Mr. Schuck has indicated
that he intends to file a "consolidated amended complaint." The
court has ordered that filing to be made on or before August 24,
2015. The Company has not yet been served with the consolidated
amended complaint but management intends to vigorously defend the
allegations and an estimate of possible loss cannot be made at
this time.


CHINA COMMERCIAL: "Dennison" Class Action Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
China Commercial Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend the class action filed by Andrew Dennison.

On August 6, 2014, a purported shareholder Andrew Dennison filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court District of New Jersey (the "N.J. district court") relating
to a July 25, 2014 press release about the Company's progress in
recovering a significant portion of the $5.4 million the Company
paid in the first quarter of 2014 on behalf of loan guarantee
customers. The action, Andrew Dennison v. China Commercial Credit,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2014-cv-04956, alleges that the Company
and its current and former officers and directors Huichun Qin,
Long Yi, Jianming Yin, Jinggen Ling, Xiangdong Xiao, and John F.
Levy violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting in
prior public filings certain material facts about the risks
associated with its loan guarantee business. On October 2, 2014,
purported shareholders Zhang Yun and Sanjiv Mehrotra (the "Yun
Group") asserted substantially similar claims against the same
defendants in a putative class action captioned Zhang Yun v. China
Commercial Credit, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06136 (D. N.J.).
Neither complaint states the amount of damages sought.

On or about October 6, 2014, Dennison, the Yun Group and another
purported shareholder, Jason Stark, filed motions to consolidate
the cases, be appointed as lead plaintiff and to have their
respective counsel appointed as lead counsel. On October 31, 2014,
the N.J. district court entered an order consolidating the cases
under the caption "In re China Commercial Credit Inc. Securities
Litigation" and appointing the Yun Group as lead plaintiff ("Class
Plaintiff") and the Yun Group's counsel as lead counsel.

On November 18, 2014, the Yun Group and the Company, which at that
point was the only defendant served, entered into a stipulation to
transfer of the case to the Southern District of New York. On
December 18, 2014, Mr. Levy, who had by then been served, joined
in the stipulation. On December 29, 2014, the N.J. district court
entered an order transferring the action. The transfer was
effected on January 22, 2015, and assigned docket number 1:15-cv-
00557-ALC (S.D.N.Y.).

Under the schedule stipulated by the parties, the Yun Group was to
file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date that the
transfer was effected, and the defendants' date to answer or move
was within 60 days of that filing. On April 7, 2015, the Class
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the
"CAC"). The CAC also asserts securities law claims against
defendants Axiom Capital Management, Inc., Burnham Securities Inc.
and ViewTrade Securities, Inc. (collectively, the "Underwriter
Defendants"). The CAC alleges that the Company engaged in a
fraudulent scheme by engaging in undisclosed and improper lending
practices and made misleading representations regarding its
underwriting policies, the loan portfolio quality, the loan loss
allowance, compliance with U.S. GAAP and its internal control
systems.


COATZINGO BAKERY: Faces "Avila" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Avila, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Coatzingo Bakery & Mexican Products Corp. (d/b/a
Coatzingo Bakery), and Rufino Zapata, Case No. 1:15-cv-06073
(E.D.N.Y., October 22, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Mexican bakery/grocery located at
76-11 Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights, NY, 11372.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


COMMUNICAR INCORPORATED: Sued Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------------
Balwinder Singh, et al. v. Communicar Incorporated, et al., Case
No. 711123/2015 (N.Y. Super. Ct., October 26, 2015) arises out of
the Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of
control, favoritism and discrimination in job assignments, gross
mismanagement, waste of the Corporation's assets, theft of the
Corporation's opportunities, misappropriation of the Corporation's
funds and unjust enrichment.

Communicar Incorporated is in the business of providing executive
ground transportation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter M. Kutil, Esq.
      KING & KING, LLP
      27-12 37th Ave.
      Long Island City, N.Y. 11101
      Telephone: (718) 896-6554
      E-mail: pkutil@King-King-Law.com


CORPORATE CATERERS: "Aquila" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Aguila and Teresa Aguila, and other similarly situated
individuals v. Corporate Caterers IV, Inc. and Jim Gass,
Individually, Case No. 33735479 (Fla. 11th Ct., October 27, 2015)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, an additional
equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a catering business in Miami Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COTY INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------
Coty Inc.'s motion to dismiss a securities class action has been
pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, as well as in the
Company's Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2015.

In fiscal 2014, two putative class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company, our directors and certain of our
executive officers, and the underwriters of the IPO alleging
violations of the federal securities laws in connection with our
initial public offering ("IPO"). Those lawsuits were consolidated
under the caption In re Coty Inc. Securities Litigation
("Securities Litigation"), and following the court's appointment
of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, a consolidated and amended
complaint (the "Securities Complaint") was filed on July 7, 2014.
The Securities Complaint asserts claims against Coty Inc., its
directors and certain of its executive officers under Sections 11,
12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"), and seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased
our Class A Common Stock in the IPO, damages of an unspecified
amount and equitable or injunctive relief.

On September 9, 2014, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
claims against the underwriter defendants without prejudice. The
Securities Complaint was further amended on October 18, 2014.

"We have filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Complaint which
has been fully briefed since December 2014. The motion to dismiss
is currently pending. We believe the Securities Complaint is
without merit and intend to vigorously defend it," the Company
said.


DATA SOFT: Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Northwest Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Home Care, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Data Soft Logic Corporation, Case No.
1:15-cv-09382 (N.D. Ill., October 23, 2015) seeks to put an end on
the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited junk faxes in bulk
to unwilling recipients with deficient opt-out notices.

Data Soft Logic Corporation is a creator of web-based software
that has provided its products and services to home health,
hospice and therapy agencies for over 10 years.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 North State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 241-1260
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              isalam@siprut.com


DOLLAR TREE: Paid $280,000 to Stockholder Plaintiffs' Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that after the Family Dollar
Merger Litigation was dismissed, the Company agreed to pay fees
and expenses of $280,000 to counsel for the stockholder
plaintiffs.

In July and August 2014, several stockholders of Family Dollar
Stores, Inc. ("Family Dollar") filed class actions, since
consolidated into one class action, in the Delaware Court of
Chancery (the "Court") against Family Dollar's CEO and board
members alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Dollar Tree and Family
Dollar were also named as defendants for allegedly aiding and
abetting the other defendants. The claimed breach derived from the
execution of the merger agreement dated July 27, 2014, between
Dollar Tree and Family Dollar, which was alleged to offer unfair
and inadequate consideration for Family Dollar stock. The class
action, among other things, sought to prevent the merger, cause
the public disclosure of certain information, and monetary
damages.

On December 19, 2014, the Court denied the stockholder plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunction. On January 2, 2015, the Court
denied stockholder plaintiffs' application for certification of an
interlocutory appeal of that decision. On August 4, 2015, the
Court entered an order dismissing the stockholder actions with
prejudice as to all named plaintiffs, and without prejudice as to
any absent members of the putative class. Pursuant to the order,
the Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
determining stockholder plaintiffs' application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

Plaintiffs' counsel in the stockholder actions expressed their
intention to petition the Court for fees and reimbursement of
expenses in view of additional disclosures made by the Company in
Amendments to the Registration Statement relating to the merger,
which were filed with the SEC on September 25 and October 17,
2014. These filings contained certain information, the disclosure
of which had been sought in the stockholder action, including the
fees paid to Morgan Stanley by Family Dollar during the prior two
years; additional details relating to analyses performed by Morgan
Stanley on Family Dollar's behalf; and additional details on
communications between Dollar Tree and Family Dollar, and between
Family Dollar and Dollar General, during the period leading up to
the transaction.

After the case was dismissed, the Company agreed to pay fees and
expenses of $280,000 to counsel for the stockholder plaintiffs.
The Court has not considered or approved in any way the amount of
this payment of fees and expenses.

Counsel for the stockholder plaintiffs included Donald J. Enright
of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, who can be reached at (212) 363-7500.

Counsel for Dollar Tree included William Savitt --
WDSavitt@wlrk.com -- of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, who can be
reached at (212) 403-1000. Counsel for Family Dollar included
Meredith Kotler -- mkotler@cgsh.com -- of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen
& Hamilton LLP, who can be reached at (212) 225-2000.


DOORDASH INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Menu Prices
----------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Miller, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. DoorDash, Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
BC598691 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 22, 2015) alleges that the
Defendant increased the price of menu items sold to customers
without disclosing such charge.

DoorDash, Inc. operates a delivery service where people can
purchase goods from local merchants and have them delivered in
less than 45 minutes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
      Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
      Heather Baker Dobbs, Esq.
      KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
      2041 Rosecrans Avenue
      Third Floor
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310)536-1000
      Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
      E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
              bvo@kirtlandpackard.com
              hmb@kirtlandpackard.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "Firestone" Suit Over Fantasy Sports
----------------------------------------------------------
Garrett P. Firestone, individually, and on behalf of all others,
similarly situated v. Draftkings, Inc. and Fanduel, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02376-CMA (D. Colo. October 26, 2015) is an action for
damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' acts and
omissions, whereby DFS players such as Plaintiffs and members of
the Classes are induced to invest their money based on the
illusion that the contests offered are operated on a level playing
field, and are not subject to manipulation.

The Defendants are in the business of operating a daily fantasy
sports website.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
      THE HANNON LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
      1641 Downing Street
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (303) 861-8800
      Facsimile: (303) 861-8855
      E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com

         - and -

      Gillian M. Fahlsing, Esq.
      THE HANNON LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
      1641 Downing Street
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (303) 861-8800
      Facsimile: (303) 861-8855
      E-mail: gfahlsing@hannonlaw.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "Leonard" Suit in Mass. Over Fantasy Sports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Leonard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
13644-LTS (D. Mass., October 26, 2015) is an action for damages
proximate result of the Defendants' acts and omissions, whereby
DFS players such as Plaintiffs and members of the Classes are
induced to invest their money based on the illusion that the
contests offered are operated on a level playing field, and are
not subject to manipulation.

The Defendants are in the business of operating a daily fantasy
sports website.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      60 State Street, 7th Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 573-5118
      Facsimile: (617) 371-2950
      E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq.
      D.G. Pantazis Jr., Esq.
      Patrick L. Pantazis, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB LLC
      The Kress Building
      301 Nineteenth Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0531
      Facsimile: (205) 314-0731
      E-mail: dgp@wigginschilds.com
              dgpj@wigginschilds.com
              ppantazis@wigginschilds.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "Pomeroy" Suit in Mass. Over Fantasy Sports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Pomeroy and Patrick Bartholomew, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Draftkings, Inc. and Fanduel,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-13625-GAO (D. Mass., October 22, 2015) is
an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants'
acts and omissions. The complaint says a fantasy sports media
industry has been created whereby DFS players such as Plaintiffs
and members of the Classes are induced to invest their money based
on the illusion that the contests offered are operated on a level
playing field, and are not subject to manipulation.

The Defendants are in the business of operating a daily fantasy
sports website.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
      GILMAN LAW LLP
      8951 Bonita Beach Road, S.E. Suite 525
      Bonita Springs, FL 34135
      Telephone: (781) 307-2526
      E-mail: kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com


EAI INC: "Sciarra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest J. Sciarra, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. EAI, Inc. Executive Abatement Industries,
Case No. 160945/2015 (N.Y. Super. Ct., October 26, 2015) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the New York
Labor Law.

EAI, Inc. Executive Abatement Industries is in the business of
entering into certain contracts, either as a prime or
subcontractor, with certain government agencies, including the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the NYC School
Construction Authority, or with presently unknown prime
contractors, to furnish labor, materials and equipment to perform
work on the Public Works Projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Henry L. Saurborn Jr., Esq.
      KAISER SAURBORN & MAIR, P.C.
      111 Broadway, 18th floor
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 338-9100
      E-mail: saurborn@ksmlaw.com


EL POLLO: Faces "Huston" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Huston, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-
cv-01710 (C.D. Cal., October 22, 2015) alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. develops, franchises, licenses, and
operates quick-service restaurants under the El Pollo Loco name in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Michael Goldberg, Esq.
      GOLDBERG LAW PC
      13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404
      Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
      Telephone: (1800) 977-7401
      Facsimile: (1800) 536-0065
      E-mail: info@callgoldberg.com


EL POLLO: Defending Calif. Class Action by Former Employee
----------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend class action by a former employee.

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, against EPL on behalf of all putative class members (all
hourly employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain
violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay
overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest
breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The
putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory
and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No specific amount of
damages sought was specified in the complaint.

While the Company is vigorously defending against this action,
including its class certification, the ultimate outcome of the
case is presently not determinable as it is in a preliminary
phase. Thus, the Company cannot at this time determine the
likelihood of an adverse judgment nor a likely range of damages in
the event of an adverse judgment. Any settlement of or judgment
with a negative outcome arising from, this lawsuit could have a
material adverse effect.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Immerman" Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Immerman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case
No. 8:15-cv-01715 (C.D. Cal., October 22, 2015) arises out of the
massive hack on Experian's servers that compromised the sensitive
data of T-Mobile's customers and individuals who applied for
credit with T-Mobile.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
      Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      550 West C Street, Suite 1750
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 400-5822
      Facsimile: (619) 400-5832
      E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com
              lindner@stueveseigel.com

         - and -

      Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
      Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
      J. Austin Moore, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
      E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
              vahle@stueveseigel.com
              moore@stueveseigel.com

         - and -

      Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
      David Woodward, Esq.
      HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
      310 Clifton Avenue
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Telephone: (612) 338-4605
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
      E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com
              dwoodward@heinsmills.com

         - and -

      Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
      KARON LLC
      700 W. St. Clair Avenue, Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 622-1851
      Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
      E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com

         - and -

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60613
      Telephone: (312) 750-1265
      E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
              kshamberg@litedepalma.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Schroeder" Suit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Schroeder, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 8:15-
cv-01729-DMG-KES (C.D. Cal., October 26, 2015) arises out of the
massive hack on Experian's servers that compromised the sensitive
data of T-Mobile's customers and individuals who applied for
credit with T-Mobile.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Amy N. L. Hanson, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
              gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              ahanson@kellerrohrback.com


EXTREME NETWORKS: Class Action in Early Stages of Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action involving against Enterasys Networks, Inc., which
has been acquired by Extreme Networks, Inc., is in the early
stages of discovery, the Company revealed in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 14,
2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015.

On or about February 3, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky against Enterasys Networks, Inc. and
two other defendants. The complaint alleges that Enterasys and its
subcontractor, TJL Information Technologies, Inc., d.b.a.
Unbridled Information Technologies ("Subcontractor"), violated
Kentucky's wage and hour laws and failed to pay the prevailing
wage in violation of the Kentucky State Prevailing Wage Act (the
"Act") on various public works projects for a number of Kentucky
government agencies since January 2010. Plaintiffs also allege
common law actions for quantum merit and unjust enrichment and
they seek monetary damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees,
although there was no quantified amount identified. One of the
defendants, Integrated Facility Systems, LLC ("IFS"), has filed a
cross-claim against Enterasys.

The Company denies the claims and has filed answers to both the
complaint and cross-claim on April 16, 2014. In addition, Company
filed a cross-claim for indemnity against IFS and the
Subcontractor. This litigation is in the early stages of
discovery.

Furthermore, the Company made a claim for indemnification to Unify
U.S. Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Enterprise Networks
Holdings, Inc.) ("Seller"), which claim arises pursuant to the
stock purchase agreement between Seller and Extreme in connection
with Extreme's purchase of Enterasys (the "Unify Indemnification
Suit"). The Unify Indemnification Suit was subsequently settled by
Extreme and Seller on June 18, 2015. Given the preliminary nature
of the lawsuit, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a
particular outcome.


FARMER BROS: "Hernandez" Case Stayed Until November 17 Conference
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Farmer Bros. Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 14, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that the Superior Court of State
of California, County of Los Angeles, has issued an order staying
the case, Steve Hernandez vs. Farmer Bros. Co., until the initial
status conference on November 17, 2015.

On July 24, 2015, former Company employee Hernandez filed a
putative class action complaint for damages alleging a single
cause of action for unfair competition under the California
Business & Professions Code. The claim purports to seek
disgorgement of profits for alleged violations of various
provisions of the California Labor Code relating to: failing to
pay overtime, failing to provide meal breaks, failing to pay
minimum wage, failing to pay wages timely during employment and
upon termination, failing to provide accurate and complete wage
statements, and failing to reimburse business-related expenses.
Hernandez's complaint seeks restitution in an unspecified amount
and injunctive relief, in addition to attorneys' fees and
expenses. Hernandez alleges that the putative class is all
"current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt individuals" for the
four (4) years preceding the filing of the complaint through final
judgment, and Hernandez also purports to reserve the right to
establish sub-classes as appropriate.

The court to which the case was initially assigned issued an order
on September 4, 2015 staying this case until the initial status
conference on November 17, 2015 on the basis that the case will be
re-assigned as a "complex" action to the Central Civil West
Courthouse in Los Angeles.

"We intend to timely respond to the complaint once the stay has
been lifted.  At this time, we are not able to predict the
probability of the outcome or estimate of loss, if any, related to
this matter," the Company said.


FLOWERS FOODS: Sued Over Failure to Reimburse Drivers' Expenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Soares and Brian Botelho v. Flowers Foods, Inc., flowers
Baking Co. of California, Flowers Baking Co. of Modesto, Flowers
Bakeries Brands, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
5:15-cv-04918-PSG (N.D. Cal., October 26, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to reimburse all expenses and losses
necessarily incurred by the delivery drivers in connection with
their employment.

The Defendants are in the wholesale bakery business, delivering to
and stocking baked goods at retail grocery store outlets,
restaurants, and other retail store outlets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Rukin, Esq.
      Valerie Brender, Esq.
      RUKIN HYLAND DORIA & TINDALL LLP
      100 Pine Street, Suite 2150
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 421-1800
      Facsimile: (415) 421-1700
      E-mail: prukin@rhdtlaw.com
              vbrender@rhdtlaw.com

         - and -

      Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
      Beth Ross, Esq.
      Elizabeth Gropman, Esq.
      LEONARD CARDER, LLP
      1330 Broadway, Suite 1450
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 272-0169
      Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
      E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
              bross@leonardcarder.com
              egropman@leonardcarder.com


FOUR OAKS: Continues to Defend Payday Lending Suits
---------------------------------------------------
Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc. continues to defend class actions over
"payday lending" practices, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

In October 2013, multiple putative class action lawsuits were
filed in United States district courts across the country against
a number of different banks based on the banks' alleged role in
"payday lending". Four of these lawsuits, filed in the Northern
District of Georgia, the Middle District of North Carolina, the
District of Maryland, and the Southern District of Florida, named
the Bank as one of the defendants. The lawsuits allege that, by
processing Automatic Clearing House transactions indirectly on
behalf of "payday" lenders, the Bank is illegally participating in
an enterprise to collect unlawful debts and is therefore liable to
plaintiffs for damages under the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act. The lawsuits also allege a variety of
state law claims.

The Bank moved to dismiss each of these lawsuits. The Georgia
action was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs and the
District of Maryland granted the motion and dismissed the case,
which the parties subsequently settled while on appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Of the two
remaining lawsuits, there are no updates to the lawsuit in the
Southern District of Florida, which, as previously reported, has
been stayed pending arbitration of the plaintiff's claims against
the Bank's co-defendants. The Middle District of North Carolina
granted the motion in part and denied it in part; the case is
proceeding in the district court.


GYRODYNE CO: Stipulation Reached with Plaintiff in NY Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Gyrodyne Company of America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a
stipulation was reached with the plaintiff in a lawsuit in New
York.

On July 3, 2014, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company and members of
its board of directors (the "Individual Defendants"), and against
Gyrodyne Special Distribution LLC, and Gyrodyne, LLC
(collectively, the "Defendants"), in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Suffolk (the "Court"), captioned
Cashstream Fund, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Paul L. Lamb, et al., Index No. 065134/2014 (the
"Action"). The plaintiff in the Action alleges that (i) the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties or aided and
abetted the breach of those duties in connection with the Merger
and (ii) the Company and the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information in
the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. The plaintiff in the Action
seeks, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger,
requiring corrective disclosures in the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, compensatory and/or rescissory damages, and
interest, attorney's fees, expert fees and other costs.

On July 17, 2014, the Court signed an Order to Show Cause
submitted by the plaintiff setting a return date of August 5, 2014
on plaintiff's motion for an order (a) preliminarily enjoining
consummation of the Merger and (b) granting expedited discovery.
The plaintiff subsequently withdrew its motion without prejudice
and the Court scheduled a preliminary conference in the case for
October 20, 2014, which has been adjourned until September 14,
2015. The Defendants believe the lawsuit is without merit.

During the first quarter of 2015, the Company became aware that
various aspects of the plaintiff's claims in the Action were
interfering with the proposed sale of certain of the Company's
real properties. As stated above, the Defendants believe the
lawsuit is without merit. The Company has vigorously defended such
action and taken steps to seek to eliminate the issues created by
the pending action that are impeding the sale of such properties
so that it will be able to liquidate the properties proposed to be
sold with no impact to fair value, assuming the market itself does
not materially change during the period the Company needs to
resolve such issues. As a result of this interference in the sale
process, however, the Company believed during the first quarter of
2015 that it no longer met the requirements for such assets and
liabilities to qualify as assets and liabilities as held for sale
and discontinued operations and therefore did not report
discontinued operations for the year ended December 31, 2014 and
the three months ended March 31, 2015.

In June 2015, the Company entered into a stipulation with the
plaintiff which was filed with the Supreme Court of New York,
County of Suffolk on July 8, 2015. The Stipulation allows GSD to
consummate arms' length asset sales, provided the plaintiff is
given 30 days' notice of the price and the name of appraiser, and
provides for the plaintiff's agreement not to seek rescission or
interfere with the use of proceeds to pay transaction expenses,
repay mortgage loans to the Company, repay credit lines to the
Company or repay ordinary course obligations. Because the
plaintiff agreed in the Stipulation not to seek rescission with
respect to any arms' length asset sales, the Company concluded
that the requirements for such assets and liabilities to qualify
as assets and liabilities held for sale and discontinued
operations are once again met and therefore is reporting
discontinued operations for the three and six-months ended June
30, 2015.


HAKKASAN NYC: Faces "Das" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Debashis R. Das, on behalf of himself and on behalf of other
similarly-situated individuals v. Hakkasan NYC LLC, Hakkasan
Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-08411-WHP (S.D.N.Y, October
26,2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Chinese restaurant located at 311
West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeanne M. Christensen, Esq.
      Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 257-6800
      Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
      E-mail: jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com
              trahman@wigdorlaw.com


HD SUPPLY: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Weisberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HD Supply, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-08248-
RSWL-MRW (C.D. Cal., October 21, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of sending spam advertisements and
promotional offers, via text messages to consumers cellular
telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system.

HD Supply, Inc. provides personal home and bath products to
hundreds of thousands of consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


HOOPER HOLMES: Magistrate's Ruling on Hold Pending Mediation
------------------------------------------------------------
Hooper Holmes, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a Magistrate's ruling
is on hold while the parties pursue the possibility of conducting
a mediation.

On May 24, 2012, a complaint was filed against the Company in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to pay
overtime compensation to a purported class of certain independent
contractor examiners who, the complaint alleges, should be treated
as employees for purposes of federal law. The complaints seek
award of an unspecified amount of allegedly unpaid overtime wages
to certain examiners. The Company filed an answer denying the
substantive allegations therein.

On August 1, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation to conditionally certify the class of all contract
examiners from August 16, 2010, to the present. On August 29,
2014, the Company submitted its objections to the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate's ruling
concerning those objections is on hold while the parties pursue
the possibility of conducting a mediation. If the case is not
resolved in mediation, and if the Magistrate's decision stands,
notice will be sent to contractors who performed work for the
Company within this time period. The claim is not covered by
insurance, and the Company is incurring legal costs to defend the
litigation which are recorded in continuing operations. This
matter relates to the former Portamedic service line for which the
Company retained liability.


HSP OF SOUTH FLORIDA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Mitte, and other similarly situated individuals v. HSP of
South Florida Inc. and Javier D. Sanchez, Case No. 33709839 (Fla.
11th Ct., October 27, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid minimum wage compensation, an additional
equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a not-for-profit health care
organization in Miami Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HUDSON PACIFIC: Defending Fundamental Partners Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. and Hudson Pacific Properties,
L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, that, "Following the December 8, 2014
announcement that our company and operating partnership had
entered into the asset purchase agreement with the sponsor
stockholders, a punitive class action lawsuit was filed on January
22, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Francisco, captioned Fundamental Partners, v. Hudson
Pacific Properties, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-15-543775. The
complaint names as defendants, among other parties, our company
and the members of our board of directors, and alleges, among
other claims, that our directors breached their fiduciary duties
by "effectively" selling control to the sponsor stockholders and
by failing to disclose purportedly material information to
stockholders in connection with the purchase agreement. The
complaint seeks, among other things, an order enjoining or
rescinding the purchase agreement and an award of attorneys' fees
and other costs. On February 26, 2015, plaintiff filed an ex parte
motion for a preliminary injunction against our company. The Court
denied plaintiff's ex parte motion in its entirety on March 4,
2015.

"We believe the complaint has no merit and intend to vigorously
defend against plaintiff's allegations," the Company said.


HYDROCARBON FLOW: "Favors" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirt Favors, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Hydrocarbon Flow Specialist, Inc., Case No. 6:15-
cv-02570 (W.D. Lo., October 22, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Hydrocarbon Flow Specialist, Inc. operates a drill cuttings
and fluid management company that supplies vacuum units and
cuttings boxes to contain drilling related waste.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
      417 W. University Ave.
      Post Office Box 4325
      Lafayette, LA 70502
      Telephone: (337) 235-5294
      Facsimile: (337) 235-1095
      E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com

         - and -

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


ICHIBAN MEI: Faces "Zhu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Yanping Zhu, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated v. Ichiban Mei Rong Li Inc. d/b/a Ichiban
Japanese & Chinese Restaurant, Shu Jie Xiao, Mei Rong Li, John Doe
and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01264-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y.,
October 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Japanese & Chinese Restaurant
located at 338 Central Avenue, Albany, NY 12206.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IDI INC: Named as Defendants in "Heim" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
IDI, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that on or about July 22, 2015, IDI,
Inc., Peter W.H. Tan, Derek Dubner, and Jacky Wang were named as
defendants in a class action complaint alleging violations of the
U.S. federal securities laws, captioned Garrett Heim v. IDI, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 9:15-CV-81019-BB, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida. In the estimation of
our management, this lawsuit does not represent a material risk to
our financial condition at this time; however, due to the early
stage of litigation and limited information available at this
time, our management can offer no assurances as to the outcome of
such litigation, including the possibility that any outcome could
be more adverse to the company than currently anticipated. In
addition, it is possible similar lawsuits may be filed in the
future, about which we can also not offer any assurance.


ISORAY INC: Multiple Complaints in E.D. Wash. Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
IsoRay, Inc said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 14, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2015, that an order was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington in which the multiple
complaints were consolidated into a single action in that
district.

On May 22, 2015, the first of multiple class action complaints
alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed in
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and in
the Eastern District of Washington against IsoRay, Inc., Dwight
Babcock (CEO and Chairman of the Board) and Brien Ragle (CFO).
The complaints, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
IsoRay, Inc. common stock from May 20, 2015 through and including
May 21, 2015, asserts claims related to a press release on May 20,
2015 regarding a May 19 online publication of the peer-reviewed
article in the journal Brachytherapy titled "Analysis of
Stereotactic Radiation vs. Wedge Resection vs. Wedge Resection
Plus Cesium-131 Brachytherapy in Early-Stage Lung Cancer" by Dr.
Bhupesh Parashar, et al. and seeks, among other things, damages
and costs and expenses.

An order dated August 17, 2015 was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington in which the multiple
complaints were consolidated into a single action in that
district, appointing a group of lead plaintiffs and appointing
their choice of lead counsel. The order provided the plaintiffs
with the opportunity to amend the complaint.

"We cannot predict the outcome of such proceedings or provide an
estimate of damages, if any. We believe that these claims are
without merit and intend to defend them vigorously," the Company
said.


KNIGHTED VENTURES: Sued Over Failure to Reimburse Badge Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Gerton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Knighted Ventures, LLC, Fortiss, LLC, and Does 1-50,
Case No. RG15790325 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 21, 2015) is an
action for damages as a result of the Defendants' policy of
requiring employees to pay for the cost and expense of acquiring
and maintaining a gaming badge.

Knighted Ventures, LLC is a third party propositional player
service provider.

Fortiss, LLC provides human resource services to gaming
establishments and third party propositional player services in
the state of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
      Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
      Leah L. Jones, Esq.
      THIERMAN BUCK LLP
      7287 Lakeside Drive
      Reno, CA 89511
      Telephone: (775) 284-1500
      Facsimile: (775) 703-5027


KO HUTS: Faces "Tiffany" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tiffany, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Ko Huts, Inc. and Chisholm Enterprises, Inc., Case No.
5:15-cv-01190-HE (W.D. Okla., October 21, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate approximately 40 Pizza Hut
franchise stores in Oklahoma, Kansas and Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
      Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
      PAUL McINNES LLP
      601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Telephone: (816) 981-8100
      Facsimile: (816) 981-8101
      E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com
              mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com

         - and -

      Chase McBride, Esq.
      RICE LAW FIRM
      1401 S. Douglas Blvd., Suite A
      Midwest City, OK 73130
      Telephone: (405) 732-6000
      Facsimile: (405) 737-7446
      E-mail: chase@ricelawfirm.net

         - and -

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com


LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Class Actions in California Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Lattice Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13,
2015, for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that class
action lawsuits in California are ongoing.

On or about January 29, 2015, Silicon Image, members of its Board,
the Company and the Company's wholly-owned merger acquisition
subsidiary were named as defendants in two complaints filed in
Santa Clara Superior Court by alleged stockholders of Silicon
Image in connection with the proposed merger of Silicon Image and
the Company. Both complaints were dated January 29, 2015 and were
captioned respectively Molland v. George, et al. and Stein v.
Silicon Image, Inc. et al. Five additional complaints were
subsequently filed on January 30, 2015, February 4, 2015 and
February 9, 2015 in Delaware Chancery Court by alleged
stockholders of Silicon Image, Inc. in connection with the Merger,
captioned respectively Pfeiffer v. Martino et al.; Lipinski v.
Silicon Image, Inc. et al.; Feldbaum et al. v. Silicon Image, Inc.
et al; Nelson v. Silicon Image, Inc. et al. and Partansky v.
Silicon Image, Inc. et al. The five Delaware matters were
subsequently consolidated into an action captioned In re Silicon
Image Stockholders Litigation by order of the Delaware Chancery
Court on February 11, 2015, and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed in the matter on February 13, 2015. Two complaints
captioned Tapia v. Silicon Image, Inc. et al. and Caldwel v.
Silicon Image, Inc. were also filed on February 4, 2015 and
February 9, 2015 in Santa Clara Superior Court by alleged
stockholders in connection with the merger. Amended complaints
were filed in the Molland and Stein actions on February 11, 2015.
The parties have reached a tentative settlement in this matter,
subject to final court approval.

Each of these lawsuits are purported class actions brought on
behalf of Silicon Image stockholders, asserting claims against
each member of the Silicon Image Board for breach of fiduciary
duty, and against various officers of the Silicon Image, the
Company, and the Company's wholly-owned merger subsidiary for
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits allege
that the Merger does not appropriately value Silicon Image, was
the result of an inadequate process, and includes preclusive deal
devices. The amended complaints also assert that the Silicon
Image's disclosures regarding the Merger in its Schedule 14D-9
omitted material information regarding the Merger. Each of these
complaints purport to seek unspecified damages. The parties have
reached a tentative settlement agreement in the Delaware case,
subject to court approval, which we consider to be immaterial to
our Consolidated Statements of Operations. The California cases
are ongoing but are subject to a motion to stay which was
scheduled to be heard on or about August 28, 2015.


LEVITY ENTERTAINMENT: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
D. Workman and R. Cosner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Levity Entertainment Group, LLC, et al.,
Case No. BC598375 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 20, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage and
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Levity Entertainment Group, LLC operates a production company for
the production of a television series tentatively entitled "Black
Jesus".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAHANAIM FACILITY: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Caridad Hernandez, Gaudencia Rodriguez, Odalis Mirabal and other
similarly situated individuals v. Mahanaim Facility Services
L.L.C. and Martha Marmol, Case No. 33713452 (Fla. 11th Ct.,
October 27, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid minimum wage compensation, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Mahanaim Facility Services L.L.C. is a Florida corporation that is
engaged in interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MANUEL'S ORIGINAL: Faces "Trujillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irene Trujillo, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. Manuel's Original El
Tepeyac Cafe, Inc., El Tepeyac Restaurant Management Corporation,
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC598508 (Cal. Super.
Ct., October 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

The Defendants own and operate El Tepeyac Restaurant throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald H. Bae, Esq.
      Olivia D. Scharrer, Esq.
      AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP
      A Professional Law Corporation
      1156 E. Green Street, Suite 200
      Pasadena, CA 91106
      Telephone: (213)674-6080
      Facsimile: (213)674-6081


MEDBOX INC: Settlement Reached in Securities Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Medbox, Inc. (OTCQB: MDBX), a cannabis company focused on quality
products, compliance, operational excellence and continuous
innovation, on Oct. 22 announced it has reached agreement in
principle for a global settlement with pending class action and
derivative plaintiffs who filed lawsuits against the company,
certain current and prior directors and executives and others,
regarding financial results for the fiscal years ended December
31, 2012 and 2013, each of the interim quarters for those years
and the first three quarters of fiscal 2014, along with other
matters.

"We entered into a global settlement to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation," said Jeff Goh, Medbox
President and interim Chief Executive Officer, who recently also
became a member of the Medbox Board of Directors.

Medbox said the settlement, which provides for the release and
dismissal of all asserted claims, is contingent on final court
approval in the derivative and class cases, and is not expected to
have a material adverse effect on the company's financial position
or results of operations.

As disclosed in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, class actions and
derivative lawsuits were filed against and purportedly on behalf
of the Company captioned (1) Josh Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., et al.,
in the U.S. District Court for Central District of California; (2)
Matthew Donnino v. Medbox, Inc., et al., in the U.S. District
Court for Central District of California; (3) Ervin Gutierrez v.
Medbox, Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for Central
District of California; (4) Mike Jones v. Guy Marsala, et al., in
the U.S. District Court for Central District of California; (5)
Jennifer Scheffer v. P. Vincent Mehdizadeh, et al., in the Eighth
Judicial District Court of Nevada; (6) Kimberly Y. Freeman v.
Pejman Vincent Mehdizadeh, et al., in the Eighth Judicial District
Court of Nevada; (7) Tyler Gray v. Pejman Vincent Mehdizadeh, et
al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada; (8)
Robert J. Calabrese v. Ned L. Siegel, et al., in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada; (9) Patricia des Groseilliers v.
Pejman Vincent Mehdizadeh, et al., in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada; (10) Michael A. Glinter v. Pejman Vincent
Mehdizadeh, et al., in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles.

The complaints named as defendants the Company, prior and current
members of the board of directors of the Company, and prior and
current officers of the Company. The complaints alleged that the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding its financial results for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2013 and each of the interim
financial periods during those years and for each of the first
three interim financial periods for the fiscal year ended 2014.
The derivative lawsuits alleged breach of fiduciary duties, unjust
enrichment, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, and
breach of duty of honest services.

On January 21, 2015 Josh Crystal on behalf of himself and of all
others similarly situated filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for Central District of California against Medbox,
Inc., and certain past and present members of the Board (Pejman
Medizadeh, Bruce Bedrick, Thomas Iwanskai, Guy Marsala, and
Douglas Mitchell). The suit alleges that the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding its financial
results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and each of
the interim financial periods that year. The plaintiff seeks
relief of compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses
or all damages sustained as a result of the wrongdoing.

On January 18, 2015, Ervin Gutierrez filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The
suit alleges violations of federal securities laws through public
announcements and filings that were materially false and
misleading when made because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose that the Company was recognizing revenue in a manner that
violated US GAAP. The plaintiff seeks relief for compensatory
damages and reasonable costs and expenses or all damages sustained
as a result of the wrongdoing.

On January 29, 2015, Matthew Donnino filed a class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for Central District of California. The
suit alleges that the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding its financial results for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and each of the interim
financial periods that year. The plaintiff seeks relief for
compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses or all
damages sustained as a result of the wrongdoing.

On April 23, 2015, the Court issued an Order consolidating the
three related cases in this matter: Crystal v. Medbox, Inc.,
Gutierrez v. Medbox, Inc., and Donnino v. Medbox, Inc., and
appointing a lead plaintiff. On July 27, 2015 Plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Company was slated to file a
responsive pleading on or before September 25, 2015.

On October 16, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks, and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the parties to the class
actions and derivative lawsuits entered into settlements, that
collectively effect a global settlement of all claims asserted in
the class actions and the derivative actions. The global
settlement provides, among other things, for the release and
dismissal of all asserted claims. The global settlement is
contingent on final court approval, respectively, of the
settlements of the class actions and derivative actions. The final
terms of the settlements will not have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial position or results of operations.


METALICO INC: Facing Actions Related to Total Merchant Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metalico, Inc. on June 15, 2015, entered into a Merger Agreement
with Total Merchant Limited ("Parent") and its wholly owned
subsidiary, TM Merger Sub Corp. ("Merger Sub"), to sell the
Company to Parent by means of merging it with Merger Sub. The all-
cash deal will include a payment to Metalico's stockholders of
$0.60 for each share of Metalico common stock owned by them as of
the date of closing.

Metalico said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that since the announcement of the
execution of the Merger Agreement described above on June 16,
2015, six putative stockholder class action complaints have been
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: (1) John
Detore v. Metalico, Inc. et al., No. 11177, filed on June 19,
2015; (2) Radovan Pinto v. Metalico, Inc. et al., No. 11183, filed
on June 22, 2015; (3) Charles Morales v. Metalico, Inc. et al.,
No. 11187, filed on June 22, 2015; (4) Daniel Malkiel v. Metalico,
Inc., et al., No. 11196, filed on June 24, 2015; (5) David Britten
v. Metalico, Inc., et al., No. 11197, filed on June 24, 2015; and
(6) Muhammad A. Arshad v. Carlos E. Agero et al., No. 11259,
filed on July 7, 2015; collectively referred to as the "Delaware
Complaints." In addition, four putative stockholder class action
complaints have been filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Union County: (1) Robert Lowinger v. Carlos E.
Agero et al., filed on June 22, 2015 (the "Lowinger Complaint"),
(2) Zlatomir Vergiev v. Carlos E. Agero et al., filed on June 24,
2015 (the "Vergiev Complaint"); (3) Avi Cooper v. Metalico, Inc.,
et al, filed on June 24, 2015 (the "Cooper Complaint"); and (4)
John Solak v. Metalico, Inc. et al., filed on June 29, 2015 (the
"Solak Complaint"); collectively referred to as the "New Jersey
Complaints." The New Jersey Complaints have been consolidated into
the Vergiev action (the "Consolidated Action"), and the plaintiff
in the Consolidated Action has filed an Amended Complaint (the
"Amended Consolidated Complaint" and, collectively with the
Delaware Complaints, the "Complaints"). The parties currently
contemplate staying the Delaware Complaints and proceeding with
the Consolidated Action.

Individuals who purport to be Company stockholders have filed the
Complaints, which all name individual Metalico directors and
Merger Sub. The Delaware Complaints name the Company and Total
Merchant Limited ("Parent") as defendants in addition to the
individual Metalico directors and TM Merger Sub Corp. ("Merger
Sub"). The Amended Consolidated Complaint names Parent as a
defendant in addition to the individual Metalico directors and
Merger Sub. The Complaints generally claim that by agreeing to
sell the Company to Parent pursuant to the Merger Agreement, the
individual directors breached their fiduciary duties to
stockholders by, among other things, allegedly failing to maximize
stockholder value and agreeing to deal-protection devices that
allegedly preclude competing offers from emerging. The Complaints
further allege Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty by the Company's individual directors. The
Complaints further allege that Parent aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual Metalico
directors. One Delaware Complaint, Charles Morales v. Metalico,
Inc. et al. , No. 11187, further alleges that Metalico aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company's
individual directors.

"Based on our review of the Complaints, the Company believes that
the claims advanced therein are without merit and they intend to
svigorously defend against them. The Company maintains Directors
and Officers insurance with a maximum liability limit of $15.0
million and a deductible of $500 thousand. There can be no
assurances, however, that the Company will be successful in such
defense. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the
merger agreement or the merger may be filed in the future."


MUNCHIES CAFE: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Odalys Garcia and other similarly situated cashiers v. Munchies
Cafe # 2 Inc. and Eduardo Roque, Case No. 33710697 (Fla. 11th Ct.,
October 27, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Village Suit Over Out-of-Market Games
--------------------------------------------------------------
Village Pub, LLC, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. National Football League, Inc., NFL
Enterprises LLC, DirecTV, LLC, and DirecTV Holdings LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-08241 (C.D. Cal., October 21, 2015) seeks to enjoin the
ongoing unreasonable restraint of trade that Defendants have
implemented through DirecTV's exclusive arrangement to broadcast
all Sunday afternoon out-of-market games.

National Football League, Inc. is an unincorporated association of
32 American professional football teams in the United States.

NFL Enterprises, LLC was organized to hold the broadcast rights of
the 32 NFL teams and license them to providers and other
broadcasters.

DirecTV Holdings, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and
has its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway,
El Segundo, California. DirecTV is a direct broadcast satellite
service provider and broadcaster.

DirecTV, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company that has
its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway, El
Segundo, California. DirecTV, LLC issues bills to its subscribers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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: clebsock@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Mark Reinhardt, Esq.
      Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
      Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
      REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
      E 1250 First National Bank Building
      332 Minnesota Street
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (651) 287-2100
      Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
      E-mail: m.reinhardt@rwblawfirm.com
              g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
              r.yard@rwblawfirm.com


NEW SOURCE: Faces "Vaccaro" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enrico Vaccaro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. New Source Energy Partners L.P., et al., Case No.
653497/2015 (N.Y. Super. Ct., October 21, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

New Source Energy Partners L.P. is in the business of providing
well site services in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter C. Harrar, Esq.
      Correy A. Kamin, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue, l0th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
      E-mail: harrar@whafh.com
              kamin@whafh.com

         - and -

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
      570 Lexington Ave., 19th floor
      New York, NY, 10022
      Telephone: (212) 702-7054
      E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

         - and -

      Michael E. Criden, Esq.
      CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
      7301 S.W. 5ih Court, Suite 515
      South Miami, FL 33143
      Telephone: (305) 357-9018
      Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
      E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com


ON-LINE ADMINISTRATORS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Trenz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. On-Line Administrators, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-
cv-08356 (C.D. Cal., October 26, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing unauthorized telephone calls to
the cellular telephone numbers of consumers and to obtain redress
for all persons injured by its conduct.

On-Line Administrators, Inc. operates a marketing company located
at 26025 Mureau Road, Calabasas, CA 91302.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deval R. Zaveri, Esq.
      James A. Tabb, Esq.
      ZAVERI TABB APC
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 398-4767
      Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
      E-mail: dev@zaveritabb.com
              jimmy@zaveritabb.com

         - and -

      James R. Patterson, Esq.
      Allison H. Goddard, Esq.
      PATTERSON LAW GROUP
      402 W. Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-6990
      Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
      E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com
              ali@pattersonlawgroup.com


PACIFIC VIEW: Faces "Valdespino" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Heriberto Valdespino, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Pacific View Inc., Silda D. Chavez Morazan, Case
No. 1:15-cv-23958-DPG (S.D. Fla., October 21, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a residential care facility in
Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


PENNSYLVANIA: DHS Sued Over Failure to Provide Mental Health Care
-----------------------------------------------------------------
J.H., by and through his next friend, Flo Messier; L.C., et al. v.
Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02057-SHR (M.D. Penn., October 22, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide timely and adequate mental
health care for persons who have been found incompetent to stand
trial on criminal charges.

Pennsylvania Department of Human Services is a state agency
designated to administer or supervise the administration of
competency restoration treatment in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Witold J. Walczak, Esq.
      Paloma Wu, Esq.
      ACLU OF PENNSYLVANIA
      247 Fort Pitt Blvd.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 681-7864
      Facsimile: (412) 681-8707
      E-mail: info@aclupa.org

         - and -

      David P. Gersch, Esq.
      Stephen E. Fenn, Esq.
      Victoria L. Killion, Esq.
      Nicole B. Neuman, Esq.
      ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
      601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
      Washington, D.C. 20001
      Telephone: (202) 942-5125
      Facsimile: (202) 942-5999
      E-mail: David.Gersch@aporter.com
              Stephen.Fenn@aporter.com
              Victoria.Killion@aporter.com
              Nicholas.Nyemah@aporter.com


PIER 1: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------
Town of Davie Police Pension Plan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander
W. Smith, and Charles H. Turner, Case No. 3:15-cv-03415-L (N.D.
Texas, October 21, 2015) alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Pier 1 Imports, Inc. is a retailer of decorative home furnishings
and gifts imported from countries around the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. McCown, Esq.
      NESBITT VASSAR & MCCOWN, L.L.P
      15851 Dallas Parkway, Suite 800
      Addison, TX 75001
      Telephone: (972) 371-2420
      Facsimile: (972) 371-2410
      E-mail: jmccown@nvmlaw.com

         - and -

      Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
      Avi Josefson, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1285 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 554-1400
      Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
      E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
              avi@blbglaw.com


PREMIER AUTOMOTIVE: Sued in Cal. Over Trade-in Lien Overcharging
----------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Lee, an individual, and on behalf of herself, and all
others similarly situated v. Premier Automotive of West Covina,
LLC, et al., Case No. BC598671 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 22, 2015)
is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's practice
of overcharging for the Trade-in Lien at line and  misrepresenting
the terms of the down payment.

Premier Automotive of West Covina, LLC is engaged in the business
of buying, repairing and re-selling used vehicles to the general
public, and, taking vehicles in trade.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Liberty, Esq.
      LOUIS LIBERTY, & ASSOCIATES, a PLC
      553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A
      Foster City, CA 94404
      Telephone: (650) 341-0300
      Facsimile: (650)341-0302


PS CONTRACTING: "Agolli" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blendi Agolli and Percy Bonilla, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. PS Contracting of NJ Inc.,
Zoria Housing, LLC, Technico Construction Services, Inc., US
Specialty Insurance Co., and John Doe Bonding Company, Case No.
160843/2015 (N.Y. Super. Ct., October 22, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in construction business in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PULTE HOME: Sued Over Condominium Project Design Deficiencies
-------------------------------------------------------------
428 Alice Owners Association v. Pulte Home Corporation, Pulte
Group, Inc., Pulte Homes, Inc., and Does 1-15 200, Inclusive, Case
No. RG15791011 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 26, 2015) arises out of
the development, design and construction of 428 Alice, a
24 mixed-use condominium project that contains deficiencies in,
amongst other components, the curtain walls, exterior cladding,
flashing, waterproofing, roofs, windows doors, doors, vents,
private terraces, courtyard, mechanical systems, electrical
systems, plumbing systems, subgrade waterproofing and the garage
and basements, sprinklers, and fire protection systems, elevators,
as well as product and installation defects.

The Defendants own and operate a home building company
headquartered in Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tyler P. Berding, Esq.
      Chad T. Thomas, Esq.
      BERDING & WElL LLP
      2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500
      3 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 838-2090
      Facsimile: (925) 820-5592
      E-mail: tberding@berding-weil.com
              cthomas@berding-weil.com


QUIRCH FOODS: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tirso R. Mendoza, and all others similarly situated v. Quirch
Foods Co. and Ignacio J. Quirch, Case No. 1:15-cv-24005-KMW (S.D.
Fla., October 26, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Quirch Foods Co. is an importer, exporter, and distributor of food
products to the retail and food service trade.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


ROLSO INC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Mercado" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reymundo Mercado a/k/a Toni Mercado, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. Rolso, Inc. d/b/a Novecentos, Fredric
J. Rolando, Hector Rolotti, Hernan Caeiro, Fernando Dallors, Case
No. 653559/2015 (N.Y. Super. Ct., October 26, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate Novecentos restaurant located at
343 W. Broadway, New York 10013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Facing Class Action in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Root9B Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company and three
senior executives of the Company are named as defendants in a
class action proceeding filed on June 23, 2015, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint violations of the federal
securities laws on behalf of a class of persons who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock between December 1, 2014 and
June 15, 2015.  In general, the complaint alleges that false or
misleading statements were made or that there was a failure to
make appropriate disclosures concerning the Company's cyber
security business and products.  We cannot predict the outcome of
this lawsuit; however, the Company believes that the claims lack
merit and intends to defend against the lawsuit vigorously.  The
Company has hired counsel to represent the defendants.


ROSS DRESS: "Castellanos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Castellanos, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Ross Dress For Less Inc. d/b/a DD'S Discounts and Michael
O'Sullivan, Case No. 33707807 (Fla. 11th Ct., October 27, 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 Standard Act.

The Defendants operate chain of off-price department stores in
Miami Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RUNOUT INC: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Villanueva" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigoberto G. Villanueva, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Runout, Inc. d/b/a First Break Cafe and Anthony P.
Luong, Case No. 1:15-cv-01395-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va., October 26, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a bar, restaurant and billiard
parlor known as "First Break Cafe" located at 46970 Community
Plaza, Ste. 200, Sterling, Virginia 20164.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell I. Batt, Esq.
      SULLIVAN, TALBOTT & BATT
      77 S. Washington St., Suite 304
      Rockville, MD 20850
      Telephone: (301) 340-2450 ext. 13
      Facsimile: (301) 424-8280
      E-mail: mbatt@verizon.net


SCOOBEEZ INC: Faces "Truong" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Taree Truong, Khaled Alkojak, Olga Georgieva, and cynthia
Miller, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated
v. Scoobeez, Inc., et al., Case No. BC598993 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
October 27, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the California
Labor Code.

Scoobeez, Inc. is a California corporation that operates a courier
and delivery service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beth Ross, Esq.
      Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
      Elizabeth Gropman, Esq.
      LEONARD CARDER, LLP
      1330 Broadway, Suite 1450
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 272-0169
      Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
      E-mail: bross@leonardcarder.com
              akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
              egropman@leonardcarder.com


SELFHELP COMMUNITY: Summoned to Answer Complaint in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
In Maxine Pindling-Dyer, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Selfhelp Community Services, Inc., Case No.
710975/2015 (N.Y. Super. Ct., October 21, 2015), the Defendants
have been summoned and required to answer the complaint in the
action and to serve a copy of the answer, on the Plaintiff's
attorney within 21 days after completion of service of the
summons, exclusive of the day of service, or within 31 days after
service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered
within the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPENDSMART NETWORKS: Defendant in "Marchelos" Action
----------------------------------------------------
Spendsmart Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Intellectual Capital
Management, LLC dba SMS Masterminds and SpendSmart Networks, Inc.
were named on July 8, 2015, in a potential class-action lawsuit
entitled Peter Marchelos, et al v. Intellectual Capital
Management, et al, filed in the United States District Court
Eastern District of New York relating to alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. This litigation
involves the same licensee and merchant as the Telford lawsuit and
the same attorneys represent the plaintiffs in this action.  The
complaint alleges that SMS Masterminds sent unsolicited text
messages to the plaintiff and other recipients without the prior
express invitation or permission of the recipients and such
plaintiff is now seeking unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

"We believe Plaintiff's allegations have no merit and will
vigorously defend against Plaintiff's claims.  Litigation is
subject to numerous uncertainties and we are unable to predict the
ultimate outcome of this or any other matter. Moreover, the amount
of any potential liability in connection with this lawsuit will
depend, to a large extent, on whether a class in a class action
lawsuit is certified and, if one is certified, on the scope of the
class, neither of which we can predict at this time. These and any
future lawsuits that we may face regarding these issues could
materially and adversely affect our results of operations, cash
flows and financial condition, cause us to incur significant
expenses and divert the attention of our management and key
personnel from our business operations," the Company said.


SPENDSMART NETWORKS: "Telford" Action Resolved for $34,000
----------------------------------------------------------
Spendsmart Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Intellectual Capital
Management, LLC dba SMS Masterminds was named on January 1, 2014,
in a potential class-action lawsuit titled Telford v. Intellectual
Capital, et al, filed in the United States District Court Eastern
District of New York relating to alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA").  The
Company believes the Plaintiff's allegations have no merit but
based upon the economics of continued litigation, the Company
resolved the lawsuit in May 2015 for the sum of $34,612, and the
action is no longer pending.


STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Faces "Zambrano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Zambrano, et al. v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08410 (S.D.N.Y., October 26, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC is a transportation and
logistics provider for health care companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Maimon Kirshenbaum, Esq.
      Denise A. Schulman, Esq.
      JOSEPH & KIRSHENBAUM LLP
      32 Broadway, Suite 601
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640
      Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
      E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com
              denise@jhllp.com


TD BANK: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Martinez" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TD Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-07712-
JBS-AMD (D.N.J., October 26, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of placing unauthorized telephone calls to the cellular
telephone numbers of consumers and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by its conduct.

TD Bank USA, N.A. is a provider of residential banking services
and oversees millions of residential banking, loan, and credit
accounts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC
      1072 Madison Avenue, Suite 1
      Lakewood, NJ 08701
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
      E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

         - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com
              nlarry@edelson.com

         - and -

      Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
      409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 222-7429
      Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
      E-mail: Danielshay@sandiegobankruptcynow.com


TECO ENERGY: Suits vs. NMGC to be Resolved on Individual Basis
--------------------------------------------------------------
TECO Energy, Inc. and Tampa Electric Company said in their joint
Form 10-Q report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 5, 2015, that a settlement has been reached with all
the named plaintiff class representatives in both of the class
actions involving New Mexico Gas Company, and those settlements
were on an individual basis and not a class basis.

In February 2011, NMGC experienced gas shortages due to weather-
related interruptions of electric service, weather-related
problems on the systems of various interstate pipelines and in gas
fields that are the sources of gas supplied to NMGC, and high
weather-driven usage. This gas supply disruption and high usage
resulted in the declaration of system emergencies by NMGC causing
involuntary curtailments of gas utility service to approximately
28,700 customers (residential and business).

In March 2011, a customer purporting to represent a class
consisting of 32,000 customers who had their gas utility service
curtailed during the early-February 2011 water-related system
emergencies filed a putative class action lawsuit against NMGC. In
March 2011, the town of Bernalillo, New Mexico, purporting to
represent a class consisting of all New Mexico municipalities and
governmental entities who have suffered damages as a result of the
natural gas utility shut off also filed a putative class action
lawsuit against NMGC, four of its officers, and John and Jane Does
at NMGC. In July 2011, the plaintiff in the Bernalillo class
action filed an amended complaint to add an additional plaintiff
purporting to represent a class of all similarly situated New
Mexico private businesses and enterprises.

TECO Energy said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 14, 2015, that
the two purported class action suits (three purported classes)
were consolidated. The class actions were dismissed in their
entirety with prejudice in October 2014 and appeals from the
dismissal were taken by the plaintiffs in November 2014 and were
pending.

In September 2015, a settlement was reached with all the named
plaintiff class representatives in both of the class actions. The
settlements were on an individual basis and not a class basis.

TECO also noted that 18 insurance carriers have filed two
subrogation lawsuits for monies paid to their insureds as a result
of the curtailment. These subrogation matters are pending and
discovery is proceeding. NMGC has filed motions to dismiss, and
the motions are pending.


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Fraser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TerraForm Global, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-535963
(Cal. Super. Ct., October 23, 2015) alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

TerraForm Global, Inc. operates a renewable energy company that
owns long-term contracted wind, solar and hydro-electric power
plants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Lesley F Portnoy, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com
              lportnoy@glancylaw.com


TORRANCE MEMORIAL: Overly Charges Self-Pay Patients, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ancellade Valmont, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Torrance Memorial Medical Center and Does 1 through
25, inclusive, Case No. BC599152 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 27,
2015) arises out of the Defendants' Emergency Department Financial
Consent Conditions of Admission contract that gives it the right
to charge its self-pay patients using its own internally developed
rate schedule known as a "Chargemaster," which consists of
allegedly artificial, grossly inflated rates.

Torrance Memorial Medical Center is a non-profit corporation which
owns and operates a hospital emergency facility in Los Angeles
County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gretchen Carpenter, Esq.
      CARPENTER LAW
      1230 Rosecrans Ave., Ste. 300
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (424) 456-3183
      E-mail: gretchen@gcarpenterlaw.com

         - and -

      Barry L. Kramer, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BARRY L, KRAMER
      9550 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. 253
      Las Vegas, NV 89123
      Telephone: (702) 778-6090
      E-mail: kramerlaw@aol.com


TOSCANOVA 2: "Zavala" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Zavala, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Toscanova 2 LP, and Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Case
No. BC599148 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 27, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Toscanova 2 LP owns and operates a restaurant in Los Angeles,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
      RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
      1010 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100
      Torrance, CA 90501
      Telephone: (310) 961-9600
      Facsimile: (310)961-9094
      E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com


TOWERS WATSON: B.C. Court Approved Settlement in "Weldon" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Towers Watson & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Supreme Court of
British Columbia has approved the settlement agreement in a class
action by James Weldon.

On July 14, 2009, James Weldon, an employee of Teck Metals, Ltd.
("Teck") commenced an action against Teck and Towers Perrin Inc.
(now known as Towers Watson Canada Inc.). On October 17, 2011,
Leonard Bleier, a former employee of Teck, sued Teck and Towers
Perrin. Aside from their employment status, the allegations in the
action commenced by Bleier (retired from Teck in 2006) were
substantively similar in all material respects to those in the
action commenced by Weldon (employed by Teck at the time the
action commenced). Both actions were brought in the Supreme Court
of British Columbia, and that court consolidated the actions on
June 21, 2012.

On October 1, 2012, the Company filed a response to the
plaintiffs' consolidated and amended claim denying the legal and
factual basis for the plaintiffs' claim. On December 21, 2012, the
court certified the consolidated case as a class action.
At all times relevant to the plaintiffs' claim, Towers Perrin
acted as the actuarial advisor for Teck's defined benefit pension
plan. According to the plaintiffs' allegations, in 1992 and on
Towers Perrin's advice, Teck offered its non-union, salaried
employees a one-time option to continue participation in Teck's
defined benefit pension plan or to transfer to a newly established
defined contribution plan. The plaintiffs also allege that Towers
Perrin assisted Teck in preparing -- and that Towers Perrin
approved -- informational materials and a computer-based modeling
tool that Teck distributed to eligible employees prior to the
employees electing whether to transfer. Several hundred employees
elected to transfer from the defined benefit pension plan to the
defined contribution plan on January 1, 1993.

The plaintiff class comprises 429 current and former Teck
employees who elected to transfer from the defined benefit pension
plan to the defined contribution plan.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, alleged that Towers Perrin
was professionally negligent and that Teck and Towers Perrin
breached statutory and fiduciary duties and acted deceitfully by
providing incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading information to
participants in Teck's defined benefit plan regarding the option
to transfer to the defined contribution plan. Principally, the
plaintiffs alleged that the risks of the defined contribution plan
-- including investment risk and annuity risk -- were downplayed,
either negligently or with the specific intent of causing eligible
employees to transfer to the defined contribution plan.

The plaintiffs also sought assorted declaratory relief; an
injunction reinstating them and all class members into the defined
benefit plan with full rights and benefits as if they had not
transferred; disgorgement against Teck; damages in the amount
necessary to provide the plaintiffs and all class members with the
pension and other benefits they would have accrued if they had not
transferred; interest as allowed by law; and such further and
other relief as to the court may seem just.

In a settlement agreement dated October 31, 2014, the Company,
plaintiffs, and Teck agreed to resolve all claims in this
litigation, without any admission of wrongdoing. The Supreme Court
of British Columbia approved the settlement agreement at an
approval hearing on July 24, 2015. Payment of the settlement funds
has been made, and the Company's role in the litigation has been
concluded.


TOWERS WATSON: Faces NJ Building Laborers' Suit Over Willis Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Towers Watson & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a lawsuit challenging
the Towers Watson and Willis Group Holdings plc merger was filed
on July 9, 2015, in the Court of Chancery, State of Delaware, by
alleged Company stockholders, the New Jersey Building Laborers'
Statewide Annuity Fund and the New Jersey Building Laborers'
Statewide Pension Fund (the "New Jersey Building Laborers'
Complaint") on behalf of a putative class comprised of all public
stockholders of the Company other than any named Defendants or
affiliates who are Company stockholders.  The New Jersey Building
Laborers' Complaint names as defendants the Company, the members
of its board of directors, Willis and Merger Sub. The New Jersey
Building Laborers' Complaint generally alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Company stockholders
by agreeing to merge the Company with Willis through an inadequate
and unfair process which led to inadequate and unfair
consideration and by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices.
The New Jersey Building Laborers' Complaint further alleges that
Willis and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by the Company's directors. The Towers Watson
Defendants have not yet responded to the New Jersey Building
Laborers' Complaint and intend to defend themselves vigorously
against the claims asserted therein.  The asserted loss is not
quantified.

On June 29, 2015, Towers Watson entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Towers Watson | Willis Merger Agreement") by and
among Towers Watson, Willis Group Holdings plc, an Irish public
limited company ("Willis"), and Citadel Merger Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Willis
("Willis Merger Sub").


TOWERS WATSON: Faces City of Atlanta Complaint Over Willis Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Towers Watson & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a lawsuit challenging
the Towers Watson and Willis Group Holdings plc merger was filed
on July 10, 2015, in the Court of Chancery, State of Delaware, by
an alleged Company stockholder, the City of Atlanta Firefighters
Pension Fund (the "City of Atlanta Firefighters Complaint") on
behalf of a putative class comprised of all public stockholders of
the Company other than any named Defendants or affiliates who are
Company stockholders. The City of Atlanta Firefighters Complaint
names as defendants the Company, the members of its board of
directors, Willis and Merger Sub.  The substantive assertions and
allegations against defendants to the City of Atlanta Firefighters
Complaint are the same, or substantially the same, as in the New
Jersey Building Laborers' Complaint; and the relief sought by
plaintiffs in the City of Atlanta Firefighters Complaint is the
same, or substantially the same, as is sought in the New Jersey
Building Laborers' Complaint. The Towers Watson Defendants have
not yet responded to the City of Atlanta Firefighters Complaint
and intend to defend themselves vigorously against the claims
asserted therein. The asserted loss is not quantified.

On June 29, 2015, Towers Watson entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Towers Watson | Willis Merger Agreement") by and
among Towers Watson, Willis Group Holdings plc, an Irish public
limited company ("Willis"), and Citadel Merger Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Willis
("Willis Merger Sub").


TOWERS WATSON: Faces Cyndy Cordell Complaint Over Willis Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Towers Watson & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a lawsuit challenging
the Towers Watson and Willis Group Holdings plc merger was filed
on July 31, 2015, in the Court of Chancery, State of Delaware, by
an alleged Company stockholder, Cyndy Cordell (the "Cordell
Complaint") on behalf of a putative class comprised of all public
stockholders of the Company other than any named Defendants or
affiliates who are Company stockholders. The Cordell Complaint
names as defendants the Company, the members of its board of
directors, Willis and Merger Sub.  The substantive assertions and
allegations against defendants to the Cordell Complaint are the
same, or substantially the same, as in the New Jersey Building
Laborers' Complaint, and in the City of Atlanta Firefighters'
Complaint; and the relief sought by plaintiffs in the Cordell
Complaint is the same, or substantially the same, as is sought in
the New Jersey Building Laborers' Complaint and the City of
Atlanta Firefighters' Complaint.  The Towers Watson Defendants
have not yet responded to the Cordell Complaint and intend to
defend themselves vigorously against the claims asserted therein.
The asserted loss is not quantified.

On June 29, 2015, Towers Watson entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Towers Watson | Willis Merger Agreement") by and
among Towers Watson, Willis Group Holdings plc, an Irish public
limited company ("Willis"), and Citadel Merger Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Willis
("Willis Merger Sub").


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Narsis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nahabet Narsis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Does 1 to 100 inclusive,
Case No. BC599027 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 27, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Uber Technologies, Inc. operates a transportation network company
headquartered in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
      Gregg Lander, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
      5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
      Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
      Telephone: (323) 549-9100
      Facsimile: (323) 549-0101
      E-mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com
              Lander@kbarnes.com

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356-4229
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818)609-0892
      E-mail: SahagII@aol.com


UNDER ARMOUR: Involved in Consolidated Stockholders Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015, that the
Company is involved in a consolidated class action lawsuit brought
against the Company and the members of the Company's Board of
Directors on behalf of purported stockholders of the Company in
connection with the creation by the Company of a new class of
common stock, referred to as the Class C common stock, par value
$0.0003 1/3 per share. The Company announced that it has agreed
with the plaintiffs not to distribute or pay a dividend consisting
of shares of Class C common stock until 10 business days after a
judgment is entered by the trial court and becomes final for
purposes of appeal or, if a motion to stay or enjoin the
distribution or dividend pending an appeal is filed by the
plaintiffs during that 10 business day period, during the pendency
of the motion.


UNITED JEANS: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Reyes, Melvin Ajcip, individually, and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. United Jeans
International, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
BC598956 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 26, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

United Jeans International, Inc. is a California corporation that
is engaged in commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Hawkins, Esq.
      Alaine Patti-Jelsvik, Esq.
      9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949)387-7200
      Facsimile: (949)387-6676
      E-mail: iames@iameshawkinsaplc.com
              alaine@iameshawkinsaplc.com


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Potter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., J.
Michael Pearson, Howard B. Schiller, and Robert L. Rosiello, Case
No. 3:15-cv-07658 (D.N.J. October 22, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

The Defendants own and operate a specialty pharmaceutical and
medical device company that develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of branded, generic, and branded generic pharmaceuticals,
over-the-counter products, and medical devices, such as contact
lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic surgical equipment, and
aesthetics devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
      COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
      Park 80 West-Plaza One
      250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
      Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
      Telephone: (201) 845-9600
      Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
      E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0063
      Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
      E-mail:  frankj@johnsonandweaver.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Brodie" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Juliet Brodie, Aaron Tarnow, Carrie Scott, and Daniel Sullivan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-13744-
GCS-EAS (E.D. Mich., October 22, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged intentional installation of so-called "defeat
devices" on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles
sold in the United States since 2009, that work by switching on
the full emissions control systems in cars only when the car is
undergoing periodic emissions testing.

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:

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

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Cleveland Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland University-KC f/k/a Cleveland Chiropractic College and
The Cleveland Chiropractic College Foundation, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01376-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., October
22, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged intentional
installation of so-called "defeat devices" on at least 482,000
diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States
since 2009, that allowed such cars to temporarily reduce emissions
during testing, whole achieving higher performance and fuel
economy, as well as discharging dramatically higher emissions,
when testing was not conducted.

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:

      Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
      Joshua S. Devore, Esq.
      S. Doughlas Bunch, Esq.
      Elizabeth A. Aniskevich, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
      Suite 500, East Tower
      Washington, DC 20005-3965
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
      E-mail: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
              jdevore@cohenmilstein.com
              dbunch@cohenmilstein.com
              eaniskevich@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Dekle" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Dekle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-01263-HES-JRK (M.D. Fla., October 22, 2015) arises out of
the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of so-called
"defeat devices" on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles sold in the United States since 2009, that allowed such
cars to temporarily reduce emissions during testing, whole
achieving higher performance and fuel economy, as well as
discharging dramatically higher emissions, when testing was not
conducted.

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:

      Andrew M. Bonderud, Esq.
      THE BONDERRUD LAW FIRM, P.A.
      814 A1A North, Suite 202
      Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082
      Telephone: (904) 438-8082
      Facsimile: (904) 800-1482
      E-mail: Bonderudlaw@gmail.com

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fela" Suit in Tenn. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Michael Fela on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00294-CLC-CHS (E.D. Tenn., October 26, 2015) is brought on behalf
of all the persons in the United States who own, owned, lease or
leased one or more of the following 2.0 liter diesel-engine
vehicles: the 2009 to 2015 model year Volkswagen Jetta; the 2009
to 2014 model year Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen; the 2010 to 2015
model year Volkswagen Golf; the 2012 to 2015 model year Volkswagen
Beetle; the 2012 to 2015 model year Volkswagen Beetle Convertible;
the 2012 to 2015 model year Volkswagen Passat; the 2015 model year
Volkswagen Golf Sportwagen; and the 2010 to 2015 model year Audi
A3, with a software program known as a "defeat device" that only
fully engages the vehicles' emission control systems when the
vehicles are undergoing federal and state emissions standards
compliance testing.

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:

      Ronald J. Berke, Esq.
      Jeremy M. Cothern, Esq.
      Charles A. Flynn, Esq.
      BERKE, BERKE & BERKE
      420 Frazier Avenue
      Chattanooga, TN 37405
      Telephone: (423) 266-5171
      Facsimile: (423) 265-5307


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Gardner" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Patrick Gardner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-13790-JEL-DRG (E.D. Mich., October 26, 2015)
arises out of the Defendants alleged intentional installation of
so-called "defeat devices" on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen
and Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Goodwin" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul J. Goodwin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-13646-MLW (D. Mass., October 26, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants alleged intentional installation of so-called "defeat
devices" on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles
sold in the United States since 2009.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George T. Campbell III, Esq.
      BACKUS, MEYER & BRANCH, LLP
      116 Lowell Street
      Manchester, NH 03104
      Telephone: (603) 668-7272

         - and -

      Charles "Dee" Hopper, Esq.
      LYNCH, HOPPER, SALZANO & SMITH, LLP
      1640 Alta Drive, Suite 11
      Las Vegas, NV 89106
      Telephone: (702) 868-1115


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lally" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edmond L. Lally, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
8:15-cv-02526-RAL-TGW (M.D. Fla., October 26, 2015) arises out of
the Defendants alleged intentional installation of so-called
"defeat devices" on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Guy M. Bums, Esq.
      Jonathan S. Coleman, Esq.
      JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL &BURNS, LLP
      Post Office Box 1100
      Tampa, FL 33601-1100
      Telephone: (813) 225-2500
      Facsimile: (813) 223-7118
      E-mail: GuyB@jpfirm.com
              JonathanC@jpfirm.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Strause" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
John Strause and Sean T. O'Brien, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01398-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., October 26, 2015)
arises out of the Defendants alleged intentional installation of
so-called "defeat devices" in approximately 482,000 Affected
Vehicles sold in the United States, to switch on the full
emissions control systems in the Affected Vehicles only when the
car is undergoing periodic emissions testing.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen E. Baril, Esq.
      Gray B. Broughton, Esq.
      KAPLAN VOEKLER CUNNINGHAM & FRANK PLC
      1401 East Gary Street
      Richmond, VA 23112
      Telephone: (804) 823-4000
      Facsimile: (804) 823-4099
      E-mail: sbaril@kv-legal.com
              gbroughton@kv-legal.com


WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend class actions brought by former models.

On October 24, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit brought by
former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others (the "Shanklin
Litigation"), naming the Company's subsidiaries Wilhelmina
International and Wilhelmina Models, Inc. (the "Wilhelmina
Subsidiary Parties"), was initiated in New York State Supreme
Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented
plaintiffs in the prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa
Raske (the "Raske Litigation"). The claims in the Shanklin
Litigation include breach of contract and unjust enrichment and
are alleged to arise out of matters relating to those matters
involved in the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and
reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model
images.  Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin
Litigation include other model management companies, advertising
firms, and certain advertisers. The Company believes the claims
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself and its
subsidiaries.

On January 6, 2014, the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for
failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be
granted and other grounds, and other defendants have also filed
motions to dismiss. The court has stayed all discovery in the case
pending resolution of these motions.  On March 3, 2014, the judge
assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the New
York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention,
generally describing the claims asserted therein against the model
management defendants, and stating that the case "may involve
matters in the public interest."  The judge's letter also enclosed
a copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation, which dismissed
that case.

Plaintiffs have retained substitute counsel, who has filed a
Second Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint
asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs'
management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.
In addition, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that the
plaintiff models were at all relevant times employees, and not
independent contractors, of Wilhelmina and the model management
defendants, and that defendants violated the New York Labor Law in
several respects, including, among other things, by allegedly
failing to pay the models the minimum wages and overtime pay
required thereunder, not maintaining accurate payroll records, and
not providing plaintiffs with full explanations of how their wages
and deductions therefrom were computed.  The Second Amended
Complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action,
damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest,
costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court deems
proper. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the
Second Amended Complaint.


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Reporting Time
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harley Shine, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Williams-Sonoma Inc., d/b/a Pottery Barn,
Pottery Barn Kids, West Elm, and Rejuvenation, Williams-Sonoma
Stores, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC598805
(Cal. Super. Ct., October 22, 2015) arises out of the Defendants'
alleged wage theft -- the practice of scheduling employees in
retail stores for "on-call" shifts but failing to pay the
employees required reporting time pay.

The Defendants own and operate retail stores doing business under
the brand names Williams-Sonoma, Pottery Bam, Pottery Bam Kids,
West Elm, and Rejuvenation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick McNicholas, Esq.
      Michael J. Kent, Esq.
      McNICHOLAS & McNICHOLAS, LLP
      10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90024-4338
      Telephone: (310) 474-1582
      Facsimile: (310) 475-7871

         - and -

      Jason M. Frank, Esq.
      Scott H. Sims, Esq.
      EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP
      520 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1400
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949)706-7000
      Facsimile: (949)706-7050

         - and -

      Richard K. Bridgford, Esq.
      Michael H. Artinian, Esq.
      BRIDGFORD GLEASON & ARTINIAN
      26 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 831-6611
      Facsimile: (949) 831-6622
      E-mail: Richard.Bridgford@bridgfordlaw.com
              Mike.Artinian@bridgfordlaw.com


XPO LAST: Faces "Taveras" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Taveras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. XPO Last Mile, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01550 (D. Conn.,
October 26, 2016) is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

XPO Last Mile, Inc. is in the business of providing the delivery
of retail merchandise to its customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard E. Hayber
      HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
      Employee Rights Advocates
      221 Main Street
      Hartford, CT 06106
      Telephone: (860) 522-8888
      E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
      Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
              mthomson@llrlaw.com


YAHOO! INC: Illegally Operates Betting Business, Weber Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Weber v. Yahoo!, Inc., d/b/a Yahoo! Sports Daily Fantasy,
Case No. CV-15-853114 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, October 22, 2015) is
brought against the Defendant for Ohio Revised Code and Ohio's
tort laws, specifically by operating an illegal online sports
betting business within the State of Ohio.

Yahoo!, Inc. operates a technology company headquartered in
Sunnyvale, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David L. Harvey III, Esq.
      Matthew B. Abens, Esq.
      Jason T. Hartzell, Esq.
      HARVEY ABENS IOSUE CO., LPA
      3404 Lorain A venue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 651-0256
      Facsimile: (216) 651-1131
      E-mail: dvdharv@harvlaw.com
              mbabens@harvlaw.com
              jhartzell@harvlaw.com


ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Expert Discovery to be Completed by Jan. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zebra Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that pursuant to the
Court's current scheduling order, expert discovery is expected to
be completed by January 15, 2016, in In re Symbol Technologies,
Inc. Securities Litigation.

In connection with the acquisition of the Enterprise business from
Motorola Solutions, Inc., the Company acquired Symbol
Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions. A putative
federal class action lawsuit, Waring v. Symbol Technologies, Inc.,
et al., was filed on August 16, 2005 against Symbol Technologies,
Inc. and two of its former officers in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York by Robert Waring. After
the filing of the Waring action, several additional purported
class actions were filed against Symbol and the same former
officers making substantially similar allegations (collectively,
the "New Class Actions"). The Waring action and the New Class
Actions were consolidated for all purposes and on April 26, 2006,
the Court appointed the Iron Workers Local # 580 Pension Fund as
lead plaintiff and approved its retention of lead counsel on
behalf of the putative class.

On August 30, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), and
named additional former officers and directors of Symbol as
defendants. The lead plaintiff alleges that the defendants
misrepresented the effectiveness of Symbol's internal controls and
forecasting processes, and that, as a result, all of the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint
alleges that it was damaged by the decline in the price of
Symbol's stock following certain purported corrective disclosures
and seeks unspecified damages.

By orders entered on June 25 and August 3, 2015, the court granted
lead plaintiff's motion for class certification, certifying a
class of investors that includes those that purchased Symbol
common stock between April 29, 2003 and August 1, 2005. The
parties have substantially completed fact discovery.

Pursuant to the Court's current scheduling order, expert discovery
is expected to be completed by January 15, 2016, and dispositive
motions are to be filed by February 12, 2016. The Company
establishes an accrued liability for loss contingencies related to
legal matters when the loss is both probable and estimable. In
addition, for some matters for which a loss is probable or
reasonably possible, an estimate of the amount of loss or range of
loss is not possible, and we may be unable to estimate the
possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result
from the application of non-monetary remedies. Currently, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount of reasonably
possible losses for this matter.


                            *********

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  * * *