CAR_Public/151112.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 12, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 226


                            Headlines


AIR LIQUIDE: Court Rejects Class Waiver in Arbitration Deal
ALL AMERICAN: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to E. Coli
AMERICAN BLUE: Sued in Minn. Over Disability Discrimination
AMERICAN HONDA: Sued in Florida Over Defective 2015 CR-V Engine
AMERICAN INFOTECH: Sued in Va. Over Disability Discrimination

ANGEL WINGS: Sued in Cal. Over Age and Disability Discrimination
AT&T CORP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Davis" Action Claims
ATHENS FOODS: Recalls Beef Products Due to Misbranding
AUSTIN, TX: Faces Class Suit Over Debt Collection Discrimination
AVID LIFE: Faces "Poyet" Suit in Cal. Over Fake Female Profile

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
BELK INC: "Montanez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BERNIE MORENO: Faces "Wilson" Suit Over Gender Discrimination
BLACK STAR: Faces "David" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BOFI HOLDING: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit

BOULDER NATURAL: Recalls Beef, Pork, and Poultry Products
BOWMAN TREE: Faces "Simpson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BRANDON SCOTT: Faces "Stiles" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Powers" Suit Over Packed Seafood-Price Fixing
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Unit Faces Class Suit Over Leasing Violation

CHINACAST EDUCATION: 9th Circ. Rejects Adverse-Interest Exception
CLEVELAND, OH: "Hidden" Power Fees Were Legal, Director Says
CLOVERDALE FOODS: Recalls Beef and Pork Bratwurst Products
COINMACH CORPORATION: Sued in New York Over Racial Discrimination
EXCLUSIVE AMBULETTE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

EXTREME NETWORKS: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
EVOCCA COLLEGE: Ex-Students File Class Suit Over VET Debts
FACEBOOK: Obtains Dismissal of Privacy Class Suit
FIFTH STREET: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit
GENESIS HEALTH: Faces "Young" Suit Over Racial Discrimination

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HOT TOPIC: Faces "Marshall" Suit Over Racial Discrimination
INTEL CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Imprudent Plan Investment
J & C OF GENEVA: Faces "Corona" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KAY LANG: Faces "Pak" Suit Over Unlawful Termination Practices

LIFELOCK INC: Reaches Agreements with FTC, Class Reps
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
MAPLE LEAF: Recalls Boneless Pork Shoulder Products
MCCONNELL JONES: Faces "Richards" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MEMORIAL HEALTH: Faces "Myers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

MERCHANT CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
MICROSOFT: Two Employees Join Discrimination Class Suit
MOBILE NOW: Faces "Connors" Suit Over Disability Discrimination
MOFONGO DEL VALLE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Cabral" Suit Says
NOBILIS HEALTH: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit

READY PAC: Recalls Salad Kits with Grilled Chicken Products
REGENTS OF THE UCLA: Sued Over Racial Discriminatory Practices
SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Sued in Ohio Over Gender Discrimination
SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSIT: Sued Over Hazardous Materials
SHIRAZ INC: Faces "Boutros" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

TD BANK: California Woman Sues Over Repeated Mobile Calls
VALEANT PHARMA: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Deadline to Respond to "Caro" Moved to Nov. 30
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Moreau" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
WACHOVIA CORP: Class Settlements Can Award Atty Fees, Court Says

WCW LLC: "Blankman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL: "Freeman" Stayed Pending Banarji Case Ruling
WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL: Judge to Rule on Banarji Dismissal Bid in Jan
WORLEYPARSONS: Faces $50MM Class Suit Filed by ACA Lawyers
XEROX CORPORATION: Faces "Stock" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

YAHOO INC: Third Circuit Revives TCPA Class Suit
ZEDO INC: Faces "Felter" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages




                            *********


AIR LIQUIDE: Court Rejects Class Waiver in Arbitration Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Ofgang, writing for metNews.com, reported that a class
action waiver in an employment arbitration agreement signed by a
truck driver is unenforceable because California, not federal, law
applies to claims by transportation workers, the Court of Appeal
for this district has ruled.

Div. Two, on rehearing, held that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
Amy Hogue was correct in denying Air Liquide Industrial U.S. LP's
motion to compel arbitration of Mario Garrido's claims for various
violations of the Labor Code.

The court's original ruling, in an unpublished opinion, was that
Garrido had forfeited his argument that Gentry v. Superior Court
(2007) 42 Cal.4th 443, barring enforcement of class waivers,
controlled. But the court found good cause to reconsider that
ruling because the issue had been thoroughly briefed in connection
with the plaintiff's request for rehearing.

Garrido was fired in January 2011. In June of the following year,
he sued for denial of statutorily mandated meal periods, accurate
wage statements, prompt payment of wages due upon termination of
employment, and unfair business practices, and asked for class
certification.

The company moved to compel arbitration, and argued that the
agreement's class action waiver was enforceable.  Hogue, however,
said that even under the Federal Arbitration Act, Gentry is
controlling.

Boren Opinion

Presiding Justice Roger Boren, writing for the Court of Appeal,
said Gentry indeed controls in Garrido's case because Sec.1 of the
FAA exempts "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad
employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or
interstate commerce" from coverage under the act.

The term "workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce," the
jurist added, has been held to mean transportation workers.
Garrido, he concluded, was a "transportation worker" because his
primary duties involved the delivery of gas across state lines.
"Air Liquide cites to no authority holding that a truck driver
whose responsibility is to move products across state lines does
not fall under section 1 of the FAA," he wrote.

He added that "[t]he fact that Garrido transported Air Liquide's
own products (rather than those of an Air Liquide client) is of
little consequence," agreeing with the holding in International
Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 50 v. Kienstra Precast,
LLC (7th Cir. 2012) 702 F.3d 954 that "a trucker is a
transportation worker regardless of whether he transports his
employer's goods or the goods of a third party; if he crosses
state lines he is 'actually engaged in the movement of goods in
interstate commerce.'"

The agreement is, Boren went on to say, subject to the California
Arbitration Act, as the defendant argued. But that act does not
preclude application of Gentry, he said.
Concepcion Effect

While the case was on appeal, he explained, the Supreme Court
decided AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 131 S.Ct. 1740,
holding that the FAA preempted state law barring enforcement of
waivers of classwide arbitration. Although Gentry was not
addressed in the opinion, subsequent cases have treated Concepcion
as abrogating Gentry, which had held that such waivers violated
California public policy.

That policy, the presiding justice explained, can still be
applied, however, when the state's arbitration law, rather than
the FAA, governs.

He also concluded that the trial judge was correct in denying
arbitration entirely, rather than enforcing the arbitration clause
without the waiver.

"Air Liquide moved exclusively for individual, not class
arbitration, and neither party has indicated an intent or
willingness to engage in class arbitration," he noted.
Littler Mendelson's Nancy E. Pritikin, Dominic J. Messiha, and
Jennifer Tsao represented the defendant, while Robert L. Esensten
and Jordan Esensten of Esensten Law represented Garrido.


ALL AMERICAN: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to E. Coli
---------------------------------------------------------
All American Meats, Inc., an Omaha, Neb. establishment, is
recalling approximately 167,427 pounds of ground beef products
that may be adulterated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced.

The ground beef items were produced on Oct. 16, 2015. The
following products are subject to recall:

  --- 80-lb. (approximate weight) boxes of "Ground Beef 80% Lean
      20% Fat (Fine Grind)" with Sell By Date 11-03-2015 and case
      code 62100.
  --- 80-lb. (approximate weight) boxes of "Ground Beef 73% Lean
      27% Fat (Fine Grind)" with Sell By Date 11-03-2015 and case
      code 60100.
  --- 60-lb. (approximate weight) boxes of "Ground Beef Round 85%
      Lean 15% Fat (Fine Grind)" with Sell By Date 11-03-2015 and
      case code 68560.
  --- 60-lb. (approximate weight) boxes of "Ground Beef Chuck 81%
      Lean 19% Fat (Fine Grind)" with Sell By Date 11-03-2015 and
      case code 68160.
  --- 60-lb. (approximate weight) boxes of "Ground Beef Chuck 81%
      Lean 19% Fat (Fine Grind)" with Sell By Date 11-03-2015 and
      case code 63130.
  --- 80-lb. (approximate weight) boxes of "Ground Beef Chuck 81%
      Lean 19% Fat (Fine Grind)" with Sell By Date 11-03-2015 and
      case code 63100.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
20420" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were
shipped to retail locations nationwide.

The problem was discovered on Oct. 30, 2015, when a positive
result for E. coli O157:H7 from FSIS' in-commerce surveillance
program testing was traced back to the establishment. There have
been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption
of these products.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4
days, on average) after exposure to the organism. While most
people recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney
failure called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This condition can
occur among persons of any age but is most common in children
under 5-years old and older adults. It is marked by easy bruising,
pallor, and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these
symptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen
and in consumers' freezers.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef
that has been cooked to a temperature of 160ø F. The only way to
confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to
kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures
internal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ.

Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Mr.
Shawn Buchanan at (402) 734-6901. Media with questions regarding
the recall can contact Mr. Brian Brislen at (402) 397-7300.


AMERICAN BLUE: Sued in Minn. Over Disability Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Troy J. Madison v. American Blue Ribbon Holdings, LLC d/b/a
Legendary Bakery, and Aaron Thoreson, Case No. 27-CV-15-17990 (D.
Minn., October 16, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
unlawful employment discriminatory practices on the basis of
disability.

American Blue Ribbon Holdings, LLC owns and operates a food
service company located at 300 Hazeltine Drive. Chaska, MN 55318.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric D. Satre, Esq.
      SATRE LAW FIRM
      2706 Gannon Road, Suite D
      St. Paul. MN 55116
      Telephone: (651)212-4919
      Facsimile: (651) 212-4203
      E-mail: Esatre@satrelaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Sued in Florida Over Defective 2015 CR-V Engine
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Vazquez, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. American Honda Motor Co Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-02952-MHW-EPD (N.D. Fla., September 11, 2015) is brought
on behalf of all the persons in Florida who purchased or leased a
2015 model year Honda CR-V, with defects in its engine and
transmission which cause the 2015 CR-V to vibrate and excessively
shake at highway speeds.

American Honda Motor Co Inc. is one of the largest automotive
companies in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David P. Healy, Esq.
      DUDLEY, SELLERS & HEALY, PL
      3522 Thomasville Rd., Suite 301
      Tallahassee, FL 32309
      Telephone: (850) 222-5400
      Facsimile: (850) 222-7339
      E-mail: dhealy@davidhealylaw.com


AMERICAN INFOTECH: Sued in Va. Over Disability Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie D. Dawson v. American Infotech Solutions, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-01341-GBL-TCB (E.D. Va., October 14, 2015) arises out of
the Defendants' alleged unlawful employment discriminatory
practices on the basis of disability.

American Infotech Solutions, Inc. provides consulting services for
the selection, deployment, management, and optimization of
enterprise solutions for Federal Government and commercial
clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher R. Rau, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER R. RAU
      6711 Lee Highway, Suite 220
      Arlington, VA 22205-1940
      Telephone: (703) 536-1660
      E-mail: CRRAU@AOL.COM


ANGEL WINGS: Sued in Cal. Over Age and Disability Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sedigheh "Nancy" Fazeli v. Angel Wings Home Care and Independent
Living Service Agency LLC d/b/a Angel Wings Agency, Emily Owens,
and Does 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. BC589137 (Cal. Super.
Ct., October 16, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
discriminatory and harassing conduct on the basis of age and
reported medical disability.

The Defendants are in the business of providing independent living
services and a community base day program to those with
intellectual disabilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rodney Mesriani, Esq.
      Tracy Neal-Lopez, Esq.
      MESRIANI LAW GROUP
      A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
      510 Arizona Avenue,
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310)826-6300
      Facsimile: (310)820-1258


AT&T CORP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Davis" Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. AT&T, Corp., Case No. 3:15-cv-02342-DMS-DHB (S.D. Cal., October
16, 2015) seeks to put an end to the Defendant's practice of
placing calls on consumers' cellular telephone using an automated
dialing system and pre-recorded message, without prior express
consent.

AT&T, Corp. provides television, internet, and communications
services to the citizens of San Diego, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kira M. Rubel, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KIRA M. RUBEL
      555 West Beech Street, Suite 230
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (800) 836-6531
      E-mail: krubel@kmrlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Scott D. Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Telephone: (954) 589-0588
      E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


ATHENS FOODS: Recalls Beef Products Due to Misbranding
------------------------------------------------------
Athens Foods, Inc., a Cleveland, Ohio establishment, is recalling
approximately 168 pounds of beef products due to misbranding and
undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product
contains soy, known allergens which are not declared on the
finished product label.

The steak fiesta, beef filled dough, items were produced on Sept.
23, 2015 and have a best by code of 11/23/16. The following
products are subject to recall:

   --- 4 count trays of "Athens Steak Fiesta Blossoms."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
34306" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were
shipped to foodservice locations nationwide.

The problem was discovered during labeling review by the firm who
then notified FSIS.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Heather
Lawson, Customer Service, at (216) 676-8500 ext. 1337. Media with
questions about the recall can contact Russell Benghiat, Public
Relations, at (216) 831-8580.


AUSTIN, TX: Faces Class Suit Over Debt Collection Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Goudeau, witing for KVUE, reported that the City of Austin
is facing another lawsuit, this one claiming the municipal courts
discriminate against the poor in its debt collection practices for
misdemeanor offenses.

Valerie Gonzales takes care of five children and lives well below
the poverty line. Over nine years, she's been ticketed for
speeding, failure to register her vehicle and renewing her
license; the latter are offenses her attorney says result from her
living in poverty.

Maria Salazar, a pregnant mother of six, also has unpaid tickets
for speeding and offenses resulting from poverty like Gonzales.

They're guilty of Class C misdemeanors, offenses punishable only
by fines. But if people in Austin don't or can't pay, a warrant is
issued for their arrest and they end up back at Municipal Court
and, often times, in jail.

"If the person, you know, hasn't paid their tickets and doesn't
have the money on them at that moment to pay whatever amount the
judge says is what you need to pay right now, the judges in Austin
order people to go to jail for failure to pay," explained Rebecca
Bernhardt, executive director of Texas Fair Defense Project.

The Texas Fair Defense Project, Civil Rights Clinic at the
University of Texas School of Law and law firm of Susman Godfrey
LLP filed suit against the City of Austin on behalf of Gonzales,
Salazar and others in a similar situation. The class action
complaint claims the city's practice is illegal, unconstitutional
and discriminates against the poor.

"They have the right to a fair hearing which means determination
of whether or not they had the ability to pay at the time you're
considering jailing them," said Bernhardt.

She added that's not happening and says there's another issue.

"As a constitutional rule, when the government is going to take
your liberty away, they're going to put you in jail, they have an
obligation to appoint you a lawyer."

The city apparently isn't doing that either. KVUE News asked
former Travis County prosecutor now criminal defense attorney
Mindy Montford to weigh in on what the city judges are doing.

"It's also more of a civil contempt type process, and a way you
can either pay the fine by sitting it out in jail or pay it with
money," said Montford. "And so that's probably how they're getting
around the right to have an attorney and that it's not a violation
of your constitutional rights. Again, I'm not saying that that's
right or wrong."

Montford said the issue is complicated because anyone, no matter
their economic status, could pay their fine with jail time. But
she also recognizes that most people who make enough money to pay
the fines, pay them.

"Class C offenses by their very nature are not punishable by jail
time. Period. Yet we're throwing people in jail because they're
not paying. And so what is the remedy? What can you do in this
situation," Montford said.

She added the lawsuit may prompt city leaders to consider
alternatives.

"I would think that they might try to do something more like the
state does, if a judge can order a finding of indigence, than
these fees can sometimes be waived or put n a payment plan or
they'll give them a reduced rate," Montford said.

The City released the following statement about the lawsuit:

"The City is familiar with and has reviewed the allegations in the
lawsuit. We're prepared to defend the City and are confident that
Municipal Court officials and staff are complying with all
appropriate laws in this matter."

The next step is for the city to formally respond.


AVID LIFE: Faces "Poyet" Suit in Cal. Over Fake Female Profile
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Poyet, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Avid Life Media, Inc. and Avid Dating Life, Inc. d/b/a
Ashley Madison, Case No. 2:15-cv-08456-R-AS (C.D. Cal., October
29, 2015) alleges that the Defendants' engaged in a course of
unfair, unlawful, fraudulent and deceptive conduct in utilizing
fake female profiles on their website.

The Defendants own and operate various companies that operate
online dating websites including the website operated under the
trademark of Ashley Madison.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
      Ashley R. Rifkin, Esq.
      Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
              arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com
              lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com

         - and -

      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
              rapeterson@locklaw.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
University Of Puerto Rico Retirement System v. Bank of Nova
Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08484 (S.D.N.Y., October 28,
2015) arises from the Defendants' collusive manipulation of the
market for U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds, as well as
derivative financial products related to Treasury Securities, such
as futures and options Treasury Securities.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Esq.
      Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
      ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
      One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
      New York, NY 10119
      Telephone: (212) 279-5050
      Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
      E-mail: mtwersky@aftlaw.com
              jabraham@aftlaw.com


BELK INC: "Montanez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Montanez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Belk, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00306 (S.D.
Tex., October 28, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Belk, Inc. is a mid-sized retailer with approximately 300 stores
in 16 states, including Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BERNIE MORENO: Faces "Wilson" Suit Over Gender Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Wilson v. Bernie Moreno Companies and Bernardo Moreno, Case
No. CV-15-852759 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, October 16, 2015) arises from
the Defendants' alleged wrongful termination and gender
discriminatory practices.

The Defendants operate a retail automotive business located at
28450 Lorain Road, North Olmstead, Cuyahoga County Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Claire I. Wade, Esq.
      Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
      THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      25200 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 200
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Telephone: (216) 291-4744
      Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
      E-mail: claire.wade@SpitzLawFirm.com
              brian.spitz@SpitzLawFirm.com


BLACK STAR: Faces "David" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Coty David, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Black Star Energy Services, LLC, a/k/a Man Lift
Rentals, LLC, Man Lift Defendants Rentals, LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-
00176 (W.D. Tex., October 16, 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 for-profit, domestic company,
providing chemical and equipment services in the oil and gas
industry, throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AK 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


BOFI HOLDING: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against BofI
Holding, Inc. (Nasdaq:BOFI) ("BofI" or the "Company") on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities between September 4, 2013
and October 13, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

BofI shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their legal
options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com. For additional
information about this lawsuit, or to request information about
this action online, please visit http://www.ktmc.com/new-
cases/bofi-holding-inc.

BofI operates as the holding company for BofI Federal Bank, a
provider of consumer and business banking products through the
Internet in the United States. BofI Federal Bank's most
significant business is providing mortgages to high-net worth
individuals for the purchase of expensive properties though BofI
Federal Bank's Bank of Internet USA ("Bank of Internet") brand.

The Complaint alleges that BOFI and certain of its executive
officers made a series of false and misleading statements during
the Class Period, and failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the defendants are alleged to have made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company's internal controls were frequently disregarded; (ii) Bank
of Internet's borrowers included foreign nationals who should have
been off-limits under federal anti-money-laundering laws; (iii)
many Bank of Internet accounts lacked required tax identification
numbers; (iv) Bank of Internet fired an internal auditor who
raised the foregoing issues to management and to federal
regulators; and (v) as a result of the above, the Company's
statements regarding its internal controls and other financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On October 13, 2015, The New York Times reported that Matt Erhart
("Erhart"), a former internal auditor at Bank of Internet, filed a
lawsuit against the Company alleging that it violated federal laws
designed to protect whistleblowers (the "Erhart Complaint"). The
Ernhart Complaint alleged, among other things, that: (i) Bank of
Internet's borrowers "included foreign nationals who should have
been off-limits under the federal anti-money-laundering laws,"
(ii) Bank of Internet "at times failed to provide full and timely
information to regulators," and (iii) Erhart "was fired after he
revealed wrongdoing at Bank of Internet to management and
regulators."

On this news, shares of BofI's common stock declined $42.87 per
share, or 30.2%, to close on October 14, 2015 at $99.13 per share,
on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
(Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 -- 7706 or (610) 667 -- 7706, or via e-
mail at info@ktmc.com. For additional information about this
lawsuit, or to request information about this action online,
please visit http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/bofi-holding-inc.

BofI shareholders who purchased their securities during the Class
Period may, no later than December 14, 2015, petition the Court
for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's
claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that
the class member will adequately represent the class in the
action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by
the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any
member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state
and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.
The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers
(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the
government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The
complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
or for additional information about participating in this action,
please visit www.ktmc.com.

         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Rd
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Toll Free: (888) 299-7706
         Email: dcheck@ktmc.com
                skaskela@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com


BOULDER NATURAL: Recalls Beef, Pork, and Poultry Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Natural Meats, a Denver, Colo., establishment, is
recalling approximately 3,607 pounds of beef, pork, and poultry
products due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced. The products were missing the ingredients
statement and some contain milk, a known allergen which is not
declared on the product label.

The beef, pork, and poultry products were produced on various
dates. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 10 lb. vacuum sealed packages of "BN CHICKEN MILD ITALIAN
      SAUSAGE"
  --- 10 lb. vacuum sealed packages of "BN CHICKEN HOT ITALIAN
      SAUSAGE"
  --- 10 lb. vacuum sealed packages of "BN CHICKEN BREAKFAST
      SAUSAGE"
  --- 10 lb. vacuum sealed packages of "FRESH CHICKEN CHORIZO
      SAUSAGE"
  --- 8 lb. vacuum sealed packages of "COWBOY BURGERS ASPEN
      NATURAL MEATS"
  --- 16 oz. plastic frozen tubs of "CHICKEN LIVERS"
  --- 8 lb. vacuum sealed packages of "BACON & CHEDDAR CHEESE
      SEASONED BEEF BURGERS ASPEN NATURAL MEATS"
  --- 8 lb. vacuum sealed packages of "SMOKED SALT & BALINESE
      PEPPER SEASONED BURGERS ASPEN NATURAL MEATS"
  --- 10 lb. vacuum sealed packages of "BN PORK HOT ITALIAN
      SAUSAGE"
  --- 10 lb. vacuum sealed packages of "BN PORK MILD ITALIAN
      SAUSAGE
  --- 10 lb. vacuum sealed packages of "BN PORK SAGE BREAKFAST
      SAUSAGE"
  --- 10 lb. vacuum sealed packages of "BN PORK CHORIZO SAUSAGE"

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
18852" and "P-18852" inside the USDA marks of inspection. These
items were shipped to one distributor and retail stores in Kansas,
Missouri, and Oklahoma.

The problem was discovered by an FSIS investigator who observed
misbranded meat products at a retail store.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Boulder Natural Meats at (570) 600-2996.


BOWMAN TREE: Faces "Simpson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Simpson, Robert L. Massey Jr., and Michael E. Ingeldue, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Bowman Tree
Services, Case No. 1:15-cv-02217 (N.D. Ohio, October 28, 2015) is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Bowman Tree Services offers tree care services in Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth M. Williamson, Esq.
      Fred M. Bean, Esq.
      THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Telephone: (216) 291-4744
      Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
      E-mail: Elizabeth.Williamson@SpitzLawFirm.com
              Fred.Bean@SpitzLawFirm.com


BRANDON SCOTT: Faces "Stiles" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norman K. Stiles, Individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals v. Brandon Scott Abernathy, d/b/a Abernathy
Properties, and d/b/a Home Squad, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01132
(Tenn. Cir. Ct., October 28, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Brandon Scott Abernathy owns and operates a real estate company in
Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Freeman, Esq.
      MICHAEL L. FREEMAN LAW FIRM
      530 Church St., Suite 709
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 916-1600
      Facsimile: (615) 246-2653
      E-mail: michael@michaelfreemanlaw.com


BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Powers" Suit Over Packed Seafood-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Powers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC,
Starkist Company, and King Oscar, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02434-
GPC-JMA (N.D. Cal., October 28, 2015) 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:

      Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
      Patrick B. Clayton, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
      456 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 788-7210
      Facsimile: (415) 788-0706
      E-mail: fos@scarpullalaw.com
              pbc@scarpullalaw.com

         - and -

      Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
      THE MOGIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 687-6611
      Facsimile: (619) 687-6610
      E-mail: Dmogin@moginlaw.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Unit Faces Class Suit Over Leasing Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Hoover, writing for CantonRep.com, reported that a
subsidiary of Chesapeake Energy has cheated Ohio mineral owners
out of $30 million in royalties and possibly more, according to a
lawsuit filed in Columbiana County.

Chesapeake has drilled 674 wells in Ohio's Utica Shale, the most
of any company. The Oklahoma City-based driller didn't immediately
respond to messages seeking comment.

The proposed class-action lawsuit accuses Cheaspeake subsidiary,
Chesapeake Operating, of violating lease agreements by selling oil
and gas from Ohio wells at below-market prices and improperly
deducting production and post-production costs from royalty
payments.

Companies with stakes in those wells are defendants in the case,
including Chesapeake Exploration, CHK Utica, Total E&P USA,
Pelican Energy and Jamestown Resources.

The alleged misconduct started in 2011, and Chesapeake Operating
continues to make improper deductions from existing wells and any
new wells that come into production, while claiming in royalty
statements that no deductions were made, according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs seek to recover the withheld royalties, monetary
damages, attorney fees and costs.

CLASS ACTION SOUGHT

The case was filed by attorneys for two Columbiana County farms
and a Summit County resident who owns mineral rights in Carroll
County. Their leases only allowed deductions for taxes.
But the lawsuit could have a wider sweep. Chesapeake Exploration
used nearly identical terms in other leases involving at least
1,000 owners and 40,000 acres in Stark, Carroll, Tuscarawas,
Columbiana, Guernsey, Harrison, Belmont and Jefferson counties.
"I've gotten dozens and dozens of phone calls over the last few
months," said William G. Williams, an attorney with Jackson
Township-based Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty, one of
the firms representing the plaintiffs.

It will be up to Common Pleas Judge C. Ashley Pike to decide if
the case goes forward as a class action.

TRAIL OF CASES

Chesapeake has been sued over royalty disputes by mineral owners
in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania, and dogged by
subpoenas from state and federal investigators.

For example, 400 lawsuits were recently consolidated in Texas,
where 25,000 property owners say Chesapeake has withheld $1
billion in royalty payments.

Federal authorities also have taken action.

In October, the U.S. Department of the Interior fined Chesapeake
$2.1 million for not fixing "repeated, systemic" errors in its
reporting of gas sales from Native American leases.

The department had already fined Chesapeake $1.2 million for
inaccurate royalty reports since 2013.


CHINACAST EDUCATION: 9th Circ. Rejects Adverse-Interest Exception
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan E Richman, Esq. -- jerichman@proskauer.com -- and Julia
D. Pizzi, Esq. -- jpizzi@proskauer.com -- at Proskauer Rose LLP,
in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that the Ninth
Circuit issued a decision that could affect analyses of corporate
scienter in securities class actions. The court reversed the
dismissal of In re ChinaCast Education Corporation Securities
Litigation and held that a malfeasant executive's knowledge could
be imputed to his or her company when the executive acted with
apparent authority. The court also observed that, "as a practical
matter," the adverse-interest exception presumptively does not
apply in fraud-on-the-market securities class actions.

The adverse-interest exception is a deviation from the general
rule that a corporate executive's knowledge may be imputed to the
company for purposes of determining corporate scienter. Under the
exception, an executive's knowledge will not be imputed to the
company if he or she acted contrary to the company's interests.
The exception is typically used in cases where a rogue executive
embezzles money or otherwise acts for his or her own purposes, to
the detriment of the company. However, various courts have held
that this exception will not apply when an innocent third party
relies on the malfeasant executive's representations that are made
with apparent authority on behalf of the company.

In the ChinaCast case, ChinaCast's CEO and founder had allegedly
embezzled more than $120 million from the company in 2011 and 2012
-- conduct that had allegedly "brought ChinaCast to financial
ruin." The CEO had purportedly told investors throughout this
period that the company was financially healthy and stable.
ChinaCast did not discover its CEO's alleged fraud until early
2012, at which time he was removed from the Board after he had
attempted to interfere with the company's audit. A securities
class action against the company and certain of its directors and
officers (but not the former CEO) followed.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed the suit on the grounds that the adverse-interest
exception barred a finding of corporate scienter. The Ninth
Circuit unanimously reversed this decision, noting that "the
adverse interest rule doesn't apply in every instance where there
is a faithless fraudster within the corporate ranks." Because the
CEO had acted with apparent authority on behalf of ChinaCast in
its SEC filings and investor communications, and because the
third-party shareholder plaintiffs had "understandably relied" on
his representations, the court held that the CEO's knowledge could
be imputed to the company.

In reaching this determination, the Ninth Circuit engaged in a
somewhat lengthy analysis of agency-law principles. But the court
noted at the close of its opinion that such an analysis might not
be necessary, as a "bona fide plaintiff will always be an innocent
third party" in fraud-on-the-market suits. To avoid the "gymnastic
exercise of imposing a general rule of imputation followed by
analyzing the applicability of the exception to the exception,"
the court observed that "having a clean hands plaintiff eliminates
the adverse interest exception" on the pleadings.

For now, the Third and Ninth Circuits (as well as various U.S.
district courts) appear to be the only jurisdictions that have
held that an exception to the adverse-interest exception exists.
No other court has suggested that the adverse-interest exception
is inappropriate for dismissal of a fraud-on-the-market securities
class action. However, if other Circuits follow ChinaCast,
companies that are already dealing with the fall-out of a rogue
executive's actions could also face uphill legal battles regarding
corporate scienter.

The adverse-interest exception also recently appeared in In re
Petrobras Securities Litigation. As we noted in our prior blog,
the Southern District of New York rejected the argument that
Petrobras had sustained unmitigated injury from its executives'
alleged participation in a bid-rigging and political-corruption
scheme because the plaintiffs had "plausibly alleged" that
Petrobras had received some benefits from the alleged scheme: the
company had purportedly benefited from an inflated stock price; it
had been able to attract investments; and it had "benefited from
remaining in favor with its political patrons."


CLEVELAND, OH: "Hidden" Power Fees Were Legal, Director Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Leila Atassi, writing for Cleveland.com, reported that Cleveland
Public Utilities Director Robert Davis, during a City Council
Utilities Committee hearing, maintained that the $128 million in
hidden fees charged in a 16-year period to Cleveland Public Power
customers were legal.

But Davis and CPP Commissioner Ivan Henderson declined to go much
further in explaining why the fees were charged and how the money
was used -- citing a recently filed class-action lawsuit that
accuses the utility of defrauding customers out of millions of
dollars.

Council members danced around the litigation in framing questions
for the administrators and expressed their frustration that they
were never told about the fees.

"It feels like we've been in the dark," Councilman Jeffrey Johnson
said during the hearing. "Mayor Jackson has every right to defend
against the lawsuit. But I need you to know that after you're
finished in the court, you're coming here. I can't fine you, I
can't send anybody to jail, but I represent my folks."

Records obtained by cleveland.com show that Henderson and his
predecessors, for years, had added the hidden fee to customers'
bills without seeking City Council's approval for a rate increase.

The CPP officials justified the practice by invoking a city
ordinance passed in 1975 that allows the utility to charge
customers an "environmental or ecological adjustment" for "special
apparatus and equipment required for compliance with federal,
state or city environmental protection laws and directives."

According to records, Henderson, who became commissioner in 2006,
has used the ecological adjustment to cover expenses such as
landscaping, tree trimming, car parts, ice and snow removal, laser
print cartridges, paints and labor -- expenses that former
Utilities Director Paul Bender said are part of the daily
operating cost of the utility and have nothing to do with
compliance with environmental laws.

Bender, who resigned, told cleveland.com that Henderson's use of
the ecological adjustment charges was illegal and could be in
violation of the terms of CPP's bond covenants, requiring the
utility's revenues to exceed its expenses.

Bender said two financial managers for the department brought it
to his attention shortly after he took office, and that he stopped
the practice because it was clear that CPP's budget was propped up
by the illegal collections.

Bender said he took his concerns to Finance Director Sharon Dumas,
Chief of Staff Ken Silliman and Chief Operating Officer Darnell
Brown and suggested that CPP ask City Council for a base rate
increase if the utility was having trouble making ends meet. But
Bender says they rejected that suggestion.

On the heels of cleveland.com's story earlier, consumer rights
attorneys at Landskroner Grieco Merriman LLC filed a class action
lawsuit against the city and CPP, accusing the utility of using
the hidden fees to defraud customers out of millions of dollars.
The complaint seeks to make all past and present CPP customers
whole and to ban the utility from collecting the fees in the
future.

Citing the lawsuit, Henderson on declined to explain to council
why some operating expenses were billed to customers as an
"ecological adjustment," rather than covered by the base rate.

Council members asked Davis to appear before them if he plans on
reinstating the ecological charges in the future.

Davis agreed but said CPP will not consider assessing the fees
again until the class action suit is resolved.


CLOVERDALE FOODS: Recalls Beef and Pork Bratwurst Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cloverdale Foods Company, a Mandan, ND, establishment, is
recalling approximately 5,208 pounds of beef and pork jalapeno
cheddar bratwurst product due to misbranding and an undeclared
allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product was incorrectly
labeled as beef frankfurters and contains milk, a known allergen
which is not declared on the product label.

The beef and pork bratwurst product was produced on Sept. 21,
2015, and Oct. 2, 2015. The following product is subject to
recall:

  --- 10 oz. packages labeled as "TETON WATERS RANCH UNCURED BEEF
      FRANKFURTERS" with the use by dates of "12/5/15" and
      "12/16/15"

The product subject to recall bears establishment number "EST.
7603" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped
to three distributors and then distributed nationwide.

The problem was discovered by a consignee of Cloverdale Foods
Company during a store audit. The company then notified FSIS.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Scott Russell, Executive Vice President, at (701) 663-9511 ext.
224.


COINMACH CORPORATION: Sued in New York Over Racial Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Martin, Jean Pierre, Anthony Howell, Jean Innocent, Amis
Kilburn, and Alix Champagne v. Coinmach Corporation, Case No.
1:15-cv-08137-SAS (S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2015) is an action for
injunctive and declaratory relief, back pay, front pay,
compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs and
other relief to redress ongoing employment discrimination on the
basis of race primarily in the form of pay discrimination but
including exclusion of plaintiffs from consideration for promotion
and retaliation for complaints of discrimination.

Coinmach Corporation is a nationwide provider of card- and coin-
operated washers and dryers to apartments, hotels, condominiums,
cooperatives, and college dormitories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Margaret McIntyre, Esq.
       Attorney at Law
       299 Broadway, Suite 1310
       New York, NY 10007
       Telephone: (212) 227-9987
       E-mail: mem@memcintyre.com


EXCLUSIVE AMBULETTE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosario Sam Manzella v. Exclusive Ambulette Service, Inc.,
Staffpro, Inc., Alex Edelman, Susan Edelman, Michael Edelman, Josh
Feldman and David Greenbaum, Case No. 1:15-cv-06204 (E.D.N.Y.,
October 28, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and all other
appropriate legal and equitable relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an ambullette and transportation
service business with approximately 180 vehicles in its fleet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Harrison, Esq.
      HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Telephone: (718) 799-9111
      Facsimile: (718) 791-9171
      E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


EXTREME NETWORKS: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Kasprzak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Extreme Networks, Inc., Charles W. Berger, Kenneth B.
Arola and John T. Kurtzweil, Case No. 5:15-cv-04975-BLF (N.D.
Cal., October 29, 2015) alleges that the Defendants violated the
securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements and concealing material adverse facts regarding Extreme
Networks' current financial condition and growth prospects.

Extreme Networks, Inc. develops and sells network infrastructure
equipment and offers related services contracts for extended
warranty and maintenance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


EVOCCA COLLEGE: Ex-Students File Class Suit Over VET Debts
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicola Berkovic, writing for The Australian, reported that one of
the nation's largest private training providers, Evocca College,
received $250 million funded by government VET Fee-Help loans yet
only 1053 students completed its courses.

The company is facing a class action from former students who
claim they were duped into enrolling in its courses or enticed
with offers such as free laptops and received substandard
training.

Figures from the Department of Education and Training reveal
Evocca had 27,907 students enrolled, of whom all but three were
receiving government-funded VET Fee-Help loans.

About 200 former students are now preparing to lodge a class
action against the company, determined to clear their VET debts
that average about $20,000 each.

One of those, Sydney-based former student Joel Weisbord, was
suffering from a major depressive episode in 2013, when he decided
to enrol in Evocca's online-video-gaming diploma in an effort to
turn his life around.

Mr Weisbord has a rare neurological disorder known as dystocia,
which affects the muscles in his body and has left him with a
lifetime of pain.

On his college pre-enrolment form he noted he had "special needs",
and that he suffered from dystocia, panic disorder, anxiety
disorder, depression, ADHD and learning difficulties.

He claims he was assured he would be given support to complete the
course and that the cost would be subtracted from his tax payments
when his income reached a certain threshold, so that he did not
have to pay anything out of pocket.

"It was all a lie," he said. "I was hoping to work in the IT
industry and they promised that there is work there and they would
help us find jobs. They couldn't even provide the education, let
alone the jobs."

Mr Weisbord said parts of the course appeared to be YouTube videos
while some of the course material needed to complete the
assessments was simply missing.

He said in April, he informed the college in writing that he
wanted to withdraw from the course. But instead the college added
another $6750 to his VET debt for the next unit of the course.

Lawyer Benjamin Kramer told The Australian he expected to file a
class action against Evocca before the end of the year, alleging
breaches of the consumer law and the credit code.

However, an Evocca spokesman said the company "completely rejected
the allegations" and none of its courses had been alleged to be
substandard .


FACEBOOK: Obtains Dismissal of Privacy Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
David Krueger, Esq. -- dkrueger@beneschlaw.com -- at Benesch, in
an article for JD Supra, wrote that On October 23, 2015, Facebook
won dismissal of a potential $15 billion class action which
accused the company of secretly tracking the Internet activity of
its users after they log off.

The case is In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litig., No. 5:12-md-
02314 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2015).

In 2012, a group of Facebook users filed suit against Facebook,
alleging that while they may have agreed to the company's
installation of "cookie" files on their computers to track their
web browsing, they did not consent to such monitoring after
logging out of the social network.  This lawsuit later
consolidated similar complaints filed against Facebook nationwide.
The plaintiff alleged that Facebook's conduct violated the Wiretap
Act by monitoring their online activity while they weren't logged
on and for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

On October 23, the Northern District of California dismissed the
claims against Facebook, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to
"adequately connect" the value of the data collected by Facebook
"to a realistic economic harm or loss."  The court concluded that
the plaintiffs failed to show "they personally lost the
opportunity to sell their information or that the value of their
information was somehow diminished after it was collected by
Facebook."

The court, however, gave the plaintiffs until Nov. 30 to revise
their claims, including invasion of privacy and alleged violations
of the Wiretap Act.


FIFTH STREET: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Fifth
Street Finance Corp. ("Fifth Street" or the "Company") on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's securities between July 7, 2014 and
February 6, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Fifth Street shareholders who wish to discuss this action and
their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela,
Esq. or Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at
info@ktmc.com

Fifth Street is a specialty finance company that lends to and
invests in small and mid-sized companies, primarily in connection
with investments by private equity sponsors. Fifth Street Asset
Management ("FSAM") is the asset manager and investment advisor
for Fifth Street, and annually receives millions of dollars for
providing investment advisory services to Fifth Street. During
October 2014, FSAM FSAM, +1.19% completed its initial public
offering ("IPO") of common stock by selling 6 million shares of
stock to investors at $17.00 per share, for proceeds of over $100
million.

The Complaint alleges that Fifth Street and certain of its
executive officers made a series of false and misleading
statements during the Class Period, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Among other things, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants: (i) pushed Fifth Street into increasingly risky,
speculative investments at unsustainable leverage levels, and
delayed writing down impaired investments in order to create the
appearance of increasing revenues for FSAM; (ii) actively
concealed the deteriorating credit quality of Fifth Street's
portfolio and delayed the recognition of write-downs and
investment losses until after FSAM completed its IPO; and (iii)
systematically overstated the income generated by Fifth Street's
investments and the fair value of its portfolio.

On February 9, 2015, Fifth Street reported its financial and
operational results for the quarter ended December 31, 2014. As
more fully detailed in the Complaint, for the quarter Fifth Street
reported that it had moved $106 million worth of investments to
non-accrual status with an additional $17 million likely to be
designated as non-accrual in the subsequent quarter. Fifth Street
also reported that the Company's net investment income had
decreased by 6% compared to the prior quarter, and that it would
not issue a dividend for February 2015.

On this news, shares of Fifth Street's common stock declined $1.27
per share, or almost 15%, to close on February 9, 2015 at $7.22
per share, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
(Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 - 7706 or (610) 667 - 7706, or via e-mail
at info@ktmc.com. For additional information about this lawsuit,
or to request information about this action online, please visit
http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/fifth-street-finance-corp.

Fifth Street shareholders who purchased their securities during
the Class Period may,no later than November 30, 2015, petition the
Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff of the class.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff. Any member of the purported class may move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state
and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.
The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers
(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the
government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The
complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
or for additional information about participating in this action,
please visit www.ktmc.com.

         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Rd
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Toll Free: (888) 299-7706
         Email: dcheck@ktmc.com
                skaskela@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com
                info@ktmc.com


GENESIS HEALTH: Faces "Young" Suit Over Racial Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Young v. Genesis Health Care, LLC, Harborside of Cleveland
LP, and Angela Rose, Case No. cv-15-852416 (Ohio Comm. Pleas,
October 9, 2015) arises from the Defendants' alleged wrongful
termination and racial discriminatory practices.

The Defendants are in the business of providing short-term post-
acute, rehabilitation, skilled nursing and long-term care
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fre M. Bean, Esq.
      Elizabeth M. Williamson, Esq.
      THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Telephone: (216) 291-4744
      Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
      E-mail: Fred.Bean@SpitzLawFirm.com
              Elizabeth.Williamson@SpitzLawFirm.com


GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Kevin Pittman v. Global Environmental Group, Inc., d/b/a
Global Trash Solutions, LLC and Peter Spano, Case No. 9:15-cv-
81436-RLR (S.D. Fla., October 15, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, and retaliation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Global Environmental Group, Inc. provides trash consulting and
related services and builds trash compactors, which they maintain
for their customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq.
      Lisa M. Kohring, Esq.
      SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES
      625 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 600
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Telephone: (561) 659-3300
      Facsimile: (561) 693-4540
      E-mail: lkohring@schwarzberglaw.com
              steve@schwarzberglaw.com


HOT TOPIC: Faces "Marshall" Suit Over Racial Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Felicia Marshall v. Hot Topic, Inc., Torrid Merchandising, Inc.
and Does 1-20, Inclusive, Case No. BC597958 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
October 15, 2015) arises from the Defendants' alleged wrongful
termination and racial discriminatory practices.

The Defendants own and operate 680 specialty retail stores
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Peter Cwiklo, Esq.
      CWIKLO LAW FIRM
      Warner Center Towers
      21650 Oxnard Street, Suite I960
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 719-8000
      Facsimile: (818) 719-9009


INTEL CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Imprudent Plan Investment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher M. Sulyma, and all others similarly situated v. Intel
Corporation Investment Policy Committee, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-
04977 9 (N.D. Cal., October 29, 2015) arises from the Defendant's
alleged breached of their fiduciary duties by investing a
significant portion of the Plans' assets in risky and high-cost
hedge fund and private equity investments, and adopting asset
allocation models for participant accounts that departed
dramatically from prevailing standards employed by professional
investment managers and plan fiduciaries.

Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee is responsible for
appointing, monitoring, and removing the members of the Investment
Committee and the Administrative Committee pursuant to Section
13(b) of the Plan Document for each of the Plans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave., NW
      Suite 500, East Tower
      Washington, D.C. 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
      E-mail: jbarton@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Joseph A. Creitz, Esq.
      Lisa S. Serebin, Esq.
      CREITZ & SEREBIN LLP
      250 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 466-3090
      Facsimile: (415) 513-4475
      E-mail: joe@creitzserebin.com
              lisa@creitzserebin.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


J & C OF GENEVA: Faces "Corona" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eladio Corona and Jose Corona, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. J & C of
Geneva Corporation d/b/a Old Towne Pub & Eatery and Christopher
Cellini, Case No. 1:15-cv-09648 (N.D. Ill., October 29, 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 Old Towne Pub & Eatery restaurant
located at 201 W. State St., Geneva, Illinois, 60134.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
      Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS, P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
              msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com


KAY LANG: Faces "Pak" Suit Over Unlawful Termination Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aileen Pak v. Kay Lang & Associates, Insperity Peo Services, L.P.,
Insperity Holdings, LLC, and, Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case
No. BC598028 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 15, 2015) arises from the
Defendants' alleged wrongful termination and pregnancy
discriminatory practices.

The Defendants operates a design firm which specializes in the
field of four and five-star hospitality and high-end residential
design.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sa'id Vakili, Esq.
      Jason C. Ming, Esq.
      VAKILI &LEUS, LLP
      3701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1135
      Los Angeles, CA 90010-2822
      Telephone: (213) 380-6010
      Facsimile: (213) 380-6051
      E-mail: vakili@vakili.com
              jason@vakiU.com


LIFELOCK INC: Reaches Agreements with FTC, Class Reps
-----------------------------------------------------
Hayley Ringle, writing for Phoenix Business Journal, reported that
LifeLock Inc. announced it has reached agreements with the Federal
Trade Commission and representatives of a national class of
consumers on a comprehensive settlement resolving outstanding
litigation relating to its past marketing representations and
information security programs.

The agreements will not be final until they are approved by the
FTC and a federal judge. The class action settlement also requires
review and approval by the court.

While details of the agreements were not released, LifeLock's
Chairman and CEO Todd Davis said the proposed FTC settlement does
not require the company to change its products, services, or
business and information security practices, including its current
marketing and advertising practices.

However, Tempe-based LifeLock (NYSE: LOCK) has put aside $116
million in reserves to handle the settlement. This includes $3
million for a potential settlement with state attorneys general.
"While this agreement does not require LifeLock to admit or deny
anything from a wrongdoing perspective, it doesn't require us to
change any of our marketing practices," Davis said during a
conference call with investors. "We are now pleased we were able
to meet an agreement and be able to put this matter, hopefully
very soon, behind us."

This agreement comes after a July statement by LifeLock that
denied any violation, saying it would fight by taking the FTC to
court.

Davis said this new agreement is in the best interest of its
shareholders and "represents a positive step toward achieving
closure on substantial outstanding litigation against the company.
These settlements, if approved, will enable all of us to focus on
our mission of protecting our members."

On July 21, the FTC said LifeLock violated its 2010 settlement
with the agency and 35 state attorneys general by continuing to
make deceptive claims about its identity theft protection
services.

The FTC also said LifeLock was failing to take steps required to
protect its users' data.

LifeLock said previously it had complied with the FTC's 2010 order
and doesn't believe anything the FTC alleged has resulted in any
member's data being compromised.

In one of the largest FTC and state-coordinated settlements on
record, LifeLock paid $11 million to the FTC and $1 million to a
group of 35 state attorneys general to settle these charges.

However, whistle-blower claims from former employees against
LifeLock also accuse the company of not complying with the 2010
FTC order.

Davis stressed the company was able to settle both issues in a
comprehensive settlement with the FTC staff and class action suit.

"We have every hope the settlement will be approved," Davis said.
"The FTC approval process can take several months, although we
hope it's done expeditiously."


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
those who purchased shares of Marvell Technology Group Ltd.
("Marvell" or the "Company") (nasdaqgs:MRVL), during the period
between November 20, 2014 and September 10, 2015 inclusive. (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company had engaged in inappropriate revenue recognition
practices; (2) Marvell's management permitted an inappropriate and
ineffective control environment; (3) as a result, the Company's
key accounting metrics were misstated; (4) and as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about Marvell's business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On September 11, 2015, pre-market, Marvell disclosed that it was
conducting an internal investigation of certain accounting and
internal control matters. "The investigation consists of a review
of certain revenue recognition issues in the second quarter of
fiscal 2016 and any associated issues with whether senior
management's operating style during the period resulted in an open
flow of information and communication to set an appropriate tone
for an effective control environment," the company stated in the
filing. Specifically, the company said it was focused on 7% to 8%
of revenue recognized that would have been received in the third
quarter.

Following this news, shares of Marvell fell $1.71 or over 16%, to
close at $8.84 on September 11, 2015.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number.  If you
suffered a loss in Marvell you have until November 10, 2015 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Eitan Kimelman, Esq.
         BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN,LLC
         144 N Beverwyck Rd
         Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034
         Tel: 212-697-6484
         Email: info@bgandg.com


MAPLE LEAF: Recalls Boneless Pork Shoulder Products
---------------------------------------------------
Maple Leaf Food Inc., a Manitoba, Canada establishment, is
recalling approximately 4,030 pounds of boneless pork shoulders
products that were not presented at the U.S. point of entry for
inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Without the benefit of full
inspection, a possibility of adverse health consequences exists.

The Boneless Pork Shoulder Boston Butt items were imported on Oct.
31, 2015. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 62-lb. (approximate weight) cartons of "Pork Shoulder Blade
      Boneless 1/4" COV 2X4"

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "007"
inside Canada's mark of inspection. These items were shipped to
retail locations in California.

The problem was discovered on Nov. 3, 2015, by the import
inspector, during routine FSIS monitoring activities of imported
products. The import inspector determined that three lots on one
certificate had been presented to him, inspected and passed;
however, a fourth lot on a different certificate had not been
presented and entered the country without inspection.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction
should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers or media with questions about the recall can contact
Barry Mailloux, Corporate Customs Compliance Manager, at (905)
285-5811.


MCCONNELL JONES: Faces "Richards" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jay M. Richards, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. McConnell Jones Lanier & Murphy LLP, McConnell & Jones
LLP and Ira Wayne McConnell, Case No. 4:15-cv-03166 (S.D. Tex.,
October 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants are in the business of providing comprehensive
assurance, tax and accounting services, specializing in financial
statement and employee benefit plan audits, internal control
reviews, tax planning and compliance, and business strategy
consulting for public, private and government clients as well as
individuals across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence E. Stuart, Esq.
      Hollie L. Reiminger, Esq.
      STUART PC
      712 Main, Suite 1100
      STUART PC Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 337-3750
      Facsimile: (713) 481-6320
      E-mail: lstuart@stuartpc.com
              hreiminger@stuartpc.com


MEMORIAL HEALTH: Faces "Myers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynnett Myers, Carol Butler, Arva Lowther, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Memorial Health System
Marietta Memorial Hospital, Case No. 2:15-cv-02956-ALM-TPK (S.D.
Ohio, October 29, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Memorial Health System Marietta Memorial Hospital owns and
operates a hospital located at 401 Matthew Street,
Marietta, Ohio 45750.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lance Chapin, Esq.
      Marcy J. Stevens, Esq.
      CHAPIN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
      580 South High Street, Suite 330
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-9100
      Facsimile: (614) 221-9272
      E-mail: lchapin@chapinlegal.com
              mstevens@chapinlegal.com


MERCHANT CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Joel Medgebow, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Merchant Capital Source, LLC, Case No. 9:15-
cv-81497-DMM (S.D. Fla., October 28, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls to the cellular
telephones of the Plaintiff and others using an automatic
telephone dialing system and an artificial or prerecorded voice.

Merchant Capital Source, LLC is a California corporation that
provides small business loans and merchant cash advances to assist
the capital needs of small businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
      Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
      EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
      5400 S. University Drive, Ste. 413
      Davie, FL 33328
      Telephone: (954) 889-3359
      Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
      E-mail: MPascucci@ELPLawyers.com
              JEggnatz@ELPLawyers.com

         - and -

      Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
      Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
      FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
      425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 524-2820
      Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
      E-mail: steve@pathtojustice.com
              seth@pathtojustice.com


MICROSOFT: Two Employees Join Discrimination Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Stewart, writing for BizJournal.com, reported that two
Microsoft employees have joined a lawsuit against Microsoft,
alleging gender discrimination in pay and promotions.

Katie Moussouris, who worked for Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) for more
than seven years beginning in 2007, filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court of Western Washington. An amended version filed on
is significant because it adds two current Microsoft employees:
Holly Muenchow and Dana Piermarini.

The class-action lawsuit alleges the company routinely and
subjectively gives women lower ratings through its numerical
ranking system, which is known within the company as "stack
ranking."

Microsoft employs roughly 1,200 people at its North Texas offices
in Irving.

Microsoft's stack ranking system came under fire a few years ago
for pitting employees against each other and creating a negative
environment. Former CEO Steve Ballmer ended the unpopular ranking
system in 2013. Moussouris' lawyers told Puget Sound Business
Journal the lawsuit isn't specific to stack ranking. Instead, it
challenges any "performance system which undervalues women
relative to men," one attorney said.

Microsoft says the company investigated Moussouris' complaints and
"did not find anything to substantiate those claims."

"We're committed to a diverse workforce, and to a workplace where
all employees have the chance to succeed," a Microsoft
spokesperson wrote in a statement.

More employees could join the class-action complaint, which
describes a broad class of workers: Any female technical employee
in the U.S. who worked at Microsoft since September 2009. It's
hard to say exactly how many people the lawsuit describes, but
PSBJ crunched the numbers.

Microsoft has more than 117,000 employees, but fewer than 60,000
work in the U.S. The company says 47 percent of employees work in
engineering -- so that's about 28,000 U.S. technical employees --
and fewer than 17 percent of Microsoft's technical employees are
women.

That leaves barely more than 4,750 eligible employees who work at
the company. Of course, that number grows when you add all the
women engineers who have come and gone through Microsoft in the
past six years.

Microsoft did not immediately respond to requests for comment on
the new amended lawsuit.


MOBILE NOW: Faces "Connors" Suit Over Disability Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy W. Connors v. Mobile Now! LLC c/o National Registered
Agents, Inc. and Adam Gasper, Case No. CV-15-852725 (Ohio Comm.
Pleas, October 15, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
unlawful employment discriminatory practices on the basis of
disability.

Mobile Now! LLC operates a digital parking solutions company in
Lorain County, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael T. Schroth, Esq.
      SCHROTH LAW, LLC
      36368 Detroit Road, Suite B
      Avon, OH 44011
      Telephone: (440) 695-1138
      Facsimile: (440) 334-5032
      E-mail: mschroth@schroth-law.com

         - and -

      Paul J. Corrado, Esq.
      PAUL J. CORRADO ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW, CO.
      24700 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 309
      Beachwood, Ohio 44122
      Telephone: (216) 765-4000 x 11
      Facsimile: (216) 765-4100
      E-mail: corradolaw@sbcglobal.net


MOFONGO DEL VALLE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Cabral" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosmery Cabral, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Mofongo Del Valle Corp. d/b/a Mofongo del Valle,
Julissa Jimenez, Regina Jimenez, Julio Jimenez, Felix Jimenez, and
Isidro Jimenez, Case No. 1:15-cv-08517 (S.D.N.Y., October 29,
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 restaurant located at 3340
Broadway, New York, New York 10031.

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


NOBILIS HEALTH: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announces
that class action litigation has been brought on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Nobilis Health Corp. ("Nobilis" or the "Company") (NYSE: HLTH)
between April 2, 2015 and October 8, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Nobilis
during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by no later than December 21, 2015. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any
recovery in the action will not be affected by your decision of
whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain
Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

Nobilis investors who wish to learn more about the action and how
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should contact Sharon M. Lee
of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.

Background on the Nobilis Securities Class Litigation

The action charges Nobilis and certain of its senior executives
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Nobilis, together with its subsidiaries, acquires and manages
ambulatory surgical centers and healthcare facilities in the
United States.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (i) Nobilis's AccuraScope procedure, a purportedly
minimally invasive spine surgery, lacked recognition from any
university, medical body, or insurance company; (ii) the Company
had overstated its 2014 revenues by as much as $36 million; and
(iii) consequently, the Company had misrepresented its 2014
revenue growth rate as 161%, when it was actually only 44%.

On October 9, 2015, Seeking Alpha published an article describing
the AccuraScope procedure's "questionable insurability,
unsubstantiated success rates, [and] lack of recognition from"
universities, medical bodies, and insurance companies. The article
additionally noted significant accounting red flags at Nobilis and
reported that Nobilis had overstated its 2014 revenues by as much
as $36 million. On this news, the price of Nobilis common stock
fell $1.42 per share, or 27% from its closing price of $5.24 on
October 8, 2015 to close at $3.82 per share on October 9, 2015, on
extremely heavy trading volume.

                     About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for twelve years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated
unusual dedication and creativity." Best Lawyers and U.S. News
have named Lieff Cabraser as a "Law Firm of the Year" for each
year the publications have given this award to law firms,
including in 2015.

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
http://www.lieffcabraser.com.

         Sharon M. Lee, Esq.
         LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
         2101 Fourth Ave, Suite 1900
         Seattle, WA 98121-2315
         Tel: 206-739-9059
         Fax: 415.956.1008
         Email: slee@lchb.com


READY PAC: Recalls Salad Kits with Grilled Chicken Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ready Pac Foods, Inc., an Irwindale, Calif. establishment, is
recalling approximately 265 pounds of salad kits with grilled
chicken products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced. The products contain eggs and anchovies,
known allergens, which are not declared on the product label.

The Ready Pac Foods Bistro Salad Kit with Grilled Chicken items
were produced on Oct. 27, 2015. The following products are subject
to recall:

  --- 15-oz bowls of "Ready Pac Foods Bistro Salad Kit with
      Grilled Chicken, Chopped Thai Style Crunch" with Use By
      Date 11/11/15.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-27497"
inside the USDA mark of inspection. The bowls also bear the case
code "RP#: 29800." These items were shipped to retail locations in
California.

The problem was discovered when the establishment was alerted that
initial launch samples of this new item contained the wrong
dressing. The kits contained Caesar dressing rather than the
intended Sweet Thai Peanut dressing.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact the
establishment's Consumer Affairs Department at 1-800-800-7822.
Media with questions about the recall can contact the
establishment's Communications Department at (626) 678-2055.


REGENTS OF THE UCLA: Sued Over Racial Discriminatory Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Chen, M.D., PhD. v. Regents of The University Of
California, Jennifer Pelkey, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. BC598154 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 16, 2015) arises out
of the Defendants' alleged unlawful employment discriminatory
practices on the basis of national origin or ancestry and native
language.

Regents of the University of California is a public entity
operating under the laws of the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ashley A. Davenport, Esq.
      PATRICIO T.D. BARRERA, APC
      BARRERA & ASSOCIATES
      1500 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 500
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 802-1500
      Facsimile: (310) 802-0500


SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Sued in Ohio Over Gender Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Nguyen v. Safeguard Properties, LLC, Renae Baldrey, and Erin
White, Case No. cv-15-852654 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, October 14, 2015)
arises from the Defendants' alleged wrongful termination and
gender discriminatory practices.

The Defendants operate a resource center for all aspects of
property management in the mortgage field services industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean H. Sobel, Esq.
      THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290
      Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
      Telephone: (216) 291-4744
      Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
      E-mail: sean.sobel@spitzlawfirm.com


SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSIT: Sued Over Hazardous Materials
---------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Jackman v. Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority, et al.,
Case No. 115-cv-286923 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 15, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to take appropriate
precautionary measures that resulted in the contamination of VTA
warehouse with foreign, hazardous materials and debris, including
particulate matter that created a danger to anyone exposed.

Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority is responsible for bus and
light rail operations, congestion management, and specific highway
improvement projects in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lori J. Costanzo, Esq.
      Gabrielle J. Korte, Esq.
      COSTANZO LAW FIRM
      111 North Market Street, #910
      San Jose, CA 951 13
      Telephone: (408) 993-8493
      Facsimile: (408) 993-8496
      E-mail: Lori@costanzo-law.com
              Gabrielle@costanizo-law.com


SHIRAZ INC: Faces "Boutros" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amany Boutros v. Shiraz, Inc. d/b/a Hilton Palm Beach Airport,
Case No. 9:15-cv-81500-BB (S.D. Fla., October 28, 2015) is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Shiraz, Inc. owns and operates an auto repair shop in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Rush, Esq.
      CHRISTOPHER J. RUSH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      Compson Financial Center, Suite 205
      1880 North Congress Avenue
      Boynton Beach, FL 33426
      Telephone: (561) 369-3331
      Facsimile: (561) 369-5902
      E-mail: crush@crushlawfl.com


TD BANK: California Woman Sues Over Repeated Mobile Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Courier Post, reported that a California
woman has sued TD Bank, asserting the Cherry Hill-based
institution repeatedly calls cellphone users against their wishes.

Charlene Martinez seeks to have her complaint certified as a
class-action lawsuit for "hundreds or thousands" of fellow
cellphone users, her complaint says.

The suit, filed in federal court in Camden, seeks damages of at
least $500 for each member of the proposed class. It also requests
a court order barring unauthorized calls by TD Bank, as well as
payment of Martinez's legal costs.

"Unfortunately for consumers, TD Bank has called cellular
telephone numbers . . . without the express consent of the call
recipients," says the suit, filed in federal court, Camden. It
says the bank uses equipment that can store and dial phone numbers
"en masse," and so has repeatedly violated the federal do-not-call
law.

TD Bank does not comment on pending litigation, a spokeswoman
said.

The lawsuit contends cellphone users have experienced
"aggravation, nuisance and invasion of privacy," as well as
billing charges. It also asserts TD Bank placed some calls "after
receiving express requests to stop." The lawsuit includes
complaints from websites dedicated to critics of telemarketing and
notes Martinez's own experience.

According to her complaint, she received one unauthorized call on
the morning of April 14 "for purposes related to her outstanding
debt," but the connection broke off after she answered.

TD Bank allegedly phoned again that evening, when Martinez told a
representative she did not consent to the call.

"She specifically instructed him to stop calling," says the
complaint, adding TD Bank "nonetheless" made a third call to
Martinez the next day.

According to the Federal Trade Commission, a company can call a
consumer "for up to 18 months after the consumer's last purchase,
delivery or payment -- even if the consumer's number is on the
National Do Not Call Registry." Calls can be made for up to three
months after a consumer "makes an inquiry or submits an
application," it adds.

However, the FTC says, calls must stop "if a consumer asks a
company not to call."

One of the attorneys bringing the suit, Rafey Balabanian of
Edelson PC in Chicago, has taken similar action against multiple
firms, including Caribbean Cruise Line and GEICO Insurance, court
records show. He could not be reached.

Martinez's complaint is the second proposed class-action suit
brought against TD Bank in recent months.

In July, a former employee sued on behalf of himself and other
Teller Service Managers, asserting they had not been paid overtime
when working more than 40 hours in a week.

Reinaldo Kuri of Bensalem, Pennsylvania, alleged the employees
"have been willfully misclassified as 'exempt' from the overtime
requirements" of federal law.

Kuri has a separate lawsuit pending against TD Bank, contending he
was wrongfully terminated in November 2014 after being harassed
and bullied on the job.


VALEANT PHARMA: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been brought on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
common stock of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
("Valeant" or the "Company") between February 28, 2014 through
October 21, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common
stock of Valeant during the Class Period, you may move the Court
for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than December 21,
2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your
share of any recovery in the action will not be affected by your
decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may
retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the
action.

Valeant investors who wish to learn more about the action and how
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should contact Sharon M. Lee
of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.

Background on the Valeant Securities Class Litigation

The action charges Valeant and certain of its senior executives
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Valeant is 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.

The action alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
information about the Company's business and prospects, including:
(1) that Valeant was using a network of specialty mail-order
pharmacies that it actually controlled to prop up sales of its
high-priced drugs and to keep patients and their insurance
companies from switching to less costly generic drugs; (2) that
Valeant's undisclosed use of specialty pharmacies left it subject
to increased regulatory risks; and (3) that without the use of the
specialty pharmacies, Valeant's financial performance and Class
Period financial guidance would have been negatively impacted.

On September 28, 2015, Bloomberg reported that Democrats in the
U.S. House of Representatives sought to subpoena Valeant for
documents related to "massive price increases" for two drugs used
to treat heart conditions. On this news, the price of Valeant
stock dropped $32.97 per share, or 16.53%, from its closing price
on September 25, 2015 to close at $166.50 on September 28, 2015.

On October 14, 2015, Valeant disclosed that it had recently
received subpoenas from two U.S. Attorney's Offices primarily
seeking "documents with respect to our patient assistance
programs, and also include requests relating to financial support
provided by the company for patients, distribution of the
company's products, information provided to the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, and pricing decisions." Following
this news, Valeant stock fell $8.42 per share, or 4.75%, to close
at $168.87 on October 15, 2015.

On October 19, 2015, during Valeant's earnings conference call,
defendants revealed previously undisclosed and direct relationship
between Valeant and certain specialty pharmacies. On this news,
the price of Valeant common stock fell $17.09 per share, or
10.43%, to close at $146.74 on October 20, 2015. On the following
day, Citron Research published a report titled "Valeant: Could
this be the Pharmaceutical Enron?" that posited that Valeant was
using its relationship with specialty pharmacies to store
inventory and record those transactions as sales and that it was
using phantom accounts to deceive auditors and investors. On this
news, Valeant's stock price fell an additional $28.31 per share,
or 19.17%, to close at $118.61 on October 21, 2015, on extremely
heavy trading volume.

                     About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle, is a nationally
recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors
and promoting corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for twelve years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated
unusual dedication and creativity." Best Lawyers and U.S. News
have named Lieff Cabraser as a "Law Firm of the Year" for each
year the publications have given this award to law firms,
including in 2015.

         Sharon M. Lee, Esq.
         LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
         2101 Fourth Ave, Suite 1900
         Seattle, WA 98121-2315
         Phone: 206-739-9059
         Fax: 415.956.1008
         Email: slee@lchb.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Deadline to Respond to "Caro" Moved to Nov. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., has been given until November
30, 2015 to answer, move, plead or otherwise respond to the Class
Action Complaint in HOWARD CARO and JOHN T. COATES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-04653-JCS (N.D. Cal., October 7,
2015).

A copy of the Stipulation signed off by Magistrate Judge Joseph C.
Spero dated November 2, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/HQFBTb
from Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.:

     JOHN NADOLENCO, Esq.
     NEIL M. SOLTMAN, Esq.
     MATTHEW H. MARMOLEJO, , Esq.
     ANDREW Z. EDELSTEIN, Esq.
     MAYER BROWN LLP
     350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
     Tel: 213 229 5173
     Fax: 213 625 0248
     E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
             nsoltman@mayerbrown.com
             mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com
             aedelstein@mayerbrown.com

          - and -

     JEFFREY L. CHASE, Esq.
     MICHAEL B. GALLUB, Esq.
     MARK A. WEISSMAN, Esq.
     HERZFELD & RUBIN, P.C.
     125 Broad Street
     New York, NY, 10004
     Tel: (212) 471-8503
     Fax: (212) 344-3333
     E-mail: JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
             MGallub@herzfeld-rubin.com
             MWeissman@herzfeld-rubin.com

          - and -

     Matthew H. Marmolejo, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:


     JOSEPH J. TABACCO, JR., Esq.
     NICOLE LAVALLEE, Esq.
     A. CHOWNING POPPLER, Esq.
     NORMAN BERMAN, , Esq.
     LESLIE STERN, , Esq.
     NATHANIEL L. ORENSTEIN, , Esq.
     MARK DELANEY, Esq.
     BERMAN DEVALERIO
     One California St., Suite 900
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 433-3200
     Fax: (415) 433-6382
     E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
             nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com
             cpoppler@bermandevalerio.com
             nberman@bermandevalerio.com
             lstern@bermandevalerio.com
             norenstein@bermandevalerio.com
             mdelaney@bermandevalerio.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Moreau" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Xavier Moreau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-07758-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 28, 2015) arises from the
Defendants' unlawful scheme to purposefully evade federal and
state emission standards, specifically by installing an illegal
"defeat device" on certain Volkswagen and Audi diesel-model, that
detects when a vehicle is undergoing official emissions testing
and turns on full emissions controls to cheat the 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:

      John K. Weston, Esq.
      Jeremy E. Abay, Esq.
      SACKS WESTON DIAMOND, LLC
      1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 925-8200
      E-mail: jweston@sackslaw.com
              jabay@sackslaw.com


WACHOVIA CORP: Class Settlements Can Award Atty Fees, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Lathrop, Esq. -- tonylathrop@mvalaw.com -- at Moore & Van
Allen PLLC, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that the North
Carolina Court of Appeals considered for the first time whether it
is legal in a class action settlement agreement for one party to
agree to pay the other's attorneys' fees and expenses.

The court concluded that it is legal, subject to appropriate
judicial review. But, the court's ruling leaves local North
Carolina counsel shut out of the roughly $1 million attorneys' fee
award granted to New York lead counsel.

The appellate court's opinion in Ehrenhaus v. Baker, Nos. 14-1201,
14-1083 (N.C. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2015)("Ehrenhaus II") reads much
like a primer on state class action law and provides an additional
key takeaway for firms serving as local counsel -- a fee-sharing
arrangement with lead counsel will not be sufficient evidence to
support an award of local counsel's attorneys' fees. The same
evidentiary review must be conducted by the court to determine
whether any portion of the fees awarded, and to what extent, will
be allocated to local counsel. Letting lead counsel take the lead
on the attorneys' fee issue may leave local counsel empty-handed.
Ehrenhaus II also serves as a reminder to counsel and parties
operating in the North Carolina Business Court to take note of the
applicable procedural rules. Plaintiff's cross-appeal of the
court's decisions to award less than the fees requested and no
fees to local counsel was dismissed for failure to file the notice
of appeal properly and timely, and the appellate court denied the
extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari to review the matter.
Details. Details. Details.

Ehrenhaus' Journey to the Court of Appeals

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Wachovia Corporation
accepted a merger proposal from Wells Fargo & Company. In October
2008, the plaintiff filed a class action suit on behalf of
Wachovia common stock shareholders that challenged the merger and
alleged breach of fiduciary duty against Wachovia, its Board of
Directors and Wells Fargo. Plaintiff later amended the complaint
to include claims that Wachovia's proxy statement contained
materially false and misleading information and omitted material
information. The case was designated as a mandatory complex
business case and assigned to the North Carolina Business Court.
The parties ultimately entered into an agreement to settle the
case under terms including that Wells Fargo would make additional
disclosures and would pay up to $1.975 million in attorneys' fees
to class counsel. After a fairness hearing and considering
objections raised, the trial court approved the settlement and an
attorneys' fee award of approximately $932,000.

Four years ago, the Court of Appeals in Ehrenhaus I upheld the
settlement approval, but vacated the attorneys' fee award on the
grounds that the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of
law regarding the reasonableness of the attorneys' fee award were
lacking and insufficient to facilitate appellate review. The trial
court was instructed to reconsider the attorneys' fee award and to
"(1) articulate the legal basis for any fee it chose to award; and
(2) analyze the reasonableness of any such award by considering
the factors set out in Rule 1.5 of the North Carolina Rules of
Professional Conduct." Those factors include:

   -- the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of
      the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform
      the legal service properly;

   -- the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the
      acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other
      employment by the lawyer;

   -- the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar
      legal services;

   -- the amount involved and the results obtained;

   -- the time limitations imposed by the client or by the
      circumstances;

   -- the nature and length of the professional relationship with
      the client;

   -- the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or
      lawyers performing the services; and

   -- whether the fee is fixed or contingent.

On remand, the trial court considered additional evidence and held
that (1) an award of attorneys' fees was legally permissible
because the parties settled the case, rendering the American Rule
inapplicable, (2) an award of $1,056,067.57 was reasonable based
on the Rule 1.5 factors, and (3) despite the existence of a valid
fee-sharing agreement between New York lead counsel and North
Carolina local counsel, a reasonableness determination could not
be made regarding local counsel's fees because "the absence of
documentation in the record as to [local counsel's] rates, time
expended, and expenses incurred in connection with this litigation
made it unfeasible to conduct a proper analysis regarding the
services rendered by [local counsel] to Plaintiff." Objectors
appealed the award of attorneys' fees again, and plaintiff
attempted to appeal the court's decisions to grant a lesser award
than requested and to deny any award of fees to local counsel.
Plaintiff erroneously filed a notice of appeal with the Business
Court through the court's electronic filing system, and only after
the allotted time to appeal had lapsed did plaintiff file a
written notice of appeal with the clerk of court in Mecklenburg
County Superior Court, as required by North Carolina Appellate
Rule of Procedure 3(a).

Why the Controversy over Attorneys' Fees for Class Counsel?

For those familiar with the federal class action mechanism, it may
seem a given that class action settlements include attorneys' fee
awards -- usually large sums for plaintiff's counsel which has led
some to question whether plaintiffs themselves benefit as much as
their lawyers. Indeed, members of Congress have initiated
legislation seeking to address perceived unfairness in the federal
class action system and have expressed concern regarding the
abuses that have accompanied the shift from class actions largely
being used to effect landmark civil rights advancements to
"enterprising plaintiffs' attorneys seeking money damages on
behalf of consumers." While the rule governing federal class
actions (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) explicitly makes provision for the
award of attorneys' fees to class counsel, North Carolina Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 makes no such provision and does not address
attorneys' fees at all. In some areas where federal class action
law is robust, North Carolina class action law still is
developing. The appellate court has noted that the state's
business courts have reviewed certain class action issues based
upon "persuasive authority developed by federal courts and cases
from other jurisdictions," where the North Carolina appellate
court has not reviewed them yet. In fact, Ehrenhaus I (2011) was
the first appellate decision to consider the standard for approval
of class action settlements under North Carolina law. Ehrenhaus II
now addresses, for the first time, the approval of attorneys' fee
awards in the context of class action settlement agreements.

North Carolina follows what is known as the "American Rule," which
holds that attorneys' fees may not be awarded to the successful
party in litigation without statutory authority. North Carolina
has refused to recognize the "common benefit" doctrine applied in
some jurisdictions to allow an award of attorneys' fees if the
litigant "confers a common monetary benefit upon an ascertainable
stockholder class." A viable and recognized exception to the
American Rule under North Carolina law -- the "common fund"
doctrine -- was inapplicable in this case because the settlement
did not establish a fund to be shared by the class members.
Accordingly, those objecting to the settlement and attorneys' fee
award argued that there was no legal basis for the court's
approval of the fees.

Settlement Makes All the Difference -- No One Wins

In the trial and appellate courts' view, the "fatal flaw"
undermining the objectors' arguments is that there is no
"successful litigant" or "prevailing party" in the context of a
settlement agreement. No one wins if the parties voluntarily agree
to resolve the matter. Therefore, the American Rule and its
primary purpose of removing any chilling effects that may flow
from the threat of attorney fee awards against non-prevailing
parties are not implicated by settlement. Indeed, the appellate
court noted that exceptions to the American Rule usually are
designed to promote settlement and North Carolina case law
explicitly "recognizes the enforceability of settlement agreements
providing for the payment of one party's attorneys' fees by the
other party to the lawsuit." Despite a lack of statutory
authority, the North Carolina courts have reasoned that enforcing
a settlement with a fee award is consistent with the public policy
of encouraging negotiated settlement.

Although class actions are unique in the due process
considerations raised by a representative action, the appellate
court reasoned that the "fair and reasonableness determination" to
be made by the court during consideration of whether to approve a
class action settlement (established in Ehrenhaus I) also can
include a determination of whether an agreed upon award of
attorneys' fees is fair and reasonable. "A ruling that courts may
enforce settlement agreements providing for the payment of
attorneys' fees by one party to another party only in non-class
action lawsuits would run counter to this public policy favoring
the settlement of litigation." Accordingly, the appellate court
ruled in Ehrenhaus II that this reasoning and policy extends to
the class action settlement context. The appellate court
ultimately held:

the parties to a class action may agree to a fee-shifting
provision in a negotiated settlement that is -- like all other
aspects of the settlement -- subject to the trial court's approval
in a fairness hearing. During the fairness hearing, the trial
court must carefully assess the award of attorneys' fees to ensure
that it is fair and reasonable.

Are There Really No Winners?

The court's conclusion that no one is the "successful litigant"
coming out of a class action settlement may be accurate
technically, but ask any company on the receiving end of a class
action complaint whether they feel like they've lost anything by
settling a matter. And at the end of this particular tussle,
plaintiffs lost out on the opportunity to challenge the denial of
fees to local counsel and the amount of the award granted by the
trial court due to its erroneous and untimely filing of the notice
of appeal. So, whether there really are no winners at the end of
this settlement negotiation is not decidedly clear.

In reality, for many companies it is more efficient and cost
effective to settle class actions (even those without merit) than
to face the risks posed by protracted class action litigation. So,
a palatable settlement may warrant the positive spin the courts
put on the voluntary resolution of class actions. And although the
appellate court refused to grant a writ of certiorari to allow the
plaintiff's appeal in this case, it did note the possibility that
local counsel ultimately could be granted an attorneys' fee award
since the trial court ruled that it "would not award a portion of
the total attorneys' fee award to [local counsel] 'until such time
as there is sufficient evidence before the Court to support a
proper analysis regarding the services rendered by [local counsel]
to Plaintiff.'" At the end of the day, maybe the result will be
win-win.


WCW LLC: "Blankman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Blankman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WCW, LLC f/k/a Wildcat Wireline, LLC, W-G Energy
Services, LLC and KLX Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-03173
(S.D. Tex., October 29, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate an oilfield services company conducting
business within Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, 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


WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL: "Freeman" Stayed Pending Banarji Case Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VERINA FREEMAN and VALECEA DIGGS, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situation, Plaintiffs, v. WILSHIRE
COMMERCIAL CAPITAL L.L.C., a California limited liability company,
dba WILSHIRE CONSUMER CREDIT, Defendant, CIV. NO. 2:15-1428 WBS AC
(E.D. Cal.), the parties have agreed to conduct limited discovery
on the issue of the dialing system that defendant used to call
plaintiffs and the putative class members in this action. The
parties do not anticipate any discovery disputes that would need
to be resolved by the court prior to another status conference.

District Judge William B. Shubb for the Eastern District of
California on Oct. 30 ruled that:

     (1) proceedings in this action are stayed until February 22,
2016 pending the resolution of Defendant's motion to dismiss for
lack of standing in Banarji v. Wilshire Commercial Capital, LLC
dba Wilshire Consumer Credit, Civ. No. 3:14-2967 BEN KSC (S.D.
Cal.);

     (2) this case is set for a Status Conference on February 22,
2016 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5; and

     (3) the parties shall file a Joint Status Report with this
court no later than February 8, 2016 setting forth the status of
discovery in this case and the progress of the Banarji action in
the Southern District of California.

The California case came on for status conference on October 26,
2015. The issues in the Freeman case substantially overlap those
in Banarji v. Wilshire Commercial Capital, LLC dba Wilshire
Consumer Credit, Civ. No. 3:14-2967 BEN KSC (S.D. Cal. filed Dec.
17, 2014), a putative class action presently pending in the
Southern District of California. The E.D. California court is
contemplating either dismissing the California action or
transferring it to the Southern District of California.

The Banarji case appears to be well under way. In July 2015,
Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford held a case management
conference in Banarji and issued an order requiring defendant to
file its motion to dismiss for lack of standing by no later than
November 23, 2015. Defendant anticipates that Judge Crawford will
issue a ruling on its motion by January 2016.

At the October 26, 2015 status conference, the parties agreed and
stipulated to stay all proceedings in this action, with the
exception of certain limited discovery, pending the resolution of
defendant's motion to dismiss in Banarji.  The E.D. California
court agrees that the relevant interests weigh in favor of such a
stay in this case.  Because the court is reluctant to allow this
case to continue in this district if Banarji proceeds in the
Southern District of California, Judge Shubb said staying this
action will conserve the parties' and the court's limited
resources on pretrial matters that may prove moot should
defendant's motion to dismiss be denied in Banarji and the
court transfers this case to the Southern District of California.

If, on the other hand, Judge Crawford dismisses Banarji for lack
of standing, Judge Shubb said his court will be inclined to lift
the stay in the Freeman case and allow plaintiffs' case to proceed
in this district.

A copy of the Court's Oct. 30 Order is available at
http://is.gd/sAxGR3from Leagle.com.

Bryan Kemnitzer, Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg, PC; Scott D. Owens,
Scott D. Owens, P.A.; and Elliot Jason Conn, Kemnitzer Anderson
Barron and Ogilvie LLP, represent plaintiffs Verina Freeman, and
Valecea Diggs.

Wilshire Commercial Capital L.L.C., and the other Defendants are
represented by:

     Anthony Angelo Molino
     Molino and Berardino, APLC
     4751 Wilshire Blvd Ste 207
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Tel: (323) 692-4010
     Fax: (323) 692-4015


WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL: Judge to Rule on Banarji Dismissal Bid in Jan
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Banarji v. Wilshire Commercial Capital, LLC dba
Wilshire Consumer Credit, Civ. No. 3:14-2967 BEN KSC (S.D. Cal.
filed Dec. 17, 2014), Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford held a
case management conference in July 2015 and issued an order
requiring defendant to file its motion to dismiss for lack of
standing by no later than November 23, 2015. Defendant anticipates
that Judge Crawford will issue a ruling on its motion by January
2016.


WORLEYPARSONS: Faces $50MM Class Suit Filed by ACA Lawyers
----------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Wiggins, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that WorleyParsons shareholders have joined together in a $50
million class action claim filed by ACA Lawyers alleging the
engineering group breached its continuous disclosure obligations
when it gave profits guidance in mid-2013.

The class action, which is mostly composed of institutional
shareholders but also some retail shareholders, will have a
directions hearing on November 19 in the Federal Court in Sydney.
ACA Lawyers, which specialise in class actions, have been
investigating action against WorleyParsons for more than a year.

A previous class action brought in December 2013 by serial
litigator Melbourne City Investments, an investment company set up
by former Minter Ellison partner Mark Elliott, was thrown out of
Victoria's Supreme Court after the court found its arguments were
"flawed".

WorleyParsons' shares tumbled 26 per cent to $16 on November 20
2013, slashing more than $1 billion off its market value, after
chief executive Andrew Wood cut the company's annual net profits
guidance to a new range of $260 million to $300 million.

Investors were shocked by the warning, because the engineering
group had told shareholders at its annual results in August and at
its annual general meeting in early October to expect net profit
of at least $322 million.

The lawsuit alleges that WorleyParsons engaged in "misleading or
deceptive conduct," claiming the company had not provided an
explanation for why the three main reasons for the November profit
downgrade -- a fall in professional services revenue, a cost
cutting program and the decline of its Australian and Canadian
businesses -- were "unexpected or unforseen developments" that had
occurred since its August 2013 profits forecast.

WorleyParsons did not have "reasonable grounds" for making its
August forecast, said ACA Lawyers principal Steven Lewis.
"The company has a track record of not getting it right," Mr Lewis
said.

WorleyParsons said it strongly denied that there was "a proper
basis" for the class action and would vigorously defend itself.
WorleyParsons' profit warnings have continued in 2015. The
engineering group's stock, which has been trading near 10-year
lows, closed down 15› on at $6.63, down 51 percent over the past
12 months.

Mr Wood, who took over from John Grill in October 2012, told
investors at the company's annual general meeting on that the
trading outlook was not improving and that more jobs would be cut
to reduce costs. WorleyParsons is cutting about 400 jobs each
month.

Mr Grill, who is now chairman, also acknowledged at the AGM that
the company's low share price made it vulnerable to a potential
takeover bid.

WorleyParsons reported a $39 million annual net loss for 2014-15
and did not give any financial forecasts for 2016.

The ACA Lawyers class action is being funded by JustKapital
Litigation.


XEROX CORPORATION: Faces "Stock" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Stock and Martin Rifkin, on behalf of themselves and all
other employees and former employees similarly situated v. Xerox
Corporation, Case No. 8:15-cv-01747 (C.D. Cal., October 28, 2015)
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Xerox Corporation is in the business of, among other things,
providing printers, print services and installation/technical
support services for its printing products to customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ira Spiro, Esq.
      SPIRO LAW CORP
      10573 West Pico Blvd. #865
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (310) 235-2350
      E-mail: info@spiromoore.com

         - and -

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      Jay Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL LLP
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: info@l-b-law.com


YAHOO INC: Third Circuit Revives TCPA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
KleinMoynihan.com reported that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
breathed new life into a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class
action lawsuit against multinational tech giant Yahoo Inc.,
vacating an earlier trial court decision in Yahoo's favor and
remanding the case for further proceedings.

Why is Yahoo back in the TCPA crosshairs?

Trial Court Dismisses TCPA Class Action

In December 2011, Philadelphia resident Bill Dominguez bought a
new smartphone. The telephone number assigned to Dominguez's new
phone was previously owned by a person who had opted into Yahoo's
"Mail Alerts" program, which delivers SMS text messages to a Yahoo
user when the consumer receives a new email to his or her Yahoo
email account. According to court documents, consumers must enter
a password and access a Yahoo account in order to turn off Mail
Alerts. Despite his complaints to Yahoo, the Federal Trade
Commission ("FTC") and the Federal Communications Commission
("FCC"), Dominguez alleges that he received approximately 50 to 60
unsolicited text messages from Yahoo every day, at all times of
the day and night, over the course of 17 months (27,809 text
messages in total).

In April 2013, Dominguez filed a TCPA class action lawsuit on
behalf of each Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware resident who:
(1) purchased a cell phone with a telephone number previously
associated with a Yahoo account; and (2) received unsolicited text
messages from Yahoo on or after April 10, 2009. The plaintiff
alleged that Yahoo violated the TCPA by using an automatic
telephone dialing system ("ATDS" or "autodialer") to deliver SMS
text messages to consumers without receiving proper consent.

The trial court granted Yahoo's motion for summary judgment in
March 2014, dismissing the TCPA class action. Waxing poetic, U.S.
District Judge Michael M. Baylson sympathized with Dominguez:
"Victims of circumstance are often portrayed by Shakespeare --
Hamlet, Othello, Shylock; and in opera, Verdi's Don Carlos, who
without fault, loses his fianc‚e, Elisabeth of Valois, to his own
father, King Phillip of Spain, who marries Elisabeth to ensure
peace with France. In this case, Plaintiff Bill Dominguez is also
a victim of circumstance." However, as we have previously
reported, the trial court ultimately determined that Dominguez did
not offer any evidence to show that Yahoo's system had the
capacity to randomly or sequentially generate telephone numbers
(as opposed to simply storing telephone numbers), and therefore
functioned as an ATDS in violation of the TCPA. Dominguez appealed
the decision to the Third Circuit.

Third Circuit Vacates Trial Court Decision, Remands for Further
Proceedings

On October 23, 2015, the Third Circuit issued an opinion vacating
the trial court's judgment and remanding the TCPA class action for
further proceedings. In doing so, the Court referenced the FCC's
July 2015 Ruling and Order, which takes an expansive and
controversial stance on the TCPA's autodialer definition.

Despite noting that the FCC's guidance on the matter is "hardly a
model of clarity," the Court was not convinced that a reasonable
trier of fact could not find Yahoo's text messaging system to be
an autodialer. "Because this is an issue of heightened importance
in light of the 2015 FCC Ruling, and the District Court did not
previously have the benefit of the FCC's ruling in addressing the
issue," the Court stated, "remand is appropriate to allow that
Court to address more fully in the first instance whether Yahoo's
equipment meets the statutory definition."

Protect Yourself from TCPA Liability

We have written extensively about increased regulatory interest in
autodialers, as well as text messages delivered to consumer cell
phones. This case provides further proof that the failure to
ensure strict adherence to TCPA restrictions involving use of an
ATDS can have disastrous consequences. Accordingly, it is
imperative to have telemarketing practices and procedures examined
by experienced counsel prior to embarking on any new telemarketing
campaign.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic, need to
review your telemarketing practices and procedures, or if you are
the subject of a TCPA class action lawsuit, please e-mail us at
info@kleinmoynihan.com, or call us at (212) 246-0900.

The material contained herein is provided for information purposes
only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining
legal advice from an attorney. Each situation is unique, and you
should not act or rely on any information contained herein without
seeking the advice of an experienced attorney.


ZEDO INC: Faces "Felter" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Felter v. Zedo, Inc., Roy Desouza, Paul Prior, and
Craig Ellish, Case No. 1:15-cv-08178 (S.D.N.Y., October 16, 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 an advertising company located at
850 Montgomery St, Suite 150, San Francisco, California 94133.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Penn Dodson, Esq.
      ANDERSON DODSON, P.C.
      11 Broadway, Suite 615
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 961-7639
      Facsimile: (646) 998-8051
      E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *