CAR_Public/151116.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, November 16, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 228


                            Headlines


891 8TH AVE: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALDRIDGE PITE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Tobal" Suit Claims
ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Suit Claims
ASCENA RETAIL: Trial in Mehigan and Cowhey Won't Go Forward
ASCENA RETAIL: Traynor-Lufkin Consolidated with Cowhey and Mehigan

ASCENA RETAIL: May Seek Stay of Metoyer v. Tween Brands Case
ASCENA RETAIL: Stay of Gallagher v. Tween Brands Mulled
ASCENA RETAIL: Seeks to Stay Kallay v. Tween Brands
ASCENA RETAIL: May Seek Stay of Joiner v. Tween Brands Case
ASCENA RETAIL: Stay of Loor v. Tween Brands Case Mulled

ASCENA RETAIL: May Seek Stay of Legendre v. Tween Brands Case
ASCENA RETAIL: Bid to Transfer Kallay v. Tween Brands Case Denied
ASCENA RETAIL: $50MM Settlement Reached in Rougvie Case
ASHESH PATEL: Faces "Singh" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ASHESH PATEL: Faces "Singh" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

BARCLAYS BANK: "Luster" Class Suit Removed to N. Dist. Georgia
BELLE INVESTMENT: Recalls Boys' Jackets Due to Entrapment Hazard
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: "Gendreau" Suit Removed to S.D. California
CARRA IMPORTS: Recalls Window Shades Due to Strangulation Risk
CHARLES B. SPAULDING: Sued Over Security Deposit Interest Payment

CLUB CAR: Recalls Golf Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
DAMCO DISTRIBUTION: "Cooke" Suit Removed to C.D. California
FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls Wax Warmers Due to Fire and Burn Hazard
FIREWORKS OVER: Recalls Space Monkey Multi-Effect Fireworks
FONTANAARTE CORP: Recalls Pendant Lamp Light Fixtures

FRESH & EASY: Fails to Provide 60 Days' Termination Notice
GE APPLIANCES: Recalls Air Conditioners and Heating Units
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Zofran(R) Drugs
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Zofran(R)
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Gibson-Smith" Suit Over Zofran(R)

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Glasgow" Suit Over Zofran(R)
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Hinton" Suit Over Zofran(R)
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Lambeth" Suit Over Zofran(R)
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Marotz" Suit Over Zofran(R)
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Maynard" Suit Over Zofran(R)

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Pilkington" Suit Over Zofran(R)
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Reynolds" Suit Over Zofran(R)
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Strickland" Suit Over Zofran(R)
GOOGLE INC: Faces "Coorey" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Texas Court Dismissed 2012 Lawsuit

HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Parties in 2014 Suit Await Scheduling Order
IGNITE USA: Recalls Kids Straw Tumblers Due to Aspiration Risk
ILLINOIS STATE HIGH: Judge Tosses Football Concussion Class Suit
LAPORTE COUNTY, IN: "Dempsey" Suit Removed to N. Dist. Indiana
LEYVA'S MEXICAN: Faces "Contreras" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

LIGHTHOUSE CHRISTIAN: Recalls Ceramic Mugs Due to Burn Hazard
MAELI ROSE: Recalls Girl's Hoodies Due to Strangulation Hazard
MAHINDRA USA: Recalls Compact Tractors Due to Fire Hazard
NEW JERSEY: "Wilson" Suit Removed to New Jersey District Court
NEW JERSEY: 453 Sandy-Related Insurance Suits Still Pending

OFF-GRID SOLUTIONS: Recalls Adapter Kits Due to Fire Risk
PNY TECHNOLOGIES: Recalls Lithium Battery Packs Due to Fire Risk
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Removed AA Suncoast Sui to M.D. Florida
PROSKAUER ROSE: Johnson & Johnson Heirs Agree to End Fraud Suit
QUALITY BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycles and Cranksets Due to Fall Risk

RADIANCY INC: "Cantley" Suit Removed to E. Dist. California
SAFECO INSURANCE: "Berry" Suit Removed to Arizona District Court
SCA CREDIT: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Hill" Class Suit
SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Recalls Blenders Due to Laceration Risk
SPOKEO INC: Justices Address Concrete Injury Issue in FCRA Suit

ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL: Injunction Issued v. Web Site
STANFORD: Ponzi Scheme Investors Seek to Recover Claims
STEIN MART: "Corrales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
STEIN MART: "Miranda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
STIHL INC: Recalls Gas-Powered Edgers, Trimmer, & Pole Pruners

SURE SIGNAL: Recalls Heat-activated Fire Alarms
T3 MICRO: Recalls Curling Irons Due to Burn Hazard
TAKATA CORP: Faces $200 Million in Fines Over Air Bag Defects
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
UNITED FLOWER: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Swarce" Suit in Mass. Over Defeat Device
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Stegen" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Mediators Named to Expedite Case Settlement
WOLF & CROW: Faces "Everson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

* Beauty School Students Not Employees, Court Rules
* Ex-Fen-Phen Plaintiffs' Lawyer Chesley Receives Arrest Warrant


                            *********


891 8TH AVE: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Ramirez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. 891 8th
Ave Bagel Bakery Inc. d/b/a Pick A Bagel, Ariey Nussbaum, Oron
Unger, and John Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-08514 (S.D.N.Y., 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 a bagel shop located at 891 8th
Ave, New York, NY 10019.

The Plaintiff is a pro se litigant.


ALDRIDGE PITE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Tobal" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Morris Tobal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Aldridge Pite, LLP, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-
cv-07784 (D.N.J., October 29, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Aldridge Pite, LLP is a multi-state law firm with locations in
Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 695-3282
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com


ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Todd S. Elwert, DC, Inc., individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Alliance Healthcare
Services, Inc., and John Does 1 - 10, Case No. 5:15-cv-02223 (N.D.
Ohio, October 29, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements without prior express
consent.

Alliance Healthcare Services, Inc. is a provider of outpatient
diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George D. Jonson, Esq.
      Matthew Elton Stubbs
      MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON-CINCINNATI
      2100 Society Bank Center
      36 East Seventh Street
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Telephone: (513) 241-4722
      Facsimile: (513) 241-8775
      E-mail: gjonson@mrjlaw.com
              mstubbs@mrjlaw.com


ASCENA RETAIL: Trial in Mehigan and Cowhey Won't Go Forward
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended July 25, 2015, that trial scheduled for
early 2016 in the consolidated Mehigan and Cowhey Cases (Rougvie)
will not go forward in light of the settlement in principle
reached with the plaintiffs in the Rougvie case.

               Mehigan v. Ascena Retail Group, Inc.
                      and Tween Brands, Inc.

On February 12, 2015, Melinda Mehigan and Fonda Kubiak, both
consumers, filed a purported class action proceeding (the "Mehigan
case") against Ascena Retail Group, Inc. and Tween Brands, Inc.
(doing business as "Justice") in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of themselves
and all similarly situated consumers who, in the case of Ms.
Mehigan in the State of New Jersey, and in the case of Ms. Kubiak
in the State of New York, made purchases at Justice from 2009 to
2015 (the "Alleged Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges that
Justice violated state comparative pricing laws in connection with
advertisements promoting a 40% discount. The plaintiffs further
allege false advertising, violation of state consumer protection
statutes, breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and
unfair benefit to Justice. The plaintiffs seek to stop Justice's
allegedly unlawful practice, and obtain damages for Justice's
customers in the named states. They also seek interest and legal
fees.

On February 17, 2015, the complaint in the Mehigan case was
amended to add five more named individual plaintiffs and to add
the same allegations against Justice in the States of California,
Florida, Illinois and Texas.

On April 8, 2015, the complaint in the Mehigan case was amended a
second time seeking to make the case a nationwide purported class
action lawsuit. As amended, the case covers Justice customers in
47 states. The excluded states are Hawaii, Alaska and Ohio. During
the Alleged Class Period, Justice did not operate any stores in
Hawaii or Alaska. A similar class action lawsuit making
substantially the same allegations as the Mehigan case was settled
in December 2014 in Ohio.

                   Cowhey v. Tween Brands, Inc.

On February 17, 2015, Carol Cowhey, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding (the "Cowhey case") against Ascena Retail
Group, Inc. and Tween Brands, Inc. (doing business as "Justice")
in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers who
in the State of Pennsylvania made purchases at Justice during the
Alleged Class Period. The allegations in the Cowhey case are
substantially the same as those in the Mehigan case. The relief
sought in the Cowhey case focuses on remedies available under
Pennsylvania law, which the plaintiff claims include treble
damages. On March 19, 2015, Justice removed the Cowhey case to
federal court in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

       Consolidation of Mehigan and Cowhey Cases (Rougvie)

On April 8, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania consolidated the Cowhey case and the
Mehigan case. They are now consolidated for all pre-trial purposes
in the federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On June 2, 2015, the court held a Rule 16 Conference and issued a
Scheduling Order and Settlement Conference Order. The Scheduling
Order sets a fact and expert discovery deadline of December 4,
2015, with trial scheduled for early 2016. In light of the
settlement in principle reached with the plaintiffs in the Rougvie
case, the trial will not go forward.


ASCENA RETAIL: Traynor-Lufkin Consolidated with Cowhey and Mehigan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended July 25, 2015, that the District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has consolidated the case,
Traynor-Lufkin v. Tween Brands, Inc., with the Cowhey case and the
Mehigan case (collectively referred to as Rougvie).

              Traynor-Lufkin v. Tween Brands, Inc.

On March 6, 2015, Katie Traynor-Lufkin and three other named
plaintiffs, all consumers, filed a purported nationwide class
action (the "Traynor-Lufkin case") against Tween Brands, Inc.
(doing business as "Justice") in the Court of Common Pleas in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The Traynor-Lufkin case purports to include
a class of Justice customers in 47 states. As with the Mehigan
case, the Traynor-Lufkin case excludes Hawaii, Alaska and Ohio.
During the Alleged Class Period, Justice did not operate any
stores in Hawaii or Alaska. In December 2014, Justice settled a
similar class action lawsuit in the State of Ohio. The allegations
and damages sought in the Traynor-Lufkin case are substantially
the same as those in the Mehigan case.

                Removal of Traynor-Lufkin Case and
                        Motion to Transfer

On April 7, 2015, Justice removed the Traynor-Lufkin case to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On
April 13, 2015, Justice filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1408(a) to transfer the Traynor-Lufkin case to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In
seeking the transfer, Justice argued that there were already two
consolidated actions pending in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and that a forum in Ohio is not appropriate because
no Ohio consumers are involved in the case. The Eastern District
of Pennsylvania was advised that the Traynor-Lufkin case was
related to Rougvie, and the case was reassigned on May 27, 2015.

                 Consolidation of Traynor-Lufkin
                         and Rougvie case

On June 18, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania consolidated the Cowhey case and the
Mehigan case (collectively referred to as Rougvie) and the
Traynor-Lufkin matters. The Scheduling and Settlement Conference
Orders issued in the Rougvie matter are applicable to all parties
in the Traynor-Lufkin and Rougvie cases, including the Company and
all of the named plaintiffs in the consolidated actions.


ASCENA RETAIL: May Seek Stay of Metoyer v. Tween Brands Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended July 25, 2015, that the Company expects to
file a motion to stay the case, Metoyer v. Tween Brands, Inc., in
light of the broader settlement in principle reached with the
plaintiffs in the Rougvie case.

On May 29, 2015, Theresa Metoyer, a consumer, filed a purported
class action against Tween Brands, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Central Division of California, Eastern
Division, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers who made purchases from Justice stores located in
California during the four years preceding the filing of the
lawsuit. The allegations in the Metoyer case are substantially the
same as those in the other Justice pricing lawsuits described
above. The relief sought by plaintiff is substantially the same as
that sought in the other lawsuits.

On June 17, 2015, after consulting with opposing counsel, an Ex
Parte Motion for an Extension of Time to Answer the was requested.
The Court did not rule on the Motion, and Tween Brands, Inc. filed
an Answer on June 18, 2015. The Court issued an Order setting a
scheduling conference for August 24, 2015. On August 21, 2015, the
Court issued an Order canceling the August 24 conference,
directing the parties to file a joint status report, and
indicating that the Court would consider resetting a status
conference after review of the joint status report. The Company
expects to file a motion to stay this case in light of the broader
settlement in principle.


ASCENA RETAIL: Stay of Gallagher v. Tween Brands Mulled
-------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended July 25, 2015, that the Company expects to
file a motion to stay the case, Gallagher v. Tween Brands, Inc.,
in light of the broader settlement in principle reached with the
plaintiffs in the Rougvie case.

On June 4, 2015, Robert Gallagher, a consumer, filed a lawsuit
against Tween Brands, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division. This lawsuit
includes both national and Missouri purported class actions. The
plaintiff seeks monetary damages and reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees.

On June 25, 2015, the Court granted the parties' Consent Motion
for Extension of Defendant's Time to Respond to the Complaint
until after the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") issues a ruling on the Motion to Transfer. The JPML
issued its ruling denying the Motion to Transfer on August 7,
2015. On August 27, 2015, the Company filed its answer to the
case. The Company expects to file a motion to stay this case in
light of the broader settlement in principle.


ASCENA RETAIL: Seeks to Stay Kallay v. Tween Brands
---------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended July 25, 2015, that the Company expects to
file a motion to stay the case, Kallay v. Tween Brands, Inc., in
light of the broader settlement in principle reached with the
plaintiffs in the Rougvie case.

On June 5, 2015, Andrea Kallay, a consumer, filed a purported
class action against Tween Brands, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division. This lawsuit includes both national and Wisconsin class
actions. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and reasonable costs
and attorneys' fees.

On June 29, 2015, the Court granted the parties' Consent Motion
for Extension of Defendant's Time to Respond to the Complaint
until after the JPML issues a ruling on the Motion to Transfer.
Following the JPML's order denying the Motion to Transfer, the
Company filed an Answer to the Complaint on August 28, 2015. The
Company expects to file a motion to stay this case in light of the
broader settlement in principle.


ASCENA RETAIL: May Seek Stay of Joiner v. Tween Brands Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended July 25, 2015, that the Company expects to
file a motion to stay the case, Joiner v. Tween Brands, Inc., in
light of the broader settlement in principle reached with the
plaintiffs in the Rougvie case.

On June 1, 2015, Rebecca Joiner, a consumer, filed a purported
class action against Tween Brands, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland. This lawsuit includes
putative national and Maryland classes. The plaintiff seeks
monetary damages and reasonable costs and attorney's fees. The
parties have stipulated to an extension of the time to respond to
the Complaint until after the JPML issues a ruling on the Motion
to Transfer. Following the JPML's order denying the Motion to
Transfer, the Company filed an Answer to the Complaint on August
28, 2015. The Company expects to file a motion to stay this case
in light of the broader settlement in principle.


ASCENA RETAIL: Stay of Loor v. Tween Brands Case Mulled
-------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended July 25, 2015, that the Company expects to
file a motion to stay the case, Loor v. Tween Brands, Inc., in
light of the broader settlement in principle reached with the
plaintiffs in the Rougvie case.

On June 11, 2015, Yanetsy Loor, a consumer, filed a purported
class action against Tween Brands, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida. This lawsuit
includes putative national and Florida classes. The plaintiff
seeks monetary damages and reasonable costs and attorney's fees.
The Company filed its Answer on August 21, 2015. The Company
expects to file a motion to stay this case in light of the broader
settlement in principle.


ASCENA RETAIL: May Seek Stay of Legendre v. Tween Brands Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended July 25, 2015, that the Company expects to
file a motion to stay the case, Legendre v. Tween Brands, Inc., in
light of the broader settlement in principle reached with the
plaintiffs in the Rougvie case.

On June 17, 2015, David Legendre, a consumer, filed a purported
class action against Tween Brands, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. This lawsuit
includes both national and New Jersey class actions. The plaintiff
seeks monetary damages and reasonable costs and attorney's fees.
The Company expects to file a motion to stay this case in light of
the broader settlement in principle.


ASCENA RETAIL: Bid to Transfer Kallay v. Tween Brands Case Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended July 25, 2015, that in the case, In re Tween
Brands, Inc., Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation. MDL No.
2646, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the
motion to transfer the case, Kallay v. Tween Brands, Inc.

On June 1, 2015, Andrea Kallay, the plaintiff in Kallay v. Tween
Brands, Inc., filed a Motion to Transfer to the United State
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and for creation
of a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) proceeding styled In re: Tween
Brands, Inc., Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL 2646.
Responses to the Motion to Transfer were submitted on June 23,
2015. The majority of plaintiffs in the above listed cases filed
response motions in support of transfer and consolidation to the
Southern District of Ohio. The Rougvie plaintiffs filed a response
motion opposing transfer to the Southern District of Ohio and
arguing for transfer to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Justice filed a Response in Opposition, supporting transfer and
consolidation but arguing that the proper venue for the MDL is the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The JPML held a hearing on July
30, 2015 on the Motion to Transfer and subsequently denied the
Motion to Transfer in an Order issued on August 7, 2015.


ASCENA RETAIL: $50MM Settlement Reached in Rougvie Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended July 25, 2015, that an agreement in
principle was reached in July 2015with the plaintiffs in the
Rougvie case to settle the lawsuit on a class basis for
approximately $50 million, including payments to members of the
class, payment of legal fees and expenses of settlement
administration. The Company believes that such amount reflects a
liability that is both probable and reasonably estimable, thus a
reserve for approximately $50 million was established in the
fourth quarter of Fiscal 2015. This settlement agreement is
subject to the negotiation of a definitive class action settlement
agreement, notice to the class and opportunity for class members
to object or exclude themselves from the settlement, approval by
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania after consideration of any objections, and potential
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. Once there is a final non-appealable approval of the
settlement, it will resolve all of the outstanding Justice class
actions.  If the Plaintiffs in the other Justice cases do not
agree to dismissal, the Company will move to dismiss those cases
in light of the binding release of all class members affected by
the settlement.  There is some possibility that individual class
members could exclude themselves from the settlement, but they
would then only be able to pursue individual claims rather than
class claims.  If the six plaintiffs who have brought the other
actions excluded themselves from the settlement, the Company
believes that the liability associated with any of their
individual cases would not be material. If the matters described
herein do not occur and the pricing lawsuits are not settled on a
class basis for approximately $50 million in accordance with the
agreement in principle, the ultimate resolution of these matters
may or may not result in an additional material loss which cannot
be reasonably estimated at this time.


ASHESH PATEL: Faces "Singh" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ravinder Singh v. Jatinder Singh, Ashesh Patel Foi Enterprises,
Inc., d/b/a Flavors of India, Tien C. Yu, Hsiu H. Yu, and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG15791385 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
October 29, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate Flavors of India restaurant located
in Alameda County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark L. Venardi, Esq.
      Martin Zurada, Esq.
      VENARD I. ZURADA LLP
      2700 Ygnacio Valley, Road, Suite 300
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 937-3900
      Facsimile: (925) 937-3905
      E-mail: mzurada@vefirm.com


ASHESH PATEL: Faces "Singh" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ravinder Singh v. Jatinder Singh, Ashesh Patel Foi Enterprises,
Inc., Flavors of India, Tien C. Yu, Hsiu H. Yu, and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. RG15791392 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 29,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operates Flavors of India restaurant
located in Alameda County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark L. Venardi, Esq.
      Martin Zurada, Esq.
      VENARD I. ZURADA LLP
      2700 Ygnacio Valley, Road, Suite 300
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 937-3900
      Facsimile: (925) 937-3905
      E-mail: mzurada@vefirm.com


BARCLAYS BANK: "Luster" Class Suit Removed to N. Dist. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Frederick Luster, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Barclays Bank
Delaware, Case No. 15A56829-7, was removed from the State Court of
Dekalb County to the U.S. District Court Northern District of
Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-03653-LMM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Barclays Bank Delaware operates a banking company located at 100
South West Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
      SKAAR AND FEAGLE LLP
      Suite B, 2374 Main Street
      Tucker, GA 30084
      Telephone: (404) 373-1970
      Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
      E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

         - and -

      Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
      Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
      SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
      133 Mirramont Lake Drive
      Woodstock, GA 30189
      Telephone: (770) 427-5600
      Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
      E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
              krisskaar@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Monica Kocurek Gilroy, Esq.
      Tania Tuttle Trumble, Esq.
      GILROY BAILEY TRUMBLE LLC
      3780 Mansell Road, Suite 140
      Alpharetta, GA 30022
      Telephone: (678) 280-1922
      Facsimile: (678) 280-1923
      E-mail: mkg@dickensongilroy.com
              ttt@dgllclaw.com


BELLE INVESTMENT: Recalls Boys' Jackets Due to Entrapment Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Belle Investment Corporation, of Irvine, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 40 Boys' Jackets. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The jackets have drawstrings in the hood and at the bottom, which
pose an entrapment hazard to children. Drawstrings can become
entangled or caught on playground slides, hand rails, school bus
doors or other moving objects, posing a significant strangulation
and/or entanglement hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC
issued guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear.
In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary
standard. Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and
voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation. CPSC's
actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in
upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

This recall involves two styles of Richie House boys' hooded
jackets. The striped red and purple jacket comes with a drawstring
in the hood, and has a crest-shaped emblem sewn onto the front of
it. It was sold in sizes: 4-7 and 9-10.  The model number is
RH1045C. The polyester and cotton padded jackets were sold in
brown, dark green and red, and have a white drawstring located at
the bottom. The jackets have a round emblem sewn onto the front
and were sold in sizes 2T-5. The model number is RH1332-B or
RH1332-C and is printed on the care label. "Richie House" is also
printed on a label sewn into the neck of the coat.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/5NNjFM


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold Online
at www.Zulily.com and www.Richiehouse.com from April 2015 through
October 2015 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the hood
and the bottom of the recalled jackets to eliminate the hazard and
contact Richie House for instructions to receive a full refund.


CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: "Gendreau" Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Timothy Gendreau, Michelle
Morales, individually and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. California Physicians' Service d/b/a Blue
Shield of California and Does 1-10, Case No. 37-02015-00024035-CU-
BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County,
Central Division to the U.S. District Court Southern District of
California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:15-cv-02455-CAB-RBB to the proceeding.

The case asserts causes of action under violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

California Physicians' Service is a not-for-profit health plan
provider based in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
      CASEY, GERRY, SCHENK, FRANCAVILLA, BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
      110 Laurel Street
      San Diego, CA 92101-1406
      Telephone: (619) 238-1811
      Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
      E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      John M. LeBlanc, Esq.
      Sarah Gettings, Esq.
      MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
      11355 W. Olympic Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (310) 312-4228
      Facsimile: (310) 914-5866
      E-mail: jleblanc@manatt.com
              sgettings@manatt.com


CARRA IMPORTS: Recalls Window Shades Due to Strangulation Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Carra Imports LLC, of Middleton, Wis. and Carra USA Inc., of
Jamaica, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 55,500 Window
shades. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Cellular, Roller and Soft Horizontal Shades: Strangulation can
occur when the shade's continuous loop pull cord or bead chain is
not attached to the wall with a tension device and a child's neck
becomes entangled in the free-standing loop. Roman Shades:
Strangulation can occur when a child places his/her neck between
the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside of the shade
or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it around his/her
neck.

This recall involves custom made-to-order cellular, roller, soft
horizontal and Roman style solar shades. The shades were sold in a
variety of custom sizes and colors.  The shades do not have any
identifying labels or markings on the products.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/2kQ253

The recalled products were manufactured in Turkey and sold at
Online and by phone orders at Blinds.com, Blinds Century (aka
American Blinds), Blinds Wholesale, HomeCraft, Home Depot,
JustBlinds.com, Nobrainer Blinds, Office Depot, Rugs Direct BFC,
Steve's Blinds, Wayfair and Window World Blinds for between $35
and $775. The cellular shades were sold from August 2014 through
February 2015. The roller shades were sold from September 2010
through September 2013. The soft horizontal shades were sold from
July 2010 through March 2012. The Roman shades were sold from
September 2010 through July 2013.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled window shades
and contact Carra for a free repair kit.  If the recalled
cellular, roller and soft horizontal shades do not have hold down
devices installed, contact Carra Imports to receive a repair kit
which includes a hold down device and instructions to install it.
The repair kit for the Roman shades includes instructions to
remove the pull cords and to install metal rings to raise and
lower the shades to remove the hazard. Carra is directly
contacting consumers who purchased the recalled window shades.


CHARLES B. SPAULDING: Sued Over Security Deposit Interest Payment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemaya Foster, individually and on behalf similarly situated
persons v. Charles B. Spaulding, et al., Case No. 2015CH16036
(Ill. Ch. Ct., October 30, 2015) seeks to recover compensation and
injunctive relief for dozens of current, former and future tenants
in buildings owned or managed by the Defendants who were not paid
interest on their security deposits, and who failed to receive
conforming Summaries of the Chicago Residential Landlord and
Tenant Ordinance Municipal Code of Chicago, as required by that
Ordinance at the commencement of, or during the course of their
tenancies.

Charles B. Spaulding operates a multi-unit residential apartment
building containing approximately 42 units in the City of Chicago,
Cook County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Morris, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DAVID S. MORRIS
      332 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 986-3200


CLUB CAR: Recalls Golf Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Club Car LLC, of Augusta, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of
about 11,600 Precedent Gas Golf and Transport Vehicles. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

An improperly factory-installed hose clamp can rub and wear a hole
in the fuel tank, causing a leak and posing a fire hazard.

The 2014-2016 Precedent gas golf and transport vehicles, which
vary in size, models and colors, are used for short-distance
transportation. The recalled vehicles can be identified by the
model and serial numbers. Serial numbers are above and to the
right of the accelerator pedal. The model number is the first two
letters of the serial number.  Recalled models and serial numbers
include:

  Model               Model Number    Serial Number Range
  -----               ------------    -------------------
  Precedent 12 Gas    SL              1438-497172 to 1604-619273
  Precedent 12L Gas   SM              1503-527138 to 1603-619240
  Precedent 12        SN              1502-525626 to 1604-619488
  4 Passenger Gas
  Precedent 12        SU              1516-545869 to 1603-618029
  Signature Gas
  Precedent 12        SV              1506-530816 to 1546-608008
  Signature 4
  Passenger Gas


The firm has received three reports that the air intake hose clamp
rubbed the fuel tank. No incidents of fire or injuries have been
reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/PI6wBF

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Authorized Club Car dealers nationwide between July 2014 and
August 2015 for between $5,000 and $9,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the vehicles and contact
Club Car to schedule a free repair. Club Car is contacting owners
of the recalled golf and transport vehicles directly.


DAMCO DISTRIBUTION: "Cooke" Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Robert Cooke, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Damco
Distribution Services Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. BC537151, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior
Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-08094-MWF-RAO to the proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

Damco Distribution Services Inc. owns and operates a logistics and
supply chain company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
      HAMNER LAW OFFICES APC
      555 West Fifth Street 31st Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90013
      Telephone: (213) 533-4160
      Facsimile: (213) 533-4167
      E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com

         - and -

      Christopher Alexander Olsen, Esq.
      OLSEN LAW OFFICES APC
      1010 Second Avenue Suite 1835
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 550-9352
      Facsimile: (619) 923-2747
      E-mail: caolsen@caolsenlawoffices.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      George A. Stohner, Esq.
      FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
      1990 South Bundy Drive Suite 620
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (650) 324-6700
      Facsimile: (650) 324-6701
      E-mail: George.stohner@faegrebd.com


FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls Wax Warmers Due to Fire and Burn Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Family Dollar Services Inc., of Matthews, N.C., announced a
voluntary recall of about 32,000 Wax Warmers. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The wax warmers can produce high flames, posing fire and burn
hazards to consumers.

This recall involves ceramic wax warmer sets that include four
vanilla-scented wax cubes for melting and a teacup-shaped ceramic
warmer with an opening to insert a tea light candle. Candles are
not sold as part of set.  The ceramic warmers were colored cream
with gold trim, and green with gold trim.

Family Dollar has received 11 reports of the warmers producing
high flames, including two reports of burn injuries and three
reports of property damage.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Ar76wR

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Family Dollar stores nationwide from April 2015 through September
2015 for $4.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled wax warmers
and return them to any Family Dollar store location for a full
refund.


FIREWORKS OVER: Recalls Space Monkey Multi-Effect Fireworks
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fireworks Over America, of Springfield, Mo., announced a voluntary
recall of about 36,500 Space Monkey. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The lit firework can tip over and fire shells at bystanders posing
burn, fire and impact hazards to consumers.

This recall involves all Fireworks Over America Space Monkey
multi-effect fireworks sold both individually and by the case. The
firework has 20-tubes individually wrapped in red paper. The tubes
are bundled together to form a "cake" that measures 7 inches tall
by 5 1/2 inches wide by 5 1/2 inches deep. The cake has a black
wrapper. The front panel and two side panels of the wrapper have a
picture of a chimpanzee wearing a space suit and the words "Space
Monkey," "Warning," "Shoots Flaming Balls" and "Carefully read
other cautions on the back panel." The back panel of the wrapper
has the words "Warning" and "Shoots Flaming Balls" and a list of
additional warnings. Recalled fireworks have product code FOA 2936
printed on the back panel in the lower right hand corner. Cases of
the recalled fireworks have factory number 36F285-252-14 printed
on the front of the case near the product name.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/c2KSFZ

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Retail fireworks stores and retail stands from November 2014 to
August 2015 for about $15 each.

Consumers should not ignite the recalled fireworks and contact
Fireworks Over America for a full refund.


FONTANAARTE CORP: Recalls Pendant Lamp Light Fixtures
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
FontanaArte Corp., of New York, NY, announced a voluntary recall
of about 110 units Sonmi Pendant Lamp Light Fixtures. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The glass shade disc on the light fixture can detach and fall,
posing a risk of injury from impact. In addition, broken glass can
pose a laceration hazard.

This recall involves two pendant lamp light fixtures. The fixtures
have a round base suspended mount, a central bowl-shaped glass
shade, and a lower 39 inch disc-shaped glass shade. The fixture is
supported by either a single stem or three metal cables. The
fixtures have a round matte-white pendant mount and model number
M3748 printed on a label affixed to the mount.  The central bowl
and lower disc-shaped glass shades come in white or red. A special
order fixture, with model number SPM3748, was sold with a round
matte white mount and a 46 inch disc-shaped tempered glass shade.
The company uses letters M, S, V as prefixes in order to identify
the mount, the bowl and the glass.

FontanaArte has received one report of a glass lamp shade
detaching and falling. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/4CkkYE

The recalled products were manufactured in Italy and sold at
Lighting stores and by individual designers nationwide from
January 2008 through June 2015 for about $4,000.

Consumers should immediately remove the glass shade from the light
fixture and contact FontanaArte to arrange to have the fixture
professionally repaired free in their home.


FRESH & EASY: Fails to Provide 60 Days' Termination Notice
----------------------------------------------------------
Leanne Morris, Letty Miller, Kristin S. Harper individually and on
behalf of all other aggrieved employees v. Fresh & Easy, LLC, YFE
Holdings, Inc., and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
BC599728 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 30, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to provide at least 60 days' written
notice prior to the mass layoff and termination in violation of
California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate the Fresh & Easy grocery stores
located throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald E. Norman, Esq.
      FARNELL & NORMAN, PC
      2020 Main Street, Suite 770
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949)553-1300
      Facsimile: (866) 600-2067

         - and -

      Kashif Haque, Esq.
      Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
      Sam Kim, Esq.
      AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
      9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
      Ervine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949) 379-6250
      Facsimile: (949) 379-6251


GE APPLIANCES: Recalls Air Conditioners and Heating Units
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
GE Appliances, of Louisville, KY, announced a voluntary recall of
about 33,500 GE Zoneline(R) Air Conditioners and Heating Units.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Moisture from outdoor air can accumulate near the unit's heater
when the unit is operated with the vent door continuously open.
This, along with two shorted electrical components, can create an
electrical ground path and arcing, posing a risk of fire.

This recall involves GE Zoneline Packaged Terminal Air
Conditioners (PTAC) and heating units with listed serial numbers.
These units are most often used in hotels, apartment buildings and
commercial spaces. The GE logo is affixed to the control panel
door. Units with the following models and serial numbers are
included in this recall:

  Brand Model   Prefix       Serial Number (Begins with)
  -----------   ------       ---------------------------
  GE            AZ40E09E     AT, AV, AZ, DT, DV, DZ, FT, FV, FZ,
                AZ41E07E     GS, GT, GV, GZ, HT, HV, HZ, LT, LV,
                AZ41E09E     LZ, MT, MV, MZ, RT, RV, RZ, ST, SV,
                AZ41E12E     SZ, TT, TV, TZ, VS, VT, VV, VZ, ZS,
                AZ41E15E     ZT, ZV, ZZ
                AZ61H07E
                AZ61H09E
                AZ61H12E
                AZ61H15E

The model and serial numbers are printed on the rating plate that
can be seen after removing the front panel.

GE has received three reports involving smoke and/or fire
associated with the unit's heater resulting in about $30,000 of
property damage. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/yjKWqZ

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at GE
authorized representatives and HVAC distributors nationwide from
January 2010 through December 2013 for between $1,000 and $1,200.

Consumers should contact GE to schedule a free repair. Do not
operate the PTAC unit with the external vent open while awaiting a
free repair. Property maintenance personnel should remove the
unit's front panel and locate the vent door control lever at the
left side of the Zoneline unit to ensure the lever is in the
closed position.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Zofran(R) Drugs
--------------------------------------------------------
Angela Brown, Individually and as parent and next friend of
Nicholas Brooks Brown, A Minor v. Glaxosmithkline, LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-01915-SGC (N.D. Ala., October 28, 2015) is an action for
compensatory damages, punitive damages and such other relief
deemed just and proper arising from the injuries to Nicholas
Brooks Brown as a result of the Plaintiff Angela Brown's prenatal
exposures to the prescription drug ondansetron which is the
generic bioequivalent of GSK's Zofran(R).

Zofran is a prescription drug that helps prevent and mitigate
nausea and vomiting.

Glaxosmithkline, LLC operates a pharmaceutical company which has
identified its principal place of business in Wilmington,
Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Annesley H. De Garis, Esq.
      DEGARIS LAW GROUP, LLC
      420 20TH STREET North, Suite 2200
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 558-9000
      E-mail: adegaris@degarislaw.com

         - and -

      Wendy R. Fleishman, Esq.
      LEIF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 HUDSON STREET, 8TH FLOOR
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
      E-mail: wfleishman@lchb.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Zofran(R)
--------------------------------------------------
Deana Brown, individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian for
M.B., a minor v. Glaxosmithkline LLC, and Does 1-10, Case No.
1:15-cv-00508-CWD (D. Idaho, October 29, 2015) is an action for
compensatory damages, equitable relief, and such other relief
deemed just and proper arising from the injuries to the Plaintiff
M.B. as a result of the Plaintiff Deana Brown's prenatal exposures
to the prescription drug Zofran(R) and its generic equivalent,
also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a prescription drug that helps prevent and mitigate
nausea and vomiting.

Glaxosmithkline, LLC operates a pharmaceutical company which has
identified its principal place of business in Wilmington,
Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kira Dale Pfisterer, Esq.
      HEPWORTH, JANIS & KLUKSDAL, CHTD.
      537 West Bannock Street, Ste. 200
      P.O. Box 2582
      Boise, ID 83701-2582
      Telephone: (208) 343-7510
      Facsimile: (208) 342-2927
      E-mail: kdp@hepworthlaw.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Gibson-Smith" Suit Over Zofran(R)
---------------------------------------------------------
Tameka Gibson-Smith, individually and as parent and natural
guardian of Malachi Jackson v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 7:15-
cv-01921-TMP (N.D. Ala., October 29, 2015) is an action for
compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief, and such
other relief deemed just and proper arising from the injuries to
Malachi Jackson as a result of his prenatal exposures to the
generic bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran(R),
also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a prescription drug that helps prevent and mitigate
nausea and vomiting.

Glaxosmithkline, LLC operates a pharmaceutical company which has
identified its principal place of business in Wilmington,
Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel L. DiLorenzo, Esq.
      THE DILORENZO LAW FIRM, LLC
      505 20th Street North, Suite 1275
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 212-9988
      Facsimile: (205) 212-9989
      E-mail: joel@dilorenzo-law.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Glasgow" Suit Over Zofran(R)
----------------------------------------------------
Darcy Glasgow and Robert Glasgow, each Individually and on Behalf
of R.H.G. and R.C.G., their minor children v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01900-RDP (N.D. Ala., October 28, 2015) is an
action for compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief,
and such other relief deemed just and proper arising from the
injuries to R.H.G. and R.C.G. as a result of their prenatal
exposures to the generic bioequivalent form of the prescription
drug Zofran(R), also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a prescription drug that helps prevent and mitigate
nausea and vomiting.

Glaxosmithkline, LLC operates a pharmaceutical company which has
identified its principal place of business in Wilmington,
Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don McKenna, Esq.
      HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP
      The Massey Bldg. Suite 800
      2025 Third Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 328-5330
      Facsimile: (205) 324-2165
      E-mail: don@hwnn.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Hinton" Suit Over Zofran(R)
---------------------------------------------------
Kayce and Josh Hinton, each individually and on behalf of C.H.,
their minor child v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-01908-
TMP (N.D. Ala., October 28, 2015) is an action for compensatory
and punitive damages, equitable relief, and such other relief
deemed just and proper arising from the injuries to C.H. as a
result of his prenatal exposures to the generic bioequivalent form
of the prescription drug Zofran(R), also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a prescription drug that helps prevent and mitigate
nausea and vomiting.

Glaxosmithkline, LLC operates a pharmaceutical company which has
identified its principal place of business in Wilmington,
Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don McKenna, Esq.
      HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP
      The Massey Bldg. Suite 800
      2025 Third Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 328-5330
      Facsimile: (205) 324-2165
      E-mail: don@hwnn.com

         - and -

      T. Christopher Pinedo, Esq.
      Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
      HILLIARD MUNOZ GONZALES LLP
      719 S. Shoreline, Suite 500
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 882-1612
      Facsimile: (361) 882-3015


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Lambeth" Suit Over Zofran(R)
----------------------------------------------------
Patricia Lambeth, an individual, and B.B, a minor, by and through
her mother and next friend, Patricia Lambeth v. Glaxosmithkline,
LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00546 (S.D. Ala., October 29, 2015) is an
action for compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief,
and such other relief deemed just and proper arising from the
injuries to B.B. as a result of his prenatal exposures to the
generic bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran(R),
also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a prescription drug that helps prevent and mitigate
nausea and vomiting.

Glaxosmithkline, LLC operates a pharmaceutical company which has
identified its principal place of business in Wilmington,
Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd W. Gathings, Esq.
      Robert E. Rone, Esq.
      GATHINGS LAW
      2204 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 406
      Birmingham, AL 35209
      Telephone: (205) 322-1201
      Facsimile: (205) 322-1202
      E-mail: LGathings@gathingslaw.com
              RRone@gathingslaw.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Marotz" Suit Over Zofran(R)
---------------------------------------------------
Christina Marotz and Daniel Ponder, individually and as Parents
and Guardians of A.P., a minor v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, Case No.
5:15-cv-01914-MHH (N.D. Ala., October 28, 2015) is an action for
compensatory and punitive damages arising from the injuries to
A.P. as a result of her prenatal exposures to the prescription
drug Zofran(R), also known as ondansetron, and equivalent generic
drugs.

Zofran is a prescription drug that helps prevent and mitigate
nausea and vomiting.

Glaxosmithkline, LLC operates a pharmaceutical company which has
identified its principal place of business in Wilmington,
Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd W. Gathings, Esq.
      Honora M. Gathings, Esq.
      William A. Lattimore, Esq.
      GATHINGS LAW
      2204 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 406
      Birmingham, AL 35209
      Telephone: (205) 322-1201
      Facsimile: (205) 322-1202
      E-mail: LGathings@gathingslaw.com
              HGathings@gathingslaw.com
              WLattimore@gathingslaw.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Maynard" Suit Over Zofran(R)
----------------------------------------------------
Brittany Maynard, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian
of Kaylee, Fayth Maynard, a Minor v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No.
5:15-cv-01920-HGD (N.D. Ala., October 29, 2015) is an action for
compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief, and such
other relief deemed just and proper arising from the injuries to
Kaylee Fayth Maynard as a result of her prenatal exposures to the
generic bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran(R),
also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a prescription drug that helps prevent and mitigate
nausea and vomiting.

Glaxosmithkline, LLC operates a pharmaceutical company which has
identified its principal place of business in Wilmington,
Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel L. DiLorenzo, Esq.
      THE DILORENZO LAW FIRM, LLC
      505 20th Street North, Suite 1275
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 212-9988
      Facsimile: (205) 212-9989
      E-mail: joel@dilorenzo-law.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Pilkington" Suit Over Zofran(R)
-------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Pilkington and Josh Pilkington, each individually and on
behalf of B.P., their minor child v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-01904-TMP (N.D. Ala., October 28, 2015) is an action for
compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief, and such
other relief deemed just and proper arising from the injuries to
B.P. as a result of his prenatal exposures to the generic
bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran(R), also known
as ondansetron.

Zofran is a prescription drug that helps prevent and mitigate
nausea and vomiting.

Glaxosmithkline, LLC operates a pharmaceutical company which has
identified its principal place of business in Wilmington,
Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don McKenna, Esq.
      HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP
      The Massey Bldg. Suite 800
      2025 Third Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 328-5330
      Facsimile: (205) 324-2165
      E-mail: don@hwnn.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Reynolds" Suit Over Zofran(R)
-----------------------------------------------------
Ronda Reynolds, individually and on behalf of her daughter
C.R., a minor v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-13687-FDS
(D. Mass., October 29, 2015) is an action for compensatory and
punitive damages, and such other relief deemed just and proper
arising from the injuries to C.R. as a result of her prenatal
exposures to the generic bioequivalent form of the prescription
drug Zofran(R), also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a prescription drug that helps prevent and mitigate
nausea and vomiting.

Glaxosmithkline, LLC operates a pharmaceutical company which has
identified its principal place of business in Wilmington,
Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kimberly A. Dougherty, Esq.
      Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
      Kathleen Kerner, Esq.
      JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
      31 St. James Avenue, Suite 365
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 933-1265
      Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
      E-mail: kdougherty@myadvocates.com

         - and -

      Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
      Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 722-8500
      Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
      E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
              cmoyna@gelaw.com

         - and -

      M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq.
      Thomas V. Ayala, Esq.
      Stephanie E. Smiertka, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      123 Justison Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 622-7000
      Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
      E-mail: egraham@gelaw.com
              tayala@gelaw.com
              ssmiertka@gelaw.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Strickland" Suit Over Zofran(R)
-------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Strickland, individually and on behalf of A.S., her minor
child v. Glaxomithkline LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-13688-FDS (D. Mass.,
October 29, 2015) is an action for compensatory and punitive
damages, and such other relief deemed just and proper arising from
the injuries to A.S. as a result of her prenatal exposures to the
generic bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran(R),
also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a prescription drug that helps prevent and mitigate
nausea and vomiting.

Glaxosmithkline, LLC operates a pharmaceutical company which has
identified its principal place of business in Wilmington,
Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kimberly A. Dougherty, Esq.
      Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
      Kathleen Kerner, Esq.
      JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
      31 St. James Avenue, Suite 365
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 933-1265
      Facsimile: (410) 653-9030
      E-mail: kdougherty@myadvocates.com

         - and -

      Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
      Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 722-8500
      Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
      E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
              cmoyna@gelaw.com

         - and -

      M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq.
      Thomas V. Ayala, Esq.
      Stephanie E. Smiertka, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      123 Justison Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 622-7000
      Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
      E-mail: egraham@gelaw.com
              tayala@gelaw.com
              ssmiertka@gelaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Faces "Coorey" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Coorey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Google, Inc. and Beavex, Inc., Case No. 15-3311-H
(Mass. Super. Ct., October 30, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay delivery drivers' overtime
compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Google, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that contracts with
intermediary companies such as BeavEx Incorporated and Dynamex,
Inc., to provide a courier service called "Google Express" to
Google's customers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Beavex, Inc. is a courier company that operates at 21 Drydock
Avenue, Suite 3C, Boston MA 02210.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shanon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
      Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
      Peter M. Delano, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
      E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
              hlichten@llrlaw.com
              pdelano@llrlaw.com


HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Texas Court Dismissed 2012 Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas has denied a motion to
consolidate a 2012 lawsuit with the March 2014 lawsuits, and
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and terminated the case.

The Company said, "On April 2, 2012, a lawsuit styled as a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against us and our chief executive officer
alleging that we made false and misleading statements that
artificially inflated our stock prices. The lawsuit alleges, among
other things, that we misrepresented the prospects and progress of
our drilling operations, including our drilling of the Sabu-1 well
and plans to drill the Baraka-1 well off the coast of the Republic
of Guinea. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages
based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Although several lead plaintiffs were appointed by the Court
and then withdrew from the matter, a lead plaintiff has now been
appointed and a scheduling order governing briefing on a motion to
dismiss has been entered by the Court. On May 12, 2014, lead
plaintiff filed his amended complaint adding our current and
former chief financial officers as defendants, and defendants
filed their motion to dismiss on July 11, 2014. On August 25,
2015, the Court denied the motion to consolidate this lawsuit with
the March 2014 lawsuits, but granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and terminated the case. Lead plaintiff has thirty days to
appeal the ruling."


HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Parties in 2014 Suit Await Scheduling Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that the parties in the March
2014 lawsuits await a ruling on the motion to consolidate the
March 2014 lawsuits, and the issuance of a scheduling order in
those cases.

The Company said, "Beginning on March 13, 2014, two lawsuits
styled as class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas against us and several officers of
the Company alleging that we made false and misleading statements
that artificially inflated our stock prices. The lawsuits allege,
among other things, that we misrepresented our compliance with the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and anti-money laundering statutes
and that we lacked adequate internal controls. The lawsuits seek
damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, although the specific amount of damages is not
specified."

On May 12, 2014, a shareholder filed a motion for appointment as
lead plaintiff, which remains pending. On August 25, 2015, the
court in the April 2012 lawsuit denied the motion to consolidate
the March 2014 lawsuits with the April 2012 lawsuit. The parties
await a ruling on the motion to consolidate the March 2014
lawsuits, and the issuance of a scheduling order in those cases.

"We have assessed the status of these matters and have concluded
that an adverse judgment remains reasonably possible, but not
probable. As a result, no provision has been made in the
consolidated financial statements. Given the early stage of these
disputes, we are unable to estimate a range of possible loss;
however, in our opinion, the outcome of this dispute will not have
a material effect on our financial condition and results of
operations," the Company said.


IGNITE USA: Recalls Kids Straw Tumblers Due to Aspiration Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ignite USA LLC, of Atlanta, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of
about 130,000 Bueno by Contigo Kids Straw Tumblers. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

If a child chews on the drinking straw, small pieces can break off
into the child's mouth, posing a risk of ingestion or aspiration
of the small part.

This recall includes eight different styles of plastic drinking
tumblers. The tumblers were sold with a lid and a straw. Some of
the straws have a plastic mold in the shape of fangs, lips, a
mustache or a zipper affixed to the top. The tumblers are branded
"Bueno by Contigo" on the retail packaging and "Bueno" on the lid
of the cup. All cups have the number "036201" engraved on the
bottom.  Model numbers and styles included in the recall are:

  Model Number      Style
  ------------      -----
  71591/71844       Clear with fangs straw accessory
  71592/71842       Clear with nectarine zipper straw accessory
  71593/71841       Clear with mustache straw accessory
  71594/71843       Clear with cherry blossom lips straw
                    accessory
  71596             Yellow with off-white lid
  71597             Pink with white lid
  71602             Blue with green lid
  71603             Orange with blue lid

Model numbers are printed on a label affixed to the bottom of the
cup. Straw tumblers with the letter "B" engraved on the underside
of the lid beneath the model number are not included in this
recall.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/bG0rhm

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Meijer and Target retail stores nationwide from May 2015 through
September 2015 for about $6.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled tumblers from
children and contact Ignite for a full refund.


ILLINOIS STATE HIGH: Judge Tosses Football Concussion Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that the first class
action filed against a high school football governing body over
concussion-related injuries was tossed out of an Illinois court.

The Oct. 27 ruling ends a case alleging that the Illinois State
High School Association, a nonprofit that governs high school
athletics in Illinois, failed to have proper policies and
procedures to manage head injuries in football.  The ruling, by
Cook County Circuit Judge LeRoy Martin, came four days after
Chicago resident Andre Smith became the seventh high school
football player to die from a head injury this season.

Judge Martin found that changes to the IHSA's policies and
procedures were matters for local and state governments, not the
courts.  He also found that the plaintiff, Alex Pierscionek, a
former football player for South Elgin High School who suffered a
concussion during a 2012 game, assumed some risk when he signed an
athletic permit and participated in a contact sport.

The ruling could have ramifications beyond Illinois, which, like
many states, has passed legislation in the past few years to
improve the management of concussions and other head injuries in
high school football.

"It has implications for similar lawsuits at the pro level and
college level and youth football level," said Thomas Heiden --
thomas.heiden@lw.com -- chairman of the product liability, mass
torts and consumer actions practice at Latham & Watkins, who
represented the IHSA.  "Some of these defenses, some of these
bases for Judge Martin's ruling, would be equally applicable to
suits at those levels."

The attorney representing Mr. Pierscionek is Joseph Siprut --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- of Siprut PC, who also is co-lead counsel in
a similar case against the National Collegiate Athletic
Association brought on behalf of college football players.  On
Dec. 17, a federal judge in Illinois rejected approval l of a $75
million settlement in that case.

Mr. Siprut did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Pierscionek's lawsuit, filed on Nov. 29, 2014 alleged that
legislative and policy changes were inadequate, including that
they failed to provide medical personnel at practices.  The suit
also sought a fund to pay for medical monitoring for a class of
anyone who played football at the state's high schools since 2002.

In concluding that the suit's claims were best addressed through
legislative means, Martin noted that the claims lacked enough
facts to survive dismissal.

"In fact, it is clear to this court that IHSA has acted to protect
student athletes in this state, that the measures alleged to be
necessary by plaintiff are simply conclusions and not factual
allegations capable of being proven at all, and under no
circumstances would it be an appropriate endeavor for the court to
impose any or all of those measures upon the IHSA by way of the
extraordinary relief that is injunctive relief," he wrote.

As to the medical monitoring, the case "fails to establish a
causative link between the IHSA and the damages sought," he wrote.


LAPORTE COUNTY, IN: "Dempsey" Suit Removed to N. Dist. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Charles Dempsey, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Joie Winski, LaPorte
County Auditor and Nancy Hawkins, LaPorte County Treasurer, Case
No. 46C01-1507-PL-001373, was removed from the LaPorte Circuit
Court to the U.S. District Court Northern District of Indiana. The
District Court Clerk assigned 3:15-cv-00506-JVB-CAN to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas F. Godfrey III, Esq.
      3 Bristol Drive
      Michigan City, IN 46360

The Defendant is represented by:

      Shaw R. Friedman, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN & ASSOCIATES PC
      705 Lincolnway
      LaPorte, IN 46350
      Telephone: (219) 326-1264
      Facsimile: (219) 326-6228
      E-mail: sfriedman.associates@frontier.com

         - and -

      Christopher S. Stake, Esq.
      Kathleen A. DeLaney, Esq.
      DELANEY & DELANEY LLC
      3646 Washington Blvd
      Indianapolis, IN 46205
      Telephone: (317) 920-0400
      Facsimile: (317) 920-0404
      E-mail: cstake@delaneylaw.net
              kathleen@delaneylaw.net


LEYVA'S MEXICAN: Faces "Contreras" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moises Contreras v. Leyva's Mexican Food, Inc., Octavio Leyva,
Gaby Leyva, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC599549
(Cal. Super. Ct., 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 two bakeries, one at 6527 S.
Eastern Avenue in Bell Gardens, Los Angeles County, California and
one in El Monte, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq.
      Thomas H. Schelly, Esq.
      LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC
      880 Apollo Street, Suite 336
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-2211
      Facsimile: (310)322-2252
      E-mail: kevin@kallaw.com


LIGHTHOUSE CHRISTIAN: Recalls Ceramic Mugs Due to Burn Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lighthouse Christian Products Co., of Schaumburg, Ill., announced
a voluntary recall of about 4,400 Ceramic Mugs. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Hot liquids can seep through hairline cracks, posing a burn
hazard.

The two recalled ceramic mugs are the Pastor's Wife model #18208,
and the Serve with Gladness model #18209. The Pastor's Wife mug is
cream color on the outside and teal on the inside with the phrase
"Pastor's Wife" on one side and "We Always Thank God and Pray For
You" on the other side. The Serve with Gladness mug is cream color
inside and outside with the phrase "Serve with Gladness" on one
side and "Anyone who loves is a child of God" inside a
multicolored floral arrangement on the other side. Model number
18208 or 18209 is printed on a UPC sticker on the bottom of the
mug.

The firm received a report of one incident. No injuries.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/94UPDL

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Family Christian Stores, Lifeway Christian Stores, Mardel, many
smaller Christian bookstores and online at www.christianbook.com
from July 2015 through October 2015 for between $10 and $13.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mugs and
return them to the store where they were purchased or call
Lighthouse for a full refund.


MAELI ROSE: Recalls Girl's Hoodies Due to Strangulation Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Maeli Rose, of Arcadia, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 1,200 Girl's Hoodies. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The hoodies have a drawstring inside the lining of the hood that
surrounds the face which poses a strangulation hazard to children.
Drawstrings can become entangled or caught on playground slides,
hand rails, school bus doors or other moving objects, posing a
significant strangulation and/or entanglement hazard to children.
In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines about drawstrings in
children's upper outerwear. In 1997, those guidelines were
incorporated into a voluntary standard. Then, in July 2011, based
on the guidelines and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal
regulation. CPSC's actions demonstrate a commitment to help
prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on neck and
waist drawstrings in upper outerwear, such as jackets and
sweatshirts.

This recall involves the girls' blush hoodie sizes 2T-6X, made of
62% polyester, 35% cotton and 3% spandex. The garment comes in
blush/pink and has a lace decoration strip around the hood
opening. There is a white drawstring inside the hood lining that
surrounds the face. There is a zipper on the front with a pocket
on each side. The pocket openings and sleeves are decorated with a
lace strip. The name Just Fab Girls is sewn into the label of the
neck. There is also a label sewn into the side seam that reads "RN
#137339" and "Made in China."

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Zanjon

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Children's boutiques and other specialty retail stores nationwide
from July 2013 through December 2013 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled hoodie away from
children and remove the drawstring to eliminate the hazard or
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.


MAHINDRA USA: Recalls Compact Tractors Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Mahindra USA, Inc., of Houston, Tex., announced a voluntary recall
of about 2,000 eMax Compact Tractors (in addition to about 100 in
Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Fuel lines can break or leak, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involved Mahindra eMax compact diesel tractors
designed for residential use. They are red with a black seat. The
model number and "Mahindra" are in white lettering on the each
side of the hood. Serial numbers for the recalled models are
located on the right side of the frame above the front axle.

Recalled Model
Serial Numbers
eMax 22G
22GRH00001-22GRH00596
eMax 22H
22HRH00001-22HRH00710
eMax 25H
25HRH00001-25HRH00816
Incidents/Injuries

The firm received 61 reports of cracks in the fuel tank pipe. No
injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/p6YDWJ

The recalled products were manufactured in Korea and sold at
Mahindra dealers throughout the United States and Canada from
March 2014 through September 2015 for between $11,300 and $13,600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the tractors and contact
an authorized Mahindra dealer as soon as possible to schedule the
free repair.


NEW JERSEY: "Wilson" Suit Removed to New Jersey District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Gregory T. Wilson, on behalf of
himself, and all others similarly situated individuals v. N.J.
Gov. Chris Christie, Govenor of the state of New Jersey, et al.,
Case No. MER-L-15-01039, was removed from the Superior Court Of
New Jersey Mercer County to the U.S. District Court District of
New Jersey (Trenton). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:15-cv-07760-FLW-DEA to the proceeding.

The case alleged violation of New Jersey prisoners' civil rights.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory T. Wilson
      PRO SE
      Trenton, NJ 08625
      #68984
      New Jersey State Prison
      Third and Federal St.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Suzanne Marie Davies, Esq.
      STATE OF NEW JERSEY
      OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
      25 Market Street, P.O. Box 112
      Trenton, NJ 08625
      Telephone: (609) 633-3985
      E-mail: suzanne.davies@dol.lps.state.nj.us


NEW JERSEY: 453 Sandy-Related Insurance Suits Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant and Andrew Keshner, writing for Law.com, report
that three years after Hurricane Sandy struck the East Coast, most
of the thousands of suits over flood insurance claims in New York
and New Jersey have been settled, but fair compensation of all
those with storm-damaged homes is still a long way off, lawyers
involved in the litigation said.

In the storm's immediate wake, the National Flood Insurance
Program came under widespread criticism, due to claims that
policyholders were shortchanged, court cases were moving slowly
and some insurance carriers were accused of submitting falsified
damage reports.  An aggressive effort by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency has helped to clear court dockets and dispel
anger, but lawyers said it still remains to be seen whether
resolution of remaining cases will be equitable.

Federal courts in New York and New Jersey faced the bulk of the
Sandy litigation because property damage from the storm was
largely caused by flooding, rather than wind, and flood insurance
suits are heard in federal court.  Lawyers who handle claims
against flood insurance carriers said the surge of litigation is
nearing its end.  And statistics from federal courts in New York
and New Jersey show that the majority of Sandy-related flood
insurance suits have been resolved.

The Eastern District of New York saw the filing of 1,428 insurance
suits related to the hurricane.  Of that number, 234, or 16
percent, are still open.

The District of New Jersey saw 1,774 Sandy-related insurance suits
filed, of which 453, or 25 percent, are still pending.

FEMA, which runs the NFIP, appears to be making plans to wrap up
its involvement in flood insurance litigation.  In May of this
year, as complaints mounted about slow resolution of flood
insurance suits, FEMA began negotiating directly with parties in
flood insurance suits pending in court, a move hailed by
claimants' lawyers.

At around the same time, FEMA announced that it would let parties
reopen flood insurance claims from Sandy if they were not
satisfied with the results they received.

Before FEMA stepped in, flood insurance carriers were reluctant to
settle litigated cases, and the process was "not going fast at
all," said claimants attorney Richard Guss of DiFrancesco,
Bateman, Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer & Flaum in Warren.

But FEMA "did a fantastic job" with resolving cases promptly,
according to Charles Mathis IV of Merlin Law Group in Red Bank,
who also represents claimants.

FEMA "gave carte blanche" to the lawyers handling its claims, and
as a result, "hundreds and hundreds of cases settled in the past
six months," according to another claimants attorney, Jonathan
Wheeler of Cherry Hill.

But on Oct. 2, the agency announced it would no longer participate
in negotiations with litigants whose suits were filed after May
18, according to claimants lawyer Christopher Gerold --
cgerold@csglaw.com -- of Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi in West
Orange.

Mr. Gerold had three cases that he filed after May 18, but he
opted to dismiss those complaints and pursue nonjudicial
negotiation with FEMA.  Mr. Gerold said he would have preferred it
if the announcement was made prospectively, so his clients didn't
have to waste their $400 filing fees, but he thinks those clients
will have better outcomes negotiating directly with FEMA than in
litigation with insurance carriers.

"I think their intent was to clear out the court system. I think
they wanted to prevent more lawsuits from being filed,"
Mr. Gerold said.

FEMA has established an elaborate system for resolving flood
insurance disputes out of court, said Mr. Gerold, with an
arbitration process involving an adjuster whose decisions may be
appealed by third parties.

Mr. Mathis said 95 percent of the suits brought by his firm
against flood insurance carriers have been resolved, and he
expects that his last Sandy-related flood claims will be wrapped
up sometime in 2016.

Flood insurance litigation from Sandy "is coming to an end.  There
have been any number of issues that have gone on in the last
couple of years but we're finally seeing complete resolution,"
Mr. Mathis said.  His firm has also seen a smaller number of
claims for wind damage, brought against homeowners insurance
policies, but those have taken longer to resolve, due to longer
timelines in state court, Mathis said.

"There is light at the end of the tunnel, I believe," said
Wheeler, whose Cherry Hill firm has a small insurance-claims
practice representing homeowners and small businesses.

FEMA's shift away from litigation has raised some concerns about
whether those homeowners who chose not to litigate will fare as
well as those who received settlements of lawsuits.

"There shouldn't be a discrepancy," said Steve Mostyn of Mostyn
Law in Houston, one of the lead plaintiff-side attorneys
negotiating with the agency.

Denis Kelly of Denis G. Kelly & Associates in Long Beach, New
York, echoed Mr. Mostyn's call for consistency in the amounts
awarded in lawsuits and for those in the claims review process. He
is representing about 200 homeowners who are going through the
nonjudicial claims process.

"It has to be consistent. I think they are making an attempt, but
I'm reserving judgment to see how the claims process works out,"
Mr. Kelly said.

Dean Cavalieri, a public adjuster and president of Accurate
Insurance Management Services, represents eight to 10 matters now
going through the claims review process.  He mentioned several
concerns about how the process was playing out so far.

"One of the things that was promised was not having to go through
hoops on every receipt," he said.  And yet, he said his clients
were now being asked to prove they spent the insurance money
already paid to them.

Meanwhile, state court litigation related to Sandy appears to be
winding down as well.  In New Jersey courts, 391 Sandy-related
insurance suits have been filed, although not all are related to
wind damage. Of that group, 353, or 90 percent, have been
resolved.

Getting paid by FEMA isn't necessarily the end of a litigant's
troubles, however: Gerold said FEMA checks are issued with a
policyholder's mortgage company listed, and money is released in
stages as repair work is finished.

Javier Delgado of Merlin Law Group in New York said there was more
litigation on the fewer wind damages cases that were still pending
in federal and New York state court. In almost all of them,
Delgado said, the "parties seem more entrenched" in their
difference on the wind damage incurred.

Gene Killian of The Killian Firm in Iselin said representing Sandy
claimants has been "emotionally draining."

Compared to commercial clients in insurance recovery matters,
private clients who face the loss of their homes are "extremely
emotional."

To make things worse, "there wasn't a lot of empathy on the part
of the carriers," he said.

Mr. Mathis said his experience with Sandy litigation has convinced
him that the NFIP needs to add "some level of accountability" for
carriers.  In other types of insurance, carriers can face bad-
faith claims, but "on the flood side, there is no bad faith."

"If I could change one thing, it would be to add some
accountability to the way the [carriers] handle claims,"
Mr. Mathis said.

Mr. Gerold likewise called for incentives for carriers to pay
claims fairly.

"The way the system is set up now, carriers are penalized if they
overpay," he said.

Several calls to lawyers who represent insurers in Sandy-related
litigation were not returned.


OFF-GRID SOLUTIONS: Recalls Adapter Kits Due to Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Off-Grid Solutions USA LLC, d/b/a WakaWaka North America, of
Dover, Del., announced a voluntary recall of about 700 Electrical
adapter kits (In addition, 200 units were sold in Canada).
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The Adapter Kit can overheat posing a risk of fire, and the
plastic shell of the adapter can open exposing a risk of shock to
consumers.

This recall involves WakaWaka electrical adapter kits. The kits
allow consumers to charge their electrical equipment using AC
current. The components of the kit are black in color and include
the adapter, a U.S.-style two-blade plug, a European-style two-
prong plug, a USB cable and ten different types of connectors.
"Travel Charger, Input 180-240VAC, 50-60Hz, 0.2A, Output 5.0V-
500mA" is imprinted on the front of the unit right below the pins
on the adapter.

WakaWaka has received four reports of adapters overheating,
including reports of an adapter smoking and one report of an
adapter exploding. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/9ILTO5

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
www.waka-waka.com from November 2013 to April 2015 for about $9.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled adapter kit
and contact WakaWaka for a full refund. WakaWaka is contacting
consumers directly.


PNY TECHNOLOGIES: Recalls Lithium Battery Packs Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
PNY Technologies, Inc., of Parsippany, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 56,000 Portable Lithium Polymer Battery Packs (in
addition, about 800 sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Batteries can overheat and vent flames, posing fire and burn
hazards.

This recall involves portable lithium polymer battery packs with
model number T10400 that are used to charge USB-enabled
smartphones, tablets and other USB-powered devices. The batteries
are black or grey hand-held devices, 4 inches x 2.75 inches x 0.75
inches, with two USB outputs and four blue LED lights. PNY is
laser-printed along the bottom on the front of the battery.
PNY has received one report of venting with flames. No injuries
have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/xVSGYZ

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Best
Buy, Office Depot, Office Max and other retail stores nationwide
and online at amazon.com and frys.com from January 2014 through
August 2015 for about $50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled batteries and
contact PNY for a free replacement rechargeable battery.


PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Removed AA Suncoast Sui to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled AA Suncoast Chiropractic Clinic,
P.A., Palm Harbor-West Chase Medical Group d/b/a Tampa Bay Spine
Specialists, and Spinal Correction Centers, Inc., on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Progressive American
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 15-CA-008296, was removed from
the Hillsborough County Court to the U.S. District Court Middle
District of Florida. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:15-cv-02543-RAL-MAP to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs alleges breach of insurance contract.

Progressive American Insurance Company is a New York corporation
that is in the business of providing affordable health and life
insurance policies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christa L. Collins, Esq.
      HARMON WOODS PARKER & ABRUNZO, P.A.
      2nd Floor, 110 N 11th St
      Tampa, FL 33602-4223
      Telephone: (813) 222-3600
      Facsimile: (813) 222-3616
      E-mail: clc@harmonwoodslaw.com

         - and -

      Lauren Meksraitis-Elliott, Esq.
      102 S. Westland Ave
      Tampa, FL 33606
      E-mail: lmeksraitis-elliott@verizon.net

         - and -

      Matthew Dolman, Esq.
      DOLMAN LAW GROUP
      1663 1st Avenue South
      St. Petersburg, FL 33716
      Telephone: (727) 451-6900
      Facsimile: (727) 451-6907

The Defendant is represented by:

      Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq.
      Ross Elliot Linzer, Esq.
      AKERMAN LLP
      1 SE 3rd Ave 25th Floor
      Miami, FL 33131-1714
      Telephone: (305) 374-5600
      Facsimile: (305) 374-5095
      E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com
              ross.linzer@akerman.com

         - and -

      Margaret Diane Mathews, Esq.
      AKERMAN LLP
      401 E Jackson St Ste 1700
      Tampa, FL 33602-5250
      Telephone: (813) 223-7333
      Facsimile: (813) 223-2837
      E-mail: margaret.mathews@akerman.com


PROSKAUER ROSE: Johnson & Johnson Heirs Agree to End Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Simmons, writing for Law.com, reports that the heirs of
the Johnson & Johnson fortune and Proskauer Rose have signed
papers agreeing to end a fraud suit that alleged the firm's advice
to the Johnson family on a stock transaction led it to incur
millions of dollars in tax liability.

Attorneys for Proskauer and the Johnson family members signed a
stipulation of discontinuance on Oct. 20, agreeing to dismiss the
action and all claims with prejudice.  The discontinuance was
signed by Proskauer partner David Lederkramer, who represented the
firm, and Pashman Stein member Sean Mack, who represented the
individual heirs to the Johnson & Johnson fortune and trusts for
family members.

Neither Pashman Stein nor Proskauer would comment on whether the
parties settled.

In the 2011 lawsuit against Proskauer and partner Jay Waxenberg,
lead plaintiff John Seward Johnson Jr., grandson of the
pharmaceutical giant's founder, said his family sold holdings of
Johnson & Johnson stock in a transaction that Proskauer advised
would avoid federal and state taxes.  The complaint said Proskauer
had recommended the transaction, which was structured by tax
consulting firm The Diversified Group, with whom Proskauer had a
fee-sharing agreement.

The Johnson plaintiffs said they lost $40 million, which included
an $18.3 million assessment in taxes and penalties from the IRS
and state tax authorities who challenged the transaction.

About six months ago, the Appellate Division, First Department,
refused to dismiss fraud and punitive damages claims against
Proskauer.  The unanimous panel affirmed a ruling by Manhattan
Commercial Division Acting Justice Lawrence Marks, who dismissed a
legal malpractice claim against Proskauer on statute of
limitations grounds.


QUALITY BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycles and Cranksets Due to Fall Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Quality Bicycle Products, Inc. (QBP), of Bloomington, Minn.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 70 WeThePeople Envy BMX
bicycles and about 170 WeThePeople Envy BMX cranksets (in
addition, about 40 bicycles and about 40 cranksets were sold in
Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The left end of the bicycle crankset spindle can break, posing a
fall hazard to the rider.

The recall involves WeThePeople Envy BMX bicycles and aftermarket
ECLAT Aeon BMX cranksets. The Envy BMX bicycles have a 20.6 or 21
inch chromoly frame, painted dark gold. The bicycle bottom bracket
has an "ENVY20.6" or "ENVY21" stamp. The ECLAT Aeon BMX cranksets
are the gears at the front of the bicycle chain with pedals
attached to the outer ends. The cranksets have a steel, two-piece
construction. Printed on the left side of the spindle is ESS Eclat
22mm" and next to the pedal, on the crank arm is "Aeon." Printed
on the inside of the crank arm is "Eclat Germany" followed by the
crank arm length "170mm" or "175mm."

WeThePeople has received five reports of the crankset spindles
breaking. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/drMzXj

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at BMX
bicycle/product dealers, WeThePeople distributors and specialty
bicycle retailers nationwide and online at www.QBP.com and other
BMX bicycle/product websites from September 2014 through July
2015. The Envy bicycles sold for about $1,100 and the aftermarket
cranksets sold for about $180.

Consumers should immediately stop riding the recalled bicycles and
cranksets and return to the store where purchased for a free
inspection and free replacement spindle.


RADIANCY INC: "Cantley" Suit Removed to E. Dist. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled April Cantley, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radiancy, Inc., et al.,
Case No. S-1500-CV-281510-LHB, was removed from the Kern County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court Eastern District of
California (Fresno). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-01649-LJO-JLT to the proceeding.

Radiancy, Inc. is a developer and manufacturer of home-use and
professional aesthetic and dermatological devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bevin Allen, Esq.
      CAPSTONE LAW APC
      1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
      E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com

         - and -

      Shawn Khorrami, Esq.
      KHORRAMI BOUCHER SUMNER SANGUINETTI, LLP
      444 S Flower Street, 33rd Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 596-6000
      Facsimile: (213) 596-6010
      E-mail: skhorrami@kbsslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Kent R. Raygor, Esq.
      SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
      1901 Avenue of The Stars, 16th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 228-3700
      Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
      E-mail: kraygor@sheppardmullin.com

         - and -

      Valerie Elizabeth Alter, Esq.
      SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON
      333 South Hope Street, 48 Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (310) 228-3710
      Facsimile: (310) 228-3910
      E-mail: valter@sheppardmullin.com


SAFECO INSURANCE: "Berry" Suit Removed to Arizona District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Joshua Berry on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Safeco Insurance
Company of America, et al., Case No. CV2015-094615, was removed
from the Maricopa County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court
District of Arizona. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:15-cv-02188-BSB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs alleges breach of insurance contract.

Safeco Insurance Company of America operates an insurance and
financial services company, and sells insurance and investment
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph William Watkins, Esq.
      JOSEPH W WATKINS PC
      1661 N Swan Rd., Ste. 250
      Tucson, AZ 85715
      Telephone: (520) 882-9115
      Facsimile: (520) 882-7708
      E-mail: joewlaw2@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Keith Beauchamp, Esq.
      Shelley Tolman, Esq.
      COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC
      2800 N Central Ave., Ste. 1200
      Phoenix, AZ 85004
      Telephone: (602) 224-0999
      Facsimile: (602) 224-6020
      E-mail: kbeauchamp@cblawyers.com
              stolman@cblawyers.com



SCA CREDIT: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Hill" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, declined to
revive the amended class action complaint filed by Robert Hill and
Mary Hill against SCA Credit Services, Inc.  The Fourth Circuit
affirmed a district court order granting Defendant's Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Hills' amended class action
complaint for failure to state a claim.  The Defendants confined
their appeal to the district court's dismissal of claims alleging
violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act
(WVCCPA).  The Hills, the Fourth Circuit said, did not articulate
facts that, when accepted as true, demonstrate plausible claims
for relief under the WVCCPA.

The appellate case is, ROBERT HILL; MARY HILL, his wife,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SCA CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Defendant-
Appellee, NO. 15-1554 (4th Cir.).  A copy of the Fourth Circuit's
November 10, 2015 unpublished per curiam opinion is available at
http://is.gd/H9ihJ1from Leagle.com.

Counsel for Appellants:

     Ralph C. Young, Esq.
     Jed R. Nolan, Esq.
     HAMILTON, BURGESS, YOUNG & POLLARD, PLLC
     5493 Maple Lane
     P.O. Box 959
     Fayetteville, WV 25840
     Tel: 304-574-8038
     Toll Free: 877-460-6538

          - and -

     Troy N. Giatras, Esq.
     THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC
     118 Capitol Street, Suite 400
     Charleston, WV 25301
     Tel: 888-819-1281

Counsel for Appellee:

     Paul C. Kuhnel, Esq.
     Kevin P. Oddo, Esq.
     John T. Jessee, Esq.
     Joseph M. Rainsbury, Esq.
     LECLAIR RYAN, PC
     1800 Wells Fargo Tower, Drawer 1200
     Roanoke, VA 24006
     Tel: 540-510-3051
     Fax: 540-510-3050
     E-mail: paul.kuhnel@leclairryan.com
             kevin.oddo@leclairryan.com
             john.jessee@leclairryan.com
             joseph.rainsbury@leclairryan.com


SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Recalls Blenders Due to Laceration Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
SharkNinja Operating LLC, of Newton, Mass., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1.1 million Ninja(R) BL660 series professional
blender (an additional 99,000 were sold in Canada). Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The blender poses a laceration risk if consumers pour or invert
the pitcher after removing the lid while the loose stacked blade
assembly is still inside the pitcher.

This recall involves 12 models of Ninja professional blenders with
model numbers that start with BL 660, BL 663 or BL 665.  The model
number is in the rating label that is molded into the bottom of
the motor base. The 12 affected model numbers are:

   BL 660's:  BL660, BL660B, BL660C, BL660QCN, BL660QPL, BL660W,
              BL660WM
   BL 663's:  BL663, BL663CO
   BL 665's:  BL665QBK, BL665QCN, and BL665QWH

All of these models have a clear 72 ounce pitcher with a removable
gray or black lid that opens and locks closed, a stacked blade
assembly, and one or more Nutri Ninja cups. All recalled models
have a motor base that is gray, white, black, cinnamon, or
platinum. The power of the models' motors vary from 1,000 to 1,200
watts.  The recalled models may have been sold with additional
accessories, including a 40 or 64 ounce bowl, a chopping blade
assembly, or a dull dough blade assembly.

The firm has received 53 reports of lacerations.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/OgVL5Y

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bed
Bath & Beyond, Costco, Kohl's, Macy's, Target, Walmart and other
stores nationwide and online including www.Amazon.com,
www.Costco.com, www.Macys.com, www.Target.com, www.Walmart.com and
www.ninjakitchen.com from March 2012 through September 2015 for
about $140.

Consumers should empty the blender's pitcher through the locked
lid's pour spout or by removing both the lid and the stacked blade
assembly from the pitcher before pouring.


SPOKEO INC: Justices Address Concrete Injury Issue in FCRA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for Supreme Court Brief, reports that the
business community's fear of massive class-action liability and
consumers' quest for privacy and accuracy in the Internet age
collided before a divided U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 2 in a case
that involved the data collection website Spokeo Inc.

Those two themes hovered over the bedrock issue before the
justices in Spokeo v. Robins: Did Congress have the power to give
individuals the right to bring lawsuits for violations of the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act alone, without having to show
the traditional requirement in the Constitution of a concrete
injury independent of the statute?

Spokeo operates a website that provides searchable reports on an
individual's personal information, such as address, phone number,
marital status, occupation and education.  Spokeo's report on
Thomas Robins included false information about his education (a
graduate degree which he did not have); his employment (in a
professional or technical field when he was in fact unemployed);
his age and marital status (in his 50s, married with children,
when he was not in his 50s, was unmarried and had no children) and
"very strong" economic health (he was looking for work).

Spokeo is considered a credit-reporting agency under the federal
law.  Mr. Robins sued Spokeo for violating the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, which subjects those agencies to actual and
statutory damages for negligent or willful violations.  A federal
district court dismissed his lawsuit after finding he did not have
standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution.  The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the
violation of the law was enough to confer standing to sue.

"Why isn't the dissemination of false information sufficient [for
standing] if Congress says that's a concrete injury?" Justice
Elena Kagan asked Spokeo's counsel, Andrew Pincus of Mayer Brown.
"It seems like a concrete injury to me. If someone did it to me,
I'd feel harmed."

Andrew Pincus of Mayer Brown, during judge Sri Srinivasan
Pincus argued that the court has had a clear statement rule, and
Congress should clearly state that it is displacing the concrete
injury rule. but it did not.  He added that nothing in the
statute's structure indicates that Congress identified the
dissemination of false information as a concrete harm.

But Justice Kagan persisted: "They basically portrayed a different
person. One thing we have to say that Congress is better at than
we are, is identifying concrete harms.  It seems pretty clear what
they wanted to do here.  That this statute is entirely about
preventing the dissemination of inaccurate information in credit
reports, which they seem to think is both something that harms the
individual personally and also harms larger systemic issues.  And
then they gave the cause of action to the people it harmed
personally."

Mr. Pincus replied that Congress created a "massive number" of
regulatory requirements in the statute to produce accuracy.  "You
can't impute to Congress that any violation of any of those
requirements creates harm."  He received a boost from Justice
Antonin Scalia, who said, "Congress identified as harm the failure
to follow reporting procedures."  It did not, he added, identify
misinformation as a "suable harm."

Mr. Robins' counsel, William Consovoy of Consovoy McCarthy Park in
Arlington, Virginia, told the justices that they could rule
narrowly.  "If the cause of action can be found in common law, you
have standing," he said. "This claim for false information follows
from defamation [which was recognized at common law]."
William Consovoy.

Consovoy drew support from Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm
Stewart.  Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. told Stewart, "We have a
legion of cases that say you have to have actual injury."

But Mr. Stewart said the court's precedents have defined "injury"
as the "violation of a legal right."  Congress, he said, has been
doing this since 1790.

Spokeo has drawn nearly two dozen supporting briefs from an array
of business organizations, Internet providers and tech companies,
states, data collection agencies and conservative legal
organizations.  Mr. Robins is supported by almost an equal number
of friend of the court briefs from privacy, civil rights,
environmental and consumer organizations, as well as by a number
of states and the Obama Administration.

On Spokeo's side, the briefs reflect fears that a ruling for
Mr. Robins will open the door to numerous class actions and
massive potential liability, not only under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act but similar statutes, too.  On Mr. Robins' side, the
amicus briefs warn of the need to protect individual privacy
increasingly at risk in the digital age and to maintain access to
the courts to vindicate other rights created by federal statutes.

"We saw two diametric visions of the Constitution with Chief
Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia seeming to side with Spokeo's
arguments, while Justices Kagan and [Sonia] Sotomayor saying if
someone disseminates wrongful information about you that is
something easily understood as harm to you," said David Gans,
civil rights project director at the Constitutional Accountability
Center.

Rod Fliegel, co-chairman of the privacy and background checks
practice at Littler Mendelson, said in a written statement: "At
bottom, the liberal wing seemed to be trying to make the case out
as one involving concrete harm -- the publication of inaccurate
information to third parties about a consumer, and the
conservative wing seemed to take issue with the implicit
assumption that a violation of statutory right, regardless of its
impact, if any, on the consumer, is enough.  Instead, the
conservative wing seemed to be suggesting the violation of the
right is not enough and that standing is satisfied only when the
violation results in true injury or injury in fact, rather than
merely at law, to the consumer."


ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL: Injunction Issued v. Web Site
---------------------------------------------------
Joel Stashenko, writing for Law.com, reports that a website on
which a man compared a doctor he is suing for malpractice to Nazi
Joseph Mengele was found slanderous by a judge who issued a
preliminary injunction against continued operation of the site.

Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Arthur Diamond said the
comparison that Arye Sachs made on the site "Matano-Kills?"
between Mengele and Dr. Richard Matano of St. Francis Hospital in
Roslyn is not a "protected qualified privilege" under
defamation/libel law, but rather a "bald, reckless" assertion "in
disregard of the truth."

"Dr. Joseph Mengele was a notorious Nazi doctor during WWII who
selected Jews for the gas chambers, and performed deadly human
experiments on prisoners," Judge Diamond wrote from Mineola in
Sachs v. Matano, 004586/2015.  "To compare anyone in the medical
profession to such a criminal is beyond the pale."

On the website, Sachs also asserted that Dr. Matano is anti-
Semitic, according to Judge Diamond's ruling.  The site warned,
"Beware, he [Matano] is stubborn, act[s] like a mule, and will
discriminate against you if you are not Italian with a Mercedes
Benz."

Mr. Sachs also posted pictures of Dr. Matano and his family.  Mr.
Sachs, who is representing himself in the malpractice action,
argued that his website on GoDaddy.com (www.matanokill.com) was
actually designed to serve as a solicitation in a class action
suit he hoped to launch involving other patients with potential
malpractice claims against Dr. Matano and St. Francis Hospital.

But Judge Diamond disagreed that was the primary purpose of the
site.

"This is not a website whereby plaintiff seeks other individuals
similarly situated that may have been injured by an alleged
malpractice in order to establish a class action, but rather this
website is couched in terms designed to irreparably damage the
reputation and business of defendants," he wrote.

To justify the granting of a preliminary injunction to immediately
cease operation of the site, Judge Diamond said Dr. Matano and the
hospital had to prove the danger of irreparable harm if the
injunction was not granted, the likelihood of success on the
merits and a balance of equities in the defendants' favor [citing
Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 NY2d 860 (1990) and U.S. Reinsurance
Corp. v. Humphreys, 205 AD2d 187 (1st Dept. 1994)].

The judge said the plaintiffs had satisfied all three factors.

The doctor and hospital have proven that the words Mr. Sachs used
to describe Dr. Matano were slanderous per se because of their
potential effect on Dr. Matano's "office, trade or business,"
Diamond said, and were not protected attack as slander or libel by
a qualified privilege.

"The tone of plaintiff's statements, and the statements
themselves, are nothing more than an attack on the defendants
designed to injure their reputation and business," the judge
wrote.  "As such, plaintiff does not have a qualified privilege to
make those statements."

In addition to ordering the website to be immediately taken down,
Diamond enjoined Mr. Sachs from "posting such defamatory and
slanderous statements on any other website" as well.

As of October 30, 2015, the "Matano-Kills?" website was not
accessible.

In the underlying malpractice action, Mr. Sachs claims Dr. Matano
was negligent in treating Mr. Sachs' diabetic foot ulcer during
his admission in the hospital from Nov. 2, 2013, to Dec. 24, 2013.

Dr. Matano and St. Francis Hospital were represented by
Robert Elliott and M. David Klein, partners at Bartlett, McDonough
& Monaghan of Mineola, assisted by associate Nicole Martone.  The
firm declined comment on the Judge Diamond ruling on Oct. 30.

GoDaddy spokeswoman Kelsey Pfeffer said the company does not
comment on pending litigation.


STANFORD: Ponzi Scheme Investors Seek to Recover Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Julie Triedman, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that for
years, investors in R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme
have been struggling to eke out any significant recoveries.  But
things are looking up for Stanford's 21,000 global investors, not
to mention the lawyers representing them on a contingency basis.

Unable to knock out a series of investor suits, four banks and
four former law firms that serviced Stanford's business empire are
increasingly feeling the pressure from plaintiffs asserting
billions of dollars in claims.  As the defendants fight to
overturn their courtroom losses -- and to find out if they must
face the plaintiffs as a class -- counsel for the investors are
now enjoying the advantage.

In early 2012, three years after the Stanford fraud was exposed,
the investors' position appeared far weaker.  Court-appointed
Stanford receiver Ralph Janvey and his counsel at Baker Botts had
recovered just 3 cents for each dollar lost, with nearly half
going toward professional fees.  By contrast, in his first two
years on the job, Irving Picard, the liquidation trustee for
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, had already recovered
$7.2 billion from the widow of Madoff investor Jeffry Picower, and
$3 billion from others.

"We never had a Mrs. Picower," said Butzel Long partner
Peter Morgenstern -- morgenstern@butzel.com -- co-counsel in a
Stanford investor class action against TD Bank, HSBC, Societe
Generale and two smaller Texas banks that collectively processed
billions of dollars of transactions for Stanford's sham
businesses.

Stanford investors achieved a watershed victory in August 2012,
however, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld investors' rights to
pursue class actions grounded in state common law claims against
Stanford's banks, law firms and brokerages.  The plaintiffs have
been moving full steam ahead ever since.

Each group of defendants -- spread across five separate investor
class actions -- faces more than $5 billion in damages.  In
addition to suing the banks, the investors are pursuing claims
against Stanford's law firms, including Proskauer Rose, Chadbourne
& Parke, Greenberg Traurig and Hunton & Williams.

The class actions mainly survived motions to dismiss earlier this
year.  The Dallas judge overseeing the Stanford matters is now
weighing all-important class certification motions in three of the
cases, including those against the banks and two brokerages.
Investors, via a court-sanctioned Stanford Investor Committee,
have tapped Detroit's Butzel Long; New York's Friedman Kaplan
Seiler & Adelman; San Antonio's Castillo & Snyder; and New
Orleans' Fishman Haygood, among others, to pursue the cases on a
contingency basis.

In one of the class actions, the plaintiffs assert that Chadbourne
and Proskauer should be held liable because Thomas Sjoblom, a
lawyer who worked at both firms, allegedly obstructed probes into
Stanford's business by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
and other regulators, and then helped hide the SEC investigation
from Stanford's auditor, BDO Seidman.

Two other class actions take aim at Stanford's clearing broker,
Pershing LLC, which completed the sale of at least $500 million in
bogus CDs, and an insurance broker, Willis Group Plc, that vouched
for the safety of the investments.

At Butzel Long and Friedman Kaplan, a half-dozen lawyers have been
working full time on the Stanford litigation for six years.
Mr. Morgenstern declined to comment on whether litigation funders
are involved in financing the cases.  But he said he's confident
the investors have solid claims.

"We thought and continue to think that this case will be worth it
to us," he said.  Even if the plaintiffs don't win class
certification, "our multibillion-dollar claims against the
defendants will proceed," Mr. Morgenstern said, citing parallel
suits that he and others have filed on behalf of the receivership
and the court-appointed investors committee.

Stanford investors have recently posted procedural victories in a
few other cases.  Mr. Morgenstern's racketeering case against the
government of Antigua, for example, is now moving ahead after U.S.
District Judge David Godbey in Dallas denied Antigua's motion to
dismiss in late June.  Judge Godbey also allowed the aiding and
abetting claims to proceed. Antigua, represented by McKool Smith,
has appealed.

Plaintiff investors are also getting a lift from trial testimony
and discovery in a slew of civil suits against individual Stanford
executives.  Most recently, on Oct. 2, former Stanford treasury
head Patricia Maldonado was found liable for breach of fiduciary
duty and gross negligence and ordered to pay $50 million.
Investors' counsel in the bank cases have seized on details in
that trial related to the extent of the banks' contact and
involvement with Stanford.

Taken together, the developments appear to have increased investor
leverage over defendants. Last month, for example, plaintiffs
inked a $40 million settlement with BDO Seidman; in May, they
reached a $1 million settlement with Adams & Reese.

The class actions against Proskauer and Chadbourne, meanwhile, are
on hold pending the outcome of their appeal.  The two firms argue
that Texas state law immunizes lawyers from being sued by
nonclient third parties. Their appeal is likely to be argued in
winter or early spring at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, with a decision coming by next summer.  James Rouhandeh
-- rouhandeh@davispolk.com -- of Davis Polk & Wardwell, who is
representing Proskauer, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison's Daniel Beller, leading a team for Chadbourne, both
declined to comment.


STEIN MART: "Corrales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Grisel Corrales v. Stein Mart, Inc.  and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. BC599443 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 29, 2015)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, compensation for each meal
and rest period not provided, damages and penalties for failure to
comply with wage statement provisions, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs under California Labor Code.

Stein Mart, Inc. operates a discount department store in Los
Angeles County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq.
      GLEASON & FAVAROTE LLP
      835 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213)452-0510
      Facsimile: (213)452-0514
      E-mail: tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com

         - and -

      Joseph R. Becerra, Esq.
      BECERRA LAW FIRM
      835 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213)542-8501
      Facsimile: (213)542-5556
      E-mail: jbecerra@jrbecerralaw.com


STEIN MART: "Miranda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adelina Miranda v. Stein Mart, Inc. and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. BC599562 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 29, 2015)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, compensation for each meal
and rest period not provided, damages and penalties for failure to
comply with wage statement provisions, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs under California Labor Code.

Stein Mart, Inc. operates a discount department store in Los
Angeles County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq.
      GLEASON & FAVAROTE LLP
      835 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213)452-0510
      Facsimile: (213)452-0514
      E-mail: tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com

         - and -

      Joseph R. Becerra, Esq.
      BECERRA LAW FIRM
      835 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213)542-8501
      Facsimile: (213)542-5556
      E-mail: jbecerra@jrbecerralaw.com


STIHL INC: Recalls Gas-Powered Edgers, Trimmer, & Pole Pruners
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
STIHL Inc., of Virginia Beach, Va., announced a voluntary recall
of about 140,000 STIHL gas-powered edgers, trimmer/brushcutters,
pole pruners and KombiMotors (in addition, about 16,000 were sold
in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The gasoline tank vent can become dislodged due to incorrect
factory installation and cause fuel to leak, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves STIHL edgers with model number FC 56 C,
trimmer/brushcutters with model numbers FS 40 C, FS 50 C, FS 56 C
and FS 56 RC, pole pruners with model number HT 56 C and
KombiMotors with model number KM 56 RC. The model number is
located on the starter cover at the rear of the engine. The engine
size is about 28 cc. The products are gray and orange with "STIHL"
on the engine cover. The serial number range for all of the
recalled units is 501830112 through 504083576. The serial number
is located on the label on the bottom of the engine.

STIHL Inc. has received 319 reports of the fuel tank vents coming
loose and fuel leaking. No fires or injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/YYKT6P

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Authorized STIHL dealers nationwide from November 2014 through
September 2015 for between $200 and $400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and
return them to an authorized STIHL dealer for a free inspection
and repair.


SURE SIGNAL: Recalls Heat-activated Fire Alarms
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sure Signal Products, Inc., of Garden Grove, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 375,000 Heat-activated fire alarm.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

A defective fusible link sensor (fuse) on the fire alarm can cause
the alarm to fail to alert consumers of a fire.

This recall involves Sure Signal Products heat-activated fire
alarms sold under the following brand names and models:  DeTech
FST2004H, MasterGuard QR50, Responsive TR70-R and Thermalink QR50.
They are white, round and measure about 7 inches in diameter. The
alarms have a round fuse at the center. The fuse is white or
chrome and about 1.5 inches in diameter, and has a temperature
rating of 117øF or 136øF.  The alarms were manufactured from
January 1, 2004 through July 1, 2015. Date codes are listed in a
YYDDD format and range from 04001 through 15182. The alarm's model
is printed on a label on the back of the alarm. SSP, the
temperature rating and the date code can be found on the back of
the fuse.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/pH9inv

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Fire alarm dealers nationwide from January 2004 through
September 2015 for between $300 and $375.

Consumers should immediately contact Sure Signal Products for free
replacement fuses. A video with instructions on how to replace the
fuse is available at http://SureSignalProducts.com.


T3 MICRO: Recalls Curling Irons Due to Burn Hazard
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
T3 Micro Inc., of Venice, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 8,400 Curling irons (in addition, about 800 were sold in
Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The clamp can detach while in use, posing a burn hazard to
consumers.

This recall involves T3 Twirl 360 Motion-Sensing Auto-Rotating
1.25 inch Curling Irons. The curling irons have a white plastic
handle, a white metal rotating heat barrel and clamp, and a rose-
gold colored grip. Model number 76570 is printed on the label that
is placed on the handle of the tool and T3 is printed on the
curling iron's barrel.

The firm has received 130 reports of loose or detached curling
iron clamps including two reports of minor burns.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/fq3LOj

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Nordstrom and Sephora stores and professional beauty supply
distributors nationwide from December 2014 through October 2015
for about $230.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled curling irons
and contact T3 for a prepaid shipping box to return the curling
iron for a free repair.


TAKATA CORP: Faces $200 Million in Fines Over Air Bag Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has fined
Takata Corp. as much as $200 million -- the largest amount ever
imposed by the agency -- for failing to disclose a defect that
caused its air bags to rupture.

The fines, announced on Nov. 3, are the latest in a series of
increasingly severe penalties that NHTSA has imposed on automobile
companies over safety defects.  Fines this year have included $105
million against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and $70 million against
Honda.  In the latest action, NHTSA also took the unprecedented
step of pushing Takata Corp. to speed up its record recalls, now
totaling 19 million vehicles in the United States.

Takata agreed to pay $70 million in cash and another $130 million,
should it fail to comply with the terms of the consent order.  An
independent monitor selected by NHTSA will oversee Takata's
compliance with the consent order for the next five years.

"For years, Takata has built and sold defective products, refused
to acknowledge the defect and failed to provide full information
to NHTSA, its customers or the public," said Transportation
Secretary Anthony Foxx in a prepared statement.  "The result of
that delay and denial has harmed scores of consumers and caused
the largest, most complex safety recall in history.  The actions
represent aggressive use of NHTSA's authority to clean up these
problems and protect public safety."

Takata Corp. Chairman and CEO Shigehisa Takada said in a
statement: "We deeply regret the circumstances that led to this
consent order.  This settlement is an important step forward for
Takata that will enable us to focus on rebuilding the trust of
automakers, regulators and the driving public."  Dechert chairman
Andrew Levander, a New York-based white-collar and securities
partner, signed the NHTSA's consent order for Takata.

Takata, whose executives testified twice on Capitol Hill, at first
resisted pressure to recall vehicles beyond certain hot and humid
regions of the country.  But under a May 19 consent order, Takata
admitted the existence of a defect, which has been linked to seven
deaths and 100 injuries in the United States, and agreed to
conduct a nationwide recall and cooperate with the agency's
investigation.

Under the new consent order, Takata's U.S. subsidiary, TK Holdings
Inc., admitted it had violated the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act and provided "selective, incomplete or
inaccurate data" since at least 2009 to NHTSA and to its
customers.  Under a separate coordinated remedy order, Takata and
12 automakers agreed to a specified schedule to phase out the
manufacture and sale of air bag inflators that use phase-
stabilized ammonium nitrate, a propellant suspected of causing the
ruptures.  Replacement parts for the vehicles at highest risk --
typically those of 2008 model years or older in humid regions --
must be available by next year, with final fixes due by the end of
2019. NHTSA will oversee the new parts and all future recalls,
along with the independent monitor.

In the end, no one likely will know the root cause of the defect.
According to the consent order, "Takata has studied this complex
problem for at least the last eight years and, to date, does not
have a definitive root cause," and NHTSA "does not believe that
the American public will be well served if the root cause
investigation continues indefinitely."

Takata and seven automakers still face hundreds of civil lawsuits
coordinated in federal court in Miami.  U.S. District Judge
Federico Moreno is weighing several dismissal motions in a
consolidated case involving consumers seeking economic damages.
Moreno rejected a motion by some automakers to halt the cases
until NHTSA completed its investigation.

Another consolidated case seeks compensation for personal injuries
associated with the faulty air bags.


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abhishek Agrawal, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Terraform Global, Inc., et al., Case No. cv-
536045 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 30, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Terraform Global, Inc. is a diversified owner of clean power
generation assets focused on emerging markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP
      Post Montgomery Center
      One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 288-4545
      Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
      E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      David C. Walton, Esq.
      Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101- 8498
      Telephone: (619) 231- 1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231- 7423
      E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com
              bcochran@rgrdlaw.com


UNITED FLOWER: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ramino Martinez and other similarly situated individuals v.
United Flower Services LLC and Javier Paxtor, Case No. 33889725
(Fla. 11th Ct., October 30, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a flower floral arrangements and
wreaths services company in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Swarce" Suit in Mass. Over Defeat Device
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regina Swarce and John Swarce, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 15-3309f (Mass. Cmmw., October 30, 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:

      Michael P. Thornton, Esq.
      David J. McMorris, Esq.
      Evan R. Hoffman, Esq.
      Leah M. Carlsen, Esq.
      THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
      100 Summer Street, 301th Floor
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 720-1333
      Facsimile: (617) 720-2445
      E-mail: mthornton@tenlaw.com
              dmcmorris@tenlaw.com
              ehoffman@tenlaw.com
              lcarlsen@tenlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Stegen" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Felix Stegen v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., et al., Case
No. 4:15-cv-00582-GKF-PJC (N.D. Okla., October 13, 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:

      Ryan L. Thompson, Esq.
      WATTS GUERRA LLP
      Oklahoma Bar No. 30324
      5726 W. Hausman Rd., Ste. 119
      San Antonio, TX 78249
      Telephone: (210) 448-0500
      Facsimile: (210) 448-0501
      E-mail: rlt-bulk@wattsguerra.com

         - and -

      Gerald J. Diaz Jr., Esq.
      James R. Segars III, Esq.
      THE DIAZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
      208 Waterford Square, Suite 300
      Madison, MS 39110
      Telephone: (601) 607-3456
      Facsimile: (601) 607-3393
      E-mail: joey@diazlawfirm.com
              tripp@diazlawfirm.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Mediators Named to Expedite Case Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that chaos is building in courts across the country as about 400
Volkswagen emissions class actions have raced forward -- with two
federal judges ordering immediate settlement talks -- despite a
pending decision on whether to move the cases to multidistrict
litigation.

One federal judge in Michigan and another in New Jersey appointed
mediators to oversee an "expedited settlement" of cases against
Volkswagen consolidated in those courts.  On Oct. 28, Volkswagen
confirmed in a court filing that it agreed to mediate in those
courts and, in an unprecedented move, asked the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to speed up its decision about
which judge should oversee all the litigation -- even skip its
scheduled oral arguments on Dec. 3 in New Orleans.
Christopher Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- a partner in the
San Francisco office of Hausfeld, which wants the cases
coordinated in Virginia, made a similar request before the panel
on Oct. 26.

Generally, federal judges stay lawsuits that could end up in an
MDL until the panel issues its ruling, typically within two weeks
of oral arguments.  But this time, some judges aren't waiting.
"We've just got a chaotic environment," said Mr. Lebsock, who
represents The Center for Auto Safety in a case against
Volkswagen.  "It seems to us we need to slow this process down
just a bit to get coordinated -- make sure all the parties that
need to be at the table are there -- and then move forward with a
discussion about how to resolve."

The vast majority of the cases against Volkswagen are nationwide
class actions filed in federal courts by consumers alleging they
were duped into paying premium prices for "clean diesel" cars that
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said emit as much as
40 times the standard for nitrogen oxides.  Volkswagen has
admitted that 11 million vehicles, including 482,000 cars in the
United States, have a "defeat device" in them designed to cheat
emissions tests.

About 100 lawyers have submitted briefs before the MDL panel in
support of judges in 15 states and the District of Columbia.
But Volkswagen has asked the MDL panel to act faster.  The rush of
litigation is "a significant burden on the defendant,"
Jeffrey Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com -- a member of
New York's Herzfeld & Rubin, lead counsel for Volkswagen Group of
America Inc., wrote in its brief before the panel.

"There has been an extraordinary flurry of pre-MDL litigation
activity in various courts nationwide, which contravenes the
interests of judicial economy," Mr. Chase wrote.

On Oct. 22, Gerald Rosen, chief judge of the Eastern District of
Michigan, appointed former U.S. District Judge Layn Phillips and
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes to oversee settlement talks
involving more than 20 cases consolidated in his courtroom.  In
New Jersey, where about 60 class actions have been consolidated,
U.S. District Judge Jose Linares (left) on Oct. 23 appointed
Phillips and retired U.S. District Judge Faith Hochberg to mediate
settlement talks.

Both judges are weighing orders for Volkswagen to preserve
evidence that could be used in litigation.  Plaintiffs attorneys
fear that Volkswagen might destroy evidence because it doesn't
have the same legal requirements under German law to preserve
documents and has forced them to go through The Hague Convention's
service of process, which could take months.  Volkswagen's
response in Michigan is due Oct. 30 and faces a Nov. 12 hearing in
New Jersey.

Lynn Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- a partner at Seattle's
Keller Rohrback, co-interim coordinating class counsel in the
Michigan cases, defended the settlement discussions in an Oct. 27
brief before the MDL panel. He said the talks were an "appropriate
first and necessary step toward managing this sprawling and unique
litigation."

James Cecchi, a partner at Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody
& Agnello in Roseland, New Jersey, interim co-liaison counsel in
the New Jersey cases, echoed those views in an Oct. 29 brief.
"Put simply, exploring a swift resolution to get relief to those
damaged by the defendants' conduct seems logical," he wrote.

Mr. Lebsock, representing the Center for Auto Safety, said a
settlement is unlikely given that Volkswagen hasn't yet proposed a
way to fix the cars and federal regulators would need to be
involved in any talks.  "I was just on the phone with lawyers at
the Department of Justice, and they are not part of the
discussions at the point," Mr. Lebsock said.

But the litigation's mach speed has been driven by Volkswagen
customers who are worried they won't be able to renew
registrations on their cars, which now aren't compliant with
emissions standards at many state departments of motor vehicles
across the country.  There also is "jockeying going on by the
lawyers" for leadership roles in one of the largest mass torts in
the country and a desire by Volkswagen to "put this behind them as
soon as possible," Mr. Lebsock said.

Judges aren't immune to what's going on.  "Judges recognize the
seriousness of the situation, and want to see if there is an
expedited resolution," he said.


WOLF & CROW: Faces "Everson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Everson v. Wolf & Crow, Inc., Kevin Shapiro, and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC599500 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
October 30, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Coe.

The Defendants own and operate an animation and production company
with a principal place of business located at 11725 Mississippi
Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90025.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alex Hartounian, Esq.
      HARTOUNIAN LAW FIRM
      2626 Foothill Blvd. Suite 250
      La Crescenta, CA 91214
      Telephone: (818) 794-9675
      Facsimile: (818) 459-6997

         - and -

      Mark H. Wagner, Esq.
      WAGNER LEGAL GROUP
      2001 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 210
      Santa Monica, CA 90403
      Telephone: (310) 857-5293
      Facsimile: (310) 957-2363


* Beauty School Students Not Employees, Court Rules
---------------------------------------------------
Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Law.com, reports that
students do not employees make.  That's the essence of a recent
decision from a federal judge in California, according to
Noel Tripp of Jackson Lewis in a blog post.  In the case, former
beauty school students claimed they were essentially employees
while at the school's clinical training program, providing
services to the public and entitling them to minimum wage.

"The court found that the evidence put forth by the plaintiffs
regarding the duties they performed and economic impact of their
alleged 'work' was too 'vague and sparse' to rebut defendants'
cross-motion for summary judgment," explains Mr. Tripp.  For
instance, the students couldn't provide sufficient evidence that
they weren't receiving an educational benefit or that a large
portion of their time was taken up with noncosmetological-related
tasks, such as cleaning and answering the phones.

The decision "is further support for the position that, properly
constructed, unpaid vocational programs such as defendants' beauty
school do not run afoul of the FLSA and state wage-and-hour
statutes," says Tripp.


* Ex-Fen-Phen Plaintiffs' Lawyer Chesley Receives Arrest Warrant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Henderson, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that the
well-chronicled fall of famed plaintiffs lawyer Stanley Chesley
took yet another plunge on Oct. 29 when a warrant was issued for
his arrest in Kentucky.  The one-page warrant, obtained by The Am
Law Daily and signed by Boone County Circuit Court Judge James
Schrand II in Burlington, Kentucky, cites a charge of "contempt"
against Chesley.

According to The Courier-Journal of Louisville, which first
reported the news, the warrant was issued when Mr. Chesley did not
appear at a hearing stemming from his refusal to pay a whopping
$42 million judgment -- ordered by Judge Schrand in August 2014 --
to former clients he represented in class action litigation over
the diet drug fen-phen.

The Courier-Journal reported in September that Mr. Chesley sued a
handful of his clients and their Lexington, Kentucky-based lawyer
Angela Ford -- a longtime adversary of Mr. Chesley -- in a battle
over an interest in his former firm Waite, Schneider, Bayless &
Mr. Chesley, where $59 million of the former class action star's
personal assets are stowed, according to Kentucky court records.
Mr. Chesley did not return a call on Oct. 30 to his home just
across the Kentucky border in Indian Hill, Ohio, where he owns one
of the affluent Cincinnati suburb's most expensive homes.  The
arrest warrant issued by the Boone County Circuit Court sets Mr.
Chesley's bail at $647,815.64.  It's the latest legal setback for
the notorious plaintiffs lawyer, who was disbarred in March 2013
from practicing law in Kentucky.  Mr. Chesley, 79, subsequently
retired before he could lose his law license in nearby Ohio.

Mr. Chesley's troubles date back to 2001, when he won a $200
million settlement in a class action filed over fen-phen in
Kentucky against American Home Products Corp., the maker of the
anti-obesity drug later found to cause heart damage. (AHPC sold
itself to pharmaceutical giant Wyeth, which was absorbed by rival
Pfizer in a $68 billion megadeal in 2009.)

The fen-phen class action litigation was the subject of two
lengthy feature stories from The American Lawyer in December 2006
and November 2011, the latter of which detailed how, out of the
$200 million settlement won by Mr. Chesley, plaintiffs lawyers
made off with roughly $125 million of that sum.  Mr. Chesley, who
won high-profile victories for Vietnam War veterans, tobacco users
and breast implant patients during his career, was eventually
disbarred by the Kentucky Supreme Court for taking an
"unreasonable" $20 million fee in the fen-phen case.

Mr. Chesley, who is married to federal district court judge Susan
Dlott, has still fared better than his former co-counsel in the
fen-phen litigation.  Kentucky plaintiffs lawyers Shirley
Cunningham Jr. and William Gallion were handed 20- and 25-year
prison sentences, respectively, in 2009 for taking $94 million
from clients, according to our previous reports.

Mr. Chesley's lawyer, Frank Benton IV of Newport, Kentucky-based
Benton Benton & Luedeke, did not respond to a request for comment
on Oct. 30.  Vincent Maurer and Sheryl Snyder, litigation partners
at Frost Brown Todd in Cincinnati and Louisville, respectively,
represent Chesley in other litigation matters.  Ms. Snyder
directed a request for comment regarding Mr. Chesley's arrest
warrant to Benton, while Mr. Maurer did not return an Oct. 30
phone call.


                            *********

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  * * *