CAR_Public/151119.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 19, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 231


                            Headlines


1560 CHIRP: Faces "Cabrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ACE LIMITED: MOU Reached in Suit Over Chubb Merger
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTH: Counterclaim for Improper Venue Rejected
ALPHABET INC: Entered Into Class C Undertaking
AMAZON.COM: "Hargrett" Suit Removed to Middle District Florida

AMBERT MEDICAL: "Figueredo" Suit Removed to S. District Florida
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Final Approval Hearing on Dec. 17 in "Smith"
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Continues to Defend "Ackerman" Case
ANMOL LLC: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AT&T SERVICES: "Rodriguez" FCRA Suit Goes to Arbitration

BOFI HOLDING: Faces "Hazan" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
CARMAX INC: Filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari
COSTCO WHOLESALE: To Appeal Final Judgment in Class Action
CHUBB CORPORATION: MOU Reached in Suit Over ACE Unit Merger
CSX CORP: Class Cert. Hearing Postponed in Fuel Surcharge Suit

DADE MEDICAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
DELANO FARMS: Court Rejects Bid to Amend Complaint in "Arredondo"
DOLE FOOD: Grant of Partial Summary Judgment Vacated
DIAMOND FOODS: $3MM Accord in Labeling Suit Has Final Approval
DIAMOND PET: "Reynolds" Class Suit Removed to E.D. California

DISNEY ONLINE: "Robinson" Video Privacy Suit Dismissed
DISTINCTIVE SURFACES: Faces "Eller" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DWM CONSULTING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Courville" Suit Says
DUKE ENERGY: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces "Elward" Suit Over Defective Dishwashers

EPL OIL: Defendants' Date to Answer Class Suit Moved Indefinitely
FAST WATER HEATER: Ex Parte Application Granted In Part
FIRST COMMUNITY: Illegally Collects Debt, "La Vigne" Suit Claims
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Molargik-Deutchma" Suit Over Zofran(R)
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Willis" Suit Over Zofran(R) Drug

HANI BASSIT: Faces "Burns" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HELMERICH & PAYNE: Order Rejecting Prejudgment Interest Affirmed
HUMANA INC: Defendants in Merger Litigation Signed MOU
IBIO INC: Reached Agreement-In-Principle to Settle Class Action
IRON COUNTY AMBULANCE: Faces "Wader" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

IRON COUNTY AMBULANCE: Faces "Wader" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
JOHN HANCOCK: "McElwee" Suit Removed to New Jersey District Court
KANSAS CITY ROYALS: "Senne" Wage Suit Wins Conditional Cert.
KB HOME: Defending Wage and Hour Suits in Texas & California
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: "Lounderman" Suit Removed to C. Dist. Cal.

LENNOX INT'L: Recorded $2.4MM Liability Related to Coils Suit
LINCARE INC: E.D. Cal. Judge Grants Discovery Request in "Culley"
MACHINE ZONE: Maryland Judge Throws Out "Mason" Action
MISTRAS GROUP: Consolidated Class Action in Preliminary Stages
MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Order & Final Judgment Entered in Class Action

MONSANTO CO: Faces "Giglio" Suit Over Roundup(R)-Related Damages
MRS BPO: Sued in Pa. Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
NATIONAL HEALTHCARE: Faces "Fraley" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Generic Gleevec Entry Delay
OC JEWELRY: "Garcia" Suit Removed to Southern District Florida

OCWEN FINANCIAL: "Moceri" Suit Removed to S. Dist. California
OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER: Securities Suit Wins Class Certification
ORLANDO HEALTH: Florida Judge Dumps "Reuss" Suit Over Tax Refund
OSMOSE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PIER 1 IMPORTS: Faces "Kathleen Kenney" Class Action

PINCHER'S BEACH: "Campbell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PJT PARTNERS: Expert Discovery Ongoing in Stockholder Litigation
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Denson" Suit Removed to S. Dist. Florida
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: May File First Amended Answer in "Stratton"

QUORUM HEALTH: CHS Continues to Defend Class Action
QUORUM HEALTH: No Trial Date in "Chuy" Case
QUORUM HEALTH: CHS Intends to Defend Lawsuit v. Health Management
RITE AID: "Indergit" Case Remains Pending in S.D.N.Y.
RITE AID: Parties to Seek Approval of Deal in Chase and Kyle Suit

RITE AID: Proceedings in "Hall" Case Stayed
SANTA FE NATURAL: Falsely Marketed Cigarettes, Action Claims
STERICYCLE INC: "Gutierrez" Suit Removed to C. Dist. California
STERN & EISENBERG: Illegally Collects Debt, "Beach" Suit Claims
SUPERVALU INC: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Case

SYNERGETICS USA: Delaware Court Dismissed Investors' Class Action
THORATEC CORPORATION: Signed MOU to Settle Merger Litigation
UNITED COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Yablonsky" Suit Says
URANIUM ENERGY: To Seek Dismissal of "Stephens" Securities Case
US PATENT COMMISSION: Motion to Compel Arbitration Granted

VANGUARD NATURAL: Class Actions Against LRR Energy Dismissed
VESUVIO'S II PIZZA: Court Extends Discovery in "Solais"
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces A Plus Suit in Minn. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fields" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Wright" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Marsh" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices
VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Nov. 25 Deadline to Answer Amended Complaint
WABTEC CORPORATION: "Busker" Suit Removed to C. Dist. California
WYANDOTTE, MI: "Page" Suit Over Water Franchise Fees Tossed
YUM! BRANDS: Deadline to File Certiorari Petition Due

YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Seeks to Decertify Classes in Wage Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Discovery Continuing in "Rodriguez" Class Action
ZARA USA: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Consumer Reports


                            *********


1560 CHIRP: Faces "Cabrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nixon Cabrera, et al. v. 1560 Chirp Corp. et al, Case No. 1:15-cv-
08194 (S.D.N.Y., October 17, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

1560 Chirp Corp. owns and operates a restaurant in New York.

Nixon Cabrera is a PRO SE litigant.


ACE LIMITED: MOU Reached in Suit Over Chubb Merger
--------------------------------------------------
William Investment Holdings Corporation ("Merger Sub"), a wholly
owned subsidiary of ACE Limited ("ACE"), The Chubb Corporation
("Chubb"), the Chubb board of directors and the plaintiffs in ten
putative class actions challenging the merger of Chubb and Merger
Sub on October 12, 2015, entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of such
litigation.

Ace Limited said in its Form 8-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 14, 2015, that the lawsuits were
filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Somerset County, Chancery
Division and are captioned: The Sadie Nauy Charitable Found. v.
The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012040-15 (filed July 10, 2015); Anne
Cutler v. John D. Finnegan, et al., C-012041-15 (filed July 10,
2015); Sidney Weiman v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012043-15
(filed July 14, 2015); Renee Sayegh v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-
012045-15 (filed July 10, 2015); Judy Mesirov v. The Chubb Corp.,
et al., C-012046-15 (filed July 20, 2015); Shiva Stein v. The
Chubb Corp., et al., C-012047-15 (filed July 21, 2015); Vladimir
Gusinsky Living Trust v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012048-15
(filed July 22, 2015); Jane Schwartzman v. Zoe Baird Budinger, et
al., C-012049-15 (filed July 20, 2015); Saunders v. The Chubb
Corp., et al., C-012050-15 (filed July 23, 2015); and Polatsch v.
The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012051-15 (filed July 23, 2015). The
complaints allege, among other things, that the Chubb board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Chubb
through an unfair and inadequate process and by failing to
maximize the value of Chubb. Several of the complaints also allege
that Chubb, ACE and/or Merger Sub have aided and abetted these
breaches of fiduciary duties. The amended complaints filed in the
Mesirov, Weiman and Schwartzman actions added, among other things,
allegations that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by
ACE on August 3, 2015 contained material misstatements and
omissions.

The MOU contemplates, among other things, that Chubb would make
certain supplemental disclosures relating to the merger, all of
which have been set forth by Chubb in a Report on Form 8-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 13, 2015.
Although the defendants deny the allegations made by the
plaintiffs and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required
under the applicable laws, in order to avoid the burden and
expense of further litigation, Chubb agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures pursuant to the terms of the MOU.

The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to confirmatory
discovery and customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Chubb's shareholders. A hearing will be
scheduled at which the New Jersey Superior Court will consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the
settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and
release all claims under New Jersey law by shareholders of Chubb
challenging any aspect of the proposed merger of Chubb and Merger
Sub, the merger agreement governing the merger, and any disclosure
made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be
disclosed to shareholders prior to final approval of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the court will approve
the settlement contemplated by the MOU. If the court does not
approve the settlement, or if the settlement is otherwise
disallowed, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may
be terminated.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTH: Counterclaim for Improper Venue Rejected
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole granted the Plaintiff's motion to
dismiss the counterclaim for improper venue in the case captioned
PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., an Ohio corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSCRIPTS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC. and
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 12 C 3233, (N.D.
Ill.)

The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants on May 1, 2012,
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which
prohibits any person from sending unsolicited fax advertisements.
The plaintiff claims that defendants violated the Act by sending
it 36 unsolicited fax advertisements between February 11, 2008,
and April 26, 2008. Three years into this litigation, on June 1,
2015, the defendants filed a counterclaim, which charged the
plaintiff with having violating a software agreement between
Physicians Healthsource and Allscripts, that covered the software
designed to be used in connection with defendants' medical billing
and collections. The counterclaim alleges that plaintiff licensed
their former office manager to use the software at home while
doing subcontractor work for them in 2008 and 2009. The plaintiff
has moved to dismiss the counterclaim for improper venue or, in
the alternative, to stay it pending arbitration pursuant to an
arbitration clause in the parties' software licensing agreement.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 21, 2015
available at http://is.gd/9GwsClfrom Leagle.com, Judge Cole
granted the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaim for
improper venue. Based on their own participation in this case, it
is a fair conclusion that the defendants never thought the TCPA
claim had anything to do with the software licensing agreement
and, therefore, was subject to arbitration. When the defendants
initially answered the Complaint in April 2013, they asserted a
number of affirmative defenses, and the arbitration provision, not
surprisingly, was not among them. The TCPA authorizes awards of
actual damages or $500 per fax, whichever is greater, and can be
trebled if the violation was willful. he plaintiff had every
incentive to avoid any arbitration provision that might be
applicable to its claims. A recovery of $18,000 is likely not
worth three years' worth of effort by four law firms. Obviously
treble damages and attorneys' fees are the real (and
understandable) lures in this case. But the totality of the
circumstances suggests that the plaintiff did not think when it
filed its lawsuit that it had anything to do with the software
agreement -- which was not mentioned until the defendants filed
their motion to amend their answer and counterclaims in May 2015.
It's clear from considering the defendants' foregoing assertions
that this case is not on anything like similar footing with cases
in which a court has found a TCPA claim covered by an arbitration
clause. In most of those cases, there is a loan agreement and the
unwelcome calls or faxes are about collecting the debt. Clearly,
the defendants have not met their burden of establishing waiver in
this case. The question remains, however, whether the proper
course is to dismiss the counterclaim or stay the proceedings and
compel arbitration. Both parties claim that the case law goes
either way. But one thing the parties have not focused on is that
the arbitration clause requires arbitration in Raleigh, North
Carolina.

Brian J Wanca, Esq. --  BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Wallace Cyril
Solberg, Esq. -- wsolberg@andersonwanca.com -- and Ryan M. Kelly,
Esq. -- RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- of Anderson & Wanca; Phillip
A. Bock, Esq. --  phil@bockhatchllc.com -- Christopher Phillip
Taylor Tourek, Esq. -- Christopher@bockhatchllc.com -- James
Michael Smith, Esq. --  jim@bockhatchllc.com -- Tod Allen Lewis,
Esq. -- tod@bockhatchllc.com -- and Julia Lynn Titolo, Esq. --
julia@bockhatchllc.com -- of Bock & Hatch LLC; Kerry Ann Bute,
Esq. -- kbute@mrjlaw.com -- and Matthew Elton Stubbs, Esq. --
mstubbs@mrjlaw.com -- of Montgomery Rennie & Jonson; Ross Michael
Good, Esq. -- michaelross@rosslaw.org -- and Max G. Margulis, Esq.
of Margulis Law Group serve as counsel for Plaintiff Physicians
Healthsource, Inc., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons

Livia McCammon Kiser, Esq. -- lkiser@sidley.com -- Andrew Jacob
Chinsky, Esq. -- achinsky@sidley.com -- and Lawrence P Fogel, Esq.
-- lawrence.fogel@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP serve as
counsel for Defendant Allscripts-Misy's Healthcare Solutions, Inc.


ALPHABET INC: Entered Into Class C Undertaking
----------------------------------------------
Alphabet Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 2, 2015, that on
October 2, 2015, Alphabet entered into a Class C Undertaking
pertaining to the settlement entered into by Google, the Board of
Directors of Google and the plaintiffs in the class action
litigation involving the authorization to distribute Class C
capital stock captioned In Re: Google Inc. Class C Shareholder
Litigation, Civil Action No. 7469-CS (the "Google Class C
Settlement"), pursuant to which Alphabet will undertake to be
bound by the restrictions, undertakings and all continuing
obligations and to benefit from the rights of the Google Class C
Settlement Agreement that are applicable to Google as if it were
Google (the "Class C Undertaking").


AMAZON.COM: "Hargrett" Suit Removed to Middle District Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Donovan Hargrett, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 15-CA-8354, was removed from the
Hillsborough County Court to the U.S. District Court Middle
District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 8:15-cv-02456-RAL-EAJ to the proceeding.

The case alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Amazon.com, Inc. operates an electronic commerce and cloud
computing company with headquarters in Seattle, Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
      Steven Greg Wenzel, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      Suite 300, 1110 N Florida Ave
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
              swenzel@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Alison Sue Hightower, Esq.
      Rod M. Fliegel, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
      20th Floor, 650 California St
      San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
      Telephone: (415) 743-6642
      Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
      E-mail: ahightower@littler.com
              rfliegel@littler.com

         - and -

      Jason Matthew Leo, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
      111 N Magnolia Ave Ste 1250
      Orlando, FL 32801-2366
      Telephone: (407) 393-2900
      Facsimile: (407) 393-2929
      E-mail: jleo@littler.com


AMBERT MEDICAL: "Figueredo" Suit Removed to S. District Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Yanlei Figueredo and others
similarly situated v. Ambert Medical Care Center, Corp., et al.,
Case No. 15-021147 CA 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida to the U.S. District Court
Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-23863-DPG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

Ambert Medical Care Center, Corp. operates a health service
company located at 15495 Eagle Nest Ln #100, Hialeah, FL 33014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      David Alan Chonin, Esq.
      DAVID CHONIN LAW OFFICE
      5820 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 125
      Miami, FL 33126
      Telephone: (305) 444-3000
      Facsimile: (305) 448-7788
      E-mail: davidchonin@yahoo.com


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Final Approval Hearing on Dec. 17 in "Smith"
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Greetings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended August 28, 2015, that final
approval hearing is set for December 17, 2015, in the case, Al
Smith et al. v. American Greetings Corporation.

On June 4, 2014, Al Smith and Jeffrey Hourcade, former fixture
installation crew members for special projects, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, filed a putative class
action lawsuit against American Greetings Corporation in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division. Plaintiffs claim that the Corporation violated
certain rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California
law, including the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders. For themselves and the proposed classes,
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of general and special
damages, including but not limited to minimum wages, agreed upon
wages and overtime wages, statutory liquidated damages, statutory
penalties (including penalties under the California Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), unpaid benefits,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and interest). In addition,
plaintiffs request disgorgement of all funds the Corporation
acquired by means of any act or practice that constitutes unfair
competition and restoration of such funds to the plaintiffs and
the proposed classes.

On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
to add claims for reimbursement of business expenses and failure
to provide meal periods in violation of California Law and on
December 12, 2014, amended their PAGA notice to include the newly
added claims.

On January 20, 2015, the parties reached a settlement in principle
that, if approved by the Court, will fully and finally resolve the
claims brought by Smith and Hourcade, as well as the classes they
seek to represent. The settlement was a product of extensive
negotiations and a private mediation, which was finalized and
memorialized in a Stipulation and Class Action Settlement
Agreement signed March 30, 2015.

On March 31, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement and on July 23, 2015, the
Court entered its Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement.

The proposed settlement establishes a settlement fund of $4.0
million to pay claims from current and former employees who worked
at least one day for American Greetings Corporation and/or certain
of its subsidiaries in any hourly non-exempt position in
California between June 4, 2010 and July 23, 2015. On August 24,
2015, the claims administrator commenced mailing of notice and
claim forms to class members. The Court's Order Granting
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement ordered plaintiffs
to file their motion for final approval of the settlement,
together with applications for attorney's fees, costs and service
awards, no later than October 16, 2015 and set the final approval
hearing for December 17, 2015.

If the settlement is finally approved, American Greetings will
fund the settlement within twenty (20) days after passage of all
appeal periods. Thereafter, the settlement funds will be disbursed
as provided in the settlement agreement and the Court's orders.


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Continues to Defend "Ackerman" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
American Greetings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended August 28, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend the case, Michael Ackerman v. American
Greetings Corporation, et al.

On March 6, 2015, plaintiff Michael Ackerman, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court of New Jersey alleging
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by
American Greetings Corporation and its subsidiary, AG Interactive,
Inc. The plaintiff claims that defendants (1) sent plaintiff an
unsolicited text message notifying plaintiff that he had received
an ecard; and (2) knowingly and/or willfully violated the TCPA,
which prohibits unsolicited automated or prerecorded telephone
calls, including faxes and text messages, sent to cellular
telephones. Plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class based on
unsolicited text messages sent by defendants during the period
February 8, 2011 through February 8, 2015. The plaintiff seeks
damages in the statutory amount of $500 for each and every
violation of the TCPA and $1,500 for each and every willful
violation of the TCPA. The Corporation believes the plaintiff's
allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to
defend the action vigorously.

With respect to the Ackerman case, management is unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible losses as (i) the
aggregate damages have not been specified, (ii) the proceeding is
in the early stages, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome
of pending and anticipated motions, and/or (iv) there are
significant factual issues to be resolved. However, management
does not believe, based on currently available information, that
the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect
on the Corporation's business, consolidated financial position or
results of operations, although the outcome could be material to
the Corporation's operating results for any particular period,
depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.


ANMOL LLC: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Javell Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anmol, LLC d/b/a Anmol Restaurant and Mohammad Ashraf
Patel, Case No. 2:15-cv-01310 (E.D. Wis., November 3, 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 Anmol Restaurant located in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      222 East Erie, Suite 210
      P.O. Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com


AT&T SERVICES: "Rodriguez" FCRA Suit Goes to Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Gloria M. Navarro granted AT&T's motion to
compel arbitration in the case captioned JUAN RODRIGUEZ, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AT&T
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:14-CV-01537-GMN-GWF, (D.
Nev.)

Plaintiff called AT&T on December 17, 2013 to inquire about
obtaining personal wireless phone service. However, after
discussing several of the potential service plans, Plaintiff
decided against acquiring a line of service from AT&T. Before
terminating the call, Plaintiff checked with the AT&T agent to
ensure that AT&T would not submit a credit report inquiry for him
and was assured over the phone that no such inquiry would be made.
Despite this assurance, however, Plaintiff received a letter from
AT&T approximately one week after the phone call, informing him
that AT&T had in fact submitted a credit report inquiry "as a
result of" the phone call. Additionally, upon later review of his
credit report, Plaintiff verified that an unauthorized inquiry had
been submitted to Equifax on March 27, 2013. In response to the
unauthorized submission of a credit report inquiry, Plaintiff
filed the current proposed class action, asserting claims for: (1)
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and (2) consumer
fraud in violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(NDTPA).

In its Motion to Compel, AT&T provides a different set of facts
concerning the interactions between AT&T and Plaintiff. According
to AT&T, its records show that Plaintiff purchased an Apple iPhone
from an AT&T retail store in Reno, Nevada on August 31, 2012 and
opened an account for use of the phone on AT&T's network.

In her Order dated October 20, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ufq0z4from Leagle.com, Judge Navarro granted
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and motion to reconsider.
Accordingly, these proceedings are stayed pending the outcome of
arbitration. The parties shall file a joint status report by May
1, 2016 notifying the Court of the status of arbitration in this
action and shall file further reports every 90 days as necessary
until the conclusion of arbitration. Accordingly, because Nevada's
public policy against class action waivers cannot be a basis for
invalidating the arbitration agreement, AT&T's Motion to
reconsider is granted.  Therefore, having now rejected all of
Plaintiff's arguments against enforcing the arbitration provision,
the Court finds that the arbitration provision incorporated into
the Business Agreement is valid and enforceable and necessitates
arbitration of Plaintiff's claims.

Danny Horen, Esq. -- danny@kazlg.com -- of Kazerouni Law Group,
APC and David H. Krieger, Esq. of Haines & Krieger, LLC serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Juan Rodriguez

Archis A Parasharami, Esq. -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- of
Mayer Brown LLP and Leslie Bryan Hart, Esq. -- lhart@fclaw.com --
of Fennemore Craig, P.C. serve as counsel for Defendant AT&T
Services, Inc.


BOFI HOLDING: Faces "Hazan" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Hazan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Bofi Holding, Inc., Gregory Garrabrants, and Andrew J.
Micheletti, Case No. 3:15-cv-02486-DMS-BLM (S.D. Cal., November 3,
2015) alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 233-4565
      Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
      E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq.
      Joseph V. Halloran, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
              jhalloran@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
      HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
      1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Telephone: (770) 392-0090
      Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
      E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


CARMAX INC: Filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari
-------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking
review in the United States Supreme Court, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 31,
2015.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax
Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.  Subsequently, two other
lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v.  CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case.
The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to
provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2)
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related
to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime;
(4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
provisions; (5) unfair competition; and (6) California's Labor
Code Private Attorney General Act.  The putative class consisted
of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees
who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to
the present.

On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with
respect to the sales manager putative class.  On June 16, 2009,
the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply
with the itemized employee wage statement provisions.  The court
also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with regard
to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales
consultant putative class.

The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest
breaks; (3) unfair competition; and (4) California's Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act.

On November 21, 2011, the court granted CarMax's motion to compel
the plaintiffs' remaining claims into arbitration on an individual
basis.  The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling and on March
26, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial
court's order granting CarMax's motion to compel arbitration.

On October 8, 2013, CarMax filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari seeking review in the United States Supreme Court.

On February 24, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted
CarMax's petition for certiorari, vacated the California Court of
Appeal decision and remanded the case to the California Court of
Appeal for further consideration. The California Court of Appeal
determined that the plaintiffs' Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act claim is not subject to arbitration, but the remaining
claims are subject to arbitration on an individual basis. CarMax
appealed this decision with respect to the Private Attorney
General Act claim on March 9, 2015 by filing a petition for review
with the California Supreme Court.

On April 22, 2015, the California Supreme Court denied the
petition for review. On August 20, 2015, CarMax filed a petition
for a writ of certiorari seeking review in the United States
Supreme Court. The Fowler lawsuit seeks compensatory and special
damages, wages, interest, civil and statutory penalties,
restitution, injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys'
fees.

"We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or
range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in
this matter," the Company said.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: To Appeal Final Judgment in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation intends to appeal the final judgment
entered in a class action, Costco said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 14,
2015, for the fiscal year ended August 30, 2015.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company,
alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling
gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without
adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion
or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy
equivalent received by the consumer. The Company is named in the
following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et al., v.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D.
Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham, et al. v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.);
Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v.
Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James
Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride,
Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D.Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v.
BP North America Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D.
Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast
Products LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et
al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.);
Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron
USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J.
Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No.
07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess
Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins,
et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D.
Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al.,
Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.).

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. On
April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to settle the actions in which
it is named as a defendant. Under the settlement, which was
subject to final approval by the court, the Company agreed, to the
extent allowed by law and subject to other terms and conditions in
the agreement, to install over five years from the effective date
of the settlement temperature-correcting dispensers in the States
of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Other than payments to class
representatives, the settlement does not provide for cash payments
to class members.

On September 22, 2011, the court preliminarily approved a revised
settlement, which did not materially alter the terms. On April 24,
2012, the court granted final approval of the revised settlement.
A class member who objected has filed a notice of appeal from the
order approving the settlement. Plaintiffs have moved for an award
of $10 million in attorneys' fees, as well as an award of costs
and payments to class representatives. The Company has opposed the
motion.

On March 20, 2014, the Company filed a notice invoking a "most
favored nation" provision under the settlement, under which it
seeks to adopt provisions in later settlements with certain other
defendants, an invocation that class counsel opposed. The motion
was denied on January 23, 2015. Final judgment was entered on
September 22, 2015, and the Company intends to appeal.


CHUBB CORPORATION: MOU Reached in Suit Over ACE Unit Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Chubb Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 13, 2015, that a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") has been reached regarding
certain litigation relating to the proposed merger (the "merger")
of The Chubb Corporation ("Chubb" or the "Company") with and into
William Investment Holdings Corporation ("Merger Sub"), a wholly
owned subsidiary of ACE Limited ("ACE"), pursuant to the agreement
and plan of merger (the "merger agreement"), dated as of June 30,
2015, by and among Chubb, ACE and Merger Sub.

The litigation to which the MOU relates are ten putative class
action lawsuits challenging the merger and naming as defendants
Chubb, the Chubb board of directors, ACE and/or Merger Sub
(collectively, "defendants"). The suits were filed in the New
Jersey Superior Court, Somerset County, Chancery Division and are
captioned: The Sadie Nauy Charitable Found. v. The Chubb Corp., et
al., C-012040-15 (filed July 10, 2015); Anne Cutler v. John D.
Finnegan, et al., C-012041-15 (filed July 10, 2015); Sidney Weiman
v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012043-15 (filed July 14, 2015);
Renee Sayegh v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012045-15 (filed July
10, 2015); Judy Mesirov v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012046-15
(filed July 20, 2015); Shiva Stein v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-
012047-15 (filed July 21, 2015); Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust v.
The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012048-15 (filed July 22, 2015); Jane
Schwartzman v. Zoe Baird Budinger, et al., C-012049-15 (filed July
20, 2015); Saunders v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012050-15 (filed
July 23, 2015); and Polatsch v. The Chubb Corp., et al., C-012051-
15 (filed July 23, 2015) (the "Actions"). The complaints filed in
the Actions allege, among other things, that the Chubb board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Chubb
through an unfair and inadequate process and by failing to
maximize the value of Chubb. Several of the complaints also allege
that Chubb, ACE and/or Merger Sub have aided and abetted these
breaches of fiduciary duties. The amended complaints filed in the
Mesirov, Weiman and Schwartzman Actions added, among other things,
allegations that the preliminary Registration Statement on Form S-
4 filed by ACE on August 3, 2015 contained material misstatements
and omissions.

On October 12, 2015, defendants and plaintiffs in the Actions
entered into the MOU, which provides for the settlement of the
Actions. The MOU contemplates, among other things, that Chubb will
make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the merger, all
of which are set forth below. Although the defendants deny the
allegations made in the Actions and believe that no supplemental
disclosure is required under applicable laws, in order to avoid
the burden and expense of further litigation, Chubb agreed to make
such supplemental disclosures pursuant to the terms of the MOU.

The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to confirmatory
discovery and customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Chubb's shareholders. A hearing will be
scheduled at which the New Jersey Superior Court will consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the
settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and
release all claims by shareholders of Chubb under New Jersey law
challenging any aspect of the proposed merger, the merger
agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to shareholders prior to
final approval of the settlement. There can be no assurance that
the court will approve the settlement contemplated by the MOU. If
the court does not approve the settlement, or if the settlement is
otherwise disallowed, the proposed settlement as contemplated by
the MOU may be terminated.


CSX CORP: Class Cert. Hearing Postponed in Fuel Surcharge Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class certification hearing in the Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation, originally scheduled for early November 2015, has been
postponed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on a class
certification issue in an unrelated case, CSX Corporation said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 25, 2015.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action
lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of
Columbia, where they are now pending. The suit seeks treble
damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as
attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to
allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs'
claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to
prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to
appeal the District Court's class certification decision. In
August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the class
certification decision and remanded the case to the District Court
to reconsider its class certification decision. The District Court
remand proceedings are underway. Although a class certification
hearing had been scheduled for early November 2015, it has been
postponed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on a class
certification issue in an unrelated case. The District Court has
delayed proceedings on the merits of the case pending the outcome
of the class certification remand proceedings.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at
and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit.
Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and
an unexpected adverse decision on the merits could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity in that particular period or for the full
year.


DADE MEDICAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Nawaz, et al. v. Dade Medical College, Inc. and University
of Southernmost Florida, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-24108-PCH (S.D.
Fla., November 3, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to provide 60 days advance written notice of termination
to 400 or more employees.

The Defendants own and operate educational facilities in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Diane P. Perez, Esq.
      DIANE PEREZ, PA
      201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1200
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 985-5676
      Facsimile: (305) 985-5677
      E-mail: diane@dianeperezlaw.com


DELANO FARMS: Court Rejects Bid to Amend Complaint in "Arredondo"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael J. Seng denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to amend complaint in the case captioned SABAS ARREDONDO et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. DELANO FARMS CO., et al., Defendants, No. 1:09-CV-
01247 MJS, (E.D. Cal.)

On June 17, 2009, Plaintiffs commenced this class action against
Defendants on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated.
Plaintiffs made various allegations relating to Defendants failure
to pay for time spent working before and after shifts, for failure
to pay for work performed at home, and failure to reimburse for
purchase of equipment. Over six years of extensive litigation have
ensued and included significant discovery and discovery disputes,
contested motions for class certification and class
decertification, and a trial over whether certain Defendants were
joint employers.

On June 22, 2015, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a First
Amended Complaint (FAC) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a) to add a claim for failure to pay piece-rate workers for
rest breaks. Defendants oppose the motion.

In his Order dated October 20, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/9uSOIufrom Leagle.com, Judge Seng denied Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend complaint.  The Court said it construes
the motion for leave to file an amended complaint as a motion to
modify the scheduling order and for leave to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiffs, the Court explained, have not established
good cause to modify the scheduling order under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). The Court finds that while the new
information may help prove liability and/or damages, it was not
essential to bringing the claim in the first place. Thus
Plaintiffs go to great effort to explain how the records allow the
newly asserted wage claims to be quantified, damages to be
calculated, and "the universe of [payroll] documents [to] be
marshalled for analysis." They do not explain how such information
was necessary to bring the claim in in a manner that would meet
federal pleading standards.

The Court also held that Plaintiffs do not show how the lack of
the 2015 documents left them unable to determine whether the
alleged wage violations occurred. Plaintiffs fail to respond to
Defendants claim that information to support the claim was
available to Plaintiffs simply by talking to the named Plaintiffs.
Even if not sufficient to prove the claim on a class-wide basis,
such informal discovery should have been justified Plaintiffs
timely motion to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs have posited
nothing to suggest that the records produced in 2015 were the only
available source of evidence of the potential claims. Further, by
their own admission, the records were produced in relation to
discovery as to already-certified claims. That discovery could
have been done earlier. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not
acted diligently to move to amend the complaint and do not show
good cause for modifying the scheduling order under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4).

Allen R. Ball, Esq. of Law Office of Ball & Yorke; Gregory
Ramirez, Esq. of Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP;
James Engel Perero, Esq. --  jperero@mwgjlaw.com -- of Myers,
Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP; Jessica Arciniega, Esq.,
of Wasserman, Comden & Casselman; Mario Martinez, Esq. --
mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- of Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch
APLC; William Cooper Callaham, Esq. -- wcallaham@wilcoxenlaw.com -
- of Wilcoxen Callaham; Katherine Winder, Esq. of Condon & Forsyth
LLP; Marcos Rodrigo Camacho, Esq. of Marcos Camacho, A Law
Corporation and Melissa Meeker Harnett, Esq. of Wasserman, Comden,
Casselman & Esensten, L.L.P. serve as counsel for Plaintiff Sabas
Arredondo

William C. Hahesy, Esq. -- bill@hahesylaw.com -- of Law Offices of
William C. Hahesy; Howard A. Sagaser, Esq. -- has@sw2law.com
-- of Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC; Ryan Solomon, Esq., Cynthia
A. Stross, Esq., David N. Bruce, Esq., James P. Savitt, Esq.,
Miles A. Yanick, Esq., and Sarah Gohmann Bigelow, Esq. --
sgohmannbigelow@jetcitylaw.com -- of Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP
serve as counsel Delano Farms Company


DOLE FOOD: Grant of Partial Summary Judgment Vacated
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Sabrina McKenna in Hawaii vacated a judgment on appeal,
which affirmed a circuit court's final judgment in the case
involving Dole Food Company, Inc., and the Pineapple Growers
Association of Hawaii over the use of dibromochloropropane (DBCP),
a powerful nematocide, or nematode worm killer.

The case before the state's High Court challenges the circuit
court's grant of partial summary judgment against Plaintiffs on
statute of limitations grounds. At issue on certiorari is whether
the filing of a putative class action in another jurisdiction
operated to toll Hawaii's statute of limitations, and, if so, at
what point, under the particular circumstances of this case, did
such tolling end.

The High Court holds that the filing of a putative class action in
another jurisdiction does toll the statute of limitations in this
state, as such "cross-jurisdictional tolling" supports a primary
purpose of class action litigation, which is to avoid a
multiplicity of suits.  A copy of the High Court's Opinion dated
October 21, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/Ixvqxqfrom
Leagle.com.

The appellate case is captioned GERARDO DENNIS PATRICKSON; RODOLFO
BERMUDEZ ARIAS; BENIGNO TORRES HERNANDEZ; FERNANDO JIMENEZ ARIAS;
MELGAR OLIMPIO MORENO; LEANDRO SANTOS; HERMAN ROMERO AGUILAR;
ELIAS ESPINOZA MERELO; CELESTINO HOOKER ERA; ALIRIO MANUEL MENDEZ
and CARLOS HUMBER RIVERA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DOLE
FOOD COMPANY, INC.; DOLE FRESH FRUIT COMPANY; DOLE FRESH FRUIT
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; PINEAPPLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION OF HAWAII;
AMVAC CHEMICAL CORPORATION; SHELL OIL COMPANY; DOW CHEMICAL
COMPANY; and OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, (individually and as
successor to Occidental Chemical Company and Occidental Chemical
Agricultural Products, Inc., Hooker Chemical and Plastics,
Occidental Chemical Company of Texas and Best Fertilizer Company);
STANDARD FRUIT COMPANY; STANDARD FRUIT AND STEAMSHIP COMPANY;
STANDARD FRUIT COMPANY DE COSTA RICA, S.A.; STANDARD FRUIT COMPANY
DE HONDURAS, S.A.; CHIQUITA BRANDS INC.; CHIQUITA BRANDS
INTERNATIONAL, INC., (individually and as successor in interest to
United Brands Company, Inc.); MARITROP TRADING CORPORATION; DEL
MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N.A., INC. (incorrectly named as Del Monte
Fresh Produce N.A.); DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE COMPANY; DEL MONTE
FRESH PRODUCE (HAWAII) INC., (incorrectly named as Del Monte Fresh
Produce Hawaii, Inc.); DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE COMPANY and FRESH
DEL MONTE N.V., Respondents/Defendants-Appellees. DOLE FOOD
COMPANY, INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellees, v. DEAD
SEA BROMINE CO., LTD and BROMINE COMPOUNDS LIMITED, Third-Party
Defendants-Appellees, No. SCWC-30700, (Hawaii)

Sean M. Lyons, Esq. of Lyons Snyder & Collin serves as counsel for
Petitioners

Melvyn M. Miyagi, Esq. -- mmiyagi@wik.com -- Ross T. Shinyama,
Esq. --  rshinyama@wik.com -- Angela T. Thompson, Esq.; and Andrea
E. Neuman, Esq. serve as counsel for Respondent Dole Food Company,
Inc.


DIAMOND FOODS: $3MM Accord in Labeling Suit Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 1, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended July 31, 2015, that a court has granted final
approval of the settlement in the Labeling Class Action Cases.

"On January 3, 2014, Deena Klacko first filed a putative class
action against Diamond in the Southern District of Florida,
alleging that certain ingredients contained in our TIAS tortilla
chip product were not natural and seeking damages and injunctive
relief," the Company said. The lawsuit alleged five causes of
actions alleging violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
implied warranty for particular purpose, breach of express
warranty and the Magnuson-Warranty Act. The complaint seeks to
certify a class of Florida consumers who purchased TIAS tortilla
chips since January 3, 2010.

On January 9, 2014, Dominika Surzyn brought a similar class action
against Diamond relating to our TIAS tortilla chips in federal
court for the Northern District of California. Surzyn purports to
represent a class of California consumers who purchased said
Kettle TIAS products since January 9, 2010.

"On April 2, 2014, Richard Hall filed a putative class action
against the Company in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging that
certain ingredients contained in our Kettle Brand chips and TIAS
tortilla chips are not natural and seeking damages and injunctive
relief," the Company continued. The complaint purports to assert
seven causes of action for alleged violations of California's
Business and Profession's Code, California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and for restitution based on quasi-contract/unjust
enrichment. Plaintiff purports to bring this action on his own
behalf, as well as on behalf of all consumers in the United
States, or alternatively, California, who purchased certain of
Diamond's Kettle Brand Chips or Kettle Brand TIAS tortilla chips
within four years of the filing of the complaint.

Diamond denies all allegations in these cases. Following mediation
and settlement discussions among plaintiffs' counsel in Klacko,
Surzyn and Hall, the parties entered into a settlement agreement,
and it is expected that this settlement will resolve all claims on
a nationwide basis and include: Diamond to take certain injunctive
relief measures to confirm labeling compliance matters;
establishment of a $3.0 million common fund for claims made
available to the class and for the payment of class administration
and attorneys' fees; and any funds unclaimed by the class to be
provided cy pres to a charity as a food donation.

"We recognized the related settlement charges within the
consolidated financial statements for fiscal 2014," the Company
said. On October 30, 2014, the court granted preliminary approval
of the settlement and on July 20, 2015 the court granted final
approval of the settlement.


DIAMOND PET: "Reynolds" Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Reynolds v. Diamond Pet Food
Processors of California, et al., Case No. 39-2015-00329040-CU-WT-
STK, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Joaquin to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02118-GEB-DAD to
the proceeding.

On August 25, 2015, Plaintiff Ryan Reynolds filed a complaint to
recover, among other things, back and front pay based on his
termination, compensatory damages for "extreme and severe mental
anguish and emotional distress," punitive and exemplary damages,
compensation for unpaid wages, penalties based on alleged wage
violations, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees.

Diamond Pet Food Processors of California, LLC, is a California
limited liability company.  Diamond Pet Food Processors of Ripon,
LLC is a California limited liability company with members which
are Missouri trusts.  Schell & Kampeter, Inc. is a Missouri
corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Y. Imai, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID Y. IMAI
          311 Bonita Drive
          Aptos, CA 95003
          Telephone: (831) 662-1706
          Facsimile: (831) 662-0561
          E-mail: davidimai@sbcglobal.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Conor P. Flynn, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP
          3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 678-5070
          Facsimile: (702) 878-9995
          E-mail: cflynn@armstrongteasdale.com

               - and -

          Nick C. Geannacopulos, Esq.
          Francis J. Ortman, III, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: ngeannacopulos@seyfarth.com
                  fortman@seyfarth.com


DISNEY ONLINE: "Robinson" Video Privacy Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned JAMES
ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DISNEY ONLINE D/B/A DISNEY INTERACTIVE, Defendant,
Case No. 14-CV-4146 (RA), (S.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiff James Robinson brings this class action against
Defendant Disney Online (Disney), alleging violations of the Video
Privacy Protection Act (the VPPA). He claims that Disney
unlawfully disclosed personally identifiable information (PII) --
the encrypted serial number of the digital device he used to
access Disney video content, as well as his viewing history -- to
Adobe, a third-party data analytics company. Adobe purportedly
combined these disclosures with additional information gathered
from other sources, and used this composite data to identify
Robinson and attribute his viewing history to him.

Defendant filed its motion to dismiss Robinson's Amended Complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

In his Opinion and Order dated October 20, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/uxgBupfrom Leagle.com, Judge Abrams granted the
Disney's motion to dismiss. As alleged, the disclosures at issue
indicate only that a specific device somewhere was used by someone
to watch specific videos.  An unrelated third party equipped with
the information purportedly disclosed by Disney, and nothing more,
could not identify Robinson. The third party would not know his
name, his age, his gender, his social security number, his home
address or any other information tantamount to a physical
location, or any similar details that would enable it to identify
Robinson as the specific person accessing specific videos on his
specific Roku device. The somewhere and someone remain unknown
until Adobe purportedly combines Disney's disclosure with other
information collected from elsewhere. Thus, Robinson's
allegations, as measured against the definition of personally
identifiable information adopted by the Court, fail to show that
he is entitled to relief. Accordingly, Robinson cannot make out a
viable claim under the VPP A, and his Amended Complaint must be
dismissed.

In dismissing this action, the Court said it is sensitive to the
policy implications posed by the increasing ubiquity of digital
technologies, which, as Robinson ably alleges, have dramatically
expanded the depth, range, and availability of detailed, highly
personal consumer information. There is no doubt that the world of
Roku devices, streaming video, and data analytics is a very
different one from that of the physical video stores and tape
rentals in which the VPPA was originally passed, and that, as the
Yershov court noted, deciding VPPA cases today is thus akin to
placing "a square peg . . . into a round hole." But while the
Court recognizes the frustration of an individual such as Robinson
-- who seeks to keep his information private -- whether it is
personally identifying or not, the VPPA as written, and even as
amended in 2013, does not afford him, or those similarly situated,
a remedy.

Fred David Weinstein, Esq. -- fweinstein@kelaw.com -- of Kurzman
Eisenberg Corbin Lever & Goodman, LLP; Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
-- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. --
brichman@edelson.com -- and James Dominick Larry, Esq. --
nlarry@edelson.com -- of Edelson PC serve as counsel for Plaintiff
James Robinson

Bryan Harte Heckenlively, Esq. -- Bryan.Heckenlively@mto.com --
Glenn D. Pomerantz, Esq. -- Glenn.Pomerantz@mto.com -- Jonathan H.
Blavin, Esq., Jonathan.Blavin@mto.com and Rose Ring, Esq. --
Rose.Ring@mto.com -- of Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP and Rachel
Schwartz, Esq., of Schwartz & Thomashower, LLP serve as counsel
for Defendant Disney Online


DISTINCTIVE SURFACES: Faces "Eller" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Eller, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Distinctive Surfaces of Florida, Inc., Case No. 8:15-
cv-02573 (M.D. Fla., November 2, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Distinctive Surfaces of Florida, Inc. is in the business of
providing custom countertop design, fabrication, and installation
of kitchens and bathrooms.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Ste 1600, 20 N. Orange Ave
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 425-3341
      E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


DWM CONSULTING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Courville" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Courville, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DWM Consulting, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01437-
CB (W.D. Penn., November 3, 2015) is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a single workweek.

DWM Consulting, LLC is in the business of employing oil field
personnel to work for oilfield services companies in need of
alternative project staffing for solids control operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 766-1455
      Facsimile: (412)766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


DUKE ENERGY: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. entered an Order and Final
Judgment approving the Stipulation of Settlement dated March 5,
2015, reached in the case captioned MAURINE NIEMAN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, v. DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, Case
No. 3:12-CV-00456-MOC-DSC, (W.D.N.C.)

The Stipulation of Settlement was entered into by plaintiffs
Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for the LongView LargeCap 500 Index
Fund and LongView LargeCap 500 Index VEBA Fund, Gerald Friesen,
Carolyn Friesen and Craig Bacino, individually and as Trustee for
the Janice and Craig Bacino Trust (Lead Plaintiffs), on behalf of
themselves and the proposed Settlement Class; and defendants Duke
Energy Corporation (Duke), James E. Rogers, William Barnet III, G.
Alex Bernhardt, Sr., Michael G. Browning, Daniel R. DiMicco, John
H. Forsgren, Ann Maynard Gray, James H. Hance, Jr., E. James
Reinsch, James T. Rhodes, Philip R. Sharp, Lynn J. Good, Steven K.
Young and Marc E. Manly.

In his Judgment dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://bit.ly/1Pw6T6lfrom Leagle.com, Judge Cogburn, Jr. affirmed
its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order certifying,
for purposes of effectuating the Settlement, the Action as a class
action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on behalf of all Persons who purchased or acquired
shares of Duke common stock between June 11, 2012 and July 9,
2012, inclusive, including former Progress shareholders who
acquired shares of Duke common stock directly in the Merger of
Duke and Progress.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Settling Defendants,
including all predecessors, successors, past, present or future
parents, subsidiaries or affiliates of Duke and the families and
affiliates of the Individual Defendants. Also excluded from the
Settlement Class are Persons who excluded themselves from the
Settlement Class by timely and validly requesting exclusion in
accordance with the requirements set forth in the Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Final Approval Hearing.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
for purposes of the Settlement only, the Court affirmed its
determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order certifying Lead
Plaintiffs Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for the LongView LargeCap
500 Index Fund and LongView LargeCap 500 Index VEBA Fund, Gerald
Friesen, Carolyn Friesen and Craig Bacino, individually and as
Trustee for the Janice and Craig Bacino Trust, as representatives
for the Settlement Class and appointing Lead Counsel Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as
class counsel for the Settlement Class.

The Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise
provided in the Stipulation.

Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq. -- jsarnelli@gardylaw.com -- of Gardy &
Notis LLP and William Everett Moore, Jr., Esq. -- of Gray, Layton,
Kersh, Solomon, Sigmon, Furr & Smith, PA serve as counsel for
Plaintiff Maurine Nieman

Debbie Weston Harden, Esq. --  dharden@wcsr.com -- and Claire J.
Rauscher, Esq. -- crauscher@wcsr.com -- of Womble, Carlyle,
Sandridge & Rice and Steven M. Bierman, Esq. --
sbierman@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP serve as counsel for
Defendant Duke Energy Corporation


ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces "Elward" Suit Over Defective Dishwashers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Elward, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-09882
(N.D. Ill., November 3, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the
consumers who owned and used residential dishwashers designed and
manufactured by the Defendant, with defects in that the electrical
system overheats and catches fire, burning holes through the
dishwasher, causing flooding, or engulfing the entire dishwasher
and surrounding area in flames.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc. is the world's second-largest
appliance maker by units sold.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      Adam Prom, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
      E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
              aek@wexlerwallace.com
              ap@wexlerwallace.com

         - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
      E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
              lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

         - and -

      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
      Steve Lopez, Esq.
      GIBBSL A W GROUP LLP
      One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 350-9700
      Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
      E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
              sal@classlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Shanon Carson, Esq.
      Arthur Stock, Esq.
      BERGER& M ON TAGUE , P.C .
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-5704
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net
              astock@bm.net


EPL OIL: Defendants' Date to Answer Class Suit Moved Indefinitely
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EPL Oil & Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 13, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that Defendants' date to answer,
move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to a class action has been
indefinitely extended.

In March and April, 2014, three alleged stockholders (the
"Plaintiffs") filed three separate class action lawsuits in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of our
stockholders against our Company, our directors, Energy XXI, EGC,
and Clyde Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly
owned subsidiary of EGC ("Merger Sub" and collectively, the
"defendants"). The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
consolidated these lawsuits on May 5, 2014. The consolidated
lawsuit is styled In re EPL Oil & Gas Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, C.A. No. 9460-VCN, in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (the "lawsuit").

Plaintiffs allege a variety of causes of action challenging the
Agreement and Plan of Merger between Energy XXI, EGC, Merger Sub,
and EPL (the "Merger Agreement"), including that (a) our directors
have allegedly breached fiduciary duties in connection with the
Merger and (b) we along with Energy XXI, EGC, and Merger Sub,
allegedly aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties. Plaintiffs' causes of action are based on their
allegations that (i) the Merger allegedly provided inadequate
consideration to our stockholders for their shares of our common
stock; (ii) the Merger Agreement contained contractual terms --
including, among others, the (A) "no solicitation," (B) "competing
proposal," and (C) "termination fee" provisions -- that allegedly
dissuaded other potential acquirers from making competing offers
for shares of our common stock; (iii) certain of our officers and
directors allegedly received benefits -- including (A) an offer
for one of our directors to join the Energy XXI board of directors
and (B) the triggering of change-in-control provisions in notes
held by our executive officers -- that were not equally shared by
our stockholders; (iv) Energy XXI required our officers and
directors to agree to vote their shares of our common stock in
favor of the Merger; and (v) we provided, and Energy XXI obtained,
non-public information that allegedly allowed Energy XXI to
acquire us for inadequate consideration. Plaintiffs also allege
that the Registration Statement filed on Form S-4 by us and Energy
XXI on April 1, 2014 omits information concerning, among other
things, (i) the events leading up to the Merger, (ii) our efforts
to attract offers from other potential acquirors, (iii) our
evaluation of the Merger; (iv) negotiations between us and Energy
XXI, and (v) the analysis of our financial advisor. Based on these
allegations, plaintiffs seek to have the Merger Agreement
rescinded. Plaintiffs also seek damages and attorneys' fees.

Defendants date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond
to the lawsuit has been indefinitely extended. We cannot predict
the outcome of the lawsuit or any others that might be filed; nor
can we predict the amount of time and expense that will be
required to resolve the lawsuit. The defendants intend to
vigorously defend the lawsuit.


FAST WATER HEATER: Ex Parte Application Granted In Part
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar granted in part and denied in part an
Ex Parte Application in the case captioned MIHAIL SLAVKOV, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. FAST WATER HEATER PARTNERS I, LP, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-04324-JST, (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Mihail Slavkov, Nikola Vlaovic, and Martin Arnaudov
filed this putative class action against Defendants Fast Water
Heater Partners I, LP dba Fast Water Heater Company; FWH
Acquisition Company, LLC dba Fast Water Heater Company, Jeffrey
David Jordan; and Jason Sparks Hanleybrown.  They allege that they
are former employees of Defendants who performed services in the
San Francisco Bay Area including the installation of water heaters
and other core plumbing products at customers' homes.  In the
operative Second Amended Complaint, dated August 27, 2015, they
assert the following claims: (1) failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); (2) failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of California law; (3) failure to
pay minimum wages under California law; (4) failure to make
payments within the required time in violation of California law;
(5) failure to provide proper itemized wage statements in
violation of California law; (6) failure to provide
reimbursements; (7) failure to comply with San Francisco Sick
Leave Ordinance; (8) unlawful taking of wages under Labor Code
sections 219 and 221; (9) violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (FCRA); (10) violation of the Investigative Consumer Reporting
Agencies Act (ICRAA); (11) unfair competition in violation of
California law; and (12) violation of the Private Attorney General
Act (PAGA).

In his Order dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://bit.ly/1kiB2e7from Leagle.com, Judge Tigar granted in part
and denied in part Ex Parte Application. Plaintiffs' application
to invalidate any settlement releases obtained by Defendants and
to send a curative notice is granted. The parties are directed to
submit competing proposals for a curative notice to the Court. The
notice should inform the recipients that the releases are invalid,
and summarize the Court's reasoning, as described above, for
invalidating them. Plaintiffs' application to enjoin Defendants
from communicating with the putative class is denied. Accordingly,
the Court holds that any settlement releases signed by a putative
class member and obtained by Defendants are invalid. A curative
notice shall also be sent to all recipients of the Defendants'
communications, notifying them that the settlement agreements are
invalid. The parties shall submit competing proposed curative
notices to the Court within seven days after the issuance of this
order. The Court does not find, however, that the additional
remedy of enjoinment of future communications is necessary or
appropriate. At this stage of the litigation the Court denies the
request to enjoin Defendants from further communications with the
absent class members.

John H. Douglas, Esq. -- jdouglas@douglaslegal.com -- of Douglas
Law Offices; Page R. Barnes, Esq. -- page@pbarneslaw.com -- of
Barnes Law Offices and Kevin Francis Woodall, Esq. --
kevin@kwoodalllaw.com -- of Woodall Law Offices serve as counsel
for Plaintiff Mihail Slavkov

Sue Jacobs Stott, Esq. -- sstott@perkinscoie.com -- and Aaron
Joseph Ver, Esq. -- aver@perkinscoie.com -- of Perkins Coie LLP
serve as counsel for Defendant Fast Water Heater Partners I, LP


FIRST COMMUNITY: Illegally Collects Debt, "La Vigne" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janine La Vigne, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. First Community Bancshares, Inc., First Community
Bank, and John/Jane Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 1:15-cv-00934
(D.N.M., October 19, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Defendants own and operate a banking company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theresa B. Wilkes, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW, LLC
      1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor
      Stamford, CT 06905
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
      E-mail: twilkes@lemberglaw.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Molargik-Deutchma" Suit Over Zofran(R)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lucinda Molargik-Deutchma, Individually and as Parent and Natural
Guardian of E.D., Minor v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
08509-DMG-FFM (C.D. Cal., October 30, 2015) is an action for
compensatory damages, equitable relief, and such other relief
deemed just and proper arising from the injuries to E.D. as a
result of the Plaintiff Lucinda Deutchman's prenatal exposures to
and ingestion 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:

      Jennifer A. Lenze, Esq.
      Jaime E. Moss, Esq.
      Laurie E. Kamerrer, Esq.
      SIZEMORE LAW FIRM, PLC.
      2101 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 3290
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone (310) 322-8800
      Facsimile (310) 322-8811
      E-mail: jlenze@sizemorelawfirm.com
              moss@sizemorelawfirm.com
              kamerrer@sizemorelawfirm.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Willis" Suit Over Zofran(R) Drug
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Willis, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of
S.W., a Minor v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01957-SGC
(N.D. Ala., October 30, 2015) is an action for compensatory and
punitive damages, equitable relief, and such other relief deemed
just and proper arising from the injuries to S.W. 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:

      Jonathan W. Gathings, Esq.
      JONATHAN W. GATHINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      3288 Morgan Drive, Suite 112
      Birmingham, AL 35216
      Telephone: (205) 324-4418
      Facsimile: (205) 324-5240
      E-mail: jonathan@jonathanwgathings.com


HANI BASSIT: Faces "Burns" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Burns, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
employees v. Hani Bassit and Sam Ghali d/b/a Raceway 960, Case No.
3:15-cv-01154 (M.D. Tenn., November 3, 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 gas station and market located at
577 Donelson Pike, Nashville, TN 37214 which is known as Raceway
960.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles P. Yezbak III, Esq.
      Timothy M. Lee, Esq.
      YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
      2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
      Nashville, TN 37215
      Telephone: (615) 250-2000
      Facsimile: (615) 250-2020
      E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com


HELMERICH & PAYNE: Order Rejecting Prejudgment Interest Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Yvonne Kauger of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed
the trial court's order in not awarding prejudgment interest in
the appellate case captioned H.B. KRUG, KATHRYN KRUG, and BOBBIE
RUTH EUBANKS, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated owners, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. HELMERICH &
PAYNE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant/Appellee, Case No.
113092, (Okla.)

The plaintiff/appellants, H.B. Krug, Kathryn Krug, and Bobbie Ruth
Eubanks, represent a class of oil and gas royalty owners. The
class consists of mineral owners underlying two 640-acre sections
of land in Beckham County, Oklahoma. The royalty owners leased the
two sections to the defendant/appellees, Helmerich & Payne, Inc.,
(H&P), which operated natural gas wells on those sections from
1978 to 1998, when H&P sold its interests to a third party.

On December 22, 1998, the royalty owners brought a class action
lawsuit against H&P seeking actual and punitive damages in the
district court in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. The claims related to
payment for uncompensated drainage of natural gas which they
alleged occurred from January 1, 1982, until December 31, 1989.
The royalty owners alleged that H&P: 1) breached its duties to
them to act as a reasonably prudent operator; 2) received payment
for uncompensated drainage from a settlement it secured from
another pipeline (ANR Pipeline); 3) concealed the settlement when
the royalty owners were entitled to a share of the settlement; and
4) engaged in fraud resulting in unjust enrichment. Eventually,
the cause went to trial and the jury, in alternative claims
returned its verdict in favor of the royalty owners. The jury
awarded:

     $3,650,000 for breach of the implied duty to prevent
                uncompensated damages;

     $4,055,000 for breach of fiduciary duty for failure to
                prevent uncompensated damages; and

     $6,845,000 for constructive fraud in the pipeline
                settlement.

It also found that H&P had been unjustly enriched. The trial court
added additional damages for disgorgement of profits and set the
total amount awarded to the royalty owners as $119,522,750. The
court also awarded interest on $6,845,000 from November 21, 2008,
and interest on the remaining $112,677,750 from January 8, 2009,
until paid in full. The trial court also awarded the royalty
owners costs and attorney fees. Accordingly, on June 24, 2014, the
trial court held a hearing concerning the prejudgment interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs. Subsequently, on July 2, 2014, the
trial court filed an order determining that the Production Revenue
Standards Act (the Act), 52 O.S. 2011 Section 570.01 et seq. was
inapplicable to this cause, and that the royalty owners were not
entitled to attorneys' fees, costs, or expenses under it. The
trial court also held that because the plaintiffs' claims were
unliquidated, they were not entitled to prejudgment interest
pursuant to 23 O.S. 2011 Section 6.

In his Opinion dated November 3, 2015 available at
http://bit.ly/1HAKY7kfrom Leagle.com, Justice Kauger affirmed the
trial court's order. The settled-law-of-the-case doctrine bars
from relitigation issues finally determined by an appellate court
in the review process. The doctrine embodies a judicial economy
notion designed to prevent rehashing of issues in successive
appeals. However, the doctrine is a flexible one. This cause was
reversed and remanded by this Court with directions to the trial
court to expressly re-consider the prejudgment issue. It would be
incongruous to now preclude review of trial court's denial of
prejudgment interest. Accordingly, the doctrine is inapplicable
under the facts of this case. The Act defines "royalty proceeds"
as the share of proceeds or other revenue derived from or
attributable to any production of oil and gas attributable to the
royalty share. Had drainage not occurred and had H&P actually
produced the natural gas, rather than sue ANR, the royalties could
have qualified as royalty proceeds under the Act. Nevertheless,
H&P never actually extracted and sold such natural gas, or delayed
payment to royalty owners thereon. Consequently, the royalty
owners are not entitled to prejudgment interest under the Act.
Furthermore, because the royalty owners' recovery of damages from
"uncompensated drainage" was not for a sum certain or a sum
capable of being made certain by calculation or by reference to
some fixed standards, the award of interest on such damages is not
allowed under 23 O.S. 2011 Section 6.

Terry J. Barker, Esq., Joseph C. Woltz, Esq., Robert. N. Lawrence,
Esq. -- robert.lawrence@cwt.com -- and Allan DeVore, Esq., serve
as counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants

Tammy D. Barrett, Esq. -- tbarrett@gablelaw.com -- Richard B.
Noulles, Esq. -- rnoulles@gablelaw.com -- and Bradley W. Welsh,
Esq. -- bwelsh@gablelaw.com -- of GableGotwals Attorneys and Eric
Fischer, Esq., serve as counsel for Defendant/Appellee


HUMANA INC: Defendants in Merger Litigation Signed MOU
------------------------------------------------------
Humana Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 9, 2015, that solely to avoid
the costs, risks, and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and
without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Humana and the
other named defendants in the Humana Merger Litigation have signed
a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") to settle the case.

Putative class action lawsuits captioned In re Humana Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Civ. Act. No. 15CI03374 (Ky. Cir. Ct.),
and Scott v. Humana Inc. et al., C.A. No. 11323-VCL (Del. Ch. Ct.)
(collectively, the "Humana Merger Litigation"), are pending in the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Kentucky, and the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, respectively. The Humana Merger
Litigation relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of July 2, 2015 (the "Merger Agreement"), among Aetna Inc., Echo
Merger Sub, Inc., Echo Merger Sub, LLC, and Humana.

On October 9, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks, and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Humana and the other named defendants in
the Humana Merger Litigation signed a memorandum of understanding
(the "MOU") to settle the Humana Merger Litigation. Subject to
court approval and further definitive documentation in a
stipulation of settlement that will be subject to customary
conditions, the MOU resolves the claims brought in the Humana
Merger Litigation and provides that Humana will make certain
additional disclosures related to the proposed mergers, which are
set forth below. The MOU further provides for, among other things,
dismissal of the Humana Merger Litigation with prejudice and a
release and settlement by the purported class of Humana
stockholders of all claims against the defendants and their
affiliates and agents in connection with the Merger Agreement and
transactions and disclosures related thereto. The asserted claims
will not be released until such stipulation of settlement receives
court approval. The foregoing terms and conditions will be defined
by the stipulation of settlement, and class members will receive a
separate notice describing the settlement terms and their rights
in connection with the approval of the settlement. In connection
with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs'
counsel will file a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses. Humana will pay or cause to be paid any court awarded
attorneys' fees and expenses. There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that a court will approve such settlement even if the parties were
to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.


IBIO INC: Reached Agreement-In-Principle to Settle Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
iBio, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 13, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2015, that after voluntary mediation, the
Plaintiffs and the Company reached an agreement-in-principle to
settle a class action.

On October 24, 2014, a putative class action captioned Juan Pena,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
iBio, Inc. and Robert B. Kay was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware. The action alleged
that the Company and its Chief Executive Officer made certain
statements in violation of federal securities laws and sought an
unspecified amount of damages.

On February 23, 2015, the Court issued an order appointing a new
lead plaintiff. On April 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended
class action complaint in the same matter captioned Vamsi
Andavarapu, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Situated v.
iBio, Inc., Robert B. Kay, and Robert Erwin. The action alleged
that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its President
made certain statements in violation of federal securities laws
and sought an unspecified amount of damages.

On May 6, 2015, the Company, Mr. Kay, and Mr. Erwin filed a motion
to dismiss the amended class action complaint. On September 15,
2015, after voluntary mediation, the Plaintiffs and the Company
reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the action.  The terms
of the settlement are subject to preliminary and final approval by
the Court.  The Company expects that the settlement will be
approved by the Court and funded by the Company's insurance
carrier.


IRON COUNTY AMBULANCE: Faces "Wader" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wader v. Iron County Ambulance Dist., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00202-ACL (E.D. Mo., November 2, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

Iron County Ambulance Dist. is a political subdivision located in
Iron County, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Furniss, Esq.
      THE FURNISS LAW FIRM, LLC
      200 S. Hanley Rd., Suite 1103
      Clayton, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 914-2522
      Facsimile: (314) 627-5891
      E-mail: rfurniss@furnisslaw.com


IRON COUNTY AMBULANCE: Faces "Wader" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wader v. Iron County Ambulance Dist., Case No. 4:15-cv-
01645 (E.D. Mo., November 2, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

Iron County Ambulance Dist. is a political subdivision located in
Iron County, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Furniss, Esq.
      THE FURNISS LAW FIRM, LLC
      200 S. Hanley Rd., Suite 1103
      Clayton, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 914-2522
      Facsimile: (314) 627-5891
      E-mail: rfurniss@furnisslaw.com


JOHN HANCOCK: "McElwee" Suit Removed to New Jersey District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled McElwee v. John Hancock Life
Insurance Company (USA), Case No. SOM L 83 15, was removed from
the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, Somerset County, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-07398-MAS-LHG
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff, Andrew A. McElwee, Jr.,
as a son and in his capacity as attorney-in-fact for Grace H.
McElwee.  Ms. McElwee is the Plaintiff's 89-year-old mother, who
is no longer mentally or physically able to handle her affairs.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of Ms. McElwee and all John
Hancock insureds and their assignees, who have been denied
coverage for room-and-board expenses with respect to John
Hancock's Plan for Long Term Health Insurance, among other things.

John Hancock is a corporation of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
and is based in Boston.  John Hancock is licensed by the New
Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance to do business in
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth L. McElwee, Esq.
          88 East Main Street, Suite 315
          East Mendham, NJ 07945
          Telephone: (267) 880-6920
          E-mail: kenasaurus1959@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason P. Gosselin, Esq.
          Christopher F. Petillo, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          One Logan Square, Suite 2000
          18th & Cherry Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-2700
          Facsimile: (215) 988-2757
          E-mail: jason.gosselin@dbr.com
                  christopher.petillo@dbr.com


KANSAS CITY ROYALS: "Senne" Wage Suit Wins Conditional Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act in the case captioned AARON SENNE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-00608-JCS, (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs are former minor league baseball players who assert
claims under state law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) against the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, doing
business as Major League Baseball (MLB), its member franchises,
and former Commissioner Allan H. "Bud" Selig. This action was
filed on February 7, 2014. After Defendants filed motions to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and to transfer the
action to Florida (the Jurisdiction and Venue Motions), the Court
granted Plaintiffs' request for leave to conduct jurisdictional
and venue discovery.  Subsequently, the parties entered into a
stipulation agreeing to toll the statute of limitations under the
FLSA applicable to all current or former similarly-situated minor
leaguers from July 11, 2014 until 45 days after the Court's
resolution of the Jurisdiction and Venue Motions. In return for
Defendants' agreement to toll the FLSA limitations period,
Plaintiffs agreed that they would not bring a motion for
conditional certification under the FLSA or request the contact
information for similarly-situated minor leaguers before the
Court's resolution of the Jurisdiction and Venue Motions.

In his Order dated October 20, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Zix0zyfrom Leagle.com, Judge Spero granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification pursuant to the
FLSA. The Court rejects Defendants' assertion that conditional
certification should not be granted because the nature and
quantity of the work performed by Plaintiffs during the off-season
varies depending on numerous factors, including skill level and
team, as well as their reliance on various defenses that may apply
to this claim, including the defense that the activities performed
by Plaintiffs may not constitute "work" under the FLSA because
Plaintiffs are not employees. The Court rejects Plaintiffs'
request that notices also be posted on each Defendant's website
and in work places as Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the
three forms of notice discussed above will not adequately provide
notice to putative class members. The Court also notes that
because the minor league players perform much of their off-season
work at a variety of locations and often do not perform their work
in traditional work places, the identification of the locations
where notices would have to be posted would unnecessarily
complicate the notice process.

Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. -- dwarshaw@pswlaw.com -- of Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw, LLP; Aaron Michael Zigler, Esq. --
azigler@koreintillery.com -- of Korein Tillery, Esq. and Anne
Brackett Shaver, Esq. -- ashaver@lchb.com -- of Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein LLP; Benjamin Ernest Shiftan, Esq. --
bshiftan@pswlaw.com -- of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP; Bobby
Pouya, Esq. -- bpouya@pswlaw.com -- of Pearson Simon & Warshaw,
LLP; Brian P. Murray, Esq. -- bmurray@glancylaw.com -- of Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP; Bruce Lee Simon, Esq. --  bsimon@pswlaw.com
-- of Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP; Garrett Ray Broshuis, Esq.
George Andrew Zelcs, Esq. -- gzelcs@koreintillery.com -- of Korein
Tillery LLC; Lee Albert, Esq. -- lalbert@glancylaw.com -- of
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP; Michael Harrison Pearson, Esq. --
mpearson@pswlaw.com -- of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP; Rachel
Geman, Esq. -- rgeman@lchb.com -- of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP; Randall K Pulliam, Esq. of Carney Bates & Pulliam,
PLLC; Stephen Matthew Tillery, Esq. -- stillery@koreintillery.com
-- of Korein Tillery, LLC and Thomas Kay Boardman, Esq. --
tboardman@scott-scott.com -- of Pearson Simon, Warshaw and Penny,
LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiff Aaron Senne

D. Gregory Valenza, Esq. -- gvalenza@shawvalenza.com -- of Shaw
Valenza LLP; Elise M. Bloom, Esq. -- ebloom@proskauer.com -- Neil
H. Abramson, Esq., Adam M Lupion, Esq. -- alupion@proskauer.com
-- Enzo Der Boghossian, Esq. -- ederboghossian@proskauer.com --
Howard L. Ganz, Esq. -- hganz@proskauer.com -- and Rachel Santoro,
Esq. -- rsantoro@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP serve as
counsel for Defendant Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp.


KB HOME: Defending Wage and Hour Suits in Texas & California
------------------------------------------------------------
KB Home said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 9, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended August 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend a wage
and hour litigation pending in courts in Texas and California.

The Company said, "We, together with certain of our subsidiaries,
are a defendant in lawsuits that allege violations of federal and
state wage and hour statutes. In May 2011, a group of current and
former sales representatives filed a collective action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Galveston Division entitled Edwards, K. v. KB Home. The
lawsuit alleges that we misclassified sales representatives and
failed to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07). In September
2012, the Edwards court conditionally certified a nationwide class
that, as of the date of this report, consists of 409 plaintiffs.

On May 21, 2015, the Edwards court scheduled an initial trial
involving a portion of the plaintiffs in that case for December
2015. One or more additional trials involving other plaintiffs in
the Edwards case are expected to be scheduled to occur in 2016 or
later."

The Company also disclosed that in September 2013, 11 of the
plaintiffs in the Edwards case filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles
Superior Court entitled Andrea L. Bejenaru, et al. v. KB Home, et
al. The lawsuit alleges violations of California laws relating to
overtime, meal period and rest break pay, itemized wage
statements, waiting time penalties and unfair business practices
for a class of sales representatives. As of the date of this
report, the putative class consists of 241 members, some of whom
are plaintiffs in the Edwards case, who were sales representatives
from September 2009 to the present. The Bejenaru court has not
certified the case as a class action. Depending on the Bejenaru
court's decisions in the matter, the putative class could increase
in size and include other individuals, and the case could be
certified as a class action.

"In the second quarter of 2015, plaintiffs in the Edwards case and
the Bejenaru case claimed $66 million in compensatory damages,
penalties and interest, as well as injunctive relief, attorneys'
fees and costs for both matters. We deny the allegations in the
lawsuits and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. While the
ultimate outcome of these matters is uncertain, we had an accrual
for the estimated minimum probable loss with respect to these
matters at August 31, 2015. We believe it is reasonably possible
that our loss in these matters could exceed the amount accrued by
zero to $6 million. However, we believe we have meritorious
defenses to the plaintiffs' claims."


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: "Lounderman" Suit Removed to C. Dist. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Ashley Lounderman, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Kohl's Department
Stores, Inc. and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No.
CIVDS1513197, was removed from the San Bernardino County Superior
Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02161 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. operates a department store chain,
offering online shopping for clothing and household goods

Ashley Lounderman is a PRO SE litigant.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Alexander Miller Chemers, Esq.
      OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
      400 South Hope Street Suite 1200
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 239-9800
      Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
      E-mail: alexander.chemers@ogletreedeakins.com


LENNOX INT'L: Recorded $2.4MM Liability Related to Coils Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
has recorded a liability of $2.4 million in Accrued expenses on
the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

The Company is a defendant in an attempted class action lawsuit
alleging evaporator coils in the Company's residential air
conditioning products are susceptible to a type of corrosion that
can result in coil leaks.

"We dispute the allegations in the lawsuit.  We have reached
tentative settlement terms, preliminarily approved by the court,
and recorded a liability of $2.4 million in Accrued expenses on
the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Any additional liability resulting
from the proposed settlement is not currently reasonably
estimable, but we do not expect the proposed settlement to have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of
operations," the Company said.


LINCARE INC: E.D. Cal. Judge Grants Discovery Request in "Culley"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison granted in part the Plaintiff's
motion to compel discovery responses in the case captioned
CHRISTINA CULLEY, Plaintiff, v. LINCARE, INC., et al., Defendants,
No. 2:15-CV-0081-GEB-CMK, (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the California Business
and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., as well as California
Labor Code Sections 204, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, and
1198. The case was originally filed in Sacramento County Superior
Court.

Pending before the court are the following motions: (1)
plaintiff's motion to compel further discovery responses from
defendant Alpha Respiratory, Inc. (Alpha); and (2) plaintiff's
motion to compel further discovery responses from Lincare, Inc.

In her complaint, plaintiff claims: (1) defendants deprived her of
overtime wages as a result of defendant's failure to include
certain bonuses into the regular rate of pay; (2) defendants
deprived her meal and rest breaks and/or related compensation; and
(3) defendants failed to pay "reporting time pay." Generally,
plaintiff alleges that she and similarly situated employees were
required to remain on "stand-by" or "on-call" status for 24 hours
per day and that defendants failed to pay her overtime wages.
Plaintiff seeks class certification and defines the putative class
as "herself and all other similarly situated current and former
employees" of defendants Lincare and Alpha.

As to defendant Alpha, plaintiff seeks further responses to
requests for production 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 30, 34, and 35, and
interrogatories 5, 6, and 7. As to Lincare, plaintiff seeks
further responses to requests for production 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, 30,
34, and 35, and interrogatories 5, 6, and 7. Plaintiff groups
these discovery requests into seven categories: Payroll and Time
Records Requests for production 2, 4 (Alpha only), and 35. Wage
Statements Requests for production 3 and 34. Contact Information
Request for production 10. Interrogatory 7. Compensation Policies
Requests for production 12 and 13. Wage and Hour Complaints
Request for production 30. Relationship with Co-Defendant Request
for production 31. Contention Interrogatories Interrogatories 5
and 6.

Additionally, plaintiff seeks an order compelling the deposition
of defendants' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) witnesses.

In his Order dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://bit.ly/1LZZV70from Leagle.com, Judge Kellison granted in
part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion to compel as follows:

     a. Alpha shall serve supplemental responses to requests for
production 2, 4, and 35, in electronic format as maintained by
ADP;

     b. Alpha shall serve supplemental responses to requests for
production 3 and 34;

     c. Alpha shall serve a supplement response to request for
production 10 or interrogatory 7;

     d. Alpha shall serve a supplemental response to request for
production 31;

     e. Alpha shall serve supplemental responses to
interrogatories 5 and 6;

     f. Alpha shall serve its supplemental responses, and produce
responsive documents, within 21 days of the date of the Court's
order;

     g. Documents produced by Alpha which relate to individuals
other than plaintiff shall be subject to a stipulated protective
order; and

     h. The parties shall meet and confer and submit to the court
a proposed stipulated protective order within 14 days of the date
of the Court's order.

Plaintiff's motion to compel as to Lincare is granted in part and
denied in part as follows:

     a. Lincare shall serve a supplemental response to request for
production 31;

     b. Lincare shall serve supplemental responses to
interrogatories 5 and 6;

     c. Lincare shall serve its supplemental responses, and
produce responsive documents, within 21 days of the date of this
order; and

     d. On notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
30(b)(1), Lincare shall produce its corporate witness for
deposition, such deposition to occur within 21 days of the date of
this order.

Norman Blumenthal, Esq. -- norm@bamlawlj.com -- Aparajit Bhowmik,
Esq. -- aj@bamlawlj.com -- Ruchira Piya Mukherjee, Esq. --
piya@bamlawlj.com -- and Victoria Bree Rivapalacio, Esq. --
victoria@bamlawca.com -- of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik serve
as counsel for Plaintiff Christina Culley

David Cheng, Esq., and Todd S. Aidman, Esq., of Ford and Harrison
LLP serve as counsel for Lincare Inc.


MACHINE ZONE: Maryland Judge Throws Out "Mason" Action
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James K. Bredar granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss in the case captioned MIA MASON, Plaintiff, v. MACHINE
ZONE, INC., Defendant, Civil No. JKB-15-1107, (D. Md.)

Mia Mason filed a Class Action Complaint against Machine Zone,
Inc., producer of the popular Game of War: Fire Age (GoW) mobile
video game. Plaintiff alleges that aspects of GoW violate Cal.
Penal Code Section 330b.  She seeks recovery under the California
Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections
17200 et seq.; a Maryland loss-recovery statute, Md. Code Ann.,
Crim. Law Section 12-110; and an equitable theory of unjust
enrichment.

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice, and
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff charges that Defendant trampled real and important
rights and interests of hers, wrongfully and unlawfully, in an
alternative, virtual world created by an electronic game.

The Court, however, held that, "a careful probe beneath the
surface reveals a hodgepodge of hollow claims lacking allegations
of real-world harms or injuries. Perceived unfairness in the
operation and outcome of a game, where there are no real-world
losses, harms, or injuries, does not and cannot give rise to the
award of a private monetary remedy by a real-world court."

In his Memorandum dated October 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/0TqzJOfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bredar granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss. At the outset of her Complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that with free-to-play games of chance,
"developers have begun exploiting the same psychological triggers
as casino operators."

"The Court does not doubt that gambling addiction is a real
phenomenon and that the allure of an elusive jackpot can be
powerful. Similarly powerful, the Court suspects, is the remorse a
buyer may feel when she realizes that she has wittingly swapped
her hard-earned cash for simulated gold. The Court does not sit in
judgment of the entertainment choices that Plaintiff and others
like her have made -- but it will not allow Plaintiff to foist the
consequences of those choices onto an entertainment purveyor that,
at least on the face of this Complaint, appears to have done
nothing wrong," Judge Bredar said.

"Plaintiff thinks that this case is about recovering modest
payments she and fellow putative class members were improperly
persuaded to make while playing an illegal online game," Judge
Bredar said. "The allegations do not withstand scrutiny. Instead,
the case ends up being more about the need to draw clear and
distinct lines between real and virtual worlds, particularly when
it comes to the serious business of going to court and litigating
real claims and interests. Even in the Internet age, there is a
crucial distinction between that which is pretend and that which
is real and true. The Court is keenly aware that evolving
technologies generate novel questions and that these questions
sometimes give rise to thorny cases."

The Court denied as moot Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

Maria C Simon, Esq. -- msimon@thegellerlawgroup.com -- of The
Geller Law Group, PLLC and Benjamin H Richman, Esq. --
brichman@edelson.com -- and Courtney C Booth, Esq. --
cbooth@edelson.com -- of Edelson PC serve as counsel for Plaintiff
Mia Mason, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated

Thomas Dallas McSorley, Esq., Allyson Tracey Himelfarb, Esq. --
allyson.himelfarb@aporter.com -- Michael A Berta, Esq. --
michael.berta@aporter.com -- and Sean Morris, Esq. --
sean.morris@aporter.com -- of Arnold and Porter LLP serve as
counsel for Defendant Machine Zone, Inc., a Delaware corporation


MISTRAS GROUP: Consolidated Class Action in Preliminary Stages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mistras Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2015, that a consolidated class
action is in the preliminary stages.

In April 2015, two separate lawsuits were filed in California as
purported class action lawsuits on behalf of current and former
Mistras employees. The cases are David Kruger v Mistras Group,
Inc., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California and Edgar Viceral v Mistras Group, et al, pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Both cases were originally filed in California state court and
were removed to the respective U.S. District Courts for the
districts in which the state court cases were filed. These two
cases have been consolidated, with the Kruger dismissing his case
and joining the Viceral case.

As part of this consolidation, the claims in the Kruger case that
were not part of the Viceral included case were added to the
Viceral case by the filing of an amended complaint. The
consolidated case alleges violations of California statutes
primarily from the California Labor Code and seeks to proceed as a
collective action under the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act. The
case is predicated on claims for allegedly missed rest and meal
periods, inaccurate wage statements, and failure to pay all wages
due, as well as related unfair business practices, and is
requesting payment of all damages, including unpaid wages, and
various fines and penalties available under California law. The
case is in the preliminary stages.


MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Order & Final Judgment Entered in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 14,
2015, for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2015, that a court held a
final approval hearing for the settlement in a class action on
March 11, 2015, and on March 15 entered the order and final
judgment concluding this matter.

"On June 11, 2012, we announced the pending restatement of the
Company's financial statements for the periods ending on or before
April 30, 2012 (the "June 11, 2012 Announcement"), related to the
Company's accounting treatment of rebates associated with volume
discounts provided by vendors," the Company said. The restated
financial statements were filed on January 11, 2013.

After the June 11, 2012 Announcement, stockholders of the Company
commenced three purported class actions in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts arising from the
circumstances described in the June 11, 2012 Announcemen,
entitled, respectively:

     * Irene Collier, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph
C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11044-DJC, filed June
12, 2012 (the "Collier Action");

     * Alexander Shnerer Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph
C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11078-DJC, filed June
18, 2012 (the "Shnerer Action"); and

     * Harold Heszkel, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C.
Lawler, and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11279-DJC, filed July
11, 2012 (the "Heszkel Action").

Each of the Securities Actions purports to be brought on behalf of
those persons who purchased shares of the Company between
September 26, 2007 through and including June 8, 2012 (the "Class
Period") and alleges that failure to timely disclose the issues
raised in the June 11, 2012 Announcement during the Class Period
rendered defendants' public statements concerning the Company's
financial condition materially false and misleading in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. On February 11, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint in the Securities Actions. The
Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 11, 2013.

On March 26, 2014, following a November 8, 2013 hearing, the Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and, on May 26, 2014, the
Company answered the Amended Complaint. In October 2014, the
parties agreed to a stipulation for a proposed $4 million class
settlement to be covered by insurance proceeds, subject to Court
approval. On November 24, 2014, the Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, certification of
the settlement class, and provision of notice of the settlement to
the settling class. The Court held a final approval hearing for
the settlement on March 11, 2015, and on March 15, 2015 the Court
entered the order and final judgment concluding this matter.


MONSANTO CO: Faces "Giglio" Suit Over Roundup(R)-Related Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emanuel Richard Giglio v. Monsanto Company and John Does 1-50,
Case No. 3:15-cv-02279-BTM-NLS (S.D. Cal., October 9, 2015) is an
action for damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendants' negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff contends that Roundup(R) and glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and is the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq.
          Kathryn M. Forgie, Esq.
          Vance R. Andrus, Esq.
          David J. Wool, Esq.
          ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, PC
          7171 West Alaska Drive
          Lakewood, CO 80226
          Telephone: (720) 255-7623
          Facsimile: (303) 376-6361
          E-mail: aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com
                  kathryn.forgie@andruswagstaff.com
                  vance.andrus@andruswagstaff.com
                  david.wool@andruswagstaff.com


MRS BPO: Sued in Pa. Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Dinaples, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MRS BPO, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01435 (W.D.
Pa., November 2, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

MRS BPO, LLC is a New Jersey corporation that operates a debt
collection firm in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark G. Moynihan, Esq.
      112 Washington Pl Ste 1-N
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 889-8535
      Facsimile: (800) 997-8192
      E-mail: mark@moynihanlaw.net


NATIONAL HEALTHCARE: Faces "Fraley" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Fraley and Deborah Shipley, on behalf of themselves and
all those similarly situated v. National Healthcare
Corporation d/b/a The National Healthcare Corporation and d/b/a
National HealthCare Corporation and d/b/a NHC and d/b/a NHC
HomeCare, Case No. 3:15-cv-01156 (M.D. Tenn., October 3, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

National Healthcare Corporation owns and operates a nursing
healthcare center at 100 East Vine Street City Center,
Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cynthia A. Wilson, Esq.
      Kenneth S. Williams, Esq.
      MADEWELL, JARED, HALFACRE, WILLIAMS AND WILSON
      230 North Washington Avenue
      Cookeville, TN 38501
      Telephone: (931) 526-6101


NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Generic Gleevec Entry Delay
---------------------------------------------------------------
AFSCME Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Novartis AG,
and Novartis Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-13724-ADB (D. Mass.
November 3, 2015) seeks monetary damages to remedy the effects of
the unlawful delay of generic entry into the U.S. market for
Gleevec (imatinib mesylate), an FDA-approved prescription drug
that radically improves the lives of the thousands of patients
suffering chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), a cancer of the blood
and bone marrow.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company at 59 Route 10,
East Hanover, New Jersey 07936.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
      Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
      SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
      Seaport East, 2 Seaport Lane
      Boston, MA 02210
      Telephone: (617) 439-3939
      Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
      E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com
              astewart@shulaw.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
      William G. Caldes, Esq.
      John A. Macoretta, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF, & WILLIS, P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 496-0300
      Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
      E-mail: jkodroff@srkw-law.com
              bcaldes@srkw-law.com
              jmacoretta@srkw-law.com


OC JEWELRY: "Garcia" Suit Removed to Southern District Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Ana Dilia Garcia and other
similarly situated individuals v. OC Jewelry USA, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 15-021929 CA 21, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District Court
Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-23908-JAL to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

OC Jewelry USA, LLC operates a jewelry shop in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Rene J. Gonzalez-Llorens, Esq.
      SHUTTS & BOWEN
      201 S Biscayne Boulevard
      Suite 1500 Miami Center
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 347-7337
      Facsimile: (305) 347-7837
      E-mail: rgl@shutts.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: "Moceri" Suit Removed to S. Dist. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Salvatore Moceri, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Ocwen Financial
Corporation, et al., Case No. 37-02015-00033061-CU-NP-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego
to the U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-02476-
H-JMA to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for alleged breach of contract.

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a provider of residential and
commercial mortgage loan servicing, special servicing and asset
management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Michael Loker, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ml@kazlg.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      James C. Magid, Esq.
      LOCKE LORD LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 4100
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 318-8825
      Facsimile: (415) 676-5816
      E-mail: james.magid@lockelord.com

         - and -

      Thomas J. Cunningham, Esq.
      LOCKE LORD BISSELL & LIDDELL LLP
      300 South Grand, Suite 2600
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-2600
      Telephone: (213) 687-6738
      Facsimile: (213) 485-1200
      E-mail: tcunningham@lockelord.com


OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER: Securities Suit Wins Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John L. Kane granted Lead Plaintiff's motion for
class certification and appointment of class representative and
class counsel in the case captioned IN RE: OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER
FUNDS GROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION. This document relates to: In re
California Municipal Fund 09-cv-01484-JLK-KMT (Lowe) 09-cv-01485-
JLK-KMT (Rivera) 09-cv-01486-JLK-KMT (Tackmann) 09-cv-01487-JLK-
KMT (Milhem), Master Docket No. 09-MD-02063-JLK-KMT, (D. Colo.)

This multidistrict securities fraud class action is the last of
seven such actions brought against OppenheimerFunds, Inc., by
investors in various Oppenheimer Rochester-style municipal bond
funds. Six of the seven consolidated class actions settled after
omnibus motions to dismiss class actions claims were denied and
have been dismissed with prejudice. The California Municipal Bond
class action did not settle, and is before me now on remand from
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court reversed my summary
order allowing the California case to proceed as a class action
under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b), directing me to engage
in a more "rigorous" analysis and to consider the impact, if any,
of the Supreme Court's decision in Omnicare on class
certification.

The Oppenheimer Rochester-style municipal bond litigation at issue
began as 35 separate securities fraud class actions filed in
federal courts across the country, including the District of
Colorado. The actions were transferred to Colorado by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, where they were assigned to me.
The actions were grouped into seven consolidated class actions
that would be managed in accordance with the procedures and
pleading standards set forth in the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (the PSLRA). Ultimately, six of the seven
consolidated actions were resolved by stipulation on a class-wide
basis. At the time of settlement, Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel
had been appointed in each of seven consolidated class actions,
but Plaintiffs' omnibus Motion for Class Certification and
Appointment of Class Representatives (Doc. 379) was pending.

Lead Plaintiff Joseph Stockwell sues under Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and seeks to certify a
class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3)
consisting of all persons and entities who, between September 27,
2006 and November 28, 2008 (the "Class Period"), purchased A, B or
C shares of Oppenheimer California Municipal Bond Fund pursuant or
traceable to the Fund's offering documents. Mr. Stockwell alleges
a series of related material misstatements and omissions in
California Fund offering documents issued during the Class Period,
and contends the California Fund, its manager and investment
advisor OppenheimerFunds, Inc., its distributor and principal
underwriter OppenheimerFunds Distributor, Inc., the Trustee
Defendants, and the Officer Defendants violated the Securities Act
of 1933 by registering, offering, and selling shares of the Fund
pursuant to those false and misleading documents. Plaintiff also
sues Defendants OppenheimerFunds, Inc., the Trustee Defendants,
the Officer Defendants and Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
Company as "control persons" under Section 15 of the Securities
Act.

Stockwell alleges a series of related material misstatements and
omissions in the Fund's offering documents issued during the Class
Period relating to Defendants': (1) failure to adhere to the
Fund's stated investment objective; (2) over-concentration of the
Fund's assets in non-investment grade (or "junk") bonds; (3) over-
concentration of the Fund's assets in bonds exposed to the risk of
California's real estate industry; and (4) excessive (and
underreported) use of leverage through the Fund's investments in
inverse floaters and borrowing. Defendants concede misstatement
categories (2) -- (4) are appropriate for class certification;
their only objection is that Plaintiff's investment objective
allegations in group 1 are too individualized (and factually
unsupported) to be navigated on a class-wide basis.

In his Order dated October 16, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/xCb6Yvfrom Leagle.com, Judge Kane granted Lead
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of
class representative and class counsel. The Court certifies a
class of all persons and entities who, between September 27, 2006
and November 28, 2008, purchased A, B and C shares of Oppenheimer
California Municipal Bond Fund pursuant or traceable to the Fund's
offering documents, and appoints Joseph Stockwell as Class
Representative. The Court also formally appoints the Sparer Law
Group and Girard Gibbs LLP as Class Counsel, with the Sparer Law
Group designated as Lead Counsel for the Class.

The Court directed the parties to confer and Plaintiff to file a
statement regarding a proposed schedule for dissemination of
notice to the Class in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(c)(2), taking into account any appeals that may be
filed pursuant to Rule 23(f).

Joseph H. Weiss, Esq. -- jweiss@weisslawllp.com -- and Mark David
Smilow, Esq. -- msmilow@weisslawllp.com -- of WeissLaw LLP serve
as counsel for Plaintiff Michael Isaac

Lauren Pamela Carboni, Esq. and Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov, Esq.
-- lino.lipinsky@dentons.com -- of Dentons US LLP; Matthew L.
Larrabee, Esq. -- matthew.larrabee@dechert.com -- and William K.
Dodds, Esq. of Dechert, LLP serve as counsel for Defendant
OppenheimerFunds, Inc.


ORLANDO HEALTH: Florida Judge Dumps "Reuss" Suit Over Tax Refund
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Antoon, II granted the motion to dismiss in
the case captioned BRYAN REUSS, Plaintiff, v. ORLANDO HEALTH,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:15-CV-805-ORL-28GJK, (M.D. Fla.)

In this putative class action, Dr. Bryan Reuss alleges in a
single-count complaint that his employer, Orlando Health, Inc.,
breached a fiduciary duty by failing to either file a Federal
Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax refund claim on behalf of
him and others or advise them of their opportunity to seek a FICA
tax refund.

In response to the Complaint, the Hospital filed a motion to
dismiss, contending: (i) the Hospital did not have a fiduciary
relationship with Dr. Reuss, (ii) Dr. Reuss's claims are barred by
Florida's statute of limitations, and (iii) Dr. Reuss's claim is
actually a tax refund suit and is therefore preempted by 26 U.S.C.
Section 7422.

In his Order dated October 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/qwmRmjfrom Leagle.com, Judge Antoon, II granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that (1) the facts alleged
in the Complaint do not establish that the Hospital expressly or
impliedly owed a fiduciary duty to Dr. Reuss that required it --
with regard to the years for which it decided not to file for a
tax refund on behalf of itself -- to either notify Dr. Reuss of
the refund opportunity or to file on his behalf; (2) the statute
of limitations has elapsed on Dr. Reuss's claim for breach of
fiduciary duty because it accrued at the latest when Dr. Reuss
could no longer file for a refund; and (3) Dr. Reuss's claim for
breach of fiduciary duty is actually a claim for a tax refund that
is preempted by 26 U.S.C. Section 7422 and may not be brought
against the Hospital.

Jordan Matthew Lewis, Esq. of Kelley Uustal, PLC and Thomas Scott
Tufts, Esq. -- tom@tuftlaw.com -- of Tufts Law Firm, PLLC serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Bryan Reuss, Dr., on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated

Chad K. Alvaro, Esq. -- calvaro@mateerharbert.com -- and W. Scott
Gabrielson, Esq. -- sgabrielson@mateerharbert.com -- of Mateer &
Harbert, PA serve as counsel for Defendant Orlando Health, Inc.


OSMOSE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon D. Bowman v. Osmose Communications Services, LLC and Jose
Rosado, Case No. 1:15-cv-24094-JAL (S.D. Fla., November 2, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide engineering services for Inside Plant,
Outside Plant, data solutions, project management, construction
management, staff augmentation, field data collection and
solutions for engineering design, construction, and installation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil D. Kodsi, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF NEIL D. KODSI
      Two South University Drive, Suite 315
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (786) 464-0841
      Facsimile: (954) 760-4305
      E-mail: nkodsi@ndkodsilaw.com


PIER 1 IMPORTS: Faces "Kathleen Kenney" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Pier 1 Imports, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 29, 2015, that a putative class
action complaint was filed on August 28 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas-Dallas Division,
captioned Kathleen Kenney, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc.,
Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner, Defendants, alleging
violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a purported putative class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of Pier 1
Imports, Inc. between December 19, 2013 through February 10, 2015,
and seeks to recover damages purportedly caused by the Defendants'
alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint
seeks certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory
damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. Although the ultimate
outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the
Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend against the action vigorously.


PINCHER'S BEACH: "Campbell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Campbell, on her behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Pincher's Beach Bar Grill Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00695-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., November 5, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Pincher's Beach Bar Grill Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in
Lee County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angeli Murthy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      600 N. Pine Island Road
      Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
      E-mail: Amurthy@forthepeople.com


PJT PARTNERS: Expert Discovery Ongoing in Stockholder Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
PJT Partners Inc. said in an exhibit to its Amendment No. 4 to
Form 10 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 7, 2015, that expert discovery is ongoing, and there is no
date scheduled for any trial of the action, Physicians Formula,
Inc. Stockholder Litigation.

Blackstone Advisory Partners L.P. is named as a defendant in a
consolidated class action pending in the Delaware Court of
Chancery (In re Physicians Formula, Inc. Stockholder Litigation).
Purported classes of common stockholders of Physicians Formula,
Inc. allege that the directors of Physicians Formula, Inc.
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with a merger
between Physicians Formula, Inc. and Markwins International
Corporation, as well as in connection with an earlier merger
agreement between Physicians Formula, Inc. and Swander Pace
Capital. Plaintiffs allege that the directors failed to maximize
shareholder value and that Physicians Formula, Inc.'s definitive
proxy failed to disclose certain material information to
stockholders. Plaintiffs claim that Blackstone Advisory Partners
L.P., which served as the financial advisor to the Special
Committee of the Physicians Formula, Inc. board of directors,
aided and abetted the director defendants in the alleged breach of
their fiduciary duty. After the conclusion of discovery (other
than expert discovery), the director defendants and Blackstone
each requested the Court's leave to file a motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiffs opposed the request. The court denied the
requests of the director defendants and of Blackstone. Expert
discovery is ongoing. There is no date scheduled for any trial of
the action.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Normarily Cruz, individually, and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC,
et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07851 (D.N.J., November 2, 2015) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is an American debt buyer based
in Norfolk, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
      Yitzchak Zelman, 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
              yzelman@marcuszelman.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Denson" Suit Removed to S. Dist. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled William Denson, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery
Associates LLC, et al., Case No. 502015CA010600XXXXMB, was removed
from the 15th Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida to
the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm
Beach). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:15-cv-81460-
DMM to the proceeding.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is an American debt buyer based
in Norfolk, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Joseph Robert Skrandel, Esq.
      JEROME F. SKRANDEL, PL
      300 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite D
      North Palm Beach, FL 33403-5212
      Telephone: (561) 863-1605
      Facsimile: (561) 863-1606
      E-mail: jfspa@msn.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Justin Tinshung Wong, Esq.
      TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
      600 Peachtree St NE, Suite 5200
      Atlanta, GA 30308
      Telephone: (404) 885-3974
      E-mail: justin.wong@troutmansanders.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: May File First Amended Answer in "Stratton"
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Danny C. Reeves granted the motion for leave to
file first amended answer in the case captioned DEDE STRATTON,
Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 5:13-147-DCR, (E.D. Ky.)

PRA purchases debt from creditors and then collects the debt. In
January 2010, the company purchased the plaintiff's charged-off
credit card account from GE, F.S.B./Lowes.  PRA filed a Complaint
for collection of the debt alleged owed by Stratton in Kentucky's
Scott County District Court. Thereafter, on May 26, 2013, Stratton
filed a Complaint seeking certification of a class action,
alleging that PRA violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA). PRA moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, contending that Kentucky
law permitted PRA to recover prejudgment interest on Stratton's
debt. The Court denied that motion. Subsequently, on July 30,
2013, Stratton filed an Amended Complaint, which further addressed
the issue of prejudgment interest. Again, the defendant moved to
dismiss for primarily the same reasons as asserted previously.

PRA filed its Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer,
seeking to include in its Answer the additional affirmative
defense of arbitration.  PRA contends that the Court should grant
it leave to amend because it was unaware of the mandatory
arbitration clause in the credit card agreement here in dispute
because PRA is not the original creditor.  It also asserts that
Stratton will not be prejudiced by its amended answer because
little discovery has taken place and PRA's motion was timely filed
according to the deadline contained in the Scheduling Order.

In response, Stratton argues that she is unduly prejudiced because
she has been required to respond to two motions to dismiss and
litigated at the appellate level, all of which spanned two years.
Further, she claims that, through its actions, PRA has impliedly
waived its right to arbitration.

PRA's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer includes
additional affirmative defense of arbitration. Stratton argues
that the Court should not permit PRA to amend its Answer because
she would be unduly prejudiced and because the proposed amendment
would be futile. Specifically, she asserts that, through its
litigation conduct, PRA has effectively waived the arbitration
defense. However, PRA disagrees with these assertions.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 2, 2015
available at http://bit.ly/1OxrWXrfrom Leagle.com, Judge Reeves
granted PRA's motion for leave to file first amended answer.
Because the parties have engaged in little discovery, and because
Stratton has not demonstrated some culpable behavior on the part
of the defendant, PRA's conduct is not inconsistent with its right
to arbitrate, the Court said.

James Hays Lawson, Esq. -- james@kyconsumerlaw.com -- of
Lawson at Law, PLLC and Kenneth J. Henry, Esq. -- ken.henry@henry-
legal.com -- of Henry & Associates, PLLC serve as counsel for
Plaintiff Dede Stratton

Elizabeth M. Shaffer, Esq. --  elizabeth.shaffer@dinsmore.com --
Joseph N. Tucker, Esq. -- joseph.tucker@dinsmore.com -- and R.
Brooks Herrick, Esq. -- brooks.herrick@dinsmore.com -- of Dinsmore
& Shohl, LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC


QUORUM HEALTH: CHS Continues to Defend Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. continues to defend the shareholder
federal securities cases, according to an exhibit filed together
with Quorum Health Corporation's Amendment No. 1 to Form 10 Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16,
2015.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of CHS common stock between July 27, 2006 and
April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements resulted in
artificially inflated prices for CHS common stock. In December
2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes and NYC
Funds and its counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead
plaintiffs' counsel. CHS' motion to dismiss this case has been
fully briefed and remains pending before the court. The original
district court judge has recused himself; in an order dated May
27, 2015, the new judge continued the discovery stay pending her
ruling on CHS' motion to dismiss. CHS believes this consolidated
matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case.


QUORUM HEALTH: No Trial Date in "Chuy" Case
-------------------------------------------
No trial date has been set in the case, Chuy, et al. v. Hospital
of Barstow, Inc. d/b/a Barstow Community Hospital, according to an
exhibit filed together with Quorum Health Corporation's Amendment
No. 1 to Form 10 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 16, 2015.

"Chuy, et al. v. Hospital of Barstow, Inc. d/b/a Barstow Community
Hospital (Superior Court, San Bernardino, CA) filed June 5, 2012.
Purported class action filed on behalf of uninsured patients
alleging that the hospital's pricing is unreasonable and
unconscionable and violates California consumer protection
statutes. A motion for class certification was filed by plaintiffs
on July 31, 2015 and our response was filed August 31, 2015; no
trial date has been set. We believe all of the plaintiffs' claims
are without merit and will vigorously defend them," the exhibit
said.


QUORUM HEALTH: CHS Intends to Defend Lawsuit v. Health Management
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. intends to vigorously defend
against the allegations in the lawsuit against Health Management
Associates, Inc. ("HMA"), according to an exhibit filed together
with Quorum Health Corporation's Amendment No. 1 to Form 10 Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16,
2015.

On April 30, 2012, two class action lawsuits that were brought
against HMA and certain of its then executive officers, one of
whom was at that time also a director, were consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
under the caption In Re: Health Management Associates, Inc., et
al. and three pension fund plaintiffs were appointed as lead
plaintiffs. On July 30, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint purportedly on behalf of stockholders who
purchased HMA's common stock during the period from July 27, 2009,
through January 9, 2012. The amended consolidated complaint (i)
alleges that HMA made false and misleading statements in certain
public disclosures regarding its business and financial results
and (ii) asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Among other things, the plaintiffs claim that HMA inflated its
earnings by engaging in fraudulent Medicare billing practices that
entailed admitting patients to observation status when they should
not have been admitted at all and to inpatient status when they
should have been admitted to observation status. The plaintiffs
seek unspecified monetary damages.

On October 22, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a
claim or plead facts required by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act. The plaintiffs filed an unopposed stipulation and
proposed order to suspend briefing on the defendants' motion to
dismiss because they intended to seek leave of court to file a
proposed second amended consolidated complaint. On December 15,
2012, the court entered an order approving the stipulation and
providing a schedule for briefing with respect to the proposed
amended pleadings. On February 25, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended consolidated complaint, which asserted
substantially the same claims as the amended consolidated
complaint.

As of August 15, 2013, the defendants' motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint for failure to state a claim and plead
facts required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was
fully briefed and awaiting the Court's decision. On May 22, 2014,
the court granted the motion to dismiss and on June 20, 2014 the
plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, where oral argument
was heard on February 6, 2015.

On May 11, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit Court affirmed the granting
of the motion to dismiss. On June 11, 2015, plaintiffs filed an
application for an en banc review. CHS intends to vigorously
defend against the allegations in this lawsuit. CHS is unable to
predict the outcome or determine the potential impact, if any,
that could result from its final resolution.


RITE AID: "Indergit" Case Remains Pending in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 29, 2015, that the case, Indergit v.
Rite Aid Corporation et al remains pending.

The Company has been named in a collective and class action
lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store
managers working in the Company's stores at various locations
around the country. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to
pay overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and
under certain New York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks
other relief, including liquidated damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of state
and federal claims for overtime pay.

On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide
collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as
store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice
of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the
collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store
managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action.
Discovery as to certification issues has been completed.

On September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class
certification of the New York store manager claims as to liability
only, but denied it as to damages, and denied the Company's motion
for decertification of the nationwide collective action claims.
The Company filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's
September 26, 2013 decision which motion was denied in June 2014.
The Company subsequently filed a petition for an interlocutory
appeal of the Court's September 26, 2013 ruling with the U. S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which petition was denied
in September 2014. Notice of the Rule 23 class certification as to
liability only has been sent to approximately 1,750 current and
former store managers in the state of New York.

At this time, the Company is not able to either predict the
outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with
respect to the lawsuit. The Company's management believes,
however, that this lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously
defending this lawsuit.


RITE AID: Parties to Seek Approval of Deal in Chase and Kyle Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 29, 2015, that with respect to cases
involving pharmacist meal and rest periods (Chase and Scherwin v.
Rite Aid Corporation pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court
and Kyle v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in Sacramento County
Superior Court), during the period ended March 1, 2014, the
Company recorded a legal accrual with respect to these matters.
The Company and the attorneys representing the putative class of
pharmacists have agreed to a class wide settlement of the case of
$9.0 million subject to final Court approval. The parties are in
the process of obtaining Court approval.


RITE AID: Proceedings in "Hall" Case Stayed
-------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 29, 2015, that in the employee
seating case (Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, San Diego County
Superior Court), the Court, in October 2011, granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Company filed its
motion for decertification, which motion was granted in November
2012. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the Court's order which
appeal was granted in May 2014. The Company filed a petition for
review of the appellate court's decision with the California
Supreme Court, which petition was denied in August 2014.
Proceedings in the Hall case are stayed pending a decision by the
California Supreme Court in two similar cases. With respect to the
California Cases (other than Chase and Scherwin and Kyle), the
Company, at this time, is not able to predict either the outcome
of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of loss with
respect to said lawsuits.


SANTA FE NATURAL: Falsely Marketed Cigarettes, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Theodore Rothman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. and
Reynolds American, Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv-08622 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 3, 2015) seeks redress for Defendants' deceptive
marketing of their "Natural American Spirit" brand cigarettes as
"Additive-Free Natural Tobacco."

The Defendants sell a variety of Natural American Spirit
cigarettes, all of which are uniformly and prominently labeled and
advertised with representations that the cigarettes are "Natural"
and "Additive-Free."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kim E. Richman, Esq.
      THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP
      81 Prospect Street
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Telephone: (212) 687-8291
      Facsimile: (212) 687-8292
      E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com

         - and -

      D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
      Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
      Todd S. Garber, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
      1311 Mamaroneck Avenue
      White Plains, NY 10605
      Telephone: (914) 298-3281
      Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
      E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
              jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
              tgarber@fbfglaw.com


STERICYCLE INC: "Gutierrez" Suit Removed to C. Dist. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Sergio Gutierrez, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated v. Stericycle, Inc., et
al., Case No. BC554791, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County 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-08187-JAK-JEM
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

Stericycle, Inc. is a compliance company that specializes in
collecting and disposing regulated substances, such as medical
waste and sharps, pharmaceuticals, hazardous waste, and providing
services for recalled and expired goods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Justin C. Bentley, Esq.
      LAMB & KAWAKAMI LLP
      333 South Grand Ave, Suite 4200
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 630-5500
      Facsimile: (213) 630-5555
      E-mail: jbentley@lkfirm.com


STERN & EISENBERG: Illegally Collects Debt, "Beach" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maxine L. Beach, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Stern & Eisenberg, P.C., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
05942 (E.D. Pa., November 2, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Stern & Eisenberg, P.C. operates a legal service firm located at
1581 N Main St Suite 200, Warrington, PA

Founded in 1976, Stern & Eisenberg provides legal representation
in a variety of service areas through its offices in New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Washington DC, Virginia,
West Virginia and South Carolina.

Maxine L. Beach is a PRO SE litigant.


SUPERVALU INC: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period (12 weeks) ended September 12, 2015, that in
August and November 2014, four class action complaints were filed
against the Company relating to the criminal intrusions into its
computer network announced by the Company in fiscal 2015.  The
cases have been consolidated as In Re: Supervalu Inc. Customer
Data Security Breach Litigation and are proceeding in the United
States District Court in Minnesota. On June 26, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint. The Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint and a hearing was
scheduled on the motion for November 3, 2015.


SYNERGETICS USA: Delaware Court Dismissed Investors' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Synergetics USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 14, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended July 31, 2015, that the Delaware Court has
unilaterally dismissed a stockholder class action.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger
Agreement, four putative stockholder class actions were filed
challenging the proposed transaction. Three of these actions were
filed in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri
and name as defendants all members of the Company's Board of
Directors, the Company, Valeant and Merger Sub: (i) Murphy, et al.
v. Synergetics USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1511-CC00778 (filed
September 15, 2015 and amended September 23, 2015), (ii) Glorioso,
et al. v. Synergetics USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1511-CC00803
(filed September 23, 2015) and (iii) Scarantino, et al. v.
Synergetics USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1511-CC00810 (filed
September 28, 2015) (the complaints referenced in (i), (ii) and
(iii) collectively the "Missouri Actions"). One of these actions
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of  Delaware (the
"Delaware Court") and names as defendants all members of the
Company's Board of Directors, Valeant and Merger Sub: Nilsen, et
al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, et al., C.A. No.
11552-VCL (filed September 28, 2015) (the "Delaware Action" and
together with the Missouri Actions, the "Actions").

The Actions generally allege that the members of the Company's
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders by, among other things, conducting a flawed
process in considering the transaction, agreeing to an inadequate
Offer Price, providing incomplete and misleading information to
stockholders, and accepting unreasonable deal protection measures
in the Merger Agreement that dissuade other potential bidders from
making competing offers. The Actions also allege that Valeant and
Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty.

All of the complaints except the Delaware Action seek, among other
things: (i) declaration as a class action; (ii) an order enjoining
defendants from consummating the Offer; (iii) rescission of the
proposed transaction or awarding damages to members of the class
in the event the transaction is consummated; and (iv) an award of
fees and expenses of the action, including reasonable attorneys'
and experts' fees. The Delaware Action seeks, among other things:
(i) declaration as a class action; (ii) an order awarding damages
to members of the class; and (iii) an award of fees and expenses
of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.
The Company believes the allegations are without merit.

On October 2, 2015, the Company, each of the members of the
Company's Board of Directors, Valeant and Merger Sub entered into
the MOU with the plaintiffs in the Actions, which sets forth the
parties' agreement in principle for a settlement of the Actions on
the basis of the additional disclosures made in a supplement to
the Schedule 14D-9 filed by the Company with the SEC on October 2,
2015. As explained in the MOU, the Company, the members of the
Company's Board of Directors, Valeant and Merger Sub have agreed
to the settlement solely to eliminate the burden, expense and
uncertainties inherent in further litigation and without admitting
any liability or wrongdoing. The MOU contemplates that (i) the
parties will stipulate to the certification of the Missouri
Actions as a class action, consisting of a mandatory non opt-out
class, that includes any and all persons who held shares of the
Company's common stock (excluding defendants, and their immediate
family members, and any successors in interest thereto) at any
time during the period beginning on September 1, 2015, through the
date of consummation or termination of the proposed transaction,
and (ii) shall seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement
providing for (a) the release by plaintiffs and any member of the
class, whether individual, direct, class, derivative,
representative, legal, equitable, or any other type or in any
other capacity, of all claims relating to the allegations in the
Actions, the Offer and the Merger Agreement, and other
transactions contemplated therein, or disclosures made in
connection therewith, other than any properly perfected claims for
appraisal pursuant to Section 262 of the DGCL, or claims to
enforce the settlement, as set forth in the MOU; (b) dismissal
with prejudice of the Missouri Actions upon final approval of the
settlement; and (c) dismissal with prejudice of the Delaware
Action within two business days of the final approval of the
settlement. The claims will not be released until such stipulation
of settlement is approved by the Circuit Court of St. Charles
County in the State of Missouri. There can be no assurance that
the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement
or that the court will approve such settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation. The settlement will not
affect the consideration to be received by the Company's
stockholders in connection with the Offer and the Merger
Agreement.

On October 8, 2015, the Delaware Court unilaterally dismissed the
Delaware Action. The Delaware Court noted that plaintiffs are not
entitled to file placeholder actions and by choosing to be a part
of the stipulation of settlement in the Missouri Actions, the
plaintiff in the Delaware Action has elected to proceed as part of
the Missouri Actions. The Delaware Court also stated that in the
event the settlement is not approved, the litigation can be
addressed in Missouri.


THORATEC CORPORATION: Signed MOU to Settle Merger Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Thoratec Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 1, 2015, that
Thoratec and the other named defendants in the merger litigation
signed a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") to settle the
case.

Putative class action lawsuits captioned In re Thoratec
Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
RG15779109 were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda (the "Merger Litigation").  The
Merger Litigation relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of July 21, 2015 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among
Thoratec Corporation ("Thoratec" or the "Company"), SJM
International, Inc. (which subsequently assigned its rights under
such agreement to one of its affiliates, SJM Thunder Holding
Company), Spyder Merger Corporation, and, solely with respect to
certain provisions, St. Jude Medical, Inc.

On September 30, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Thoratec and the other named defendants
in the Merger Litigation signed a memorandum of understanding (the
"MOU") to settle the Merger Litigation.  Subject to court approval
and further definitive documentation in a stipulation of
settlement, the MOU resolves the claims brought in the Merger
Litigation and provides that Thoratec will make certain additional
disclosures related to the proposed merger, which are set forth
below.  The MOU further provides for a release and settlement by
the purported class of Thoratec shareholders of all claims against
the defendants and their affiliates and agents in connection with
the Merger Agreement and transactions and disclosures related
thereto. The asserted claims will not be released until such
stipulation of settlement is approved by the court. There can be
no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve such
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.


UNITED COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Yablonsky" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judah Yablonsky, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-06288 (E.D.N.Y., November 2, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

United Collection Bureau, Inc. operates a debt collection firm in
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 395-3459
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


URANIUM ENERGY: To Seek Dismissal of "Stephens" Securities Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Uranium Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 14, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended July 31, 2015, that the Company intends to file
a motion to dismiss the securities class action filed by Heather
M. Stephens.

On or about June 29, 2015, Heather M. Stephens filed a class
action complaint against the Company and two of its executive
officers in the United States District Court, Southern District of
Texas (the "Securities Case"). The Securities Case seeks
unspecified damages and alleges the defendants violated Section
17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On or about September 10, 2015, John Price filed a stockholder
derivative complaint on behalf of the Company against the
Company's Board of Directors, executive management and three of
its vice presidents in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Texas. On or about October 2, 2015, Marnie W. McMahon
filed a stockholder derivative complaint on behalf of the Company
against the Company's Board of Directors, executive management and
three of its vice presidents in the District Court of Nevada
(these two cases collectively, the "Derivative Cases"). The
Derivative Cases seek unspecified damages on behalf of the Company
against the defendants for allegedly breaching their fiduciary
duties to the Company with respect to the allegations in the
Securities Case.

The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss for the Securities
Case and Derivative Cases. The Company believes that the
Securities Case and Derivative Cases are without merit and intends
to defend vigorously against them.


US PATENT COMMISSION: Motion to Compel Arbitration Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gary Feinerman granted the Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration in the case captioned YOLANDA HENDERSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. U.S. PATENT COMMISSION, LTD., THE GRAY LAW GROUP,
LTD., ZAMBRO MANUFACTURING, INC., INVENT WORLDWIDE CONSULTING,
LLC, RON STERLING, ALAN GREEN, CAROLYN ROHDE, ANGELA STEVENS,
CANDICE PAGE, ROBERT GRAY, STEVEN FISHER-STAWINSKI, XAVIER HAILEY,
and LOUIS D'AMICO, Defendants, No. 15 C 3897, (N.D. Ill.)

Yolanda Henderson brought this putative class action against U.S.
Patent Commission, Ltd. and several of its employees (Commission
Defendants), The Gray Law Group and several of its employees (Gray
Defendants), Zambro Manufacturing, Inc. and its employee Louis
D'Amico, and Invent Worldwide Consulting, LLC. The complaint
alleges violations of the American Inventor's Protection Act
(AIPA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO), the Illinois Fair Invention Development Standards Act
(FIDSA), the Minnesota Invention Services Act (MISA), and the
Illinois and Minnesota consumer fraud statutes. Gray Defendants
have moved to compel arbitration, as have Commission Defendants
and Invent.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 1, 2015
available at http://bit.ly/1WJQoUEfrom Leagle.com, Judge
Feinerman granted the motions to compel arbitration. Henderson
must arbitrate her claims against Gray Defendants, Commission
Defendants, and Invent Worldwide Consulting. Those claims are
stayed in this court pending the arbitration.

Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq., Matthew C. De Re, Esq., and
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. of Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C. serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Yolanda Henderson

Christopher Paul Keleher, Esq. -- ckeleher@appellatelawgroup.com
-- of The Keleher Appellate Law Group, LLC serves as counsel for
Defendant U.S. Patent Commission, Ltd.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Class Actions Against LRR Energy Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 9, 2015, that these class actions were filed in connection
with the merger by purported LRR Energy, L.P. unitholders against
LRR Energy, its General Partner, its Board, Vanguard, Merger Sub
and the other parties to the Merger Agreement:

     * Barry Miller v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Case No. 11087-
VCG, filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on
June 3, 2015 ("Miller Lawsuit")

     * Christopher Tiberio v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Cause No.
2015-39864, filed in the 334th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas on July 10, 2015 ("Tiberio Lawsuit")

     * Eddie Hammond v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Cause No. 2015-
40154, filed in the 295th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas on July 13, 2015 ("Hammond Lawsuit")

     * Ronald Krieger v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Civil Action No.
4:15-cv-2017, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on July 14, 2015 ("Krieger Lawsuit")

On July 17, 2015, the Krieger Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice. On July 23, 2015 the Miller Lawsuit was also
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On July 28, 2015 the
Tiberio Lawsuit and the Hammond Lawsuit were both nonsuited
without prejudice.

"Prior to their dismissals, the Lawsuits alleged that the merger
(a) provided inadequate consideration to our unitholders and
alleged that we and our Board breached certain fiduciary duties to
the common unitholders by accepting such inadequate consideration
and (b) contained contractual terms that would dissuade other
potential merger partners from making alternative proposals for
us, including, but not limited to, the requirement that certain of
our unitholders enter into a voting and support agreement,
adoption of an allegedly unreasonable no solicitation clause, the
notice provisions, and allowing our Board to withdraw its
favorable recommendation only under extremely limited
circumstances," the Company said.

Prior to their dismissals, the Tiberio, Hammond, and Krieger
Lawsuits also allege that the Vanguard Form S-4 Registration
Statement filed with the SEC on June 16, 2015 failed to make all
material disclosures and contained materially misleading
statements about the merger in violation of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-
9.

The Lawsuits sought to be certified as class actions, and asked
that the court, among other relief, enjoin the merger, or rescind
the merger in the event it was consummated, and award damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

"We and the other Defendants believed the Lawsuits were without
merit, denied the allegations in their entirety and requested
voluntary dismissal from each of the plaintiffs. They were each
dismissed. Therefore, neither we nor our General Partner is
currently a party to any material legal proceedings," the Company
said.


VESUVIO'S II PIZZA: Court Extends Discovery in "Solais"
-------------------------------------------------------
IRIAM MARTINEZ SOLAIS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VESUVIO'S II PIZZA & GRILL, INC.
and GIOVANNI SCOTTI D'ABBUSCO, Defendants, Case No. 1:15CV227,
(M.D.N.C.), is a putative collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and a putative class action under the North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act, on behalf of certain kitchen workers
at Vesuvio's II Pizza & Grill, Inc. (Vesuvio's II). According to
named Plaintiff's Complaint, Giovanni Scotti D'Abbusco (the
Individual Defendant) and Vesuvio's II failed to pay named
Plaintiff and other kitchen workers minimum wages and overtime, as
mandated by law.  On June 19, 2015, named Plaintiff filed a
Consent to Join Suit as Party Plaintiff on behalf of Mateo San
Agustin Alvarado (Plaintiff).

Before the Court are:

     -- Defendants filed their Motion to Compel and for Extension
of Deadlines to Complete Discovery and Respond to Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify;

     -- Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Subpoenas to Non-Parties, or,
in the Alternative, Motion for Protective Order;

     -- Defendants' Amended Motion to Compel; and

     -- Plaintiff's Supplemental Response in Opposition to
Defendants' Motion to Compel and for Extension of Deadlines.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 16, 2015
available at http://is.gd/SFhWc0from Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge
L. Patrick Auld granted in part and denied in part Defendants'
motion to compel and amended motion to compel.   The Court added:

     (i) Plaintiffs' counsel shall bear any expense related to the
late cancellation of opt-in Plaintiff's August 12th deposition and
the expedited scheduling of opt-in Plaintiff's August 18th
deposition;

   (ii) opt-in Plaintiff and Defendants shall equally divide the
videoconferencing expenses for the August 18th deposition; and

  (iii) Defendants shall obtain no further deposition or document
discovery from Plaintiffs at this stage of the case.

Adam T. Klein, Esq. -- atk@outtengolden.com -- Sally J.
Abrahamson, Esq. -- sabrahamson@outtengolden.com -- of Outten &
Golden LLP and Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. of Law Offices of Gilda A.
Hernandez, PLLC serve as counsel for Plaintiff Miriam Martinez
Solais

Denise Smith Cline, Esq. -- denise@dsclinelaw.com -- of Law Office
of Denise Smith Cline serves as counsel for Defendant Vesuvio's II
Pizza & Grill, Inc.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces A Plus Suit in Minn. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Plus Auto, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.,
Case No.______ (D. Minn., November _________) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged intentional installation of defeat devices in
over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles powered by a
purported 2.0 Liter "Clean Diesel" engine.

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:

      Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
      Francis J. Rondoni, Esq.
      Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
      CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
      17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-7300
      Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
      E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
              frondoni@chestnutcambronne.com
              jbores@chestnutcambronne.com

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fields" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Polly Fields, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-05043-JCS (N.D. Cal., November 3, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged intentional installation of defeat devices in
over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles powered by a
purported 2.0 Liter "Clean Diesel" engine.

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:

      Terry Gross, Esq.
      Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
      GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP
      One Sansome Street, Suite 3670
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 544-0200
      Facsimile: (415) 544-0201
      E-mail: terry@gba-law.com
              adam@gba-law.com

         - and -

      R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
      Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
      SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
      706 Sansome Street
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 217-6810
      Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
      E-mail: rick@saveri.com
              cadio@saveri.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Wright" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Earl Scott Wright, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00684-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., November 3, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged intentional installation of defeat devices in
various models, including Volkswagen Jetta, Volkswagen Beetle,
Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Passat and Audi A3.

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 M. Kelly, Esq.
      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq.
      David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
      Ross M. Good, Esq.
      ANDERSON+ W ANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
              bwanca@andersonwanca.com
              iberman@andersonwanca.com
              doppenheim@andersonwanca.com
              rgood@andersonwanca.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Marsh" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Marsh v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:15-cv-00457-MCR-CJK (N.D. Fla., October 19, 2015) arises out
of the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of defeat
devices in various models, including Volkswagen Jetta, Volkswagen
Beetle, Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Passat and Audi A3.

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:

      Damian Zimmerman, Esq.
      ALEXANDER SHUNNARAH GULF COAST, LLP
      25 E. Wright St.
      Pensacola, FL 32501
      Telephone: (850) 696-1119
      Facsimile: (850) 696-1117
      E-mail: dzimmerman@asilpc.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


VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Nov. 25 Deadline to Answer Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
VOXX International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 13, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2015, that defendants
have until November 25, 2015 to answer, move against or otherwise
respond to the amended complaint in a purported class action.

The Company said, "On July 8, 2014, a purported class action suit,
Brian Ford v. VOXX  International Corporation et al., was filed
against us and two of our present executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  On July 16,
2015, the judge approved the designation of the lead plaintiffs
and counsel for the plaintiffs.  On September 28, 2015, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint which alleges the same claims
as the original complaint (that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making false or misleading statements which
artificially inflated the price of our stock and that purchasers
of our stock during the relevant period were damaged when the
stock price later declined) under Sections 10(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act but expands the class period by five
months, from January 9, 2013 through May 14, 2014.  According to
the allegations contained in the amended complaint, the defendants
knew or should have known, by virtue of their roles and positions,
that their statements were false and misleading and said
defendants were purportedly motivated because their conduct
enabled Company insiders to sell VOXX stock at inflated prices."

"We believe that we have meritorious legal positions and defenses
and will continue to represent our interests vigorously in this
matter. The defendants have until November 25, 2015 to answer,
move against or otherwise respond to the amended complaint," the
Company said.


WABTEC CORPORATION: "Busker" Suit Removed to C. Dist. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled John Busker, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated and the general public
v. WABTEC Corporation, et al, Case No. BC594327, was removed from
the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles 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-
08194 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

WABTEC Corporation is a manufacturer of braking equipment and
other parts for locomotives, freight cars, and passenger railcars.

John Busker is a PRO SE litigant.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Saman M. Rejali, Esq.
      K AND L GATES LLP
      10100 Santa Monica Boulevard 7th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 552-5000
      Facsimile: (310) 552-5001
      E-mail: saman.rejali@klgates.com


WYANDOTTE, MI: "Page" Suit Over Water Franchise Fees Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gershwin A. Drain granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss in the case captioned AMES PAGE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF
WYANDOTTE, Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-10575, (E.D. Mich.)

James Page filed a complaint in Wayne County Circuit Court against
Defendants, the City of Wyandotte  and the Mayor and City Council
of the City of Wyandotte (City), alleging that Defendants
unlawfully collect franchise fees from consumers of the City's
cable and water services in violation of state and federal law.
Plaintiff brought the suit as a class action. Defendant removed
the action to the federal district court on February 13, 2015.

Following the Plaintiff's motion to remand the action to state
court, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting in Part and
denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the case on May 13,
2015. The Court retained jurisdiction over the action's federal
Constitutional claims.

The City filed its motion to dismiss.

In his Opinion and Order dated October 20, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/l0SBL5from Leagle.com, Judge Drain granted the
City's motion to dismiss. The Water Franchise Fee provides a more
complicated issue, since it is unlikely that this service is as
voluntary as WMS's cable utility. Additionally, since Plaintiff
alleges that the City obtains a flat rate of $200,000 per year,
not based in reliance on the amount of utilities used by
customers, this fee may fall outside of the definition of a "user
fee" exempt from the Headlee Amendment.  Nonetheless, whether the
Water Franchise Fee is a user fee or a tax is an issue more
appropriately decided in state court. Even if the Water Franchise
Fee was determined to be a tax, that would still not give rise to
a takings claim under the so-called Koontz precedent, the Court
explained. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Count I for failing
to state a takings claim upon which relief may be granted. The
Court finds that Plaintiff has not pled sufficient factual matter
necessary to conclude that the City has violated interests so
"deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" such that
"neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed."
Consequently, because Plaintiff's substantive due process claim
fails to identify an enumerated interest, a deeply rooted
fundamental right, or a governmental action that shocks the
conscious, the Court will dismiss Count III. Based on Plaintiff's
allegations, the City's notices were reasonably calculated to
inform WMS cable customers of the charges contained within their
bills. Additionally, there were regularly held open meetings at
which customers could voice their concerns. As such, assuming
Plaintiff asserted a property interest protected by procedural due
process, the City provided him with reasonable notice and an
opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss
Plaintiff's procedural due process claim.

Joseph N. Fraser, Esq. -- jfraser@jshlawmi.com -- of Johnston,
Sztkiel and Hunt serves as counsel for Plaintiff James P Page

David K. Otis, Esq. -- dotis@plunkettcooney.com -- and Audrey J.
Forbush, Esq. -- aforbush@plunkettcooney.com -- of Plunkett &
Cooney serve as counsel for Defendant City of Wyandotte


YUM! BRANDS: Deadline to File Certiorari Petition Due
-----------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 15, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 5, 2015, that the deadline for
the plaintiff in a class action to file a petition for certiorari
to the U.S. Supreme Court was November 18, 2015.

In early 2013, four putative class action complaints were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and certain executive officers alleging claims
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's current and future
business and financial condition.  The four complaints were
subsequently consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

On August 5, 2013, lead plaintiff, Frankfurt Trust Investment
GmbH, filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Amended
Complaint") on behalf of a putative class of all persons who
purchased the Company's stock between February 6, 2012 and
February 4, 2013 (the "Class Period").  The Amended Complaint no
longer includes allegations relating to misstatements regarding
the Company's business or financial condition and instead alleges
that, during the Class Period, defendants purportedly omitted
information about the Company's supply chain in China, thereby
inflating the prices at which the Company's securities traded.

On October 4, 2013, the Company and individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

On December 24, 2014, the District Court granted that motion to
dismiss in its entirety and dismissed the Amended Complaint with
prejudice.

On January 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to
the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit. Oral
argument of plaintiff's appeal took place on August 4, 2015.

On August 20, 2015, a three judge panel of the United States Court
of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit unanimously affirmed dismissal of
all claims against the Company and the individual defendants. Lead
plaintiff did not file a petition for panel rehearing or a
petition for hearing en banc before the applicable deadlines. The
deadline for the plaintiff to file a petition for certiorari to
the U.S. Supreme Court is November 18, 2015.

The Company denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in the Amended Complaint. A reasonable estimate
of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made
at this time.


YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Seeks to Decertify Classes in Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 15, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 5, 2015, that Taco Bell has filed
a motion to decertify the classes in the Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions.

Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a number of putative class
action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging
violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime,
failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued
vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses,
wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or
unlawful business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Sec.17200. Some plaintiffs also seek penalties
for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under
California's Private Attorneys General Act as well as statutory
"waiting time" penalties and allege violations of California's
Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a
California state-wide class of hourly employees.

These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is
styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action. Plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification on the vacation and
final pay claims in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the
court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation
and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four
separate meal and rest break classes.

On January 2, 2013, the court rejected three of the proposed
classes but granted certification with respect to the late meal
break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list of putative
class members, and the class notice and opportunity to opt out of
the litigation were mailed on January 21, 2014.

Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to
strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the
second amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. On that same
date, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to dismiss all but one
of the California Private Attorney General Act claims.

On October 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the
operative complaint and a motion to amend the class certification
order. On December 16, 2014, the court partially granted both
motions, rejecting plaintiffs' proposed on-duty meal period class
but certifying a limited rest break class and certifying an
underpaid meal premium class, and allowing the plaintiffs to amend
the complaint to reflect those certifications. On December 30,
2014, plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint.

On February 26, 2015, the court denied a motion by Taco Bell to
dismiss or strike the underpaid meal premium class. Class notice
was issued to the two recently-certified classes, and discovery
and expert discovery commenced. On October 5, 2015, Taco Bell
filed a motion to decertify the classes. The same day, Plaintiffs
filed a motion for summary judgment.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. We have provided for a
reasonable estimate of the possible loss relating to this lawsuit.
However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
there can be no assurance that this lawsuit will not result in
losses in excess of those currently provided for in our Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss in excess of that
currently provided for in our Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements cannot be made at this time.


YUM! BRANDS: Discovery Continuing in "Rodriguez" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 15, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 5, 2015, that discovery is
continuing as to plaintiff's remaining claims in the class action
filed by Bernardina Rodriguez.

On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina
Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior
Court. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and
former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various
violations of California labor laws including failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay
all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in
violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec.17200.
This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage
and Hour Actions case. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court
and, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
to include a claim seeking penalties for alleged violations of
California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys
General Act. Taco Bell's motion to dismiss or stay the action in
light of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case was denied
on October 30, 2013.

In April 2014 the parties stipulated to address the sufficiency of
plaintiff's legal theory as to her discount meal break claim
before conducting full discovery. A hearing on the parties' cross-
summary judgment motions was held on October 22, 2014, and on
October 23, 2014, the court granted Taco Bell's motion for summary
judgment on the discount meal break claim and denied plaintiff's
motion. Discovery is continuing as to plaintiff's remaining
claims.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.


ZARA USA: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Consumer Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Catapano, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Zara USA, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06275 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 2, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for violation
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically by using consumer
reports to make adverse employment decisions without first
providing the applicant who is the subject of the report with
sufficient and timely notification of its intent to take an
adverse action, a copy of the report, and a summary of the
applicants' rights under the FCRA.

Zara USA, Inc. is a clothing and accessories retailer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taylor Asen, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & DELUCA LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Telephone: (929) 258-7816
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *