CAR_Public/151123.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, November 23, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 233


                            Headlines


476 NINTH: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
A1 SOLAR: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Waterbury" Suit Claims
ACB RECEIVABLES: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
AM RETAIL GROUP: Court Outlines Factors for Class Settlement

AMAZON.COM INC: Ohio Appeals Court Upholds Arbitration Ruling
AMERICAN SAVINGS NETWORK: Motion for Default Judgment Denied
AMERICARE INC: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Turgunbaev" Suit Says
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES: Settlement Objections Overruled
ASSET RECOVERY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Faces "Ira" Suit Over Proposed NYCB Merger
AVANQUEST NORTH AMERICA: "Boyd" Accord Has Preliminary Approval
AZCOMP TECHNOLOGIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
BOUTIQUE HOTEL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Wage Statements
C & J ENERGY: Faces "Harrell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CB1 INC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Wittman" Action Claims
CERTIFIED CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Sued in Ohio Over Oil and Gas Royalties
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Further Briefing on Motion for Remand Permitted

DADE MEDICAL: Faces "Mawaz" Suit Over Termination Notice
DE NOVO LEGAL: "Okano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
DELAWARE NORTH: "Santiago" Suit Removed to Calif. Dist. Ct.
DELIVERY QUDES: Doesn't Properly Employees, "Bernick" Suit Claims
DRANSCO INC: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ECM ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Freeman" Suit Claims
EDEGREE ADVISOR: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
EMC CORPORATION: Sued in Mass. Over Proposed Dell Take Over
ENERGY REMODELING: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Sperber" Suit Says

ETSY INC: Faces "Weiss" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Holt" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
FEDEX GROUND: "Alexander" Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lugo" Suit Claims
FIRST CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

FIRST NATIONAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
FIRST STUDENT: Trainee's Class Suit Goes to Trial
FISH HOUSE: "Cano" Suit Removed to Florida District Court
FORSTER & GARBUS: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FRESH DIET: Faces "Aviles" Suit Over Automatic Renewal Policies

GAP INC: Faces "Lerma" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
GC SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Chung" Suit Claims
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Sued Over Liquid Aluminum Sulfate-Price Fixing
ILLINOIS BELL: Bid to Dismiss "Hodges" Case Denied
JMI LANDSCAPING: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

JOSEPH T. RYERSON: Connector Castings' Class Cert. Motion Denied
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "James" Suit in Florida District Court
KENT NUTRITION: Removes "Miller" Suit to Ohio Northern District
KY TEACHERS RETIREMENT: Plaintiffs' Bid to Appoint Counsel Denied
LVNV FUNDING: Class Certified in "Fosnight" FDCPA Suit

MAR PIZZA: California Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MONARCH RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hartman" Suit Claims
MULTIBAND CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
NAJJAR LUBE: Faces "Hermosillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NAPLES, FL:  Faces "Gomory" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

NEANY INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
OREGON: Gov. Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Driving Privileges
SIENTRA INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
TAMKO BUILDING: Order Denying Arbitration Bid Affirmed
TCM GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Neiman" Suit Claims

TINLEY PARK, IL: Faces Suit Over Traffic System Program Violation
TREND RESORT: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
TRINET HR: Removes "Reyes" Suit to Central District of California
TYSON FOODS: Falsely Marketed Grain-Free Dog Treat Products
UNITED BREEZE: "Correa" Suit Removed to Florida District Court

UNITED CAPITAL: Sued in Ill. Over Minority Interest Freeze Out
UNITED STATES: Inmate's Suit v. Bill Clinton Dismissed
VAN RU CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Posen" Suit Claims
VIMPELCOM LTD: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces "Stegen" Suit in Oklahoma Over Defeat Device

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Removes "Chechik" Class Suit to E.D. Missouri
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Gee" Suit in N.Y. Over Defeat Devices
WALGREENS SPECIALTY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
WHITTIER NURSING: Faces "Butler" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT


                            *********


476 NINTH: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Adriana Aguilar, et al. v. 476 Ninth Avenue LLC, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-08684 (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Mexican restaurant located at 476
Ninth Avenue, New York, NY 10018.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


A1 SOLAR: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Waterbury" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Steve Waterbury, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. A1 Solar Power Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02374
(S.D. Cal., October 20, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of making unsolicited calls without prior express
consent.

A1 Solar Power Inc. provides solar installations for residential
and commercial properties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Peter Kristensen, Esq.
      KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP
      12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 507-7924
      Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
      E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com


ACB RECEIVABLES: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Ashkenazi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ACB Receivables Management, Inc.,  et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-07423 (D.N.J., October 13, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

ACB Receivables Management, Inc. is a collection agency operating
throughout the United States.

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


ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beverly Goldman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Accounts Receivable Management Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-06299-CBA-MDG (E.D.N.Y., November 3, 2015) seeks
redress for the illegal practices of the Defendants in connection
with the collection of a debt allegedly owed by the consumer.

Accounts Receivable Management Inc. is regularly engaged, for
profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Palace, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
      383 Kingston Ave. #113
      Brooklyn, NY 11213
      Telephone: (347) 651-1077
      Facsimile: (347) 464-0012


AM RETAIL GROUP: Court Outlines Factors for Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James for the Northern District of
California notified the parties regarding the factors to be
evaluated for any proposed class settlement in the case captioned
BARBARA RUCH, Plaintiff, v. AM RETAIL GROUP, INC. INDIVIDUALLY AND
DBA, G.H. BASS & CO., Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-05352-MEJ, (N.D.
Cal.)

In her Notice dated October 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/9AMEPwfrom Leagle.com, Judge James reminds the
parties regarding the important factors need to be evaluated in
approving proposed class action settlement. Those factors are:

     a) ADEQUACY OF PRESENTATION -- Anyone seeking to represent a
class, including a settlement class, must affirmatively meet the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 standards, including adequacy.
It will not be enough for a defendant to stipulate to adequacy of
the class representation (because a defendant cannot speak for
absent class members). An affirmative showing of adequacy must be
made in a sworn record. Any possible shortcomings in a plaintiff's
resume, such as a conflict of interest, a criminal conviction, a
prior history of litigiousness, and/or a prior history with
counsel, must be disclosed. Adequacy of counsel is not a
substitute for adequacy of the representative;

     b) DUE DILIGENCE -- This requires the representative and his
or her counsel to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of the
case, including the best-case dollar amount of claim relief. A
quick deal up front may not be fair to absent class members;

     c) COST-BENEFIT FOR ABSENT CLASS MEMBERS -- This requires an
analysis of the specific proof, such as a synopsis of any
conflicting evidence on key fact points. It will also require a
final class-wide damage study or an adequate substitute, in sworn
form. If little discovery has been done to see how strong the
claim is, it will be hard to justify a substantial discount on the
mere generalized theory of "risks of litigation." A coupon
settlement will rarely be approved. Where there are various
subgroups within the class, counsel must justify the plan of
allocation of the settlement fund;

     d) RELEASE -- The release should be limited only to the
claims certified for class treatment. Language releasing claims
that "could have been brought" is too vague and overbroad. The
specific statutory or common law claims to be released should be
spelled out. Class counsel must justify the release as to each
claim released, the probability of winning, and its estimated
value if fully successful;

     e) EXPANSION OF THE CLASS -- Typically, defendants vigorously
oppose class certification and/or argue for a narrow class. In
settling, however, defendants often seek to expand the class,
either geographically (i.e., nationwide) or claim-wise (including
claims not even in the complaint) or person-wise (e.g., multiple
new categories). Such expansions will be viewed with suspicion. If
an expansion is to occur it must come with an adequate plaintiff
and one with standing to represent the add-on scope and with an
amended complaint to include the new claims, not to mention due
diligence as to the expanded scope. The settlement dollars must be
sufficient to cover the old scope plus the new scope. Personal and
subject-matter jurisdiction over the new individuals to be
compromised by the class judgment must be shown;

     f) REVERSION -- A settlement that allows for a reversion of
settlement funds to the defendant(s) is a red flag, for it runs
the risk of an illusory settlement, especially when combined with
a requirement to submit claims that may lead to a shortfall in
claim submissions;

     g) CLAIM PROCEDURE -- A settlement that imposes a claim
procedure rather than cutting checks to class members for the
appropriate amount may (or may not) impose too much of a burden on
class members, especially if the claim procedure is onerous, or
the period for submitting is too short, or there is a likelihood
of class members treating the notice envelope as junk mail. The
best approach, when feasible, is to calculate settlement checks
from a defendant's records (plus due diligence performed by
counsel) and to send the checks to the class members along with a
notice that cashing the checks will be deemed acceptance of the
release and all other terms of the settlement;

     h) ATTORNEY'S FEES -- To the extent the parties' settlement
agreement discusses attorney's fees, they are admonished that the
Court will ultimately decide how much in attorney's fees is
justified; the Court will not approve a settlement agreement that
requires it to approve previously agreed on attorney's fees. If
the defense insists on an overall cap, then the Court will decide
how much will go to the class and how much will go to counsel,
just as in common fund cases;

     i) DWINDLING OR MINIMAL ASSET -- If the defendant is broke or
nearly so with no prospect of future rehabilitation, a steeper
discount may be warranted. This must be proven. Counsel should
normally verify a claim of poverty via a sworn record, thoroughly
vetted;

     j) TIMING OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT -- It is better to develop
and to present a proposed compromise after class certification,
after diligent discovery on the merits, and after a damage study
has been finalized; and

     k) RIGHT TO OPT OUT IS NOT A CURE-ALL -- A borderline
settlement cannot be justified merely because absent class members
may opt out if they wish. The Court has (and counsel have) an
independent, stand-alone duty to assess whether the proposed
settlement is reasonable and adequate. Once the named parties
reach a settlement in a purported class action, they are always
solidly in favor of their own proposal. There is no advocate to
critique the proposal on behalf of absent class members. That is
one reason that Rule 23(e) insists that the district court vet all
class settlements.

     l) INCENTIVE PAYMENT -- A request for an incentive payment
will be viewed skeptically. Class litigation proceeded well for
many decades before the advent of requests for "incentive
payments," which too often are simply ways to make a collusive or
poor settlement palatable to the named plaintiff.

     m) NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS -- Is the notice in plain English,
plain Spanish, and/or plain Chinese (or the appropriate language)?
Does it plainly lay out the salient points, which are mainly the
foregoing points in this memorandum? Will the method of notice
distribution really reach every class member? Will it likely be
opened or tossed as junk mail? How can the envelope design enhance
the chance of opening? Can mail notice be supplemented by e-mail
notice?

Alan Irwin Schimmel, Esq. -- aischimmel@spattorneys.com -- Stacey
Rae Cutting, Esq. -- srcutting@spattorneys.com -- and Michael
William Parks, Esq. -- mwparks@spattorneys.com -- of Schimmel and
Parks, APLC serve as counsel for Plaintiff Barbara Ruch

Angelito Remo Sevilla, Esq. -- Angel.Sevilla@jacksonlewis.com --
Conor John Dale, Esq. and Fraser Angus McAlpine, Esq. --
fraser.mcalpine@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis P.C. serve as
counsel for Defendant AM Retail Group, Inc. individually and dba,
G.H. Bass & Co.


AMAZON.COM INC: Ohio Appeals Court Upholds Arbitration Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark L. Pietrykowski of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth
District, Lucas County, affirmed the Toledo Municipal Court's
judgment granting the motion of Amazon.Com, Inc. and Intuit
Payments, Inc. to stay proceedings in a lawsuit pending
arbitration.

The appellate case is captioned Andrew K. Ranazzi, Appellant, v.
Amazon.Com, Inc., etc., et al., Appellee, C.A. NO. L-14-1217,
(Ohio App. Ct.)

Ranazzi purchased Intuit's 2013 Turbo Tax Deluxe program and
completed his federal income taxes using the software; the taxes
were filed in March 2014. As an incentive, Intuit offered its
customers through its "TurboTax Bonus Refund Program" the option
of converting part of their income tax refund to Amazon eGift
Cards, with a 10 percent bonus provided by Intuit. According to
appellant, he initially contacted Amazon to confirm that he could
use the cards "to purchase what Amazon.com sold." Appellant then
opted to convert a portion of his tax refund and on April 9, 2014,
two Amazon eGift Cards were deposited into his Amazon account:
$2100, represented his tax return funds and $210, represented the
bonus sum.

Ranazzi commenced this action on April 10, 2014, alleging
violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. Chapter
1345, and the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Appellant
alleged that he was never informed of the limitations on the use
of the gift cards and that he was fraudulently refused a credit
when the restrictions were discovered.

Amazon et al. filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R.
12(B)(6) or, alternatively, a motion to stay the proceedings
pending arbitration. Specifically, as to the motion to stay,
appellees alleged that both Amazon and Intuit had arbitration
agreements to which appellant agreed in contracting with the
parties. Appellees stated that appellant, when contracting with
Intuit for the TurboTax software, agreed to arbitrate any dispute
or claim related to the services. Further, when appellant opened
an Amazon.com account he agreed to arbitrate any disputes; also,
each time he made a purchase on Amazon.com he agreed to the
conditions of use. Appellees argued that these "clickwrap"
agreements (agreements where you "click through" on a computer to
assent to various terms) were valid and enforceable under law.
Appellees contended that the issue in dispute, whether appellant
was deceived in regard to Intuit's Amazon eCard tax refund
program, fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. In
support of the motion to stay, appellees attached the affidavits
of an Intuit employee and an Amazon employee with knowledge of
their respective arbitration clauses.

Appellant filed a motion to stay appellant's motion to dismiss
pending discovery and a request to convert the motion to a Civ.R.
56 motion for summary judgment. Appellant argued that he should be
permitted to conduct discovery to determine the merits of his
claim and appellees' defenses. Appellant further contended that it
was fundamentally unfair that appellees attached multiple exhibits
and affidavits to their motion to dismiss where the claim is based
on review of the four corners of the complaint.  The trial court
granted appellees' motion to stay the matter pending arbitration.
The court found that appellant, by opening the Amazon account,
agreed to the conditions of use which contained an arbitration
clause. Further, when purchasing the Intuit software, he agreed to
resolve any disputes by arbitration by agreeing to the user
agreement. The court concluded that the dispute was within in the
scope of the arbitration clauses and that they were not
unconscionable.

Ranazzi then appealed the September 23, 2014 judgment of the
Toledo Municipal Court which granted Amazon and Intuit's motion to
stay the action pending arbitration.

In his Decision and Judgment dated October 23, 2015 available at
http://bit.ly/1NAGKkPfrom Leagle.com, Judge Pietrykowski affirmed
the judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court, finding that
appellant, by clicking "I agree" on Intuit's license agreement or
by registering for an Amazon account and placing orders, accepted
the terms of appellees' agreements, including the arbitration
provisions. The contract terms regarding the bonus gift card
program are central to the present dispute; thus, the action could
not be maintained without reference to the "contract or
relationship at issue." Accordingly, the Court of Appeals said the
dispute is within the scope of the arbitration agreements.

The Court of Appeals also held that Appellant's first and fifth
assignments of error are not well-taken.  Indulging the claim,
however, even a cursory review finds that it lacks merit. As to
Intuit's license agreement, the affidavit in support of the motion
to stay indicates that appellant during the installation process
of the TurboTax software was required to click "I agree" to the
license agreement. Appellant had the option of not continuing with
the installation process. As to Amazon, appellant had the option
of not creating an account or of terminating his account.

Andrew K. Ranazzi, pro se.

Christine E. Mayle, Esq., serves as counsel for Amazon


AMERICAN SAVINGS NETWORK: Motion for Default Judgment Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd for the Eastern District of
California denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' June 18, 2015
motion for default judgment against Defendant American Savings
Network, Inc. in the case captioned PHYLLIS L. YORK, and JAMES B.
CARR, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN SAVINGS NETWORK, INC. also known as
AMERICAN SAVINGS NETWORK, LLC; ANTHONY DIEHL; and ROGER S. MORAN,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-0563 GEB DAD, (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs assert a claim for "violation of the fair trade laws of
the United States, pursuant to 15 USC Sections 41-58."

In his Order dated October 20, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/pd6KM8from Leagle.com, Judge Drozd denied without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment, finding
that "no private right of action exists under the Federal Trade
Commission Act (FTCA)." Although plaintiffs' complaint alleges
that American Savings Network is a business headquarters in the
state of Nevada, neither plaintiffs' complaint nor the motion for
default judgment attempts to address the basis for the court's
personal jurisdiction over defendant American Savings Network. In
determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant is proper, a district court must apply the
law of the state in which it sits when there is no applicable
federal statute governing personal jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs have not moved for default judgment against defendant
Roger Moran or defendant Anthony Diehl nor dismissed them from
this action.

James Byron Carr, Esq. of James B. Carr, Attorney At Law serves as
counsel for Plaintiff Phyllis L. York and James B. Carr


AMERICARE INC: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Turgunbaev" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ikram Turgunbaev, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v.  Americare, Inc., Case No. 513503/2015 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., November 4, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Americare, Inc. operates a home healthcare services company
located at 171 Kings Highway, Brooklyn, New York 11223.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      2747 Coney Island Ave
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 808-2224
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES: Settlement Objections Overruled
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan overruled objections to the
settlement reached in the case captioned FRANCISCO RENE MARTY,
SETH GOLDMAN, and FERNANDO MARQUET on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH
COMPANIES, LLC; Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-23656-JJO, (S.D. Fla.).

The Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed class
action settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement and
Release between Marty et al. and Anheuser-Busch.

Ross Muller and Abner Leps raised objections.

Muller's objection relates to his belief that the Settlement
provides inadequate relief and calls for an excessive fee request
and excessive class representative award.  He also objects to the
proposed fee award on the grounds that the "percentage of the
fund" approach is inapplicable to a "claims-made settlement". Mr.
Leps' objection relates to his belief that the Settlement provides
inadequate relief and calls for an excessive fee request.

In his Order dated October 22, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ZVVcmUfrom Leagle.com, Judge O'Sullivan overruled
both objections.  The judge said Mr. Muller's objection does not
compel this Court to find that the Settlement was not fair,
reasonable, or adequate; nor does Mr. Muller's objection take into
account the inherent risks associated with complex litigation such
as this and the possibility that A-B may have ultimately prevailed
in this case. As such, Mr. Muller's objection is overruled in its
entirety. Mr. Muller's objection to the proposed fee award on the
grounds that the "percentage of the fund" approach is inapplicable
to a "claims-made settlement" is rejected.

The Court further rejects Mr. Muller's objection that Class
Counsel has not produced evidence sufficient to support a lodestar
analysis. Mr. Muller's argument that the injunctive relief secured
by the Settlement should be given no weight when considering Class
Counsel's fee is similarly rejected. Under Eleventh Circuit law,
injunctive changes such as label modifications represent a benefit
to the class and should be considered when approving a class
settlement. The Court rejects Mr. Muller's objection to the extent
it suggests that Class Counsel did not post its fee motion to the
Settlement Website, and that the requested Class Representative
awards of $5,000.00 are excessive.

First, Class Counsel's fee motion has been posted on the
Settlement Website since September 22, 2015, before Mr. Muller
filed his objection and before the September 29, 2015 objection
deadline. Further, Rule 23(h) does not require a fee motion to be
posted on the settlement website before the objection deadline.
Second, the $5,000.00 service award is reasonable and well-
supported, and should be approved.

The Court also held that Mr. Leps' objection does not compel this
Court to find that the Settlement was not fair, reasonable, or
adequate. Nor does Mr. Leps' objection take into account the
inherent risks associated with complex litigation such as this and
the possibility that A-B may have ultimately prevailed in this
case. As such, Mr. Leps' objection is overruled in its entirety.
The Court further rejects Mr. Leps' objection to the extent he
asserts that the Court should not grant final approval before the
claims rate is known. "District courts often grant final approval
of class action settlements before the final claims deadline."

Robert William Rodriguez, Esq. serves as counsel for Francisco
Rene Marty

Brandon R. Keel, Esq. -- brandon.keel@skadden.com -- and David R.
Pehlke, Esq. -- david.pehlke@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP and Stanley Howard Wakshlag, Esq. --
swakshlag@knpa.com -- of Kenny Nachwalter, P.A. serve as counsel
for Defendant Anheuser-Busch Companies


ASSET RECOVERY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marsha Santos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00689
(M.D. Fla., November 4, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC operates an asset recovery
management company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maria Alaimo, Esq.
      VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
      Suite A, 6350 Presidential Ct
      Ft Myers, FL 33919
      Telephone: (239) 334-3933
      Facsimile: (239) 334-7105
      E-mail: maria@vilesandbeckman.com


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Faces "Ira" Suit Over Proposed NYCB Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra E. Weiss Ira, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Astoria Financial Corporation, Case No.
607132/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 4, 2015) is brought on behalf
of all the public holders of common stock of Astoria Financial
Corporation, to enjoin the proposed sale of the Company to New
York Community Bancorp, Inc. at a grossly unfair price as a result
of a materially unfair and conflict-ridden process.

Astoria Financial Corporation operates as the holding company for
Astoria Bank that provides various financial products and services
to individuals and businesses in the United States.

New York Community Bancorp, Inc. operates as a holding company for
New York Community Bank and New York Commercial Bank and offers
banking products and financial services in New York, New Jersey,
Florida, Ohio, and Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
      E-mail: guiney@whafh.com


AVANQUEST NORTH AMERICA: "Boyd" Accord Has Preliminary Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick in San Francisco, California,
granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement
agreement, certified a class for settlement purposes only, and
approved the notice plan in the case captioned JOHNNY BOYD,
individually and on behalfCase of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. AVANQUEST NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California
corporation, Defendant, No. 3:12-CV-04391-WHO, (N.D. Cal.)

The Settlement Class is defined to include: All individuals and
entities in the United States and its territories that purchased
Versions 6-12 of Avanquest's System Suite Software. Excluded from
the Settlement Class are: (1) the Judge presiding over the Action
and members of his family; (2) Avanquest, its subsidiaries, parent
companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which
Avanquest or its parents have a controlling interest and their
current or former officers, directors, and employees; (3) Persons
who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from
the Settlement Class; (4) Class Counsel and Defendant's counsel;
(5) any Person whose claims in the Action have been finally
adjudicated or otherwise released; and (6) the legal
representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded
Persons.

The Settlement Class consists of well over 100 consumers, there
are questions of law or fact common to the Settlement Class,
Plaintiff's claims are typical of those of the Settlement Class,
and Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of
the Settlement Class.

For purposes of settlement only, the Court appointed Plaintiff
Johnny Boyd as Class Representative. The Court finds that
Plaintiff Boyd will adequately protect the interests of the
Settlement Class.  The Court appointed Jay Edelson, Rafey S.
Balabanian, and Benjamin H. Richman of Edelson PC as Class
Counsel.

The Agreement is the result of arm's-length negotiations involving
experienced counsel with the assistance of the Honorable Dickran
M. Tevrizian (Ret.).

The Final Approval Hearing will be held on January 27, 2016 at
2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2 on the 17th Floor of the San Francisco
Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California to
consider: (a) whether the proposed Settlement of the Action on the
terms and conditions provided for in the Agreement is fair,
reasonable and adequate and should be given final approval by the
Court; (b) whether the Final Judgment should be entered; (c)
whether to award payment of attorneys' fees and expenses to Class
Counsel; and (d) whether to award payment of an incentive award to
the Class Representative. The Court may adjourn the Final Approval
Hearing without further notice to Settlement Class members.  At
least 14 days prior to the Objection/Exclusion Deadline of
December 31, 2015, papers supporting the Fee Award shall be filed
with the Court and posted to the settlement website. Papers in
support of final approval of the Agreement shall be filed with the
Court on or before January 13, 2016.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 21, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/9ZkuG3from Leagle.com.

Samuel Lasser, Esq. -- samlasser@hotmail.com -- of Law Office of
Samuel Lasser and Benjamin Harris Richman, Esq. of Edelson PC
serve as counsel for Plaintiff Johnny Boyd

N. Kathleen Strickland, Esq. -- kstrickland@ropers.com -- Devin C.
Courteau, Esq. -- dcourteau@rmkb.com -- Justin Ananda Zucker, Esq.
-- jzucker@rmkb.com -- and Lael D. Andara, Esq. --
landara@RMKB.com -- of Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley serve as
counsel for Defendant Avanquest North America Inc.


AZCOMP TECHNOLOGIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Chiropractic & Therapy Center of Canton, LLC, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. AZComp Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-02273 (N.D.
Ohio, November 4, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
making unsolicited calls without prior express consent.

AZComp Technologies, Inc. is a provider of practice management
software.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOUTIQUE HOTEL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Wage Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
Zewdinesh Blair, an individual v. Boutique Hotel Company Beverly
Hills, LLC, Gemstone BH, LLC, Gemstone Hotels & Resort, LLC, and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC600272 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
November 5, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
issue proper wage statements to their employees in violation of
the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate luxury hotels in Beverly Hills,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas M. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LAW OFFICES, APLC
      3435 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2400
      Los Angeles, CA 9001 0
      Telephone: (213) 251-5533
      Facsimile: (213) 251-5534

         - and -

      Barry G. Florence, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BARRY G. FLORENCE
      3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2000
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 232-4969
      Facsimile: (213) 232-4890
      E-mail: bgf@bgflawoffices.com


C & J ENERGY: Faces "Harrell" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caleb Harrell, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. C & J Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01444
(W.D. Pa., November 4, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

C & J Energy Services, Inc. is a provider of premium hydraulic
fracturing, coiled tubing, wireline, pressure pumping services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Frankel, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Capital Management Services, L.P., Case No.
1:15-cv-05865 (E.D.N.Y., October 12, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Capital Management Services L.P. is a nationally licensed and
recognized collections agency, providing delinquent receivables
resolution.

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


CB1 INC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Wittman" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
William Wittman, Amber Bellamy for themselves and all others
similarly situated v. CB1, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00105 (D. Mont.,
October 22, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

CB1, Inc. provides professional software and infrastructure
engineering solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Michael Eakin, Esq.
      EAKIN, BERRY & GRYGIEL, PLLC
      P.O. Box 2218, 2815 Montana Ave.
      Billings, MT 59103
      Telephone: (406) 969-6001
      Facsimile: (406) 969-6007
      E-mail: eakin.406law@gmail.com

         - and -

      John C. Heenan, Esq.
      BISHOP AND HEENAN
      1631 Zimmerman Trail, Ste 1
      Billings, MT 59102
      Telephone: (406) 839-9091
      Facsimile: (406) 839-9092
      E-mail: john@bishopandheenan.com


CERTIFIED CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Donotto D. Prendergast, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Certified Credit & Collection Bureau, et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-07411 (D.N.J., October 11, 2015) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Certified Credit & Collection Bureau operates a credit reporting
agency located at 69 Readington Rd, Branchburg, NJ 08876.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
      Philip D. Stern, Esq.
      STERN THOMASSON LLP
      2816 Morris Avenue, Suite 30
      Union, NJ 07083-4870
      Telephone: (973) 379-7500
      Facsimile: (855) 479-9969
      E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com
              pstern@philipstern.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Sued in Ohio Over Oil and Gas Royalties
----------------------------------------------------------
Hope Christian Fellowship, et al. v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation
and Chesapeake Operating, L.L.C., Case No. 4:15-cv-02275-BYP (N.D.
Ohio, November 4, 2015) alleges that the Defendants conspired to
defraud the Plaintiffs and the other Class Members of the full
amount of oil and gas royalties due them by means of multiple
fraudulent and illegal acts, including acts of accounting fraud,
wire fraud, mail fraud, theft and theft by deception.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation is a producer of oil and gas in
Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Lowe, Esq.
      LOWE EKLUND & WAKEFIELD CO., LPA
      1660 West Second Street
      610 Skylight Office Tower
      Cleveland, OH 44113-1454
      Telephone: (216) 781-2600
      Facsimile: (216) 781-2610
      E-mail: jlowe@lewlaw.com

         - and -

      Robert L. Guehl, Esq.
      GUEHL LAW OFFICES
      2312 Far Hills Avenue, Suite 350
      Dayton, OH 45419
      Telephone: (937) 479-5598
      Facsimile: (888) 547-2528
      E-mail: RGuehlEsq@gmail.com

         - and -

      Mark A. Hutson, Esq.
      MARK A. HUTSON LAW OFFICE
      33 Pittsburgh Street
      Columbiana, OH 44408
      Telephone: (330) 482-4040
      Facsimile: (330) 482-1953
      E-mail: mhutson@markhutsonlaw.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Further Briefing on Motion for Remand Permitted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Larry Alan Burns of the Southern District of
California issued an ordered permitting further briefing on motion
for remand in the case captioned PAULA DITTMAR and PAULINE TILTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
14-CV-1156-LAB-JLB, (S.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Paula Dittmar and Pauline Tilton seek to bring their
claims on behalf of two proposed classes:

     a) Pharmacist class: All current and former non-exempt
        pharmacists employed by Costco in California since
        April 3, 2010;

     b) Manager class: All current and former non-exempt
        managers who were paid hourly compensation and employed
        by Costco in California since April 3, 2010. Costco
        removed from state court. Plaintiffs seek remand.

Plaintiffs allege Costco:

     -- failed to pay overtime;
     -- failed to pay all wages due;
     -- failed to provide timely meal breaks;
     -- provided inaccurate wage statements;
     -- failed to pay unpaid wages at the time of discharge;
     -- failed to pay accrued vacation pay at discharge;
     -- engaged in unfair business practices; and
     -- engaged in conversion.

They contend Costco committed these violations on a regular basis.
They allege that the pharmacist and manager classes each include
"at least 99 members."

To quantify the amount in controversy, Costco declares that, since
April 3, 2010, it has employed more than 400 non-exempt
pharmacists, 100 salaried non-exempt pharmacy managers, and 700
salaried non-exempt managers in California.  From April 3, 2010
through April 3, 2014, it employed, on average, more than 114 non-
exempt pharmacists, 82 salaried non-exempt pharmacy managers, and
624 salaried non-exempt department managers per workweek. During
that period, 181 non-exempt pharmacists, 10 salaried non-exempt
pharmacy managers, and 25 salaried non-exempt department managers
left the employment of Costco. During the same time period, non-
exempt pharmacists made at least $58.75 per hour, salaried non-
exempt pharmacy managers made at least $63.22 per hour for
overtime purposes, and salaried non-exempt department managers
made $22.67 per hour for overtime purposes.

In Order dated October 22, 2015 available at http://is.gd/DYvANi
from Leagle.com, Judge Burns issued an order permitting further
briefing on motion for remand. The Court will give Costco one
final opportunity to cure their lack of sufficient evidence. If
Costco believes it can establish the requisite amount in
controversy, Costco may file a memorandum that provides admissible
evidence addressing the following questions:

     1. How many of the salaried non-exempt managers it relies on
"were [actually] paid hourly compensation and employed by Costco"
during the class period? If managers were paid only their salary,
without additional hourly pay for overtime or some other reason,
they are not part of the manager class as currently defined;

     2. How many of the managers it relies on were actually paid
hourly compensation and terminated employment during the class
period?

     3. How many of the managers it relies on were actually paid
hourly compensation and working per week?

     4. After any recalculation made necessary by the directions
in this order, what are the rates of pay for pharmacy and other
managers, as adjusted from the rates provided in paragraphs 5 and
6 of the declaration of Patrick Callans?

     5. How many pay periods have there been during the class
period to date?

     6. Are salaried non-exempt pharmacy managers also
pharmacists, and if so, can they be included in the pharmacist
class?

Costco's memorandum was due to be filed no later than October 30,
2015.

Plaintiffs' reply, if any, was due November 6, 2015.

Bevin Allen, Esq. -- bevin.allen@harcourts.co.nz -- Jonathan Sing
Lee, Esq. -- Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com -- and Robert Joseph
Drexler, Jr.,  Esq. -- Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com -- of
Capstone Law APC and Thomas L Dorogi, Esq.  and Daniel M. Holzman,
Esq. -- dholzman@caskeyholzman.com -- of Caskey and Holzman -- and
Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq. of Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton & Selden LLP
serve as counsel Plaintiff Paula Dittmar

David D Kadue, Esq. -- dkadue@seyfarth.com -- Emily Elizabeth
Schroeder, Esq. and Timothy M. Rusche, Esq. --
trusche@seyfarth.com -- of Seyfarth Shaw, LLP serve as counsel for
Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation


DADE MEDICAL: Faces "Mawaz" Suit Over Termination Notice
--------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Nawaz, et al. v. Dade Medical College, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-24129-JAL (S.D. Fla., November 4, 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


DE NOVO LEGAL: "Okano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
B.D. Okano, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. De Novo Legal LLC, and Epiq Systems Inc., Case No. 07125/2015
(N.Y. Super. Ct., November 3, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing attorneys and
paralegals on a contract and direct-hire basis to law firm and
corporate law departments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


DELAWARE NORTH: "Santiago" Suit Removed to Calif. Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Eduardo Santiago, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Delaware North
Companies Sportservice, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-02015-00029805-
CU-OE-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-02269-JAH-WV to the proceeding.

The Case alleges employment discrimination.

Delaware North Companies Sportservice, Inc. operates a global food
service and hospitality company headquartered in Buffalo, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derek J. Emge, Esq.
      THE EMGE FIRM LLP
      501 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-1400
      Facsimile: (619) 595-1480
      E-mail: derek@emgelawfirm.com

         - and -

      Suzanne Katleman Emge, Esq.
      EMGE & ASSOCIATES
      225 Broadway, Suite 1350
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-1400 x203
      E-mail: suzanne@emgelawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jon D. Meer, Esq.
      Jonathan Lawrence Brophy, Esq.
      Michael Afar, Esq.
      SEYFATH SHAW, LLP
      2029 Century Park E, Suite 3500
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 277-7200
      Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
      E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
              jbrophy@seyfarth.com
              maftar@seyfarth.com


DELIVERY QUDES: Doesn't Properly Employees, "Bernick" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Bernick, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Delivery Qudes, LLC, Case No. 33967490 (Fla., 11th
Ct., November 2, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Delivery Qudes, LLC operates a restaurant food delivery service
company in Delray Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
      Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
      ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
      110 S.E. 6th Street, Suit 2150
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL
      Telephone: (954) 989-6333
      Facsimile: (954) 989-7881
      E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com
              ezebersy@zpllp.com


DRANSCO INC: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Reyes, et al. v. Dransco, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-
00961 (W.D. Tex., November 4, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Dransco, Inc. operates an oil and energy equipment and supplies
rental company located in Devers, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ECM ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Freeman" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Freeman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ECM Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
01448-JFC (W.D. Penn., November 4, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek.

ECM Energy Services, Inc. provides water hauling services to
energy companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
      711 W. Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com

         - and -

      Udyogi A. Hangawatte, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      711 W. Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: uhangawatte@kennedyhodges.com


EDEGREE ADVISOR: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Austin Carter and Donna Watson, individually and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated v. Edegree Advisor, LLC, Case
No. 1:15-cv-08675 (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Edegree Advisor, LLC operates a telemarketing company in
Clearwater, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jill S. Kahn, Esq.
      Harold Lichten, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
      E-mail: jkahn@llrlaw.com
              hlichten@llrlaw.com

         - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
      Camille Fundora, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net
              sschalman-bergen@bm.net
              apiazza@bm.net
              cfundora@bm.net


EMC CORPORATION: Sued in Mass. Over Proposed Dell Take Over
-----------------------------------------------------------
Local Union No. 373 U.A. Pension Plan on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. EMC Corporation, et al., Case No. 15-
3253-BLS (Mass. Cmmw., October 28, 2015) is brought on behalf of
all the public stockholders of EMC Corporation to enjoin a
proposed transaction announced on October 12, 2015, pursuant to
which EMC will be acquired by Dell Inc., through a flawed process
and inadequate consideration.

EMC Corporation operates an information technology company that
focuses on enabling businesses and service providers to transform
their operations.

Dell Inc. operates a computer technology company with its
corporate headquarters located at 1 Dell Way, Round Rock, TX
78682.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan M. Stein, Esq.
      Adam Warden, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE P.A.
      225 Franklin Street, 26th Floor
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (888) 710-3381
      Facsimile: (888) 710-3382
      E-mail: jstein@saxenawhite.com
              awarden@saxenawhite.com


ENERGY REMODELING: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Robinson and Jason Fairchild on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Energy Remodeling, Inc., David
Barnes, Lior Etri, Ofir Attal, Ilan Benisty, Rami BildorF and Does
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 11l5CV287674 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
November 3, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants are solar energy equipment suppliers in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robin G. Workman, Esq.
      Aviva N. Roller, Esq.
      WORKMAN LAW FIRM PC
      177 Post Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 941 08
      Telephone: (415) 782-3660
      Facsimile: (415) 788-1 028
      E-mail: robin@workrnanlawpc.com
              aviva@workrnanlawpc.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Sperber" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meyer Sperber, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-06028 (E.D.N.Y., October 20, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC owns and operates a debt collection
agency 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


ETSY INC: Faces "Weiss" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Weiss, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Etsy, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV536123 (Cal. Super.
Ct., November 5, 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.


Etsy, Inc. operates online and offline marketplaces to buy and
sell items, vintage goods, and craft supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Holt" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Holt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:15-
cv-00691-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., November 4, 2015) ) arises out of the
massive hack on Experian's servers that compromised the sensitive
data of T-Mobile's customers and individuals who applied for
credit with T-Mobile.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
      Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
      FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, PL
      425 Fort N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 524-2820
      Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
      E-mail: steve@pathojustice.com
              mark@pathojustice.com


FEDEX GROUND: "Alexander" Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen granted the motion for preliminary
approval of class settlement, certifying a settlement subclass,
and ordering supplemental class notice in the case captioned DEAN
ALEXANDER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM,
INC. et. al., Defendant, Case No. 3:05-CV-38 EMC, (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Dean Alexander, Peter Allen, Albert Anaya, Suzanne
Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino,
Eric Jeppson, Gupertino Magana, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla,
Marjorie Pontarolo, Joey Rodriguez, Dale Rose, Allan Ross,
Agostino Scalercio, and Anthony Ybarra (Plaintiffs), on behalf of
themselves and the Certified Class and the Certified Subclass, and
Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (FXG or FedEx Ground)
have agreed to settle the certified claim in this litigation upon
the terms and conditions stated in the Class Action Settlement
Agreement.

The Court conditionally certifies for settlement purposes the
following Meal and Rest Period Settlement Subclass pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3): All persons who:

     1) entered or will enter into a FXG Ground or FXG Home
        Delivery form Operating Agreement (now known as form
        OP-149 and form OP-149 RES) between November 17, 2000
        and October 15, 2007;

     2) drove or will drive a vehicle on a full-time basis
        (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused
        employment absences) since August 1, 2011, to provide
        package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the
        Operating Agreement; and

     3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the State of
        California.

The Court appoints Plaintiff Marjorie Pontarolo as Class
Representative of the Meal and Rest Period Settlement Subclass.

The Meal and Rest Period Settlement Subclass may include
approximately 468 drivers.

The Court appoints Leonard Carder, LLP as Class Counsel.

The Fairness Hearing shall be held before the United States
District Court, District of California, on March 24, 2016 at 1:30
p.m. before this Court in Courtroom 5 of the United States
Courthouse at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco CA 94102-3489
to determine: (1) whether the terms of the Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the action
should be dismissed on the merits and with prejudice; and (3)
whether Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses,
and incentive awards for the individuals who brought this action,
should be approved.

The Final Claims Date, in order to meet the requirements for the
submission of a Valid Claim under the Settlement Agreement, is
January 15, 2016, 60 days after mailing of the Settlement Notice
and Claim Forms on November 16, 2015. Any Class Member or Subclass
Member may request to exclude him or herself from the Meal and
Rest Period Settlement Subclass by submitting an Exclusion Request
to the Settlement Administrator, which request must be either
postmarked by the United States Postal Service no later than 60
days after mailing of the Settlement Notice and Claim Forms. Class
Counsel is ordered to file its motion for final approval 35 days
prior to the Fairness Hearing and its motion for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses and incentive awards by November 14,
2015.

A copy of the Court's Oct. 22 Order is available at
http://is.gd/ry0qUUfrom Leagle.com.

Beth A. Ross, Esq. -- bross@leonardcarder.com -- Aaron D.
Kaufmann, Esq. -- akaufmann@leonardcarder.com -- David P. Pogrel,
Esq. -- dpogrel@leonardcarder.com -- and Elizabeth R. Gropman,
Esq. -- of Leonard Carder, LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiffs and
the Putative Class


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lugo" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Lugo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
07659 (D.N.J., October 22, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Financial Recovery Services, Inc. offers collection services to
mid-size companies across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glen H. Chulsky, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GLEN H. CHULSKY
      375 Passaic Avenue
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973)659-9045
      Facsimile: (973)659-9046
      E-mail: g.chulsky@att.net

         - and -

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


FIRST CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Davis, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. First Credit Services Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06320
(E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

First Credit Services Inc. operates a debt collection firm located
at 371 Hoes Lane Piscataway, NJ 08854.

Brian Davis is a pro se plaintiff.


FIRST NATIONAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Irrun Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. First National Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-01212 (M.D. Fla., October 9, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

First National Collection Bureau, Inc. operates a debt collection
firm in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taylor King, Esq.
      MICKLER & MICKLER
      5452 Arlington Expy
      Jacksonville, FL 32211
      Telephone: (904) 725-0822
      Facsimile: (904) 725-0855
      E-mail: tjking@planlaw.com


FIRST STUDENT: Trainee's Class Suit Goes to Trial
-------------------------------------------------
Oregon District Judge Marco A. Hernandez denied the Defendant's
motion for an order granting summary judgment on Plaintiff's
individual claim for civil penalties and decertifying the civil
penalty portion of the class in the case captioned LARRY HURST,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. FIRST STUDENT, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:15-CV-00021-HZ, (D. Ore.)

Hurst initially filed this class action in Multnomah County
claiming that First Student failed and refused to pay him and
similarly situated individuals for hours spent during driver
training and orientation. Specifically, Hurst seeks unpaid minimum
wages and a civil penalty for all current and former employees of
First Student.

First Student now moves for partial summary judgment against the
civil penalty portion of Hurst's claim because he is time-barred
from collecting a civil penalty by the applicable three-year
statute of limitations. Without a valid civil penalty claim, First
Student argues, Hurst cannot represent a class of individuals
entitled to a civil penalty because he lacks standing and cannot
satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure Rule 23. Thus, First Student also seeks an
order decertifying the civil penalty portion of the class.

In his Order dated October 22, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/hd6khwfrom Leagle.com, Judge Hernandez held that the
Oregon statutes at issue contain a single cause of action imposing
liability on an employer who fails to pay the minimum wage for all
hours worked; the unpaid minimum wage damages and the civil
penalty are simply different measures of damages for the same
employer misconduct. Accordingly, First Student's motion for
summary judgment against Hurst's civil penalty "claim" is denied.
Hurst can continue to represent a class of individuals seeking to
hold First Student liable for failing to pay minimum wages during
driver training because he meets the standing, typicality and
adequacy requirements for being a class representative.

Judge Hernandez said that, while First Student is correct that the
two statutory subsections have different statutes of limitations -
- six years for the unpaid wages and three years for the civil
penalty -- First Student offers no authority for the proposition
that different limitations periods create distinct causes of
action.  That further supports the Court's conclusion that the
civil penalty is one type of damages that can arise from an
employer's failure to pay a minimum wage and not, as First Student
impliedly asserts, a separate claim or cause of action. The
Court's conclusion that there is a single claim with two different
and distinct damages necessarily resolves First Student's other
challenges to Hurst's ability to represent the current wage claim
class. Hurst is the only named plaintiff in this case. With regard
to injury in fact, Hurst claims he did not receive any wages for
the time he spent in First Student's training program. Hurst's
claimed injury traces to First Student's challenged conduct:
failure to pay individuals for time spent in its training program.
Finally, Hurst's injury will be redressed by a favorable decision
because if First Student violated Oregon's minimum wage
requirement, the law requires redress of Hurst's claimed injury
through payment of damages. Whether other members of the class may
be entitled to more damages than Hurst can recover has no bearing
on the standing analysis.

In this case, the common contention is whether First Student
employed Hurst and those similarly situated during its training
program and failed to pay them a minimum wage. The answer to this
question establishes whether First Student is liable for damages
to the entire class. Hurst meets the typicality requirement
because an employer's single act or course of conduct which gives
rise to class members' claims is sufficient to show typicality.
First Student is correct that to collect the civil penalty, a
plaintiff must show that the employer "willfully fails to pay any
wages or compensation" due when employment ceased. Thus, a
plaintiff can show willfulness by proving the underlying facts for
a minimum wage claim: employment by the defendant and lack of
payment. Assuming that Hurst can show First Student is liable to
the class for failing to pay a minimum wage, the Court can easily
address the question of willfulness at the damages phase.

David Arthur Schuck, Esq., Karen A. Moore, Esq. of Schuck Law, LLC
counsel for Plaintiff

Douglas E. Smith, Esq. -- desmith@littler.com -- Jennifer Neth
Warberg, Esq. -- jwarberg@littler.com -- and LeiLani J. Hart, Esq.
-- lhart@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson P.C. serve as counsel
for Defendants


FISH HOUSE: "Cano" Suit Removed to Florida District Court
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Yohandry Cano and other
similarly situated v. The Fish House, Inc. and Jose A. Rivero,
Case No. 15-019399 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-23794-JAL to the proceeding.

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

The Fish House, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in Miami,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Richard David Tuschman, Esq.
      GOODZ & TUSCHMAN, PLLC
      8551 W. Sunrise Blvd., Suite 303
      Plantation, FL 33322
      Telephone: (754) 551-5630
      Facsimile: (954) 380-8938
      E-mail: rtuschman@gtemploymentlawyers.com


FORSTER & GARBUS: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ari Hofstatter, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Forster & Garbus LLP, Case No. 1:15-cv-05864
(E.D.N.Y., October 12, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Forster & Garbus LLP is a full service New York Law Firm
concentrating on creditor's rights law since 1970.

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


FRESH DIET: Faces "Aviles" Suit Over Automatic Renewal Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Aviles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Fresh Diet Inc., and Does 1-100, Case No. BC599373
(Cal. Super. Ct., November 28, 2015) is an action for damages as a
result of the unlawful practices with regard to the Defendant's
automatic renewal offer terms and continuous service offers.

The Fresh Diet Inc. operates a fresh-food delivery company in
Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GAP INC: Faces "Lerma" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosemarie Lerma, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gap, Inc., Banana Republic LLC, Old Navy,
LLC, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC600235 (Cal.
Super. Ct., November 4, 2015) is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the California
Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate retail stores in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
      Christina Humphrey, Esq.
      David C. Leimbach, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
      29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818) 991-8080
      Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
      E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
              chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com
              dleimbach@mariinsaltzman.com


GC SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Chung" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Hyun Soon Chung, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. GC Services Limited Partnership, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07450
(D.N.J., October 13, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

GC Services Limited Partnership is a privately-held outsourcing
provider of call center management and collection agency services
in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
      KIM LAW FIRM LLC
      411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl.
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (201) 273-7117
      Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
      E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Sued Over Liquid Aluminum Sulfate-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. General Chemical Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-07896-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., November 4, 2015) arises
from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize
prices of liquid aluminum sulfate ("Alum").

General Chemical Corporation is a manufacturer and distributor of
Alum used primarily by municipalities in potable water and
wastewater treatment and by pulp and paper manufacturers as part
of their manufacturing processes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
      William G. Caldes, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Spector, 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: jcorrigan@srkw-law.com
              jkodroff@srkw-law.com
              bcaldes@srkw-law.com
              jspector@srkw-law.com

         - and -

      David H. Fink, Esq.
      Darryl Bressack, Esq.
      FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
      100 West Long Lake Road; Ste. 111
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
      Telephone: (248) 971-2500
      Facsimile: (248) 971-2600
      E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
              dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com


ILLINOIS BELL: Bid to Dismiss "Hodges" Case Denied
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Amy J. St. Eve denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss in the case captioned WINSTON HODGES, Plaintiff, v.
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, d/b/a AT&T Illinois, Defendant,
Case No. 15 C 2711, (N.D. Ill.)

In his amended complaint, Hodges alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. (FLSA), and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1, et seq. (IMWL) based on
Illinois Bell's alleged failure to pay overtime compensation for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

A copy of Judge St. Eve's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
October 21, 2015, is available at http://bit.ly/1PQJ8avfrom
Leagle.com.

Mario E. Utreras , Esq. of Utreras Law Offices, Inc. serves as
counsel for Plaintiff Winston Hodges

Ellen E Boshkoff, Esq. -- ellen.boshkoff@FaegreBD.com -- George
Alan Stohner, Esq. -- george.stohner@FaegreBD.com -- Gregory P
Abrams, Esq. -- gregory.abrams@FaegreBD.com and Lindsey M. Hogan,
Esq. -- lindsey.hogan@FaegreBD.com -- of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
serve as counsel for Defendant Illinois Bell Telephone Company


JMI LANDSCAPING: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Aguilar, et al., v. JMI Landscaping Inc., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-06032 (E.D.N.Y., October 21, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

JMI Landscaping Inc. owns and operates a landscape design company
serving residential and commercial customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Delvis Melendez, Esq.
      DELVIS MELENDEZ LAW OFFICE
      90 Bradley Street
      Brentwood, NY 11717
      Telephone: (631) 434-1443
      Facsimile: (631) 434-1443
      E-mail: delvisprlaw@aol.com


JOSEPH T. RYERSON: Connector Castings' Class Cert. Motion Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CONNECTOR CASTINGS, INC., Plaintiff, v.
JOSEPH T. RYERSON & SON, INC., d/b/a RYERSON, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 4:15-CV-851 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), District Judge Stephen N.
Limbaugh, Jr.:

     -- denied the Plaintiff' motion to certify class and to
        stay briefing and ruling as to same without prejudice,

     -- denied also the Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion
        to strike class allegations, and

     -- granted the Plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's
        offer of judgment.

Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated against the defendant Joseph T. Ryerson & Son,
Inc., which does business as "Ryerson," and several John Does.
Ryerson is a services company that processes and distributes
metals. Plaintiff alleges that defendant sent "junk faxes" to it
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Section
227 (TCPA). Defendant removed this case from the 22nd Judicial
Circuit for the City of St. Louis. Plaintiff filed with its state
court petition a motion to certify a class of similarly situated
individuals/entities. Defendant moved to dismiss on July 2, 2015,
because, among other reasons, defendant had made an offer of "more
than complete relief" to plaintiff. Defendant had offered
plaintiff three times the statutory amount of damages for the one
"junk fax" plaintiff allege it received from defendant. Defendant
sought an order entering judgment in favor of plaintiff for the
full amount of the offer and dismissing the class allegations
without prejudice. Defendant also moved to strike class
allegations on July 2, 2015.

Plaintiff amended its complaint on July 23, 2015, and filed a
Motion to Certify Class and to Stay Briefing and Ruling on the
same day. The amended complaint added that plaintiff had received
other junk faxes from defendant in addition to the fax it alleged
it received on April 22, 2014. Defendant filed a renewed motion to
dismiss and a renewed motion to strike class allegations.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion to strike defendant's offer of
judgment.

"The sound rationale behind these cases is that Defendant should
not be able to use offers of judgment to thwart class actions,"
said Judge Limbaugh, Jr. in his Memorandum and Order dated October
21, 2015 available at http://bit.ly/1jRk1Ydfrom Leagle.com.

The judge also said that, although defendant may be technically
correct that this Court may not strike a pleading that has not
been filed, the Court holds that the offer of judgment does not
render plaintiff's case moot or subject to Rule 12(b)(1)
dismissal. There has been no discovery, nor even an answer filed
by defendant. Defendant implores the Court to look to the
declaration it filed with its motion to strike, but to do so at
this early stage would be improper.

Mary B. Schultz, Esq. -- mschultz@sl-lawyers.com -- and Robert
Schultz, Esq. -- rschultz@sl-lawyers.com -- and Ronald J.
Eisenberg, Esq. -- reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com -- of SCHULTZ AND
ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. serve as counsel for Plaintiff Connector
Castings, Inc.

Blaine C. Kimrey, Esq. -- bkimrey@vedderprice.com -- and Bryan K.
Clark, Esq. -- bclark@vedderprice.com -- of VEDDER AND PRICE serve
as counsel for Defendant Joseph T. Ryerson & Sons, Inc.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "James" Suit in Florida District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle James, Nichole Seniuk and Holly Mochrie, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., Case No. 8:15-cv-02424-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla., October 13, 2015)
is brought over alleged restrictions on use of telephone
equipment.

JPMorgan Chase provides a range of banking and other financial
services to the corporate, institutional, and governmental clients
in the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON, PLLC
          5550 Glades Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
                  mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


KENT NUTRITION: Removes "Miller" Suit to Ohio Northern District
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Miller v. Kent Nutrition Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 15CV187391, was removed from the Lorain
County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-02116-SO to the proceeding.

The action arose out of the marketing, certification and sale of a
product called the World's Best Cat Litter, which is a line of cat
litter products formulated, created, marketed, certified and sold
by the Defendants.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have
and continue to falsely proclaim that their product is completely
flushable.

Kent is an Iowa corporation with its home office located in
Muscatine, Iowa.  The Pet Division of Kent develops products for
dog, cat, and small animal owners.  World's Best is distributed by
Kent Nutrition Group, a subsidiary of Kent Corporation, a
diversified family owned corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis E. Murray, Sr., Esq.
          Donna J. Evans, Esq.
          MURRAY & MURRAY CO., L.P.A.
          111 East Shoreline Drive
          Sandusky, OH 44870
          Telephone: (419) 624-3000
          Facsimile: (419) 624-0707
          E-mail: dms@murrayandmurray.com
                  dae@murrayandmurray.com

The Defendants represented by:

          Karl A. Bekeny, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Mesko, Esq.
          John Q. Lewis, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-2699
          Facsimile: (216) 592-5009
          E-mail: karl.bekeny@tuckerellis.com
                  jennifer.mesko@tuckerellis.com
                  john.lewis@tuckerellis.com


KY TEACHERS RETIREMENT: Plaintiffs' Bid to Appoint Counsel Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Colin H. Lindsay in Louisville, Kentucky, denied
Plaintiffs' motion to appoint counsel in the case captioned
RANDOLPH WIECK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
KENTUCKY TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (KTRS), et al., Defendants,
Civil Action No.  3:15-CV-692-DJH-CHL, (W.D. Ky.)

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against some 20 entities and
individuals. The complaint purports to initiate a class action on
behalf of current and retired public school teachers in Kentucky.
The primary defendant to which Plaintiffs' allegations relate is
the Board of Trustees of the Kentucky Teachers' Retirement System
(KTRS). Plaintiffs allege that mismanagement by KTRS of teachers'
"pension and retiree health systems" has made KTRS the "single
worst-funded state teacher plan in the United States."

Plaintiffs assert claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., the Contract Clause of the United
States Constitution, various Kentucky statutes, and common-law
breach of fiduciary duty.

Since Plaintiffs filed their complaint, few substantive events
have transpired in this case. A number of defendants have been
granted additional time to answer or otherwise respond to the
complaint. One defendant has filed a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim. Plaintiffs filed what the Court construes as a
motion to appoint counsel.

Plaintiffs state that they are currently proceedings pro se on
behalf of some 140,000 current and retired Kentucky teachers. They
state that they have received communications from counsel for
certain Defendants and that as they "are without counsel."

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 23, 2015
available at http://is.gd/QivdfDfrom Leagle.com, Judge Lindsay
denied Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of counsel. The Court
declines to appoint counsel for Plaintiffs, finding that no
exceptional circumstances exist. The statute setting forth the
standard for appointment of counsel to represent civil litigants
provides that a court "may request an attorney to represent any
person unable to afford counsel." In their motion, not only do
Plaintiffs omit to provide a financial statement that might
demonstrate inability to pay legal fees, they do not include even
general representations regarding their ability to afford retained
counsel. With that said, class actions, and civil cases in
general, are often accepted by attorneys on a contingency-fee
basis, where a plaintiff's fee is payable only if there is a
favorable result. Plaintiffs have not informed the Court as to
whether they taken any steps to attempt to obtain counsel.
Plaintiffs merely state they have received two communications from
counsel for certain defendants and that they are "uncertain as to
the procedures to follow in these instances." Additionally, while
the Court is sympathetic to the challenges that pro se litigants
may face given the complexities of the law, both substantive and
procedural, Plaintiffs chose to file this lawsuit pro se, and they
are bound by the same legal standards and procedural rules as any
party that is represented by counsel. Finally, Plaintiffs have
demonstrated in their pleadings an ability to clearly express
their theory of the case despite the complexities inherent in a
state pension system and related statutory scheme.

Randolph Wieck, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Robert W. Kellerman, Esq. -- robert.kellerman@skofirm.com -- of
Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC serves as counsel for Defendant Board of
Trustees of the Kentucky Teachers' Retirement System (KTRS)


LVNV FUNDING: Class Certified in "Fosnight" FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Larry J. McKinney for the Southern District of
Indiana granted Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification
in the case captioned PATTY FOSNIGHT individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC a
Delaware limited liability company, and FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION
BUREAU, INC. a Nevada corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV-
00557-LJM-DKL, (S.D. Ind.)

Plaintiff Patty Fosnight individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, moved for certification of a class pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on her claims
against Defendants LVNV Funding, LLC and First National Collection
Bureau, Inc.  under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. (FDCPA).  Defendants opposed.

In his Order dated October 22, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/4QZTRbfrom Leagle.com, Judge McKinney certified this
class:

     "All persons in the State of Indiana from whom Defendants
LVNV Funding, LLC, and First National Collection Bureau, Inc.
(collectively, Defendants), attempted to collect a delinquent
consumer debt allegedly owed for a CitiFinancial Auto Corporation
debt, via the same collection letter, Docket No. 1-3, that
Defendants sent to Plaintiff Patty Fosnight, from one year before
April 8, 2015."

Angie K. Robertson, Esq. -- angiekrobertson@aol.com -- Mary E.
Philipps, Esq. -- mephilipps@aol.com -- and David J. Philipps,
Esq. -- davephilipps@aol.com -- of PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD. and
John Thomas Steinkamp, Esq. of JOHN T. STEINKAMP AND ASSOCIATES
serve as counsel for Plaintiff Patty Fosnight

Charity A. Olson, Esq. of Olson Law Group serves as counsel for
Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC


MAR PIZZA: California Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luciano Marin Rabanales, an individual v. Mar Pizza, Inc., a
California Corporation, d.b.a. Dominos Pizza, and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. BC597488 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 13,
2015) is brought by the Plaintiff against his former employer for
failure to pay all wages, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, failure to pay overtime wages, and for failure to pay
reporting time.

Mar Pizza, Inc., a California Corporation, continues to do
business as a franchised pizza delivery restaurant in the County
of Los Angeles, state of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack D. Josephson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JACK D. JOSEPHSON, APC
          3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 738-5225


MONARCH RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hartman" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Hartman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-01364 (W.D. Pa., October 20, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. owns and operates a debt
collection firm located at 9350 Ashton Rd # 101, Philadelphia, PA
19114.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MULTIBAND CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Ondishin, III, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated employees v. Multiband Corporation d/b/a Multiband USA
and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case No. 2:33-cv-079001 (D.N.J.,
November 4, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and all other
appropriate, legal and equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Multiband Corporation is engaged in the provision of voice, data,
and video services to multi-dwelling unit and single-family home
customers in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deborah L. Mains, Esq.
      COSTELLO & MAINS, P.C.
      18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
      Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
      Telephone: (856) 727-9700
      Facsimile: (856) 727-9797


NAJJAR LUBE: Faces "Hermosillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Hermosillo, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. Najjar Lube Centers,
Inc., d/b/a Jiffy Lube, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. BC5299837 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 2, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Najjar Lube Centers, Inc. operates an automotive company located
in 30690 Rancho California R, Temecula, CA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NAPLES, FL:  Faces "Gomory" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Gomory, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. City of Naples, Case No. 2:15-cv-00657 (M.D. Fla.,
October 22, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

City of Naples is a city on the Gulf of Mexico in southwest
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman
      FELDMAN LAW GROUP P.A.
      Westshore Center
      1715 N Westshore Blvd Ste 400
      Tampa, FL 33607-3929
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


NEANY INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Garcia, Christian Dudinyak, Greg McCoy and Brent Erwin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Neany, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-03379-GJH (D. Md., November 4, 2015)
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages.

Neany, Inc. is a defense contractor headquartered in Hollywood,
Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey R. Bloom, Esq.
      751 Rockville Pike, Suite 11-B
      Rockville, MD 20852
      Telephone: (443) 691-7930
      Facsimile: (240) 235-4418
      E-mail: JBloom@JRBFirm.com

         - and -

      Peter R. Rosenzweig, Esq.
      KLEINBARD LLC
      One Liberty Place, 46th Floor
      1650 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (267) 443-4120
      Facsimile: (215) 568-0148
      E-mail: prosenzweig@kleinbard.com


OREGON: Gov. Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Driving Privileges
----------------------------------------------------------------
M.S., an individual, et al. v. Kate Brown, in her official
capacity as Governor of the State of Oregon, Case No. 6:15-cv-
02069-AA (D. Oreg., November 4, 2015) is brought on behalf of all
Oregon residents who have lived in the State for more than one
year and are denied driving privileges solely because they are
unable to prove legal presence in the United States.

Kate Brown is the Governor of the State of Oregon. Governor
Brown's Constitutional duties include ensuring faithful execution
of State laws, including initiatives and referenda such as Measure
88.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen S. Walters, Esq.
      David Henretty, Esq.
      Monica Goracke, Esq.
      OREGON LAW CENTER
      522 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 812
      Portland, OR 97204
      Facsimile: (503) 295-0676
      Telephone: (503) 473-8311
      E-mail: swalters@oregonlawcenter.org
              dhenretty@oregonlawcenter.org
              mgoracke@oregonlawcenter.org


SIENTRA INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Sientra, Inc., et al.,
Case No. CIV536013 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 28, 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.

Sientra, Inc. operates a medical aesthetics company. The Company's
primary products are silicone gel breast implants for use in
breast augmentation and breast reconstruction procedures, which it
offers to over 150 variations of shapes, sizes and textures.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP
      Post Montgomery Center
      One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 288-4545
      Facsimile: (415) 2884534
      E-mail: shawnw@rdrdlaw.com

          - and -

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


TAMKO BUILDING: Order Denying Arbitration Bid Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------
Justice Jeffrey W. Bates of the Court of Appeals of Missouri
affirmed the trial court's decision that denied a motion to compel
arbitration in the case against Tamko Building Products, Inc.

The appellate case is captioned LEE HOBBS, and JONESBURG UNITED
METHODIST CHURCH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. TAMKO BUILDING
PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. SD33529, (Mo. App.
Ct.)

Hobbs and Jonesburg purchased Heritage Series Shingles in July
2005 and September 2007, respectively. At the time of purchase,
Plaintiffs were only shown Tamko's representations and marketing
materials identifying the shingles as durable, reliable and free
from defects for at least 30 years. According to Tamko, the
shingles came with a "Limited Warranty" that was printed, in its
entirety, on the outside of the wrapper of every bundle of
shingles. The warranty provided a remedy for damages caused by
manufacturing defects and included, inter alia, a binding
arbitration clause. Neither Hobbs nor Jonesburg received a copy of
the warranty at the time of purchase, nor was either made aware
that the warranty included the binding arbitration clause.

Plaintiffs filed the class action petition against Tamko in the
Circuit Court of Jasper County alleging, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, negligence, and entitlement to
declaratory relief. Tamko responded with a motion to compel
arbitration.

Tamko's motion was accompanied by an affidavit from Tamko employee
Titia Miller stating, in relevant part, that: (1) the warranty,
which included an arbitration clause, was contained on every
package of the shingles; (2) a true and accurate copy of the
warranty was attached to the affidavit; and (3) the warranty also
was available in printed form from distributors and on the
internet. In response, Plaintiffs each submitted an affidavit. In
relevant part, their affidavits state: (1) they did not receive a
copy of the warranty at the time of purchase; (2) their respective
claims do not arise out of the warranty because they had never
received a copy of it; (3) they became aware of the warranty
containing the arbitration clause only after making their claims;
(4) if they had known the warranty contained an arbitration
clause, they would not have purchased Tamko's shingles; and (5)
they never agreed to arbitrate any dispute with Tamko.

In his Opinion dated October 26, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/qL5fkkfrom Leagle.com, Justice Bates affirmed the
trial court's order denying Tamko's motion to compel arbitration.
Unlike computer documentation, the packaging for shingles is not
an item typically kept by a consumer after the shingles are
unbundled and used. Plaintiffs' affidavits stated unequivocally
that they were not aware of the arbitration provision, and they
dispute any assertion that they agreed to arbitrate their claims
with Tamko. In fact, Plaintiffs dispute that they ever received
the warranty that Tamko now wishes to enforce. Plaintiffs also
maintain that, had they been aware of the arbitration provision,
they would not have purchased the shingles. Plaintiffs' retention
and use of the shingles does not prove that they accepted the
terms to arbitrate their disputes in this case. Both Hobbs and
Jonesburg stated that they became aware of the warranty and its
terms only after they filed their claim with Tamko, and that their
underlying action does not arise out of the warranty. Tamko has
failed in its burden to prove a valid, enforceable agreement to
arbitrate Plaintiffs' disputes.  Accordingly, the trial court did
not err in denying Tamko's motion to compel arbitration. Point I
is denied. Points II and III are denied as moot.


TCM GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Neiman" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Shulem Neiman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. TCM Group, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-06072
(E.D.N.Y., October 22, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

TCM Group, LLC specializes in a wide range of services, including
tailored IT services and solutions for small and medium
businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


TINLEY PARK, IL: Faces Suit Over Traffic System Program Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norman W. Elftmann, III, and Ennifer Musser v. Village of Tinley
Park, Case No. 2015CH16121 (Ill. Ch. Ct., November 3, 2015) arises
out of the Defendant's unconstitutional and unlawful denial of
"court" review of alleged violations and provision of a traffic
safety program as mandated by the Illinois Vehicle Code.

Village of Tinley Park is a municipal corporation and body politic
duly organized under the laws of the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen E. Eberhardt, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN E. EBERHARDT
      16710 Oak Park Avenue
      Tinley Park, IL 604 77
      Telephone: (708) 633-9100

         - and -

      Gerardo S. Gutierrez, Esq.
      Attorney at Law
      53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 1651
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 786-9970


TREND RESORT: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Hernandez, and others similarly situated v. Trend Resort
Supply, LLC and Timothy S. Daley, Case No. 6:15-cv-01860-ACC-TBS
(M.D. Fla., November 4, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime and
minimum wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Trend Resort Supply, LLC is a resort, hotel and restaurant
supplier of housewares.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      N. James Turner, Esq.
      37 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 500
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (888) 877-5103
      E-mail: njtlaw@gmail.com


TRINET HR: Removes "Reyes" Suit to Central District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Reyes, et al. v. Trinet HR
Corporation, et al., Case No. CIVDS-1506297, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Bernardino, 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-02108 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs alleges eight causes of action relating to, among
other things, unpaid meal premiums, unpaid rest premiums and
unpaid overtime.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roxanne A. Davis, Esq.
          Frank Hakim, Esq.
          DAVIS GAVSIE & HAKIM LLP
          1755 Ocean Avenue, Suite 511
          Santa Monica, CA 90401-3620
          Telephone: (310) 899-2059
          Facsimile: (310) 789-2249
          E-mail: Roxanne@DGHLawyers.com
                  Frank@DGHLawyers.com

Defendants Trinet HR Coporation, Strategic Outsourcing, Inc.,
Amlease Corporation and Route 66 HR Outsourcing, Inc., are
represented by:

          Christopher J. Boman, Esq.
          Boris Sorsher, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 851-2424
          Facsimile: (949) 851-0152
          E-mail: cboman@laborlawyers.com
                  bsorsher@laborlawyers.com

Defendant Pier Enterprises Group, Inc., doing business as DC
Logistics and dba DC Freight, is represented by:

          Timothy R. Plewe, Esq.
          LOBB & CLIFF, LLP
          1650 Spruce Street, Suite 410
          Riverside, CA 92507
          Telephone: (951) 788-9410
          Facsimile: (951) 788-0766
          E-mail: tplewe@lobbcliff.com

Defendant Barrett Business Services, Inc., is represented by:

          David I. Dalby, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          One California Street, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 362-6000
          Facsimile: (415) 834-9070
          E-mail: ddalby@hinshawlaw.com


TYSON FOODS: Falsely Marketed Grain-Free Dog Treat Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Fitzpatrick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02285-TLN-KJN
(E.D. Cal., November 4, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's
alleged falsely representation that its "Nudges" brand of grain-
free dog treat products are made in America, when in fact certain
ingredients are sourced from 30 foreign countries.

Tyson Foods, Inc. manufactures and sells dog treats in stores all
over the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John E. Norris, Esq.
      DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
      2154 Highland Ave. S.
      Birmingham, AL 35205 4
      Telephone: (205) 930-9900
      Facsimile: (205) 930-9989
      E-mail: jnorris@davisnorris.com


UNITED BREEZE: "Correa" Suit Removed to Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Correa, et al. v. United Breeze
International, LLC, et al., Case No. 15-012635-CA-01, was removed
from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-23801-MGC to the proceeding.

United Breeze International, LLC, is in the Plumbing, Heating, and
Air-Conditioning industry in Miami, Florida.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kim M. Lucas, Esq.
          Chad Kevin Lang, Esq.
          LIEBLER GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO
          44 West Flagler Street, 25th Floor
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 379-0400
          Facsimile: (305) 379-9626
          E-mail: kml@lgplaw.com
                  ckl@lgplaw.com


UNITED CAPITAL: Sued in Ill. Over Minority Interest Freeze Out
--------------------------------------------------------------
Solomon Margolis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. United Capital Corp., et al., Case No. 11649 (Del. Ch.
Ct. Ill., October 28, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the public
minority stockholders of United Capital Corp. who have been harmed
as a result of the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty in
approving a freeze out of the public minority interest in United
Capital by the Company's controlling stockholder, Attilio F.
Petrocelli.

United Capital Corp. is engaged in the business of investing in
and managing real estate properties, including the operation of
full service hotels, and manufacturing engineering products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sidney S. Liebesman, Esq.
      Lisa Zwally Brown, Esq.
      MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN
      WALKER & RHOADS LLP
      1105 North Market St., Suite 1500
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 504-7800
      E-mail: sliebesman@mmwr.com
              lzbrown@mmwr.com

         - and -

      Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
      Samuel J. Adams, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100


UNITED STATES: Inmate's Suit v. Bill Clinton Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard P. Conaboy for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania dismissed a civil rights complaint captioned GABRIEL
PITTMAN, Plaintiff, v. PRESIDENT WILLIAM CLINTON, ET AL.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:CV-15-1793, (M.D. Pa.)

Gabriel Pittman, an inmate confined at the Mahanoy State
Correctional Institution, Frackville, Pennsylvania, initiated this
pro se civil rights action. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a
request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Named as Defendants are former President William Jefferson
Clinton, United States Senator Orrin Hatch, and unknown members of
the 104th Congress. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated
his constitutional rights via the enactment the Antiterrorism
Effective Death Penalty Act. Pittman contends that the limitations
on seeking federal habeas corpus relief which were created by the
AEDPA:

     -- violated his clearly established constitutionally
        guaranteed right to seek habeas corpus relief;

     -- exceeded the Defendants' respective legislative and
        executive authority; and

     -- was in violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as
injunctive and declaratory relief.

In his Memorandum dated October 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/tSrn4Mfrom Leagle.com, Judge Conaboy said the
complaint is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,"
and will be dismissed, without prejudice, as legally frivolous.
Accordingly, since a pro se litigant cannot represent and protect
the interests of a class fairly and adequately, this action will
be deemed to be solely filed by Pittman. The Court said
Plaintiff's claim that the AEDPA is unconstitutional and any
related habeas corpus type requests to have his criminal
conviction overturned are not properly raised in a civil rights
complaint. Accordingly, any such claims will be dismissed without
prejudice to any right Plaintiff may have to pursue such arguments
via a federal habeas corpus petition. Consequently, the complaint,
which seeks relief regarding a 1996 legislative enactment, is
clearly barred by Pennsylvania's controlling statute of
limitations.

The Court also said it is not aware of any holding by any federal
court which has determined that the AEDPA is unconstitutional.
Likewise, based upon a careful review of the Petition, Pittman has
not set forth any discernible argument or facts which could
conceivably support a finding that the AEDPA is unconstitutional.
Pittman's action raises claims that his state criminal conviction
should be overturned because the AEDPA is unconstitutional. Based
on the nature of Plaintiff's allegations, a finding in his favor
would imply the invalidity of his ongoing state confinement. There
is no indication that Pittman has successfully appealed or
otherwise challenged his state criminal conviction.


VAN RU CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Posen" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chaya Posen, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Van Ru Credit Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-06075
(E.D.N.Y., October 22, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Van Ru Credit Corporation provides total accounts receivable
outsourcing solutions to clients nationwide.

Chaya Posen is a pro se litigant.


VIMPELCOM LTD: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Kux-Kardos, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Vimpelcom, Ltd., Jean-Yves Charlier, Jo
Lunder, Alexander Izosimov, Andrew Davies, and Cornelis Hendrik
Van Dalen, Case No. 1:15-cv-08672 (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 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.

Vimpelcom, Ltd. provides telecommunications services under various
brand names in Italy, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan,
Tajikistan, Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Algeria,
Bangladesh, and Pakistan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces "Stegen" Suit in Oklahoma Over Defeat Device
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Stegen v. Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, and Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00582-GKF-PJC (N.D. Okla., October
13, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for their alleged use
of unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices in
violation of Oklahoma and federal law.

According to the complaint, since 2009, the Defendants have
manufactured and marketed certain vehicles containing 2.0 liter
diesel engines which, according to the Unites States Environmental
Protection Agency, contained a defeat device.  The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants falsely represented to the purchasers
of the Affected Vehicles that the vehicles would both attain the
excellent fuel economy associated with diesel engines while also
being environmentally friendly and compliant with all applicable
State and federal environmental laws and regulations.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with
a principal place of business in Herndon, Virginia.  Volkswagen
Group is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, a German
corporation.  Audi AG is a German corporation that regularly
conducts business within the state of Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan L. Thompson, Esq.
          WATTS GUERRA LLP
          5726 W. Hausman Rd., Suite 119
          San Antonio, TX 78249
          Telephone: (210) 448-0500
          Facsimile: (210) 448-0501
          E-mail: rlt-bulk@wattsguerra.com

               - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Removes "Chechik" Class Suit to E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Chechik v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Case No. 15SL-CC03248, was removed from the Circuit
Court of the County of St. Louis, Missouri, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01561-NAB to the
proceeding.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation
doing business in all 50 states, including the District of
Columbia, with its principal place of business located in Herndon,
Virginia.  Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and
warranted the Affected Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi
brand names throughout the United States.

The Petition seeks to certify a statewide class of all present and
former owners or lessees in Missouri of Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles with 2.0 liter "clean diesel" engines.  The Petition
alleges that relevant allegedly wrongful and fraudulent business
practices included, among other things, charging a "Clean Diesel
price premium" over the base price for the vehicles, and that
class members should receive refunds of all the "premium" amounts
paid.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarah S. Burns, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
          One Court Street
          Alton, IL 62002
          E-mail: sburns@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
          112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 784-6400
          Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
          E-mail: phanly@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          John C. Kress, Esq.
          KRESS LAW FIRM, LLC
          4247 S. Grand
          St. Louis, MO 63111
          Telephone: (314) 332-1534
          Facsimile: (314) 332-1534
          E-mail: jckress@thekresslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jonathan E. Fortman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN E. FORTMAN, LLC
          250 Saint Catherine Street
          Florissant, MO 63031
          Telephone: (314) 522-2312
          Facsimile: (314) 524-1519
          E-mail: jef@fortmanlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John W. Cowden, Esq.
          David M. Eisenberg, Esq.
          BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE, LLC
          2400 Pershing Road, Suite 500
          Kansas City, MO 64108-2533
          Telephone: (816) 471-2121
          Facsimile: (816) 472-0288
          E-mail: cowden@bscr-law.com
                  eisenberg@bscr-law.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Gee" Suit in N.Y. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Gee, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
08628 (D.N.Y., November 3, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's
alleged intentional installation of defeat devices in more than
482,000 diesel Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche vehicles sold in the
United States.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 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:

      Seth L. Cardeli, Esq.
      JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
      1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
      Baltimore, MD 21208
      Telephone: (410) 653-3200
      Facsimile: (410) 653-6903
      E-mail: scardeli@myadvocates.com


WALGREENS SPECIALTY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Olyvia Garcia and other similarly situated cashiers v. Walgreens
Specialty Pharmacy, LLC, Case No. 33926501 (Fla., 11th Ct.,
November 2, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, LLC operates a specialty pharmacy
services and resources with information tailored for healthcare
professionals on Walgreens.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WHITTIER NURSING: Faces "Butler" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Lafaye Butler as an individual and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated v. Whittier Nursing and Wellness Center, Inc.,
and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC599225 (Cal. Super.
Ct., October 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Whittier Nursing and Wellness Center, Inc. operates a Nursing
facility located at 7926 South Painter Avenue, Whittier,
California 90602.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Treana Allen, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
              tallen@mahoney-law.net


                            *********

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  * * *