CAR_Public/151124.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 24, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 234


                            Headlines


ALCOVE ASSISTED: "Searcy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ALTERA CORP: Plaintiffs Have Not Filed Consolidated Amended Suit
ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: To Seek Dismissal of 3rd Amended Complaint
ALTRIA GROUP: 5 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial Thru Dec. 31
ALTRIA GROUP: 7 Smoking and Health Suits v. PM USA Still Pending

ALTRIA GROUP: 87 Engle Progeny Cases Have Resulted in Verdicts
ALTRIA GROUP: Settlement of 415 Engle Progeny Cases Awaits OK
ALTRIA GROUP: Class Certification Denied or Reversed in 60 Cases
ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in Medical Monitoring Cases to Begin Jan. 25
ALTRIA GROUP: 12 "Lights/Ultra Lights" State Court Cases Pending

ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Began October 19 in Aspinall Case
ALTRIA GROUP: Judgment Affirmed in "Brown" Case
ALTRIA GROUP: Re-Trial to Begin February 29 in "Larsen" Case
ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Scheduled for August 2016 in "Miner" Case
ALTRIA GROUP: Oregon Supreme Court Junks Class Bid in "Pearson"

ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Filed Summary Judgment Motion in "Carroll"
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: PSO Continues to Defend Employee Class Action
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Accord in "Do Not Call Registry" Suit Approved
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Appeal in Gavin Landfill Suit Remains Pending
ANGIE'S LIST: Plaintiff Fails to Timely Amend Securities Suit

ANGIE'S LIST: Parties in "Moore" Case in Settlement Talks
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Defending Case by Police and Fire Retirement
BANK OF AMERICA: "Shaouli" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
CORATO I PIZZA: "Tankamash" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
DROMADAIRE ASSOCIATE: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

EASTMAN KODAK: Continues to Defend ERISA Litigation
EMC CORPORATION: Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
EXCELLUS HEALTH: "Boomershine" Suit Alleges Negligence
EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: Suit Seeks Damages Over Data Breach
EXTREME NETWORKS: "Hong" Suit Alleges Securities Law Violations

FIFTH STREET: Named as Defendant in 2 Securities Class Action
FIRST AMERICAN: Class Cert. Granted in "Lewis" and "Raffone"
FIRST AMERICAN: Narrow Class Certified in "Edwards" Action
FIRST AMERICAN: Class Certified in "Gale" Action Decertified
FIRST AMERICAN: Class Not Certified in Sager and Weber Lawsuits

FIRST AMERICAN: Appeal Filed in "Kirk" Case
JIE JIE SHENG: "Wang" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
KLA-TENCOR CORP: Faces "Hedgecock" Suit Over Lam Take Over
KLA-TENCOR CORP: Faces "Karr" Suit Over Proposed Lam Take Over
LANDERS AUTO: "Shipley" Class Action in Arkansas Stayed

LOGISTICS PARCEL: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LTD FINANCIAL: Accused Of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
MARRIOTT HOTEL: "Cuellar" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
MAYOR LOGISTICS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Frantz" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA

OCWEN LOAN: "Stromberg" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
OIL STATES: "Whann" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
PACIFIC COAST: Continues to Defend "Welch" & "Berliner" Actions
PARISI HOUSE: "Peterson" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
PCA ACQUISITIONS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Katzoff" Suit Claims

PHARMAVITE LLC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
RAMTIN JAHANI: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Vehicle History
RCS LLC: "Galloway" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
RITE AID: Faces "Smukler" Suit Over Proposed Walgreens Take Over

SAND AND SEA: Faces "Prado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
SANDISK CORP: Faces "Cloud" Suit Over Proposed Western Take Over
SCHERR & MCCLURE: "Peter" Suit Removed to N.J. District Court
SELLAND AUTO: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SIENTRA INC: Faces "Albano" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports

SPECIAL TOUCH: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Turgunbaev" Suit Says
TMSO INC: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Watts" Suit Claims
TONSOR LLC: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal & Rest Breaks
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Salas" Suit Over Defective HVAC System
UNION PACIFIC: Class Action Parties Must File Briefing Statement

UNIRUSH LLC: Faces Suit Over Fraud and Misrepresentation
UNITED CONTINENTAL: Faces Class Action Over Sherman Act
UNITIL CORP: Massachusetts Court Okays Motion for Direct Review
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
USG CORPORATION: Wallboard Settlement Approval Under Appeal

USG CORPORATION: Wallboard Manufacturers Face Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Wolf" Suit Over Defeat Devices
WONG & LAU: Faces "Yee" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
WONG & LAU: Faces "Yu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
XTREME CUSTOM: "Monterrey" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages


                            *********


ALCOVE ASSISTED: "Searcy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Lashanda Searcy, and all others similarly situated v. Alcove
Assisted Living Facility, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-02491 (M.D. Fla.,
October 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, attorney fees and costs and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant provides assisted living facility.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. John Gadd, Esq.
      Bank of America Building
      2727 Ulmerton Rd., Ste 250
      Clearwater, FL 33762
      Tel: (727) 524-6300
      E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


ALTERA CORP: Plaintiffs Have Not Filed Consolidated Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altera Corporation on May 31, 2015, entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Intel Corporation
("Intel") and 615 Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Intel
("Merger Sub").  In its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 25, 2015, Altera said that six putative
class action lawsuits have been filed by purported Altera
stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against the Company's board of directors, Intel, Merger Sub, and,
in some cases, Altera. The actions are captioned Sciabucchi v.
Daane et al., Case No. 11108-VCG; Goldstein v. Daane et al., Case
No. 11126-VCG; Reinauer v. Altera et al., Case No. 11144-VCG;
Braunstein v. Daane et al., Case No. 11146-VGC; Litwin v. Daane et
al., Case No. 11160-VCG; and Robinson v. Daane et al., Case No.
11165-VCG.

The complaints allege, among other things, that members of our
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Altera
stockholders by agreeing to a transaction that does not adequately
reflect Altera's true value, and that Intel, Merger Sub, and/or
Altera aided and abetted the board of directors' breaches of
fiduciary duties. The complaints seek to enjoin the Merger or,
alternatively, seek rescission of the Merger or an award of
rescissory damages after it is completed.  By order dated June 26,
2015, the Court consolidated these actions as In re Altera Corp.
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 11108-VCG.  To date, the
plaintiffs in the consolidated action have not filed a
consolidated amended complaint or sought to enjoin the Merger.


ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: To Seek Dismissal of 3rd Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company intends to move to dismiss the third amended complaint and
to continue to vigorously defend a securities class action.

On September 8, 2014, the West Palm Beach Firefighter's Pension
Fund filed a putative securities class action suit against
Altisource and certain of its officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 with regard to disclosures concerning pricing and
transactions with related parties that allegedly inflated
Altisource share prices. The Court subsequently appointed the
Pension Fund of the International Union of Painters and Allied
Trades District Council 35 and the Annuity Fund of the
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council
35 as Lead Plaintiffs.

On January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint which added Ocwen Financial Corporation as a defendant,
and seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a
class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between April 25, 2013 and December 21, 2014 and an unspecified
amount of damages. Altisource moved to dismiss the suit on March
23, 2015.

On September 4, 2015, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss, finding that the Plaintiffs' amended complaint failed to
state a claim as to any of the defendants, but permitting the
Plaintiffs to file another amended complaint. Lead Plaintiffs
subsequently filed second and third amended complaints with
substantially similar claims and theories. Altisource intends to
move to dismiss the third amended complaint and to continue to
vigorously defend this suit.


ALTRIA GROUP: 5 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial Thru Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that as of October 26,
2015, 5 Engle progeny cases, no individual smoking and health
cases and no "Lights/Ultra Lights" class actions against Philip
Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") are set for trial through December 31,
2015. One "Lights/Ultra Lights" class action is currently in
trial. Cases against other companies in the tobacco industry are
also scheduled for trial during this period. Trial dates are
subject to change.


ALTRIA GROUP: 7 Smoking and Health Suits v. PM USA Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that as of October 26,
2015, Philip Morris USA Inc. is a named defendant in ten health
care cost recovery actions in Canada, eight of which also name
Altria Group, Inc. as a defendant. PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.
are also named defendants in seven smoking and health class
actions filed in various Canadian provinces.


ALTRIA GROUP: 87 Engle Progeny Cases Have Resulted in Verdicts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that as of October 26,
2015, 87 state and federal Engle progeny cases involving Philip
Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") have resulted in verdicts since the
Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision.

Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts
have been returned in 56 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights"
and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a
defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were
returned in 38 of the 56 cases. These 38 cases were tried in
Alaska (1), California (6), Florida (10), Louisiana (1),
Massachusetts (1), Mississippi (1), Missouri (3), New Hampshire
(1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1),
Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2).

A motion for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in
Florida and in the case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter),
the trial court withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's
motion for reconsideration. Oral argument of plaintiff's appeal of
this ruling occurred in September 2014.

Of the 18 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs, 15 have reached final resolution. A
verdict against defendants in one health care cost recovery case
(Blue Cross/Blue Shield) was reversed and all claims were
dismissed with prejudice. In addition, a verdict against
defendants in a purported "Lights" class action in Illinois
(Price) was reversed and the case was dismissed with prejudice in
December 2006, but plaintiff is seeking to reinstate the verdict,
which an intermediate appellate court ordered in April 2014.

PM USA filed a petition for leave to appeal, which automatically
stayed the April 2014 order. In September 2014, the Illinois
Supreme Court granted PM USA's motion for leave to appeal. Oral
argument occurred in May 2015.

As of October 26, 2015, 87 state and federal Engle progeny cases
involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida
Supreme Court's Engle decision as follows: 47 verdicts were
returned in favor of plaintiffs; 38 verdicts were returned in
favor of PM USA; and two verdicts that were initially returned in
favor of plaintiffs were reversed on appeal and remain pending.

Thirty-eight verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA, of which
29 were state cases (Gelep, Kalyvas, Gil de Rubio, Warrick,
Willis, Russo (formerly Frazier), C. Campbell, Rohr, Espinosa,
Oliva, Weingart, Junious, Szymanski, Hancock, D. Cohen, LaMotte,
J. Campbell, Dombey, Haldeman, Blasco, Gonzalez, Banks, Surico,
Baum, Bishop, Vila, McMannis, Collar and Suarez) and 9 were
federal cases (Gollihue, McCray, Denton, Wilder, Jacobson, Reider,
Davis, Starbuck and Sowers). In addition, there have been a number
of mistrials, only some of which have resulted in new trials as of
October 26, 2015. The juries in the Reider and Banks cases
returned zero damages verdicts in favor of PM USA. The juries in
the Weingart and Hancock cases returned verdicts against PM USA
awarding no damages, but the trial court in each case granted an
additur. In the Russo case (formerly Frazier), however, the
Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in
defendants' favor in April 2012 and remanded the case for a new
trial. Defendants sought review of the case in the Florida Supreme
Court, which was granted in September 2013. In April 2015, the
Florida Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, rejecting defendants'
argument that the statute of repose applies to fraud and
conspiracy claims in Engle progeny cases, and defendants moved for
a rehearing in the Florida Supreme Court, which the Florida
Supreme Court denied on September 25, 2015. In the trial court,
the case was retried and, in April 2015, the jury returned a
verdict in favor of defendants.

                           *     *     *

The deadline for filing Engle progeny cases, as required by the
Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision, expired in January 2008.
As of October 26, 2015, approximately 3,070 state court cases were
pending against PM USA or Altria Group, Inc. asserting individual
claims by or on behalf of approximately 4,050 state court
plaintiffs.  Furthermore, as of October 26, 2015, approximately
460 cases were pending against PM USA in federal district court
asserting individual claims by or on behalf of a similar number of
federal court plaintiffs. Most of these federal cases are pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Moreover, most of these federal cases are subject to resolution
pursuant to the Tentative Agreement to Resolve Federal Engle
Progeny Cases. Because of a number of factors, including, but not
limited to, docketing delays, duplicated filings and overlapping
dismissal orders, these numbers are estimates.

In July 2013, the district court issued an order transferring, for
case management purposes, all the Middle District of Florida Engle
progeny cases to a judge presiding in the District of
Massachusetts. The order directed that the cases will remain in
the Middle District of Florida and that such judge will be
designated a judge of that district for purposes of managing the
cases. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
dismissed a significant number of cases, of which approximately
750 were appealed by plaintiffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit. In September 2014, the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed those dismissals.


ALTRIA GROUP: Settlement of 415 Engle Progeny Cases Awaits OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the report and
recommendation of a magistrate judge endorsing a settlement to
resolve 415 pending federal Engle progeny cases awaits approval by
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

In February 2015, PM USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("R.J.
Reynolds") and Lorillard Tobacco Company ("Lorillard") reached a
tentative agreement to resolve approximately 415 pending federal
Engle progeny cases (the "Federal Engle Agreement"). Under the
terms of the Federal Engle Agreement, PM USA paid into escrow
approximately $43 million in March 2015, which was included in
other current assets on Altria Group, Inc.'s condensed
consolidated balance sheet at September 30, 2015. PM USA recorded
a pre-tax provision of approximately $43 million in the first
quarter of 2015.

Federal cases that were in trial as of February 25, 2015 and those
that have previously reached final verdict are not included in the
Federal Engle Agreement. The Federal Engle Agreement is
conditioned on approval by all federal court plaintiffs in the
cases resolved by the Federal Engle Agreement or as the parties
otherwise agree.

In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida issued an order staying all upcoming federal trials
pending final approval of the Federal Engle Agreement and, in May
2015, approved the plaintiffs' proposed plan for distribution
among the plaintiffs of the amount in escrow.

On August 20, 2015, plaintiffs filed a joint proposed consent
order seeking final approval of the Federal Engle Agreement. On
September 10, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation approving the final distribution plan and award
schedule of the settlement funds.


ALTRIA GROUP: Class Certification Denied or Reversed in 60 Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that since the
dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class action
brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs have
filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits in
various state and federal courts. In general, these cases purport
to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state or
states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope)
and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical
injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 60
smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1),
California (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2),
Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1),
Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York
(2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto
Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).

As of October 26, 2015, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named as
defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven
class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.
In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and
Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of
individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases,
including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the
actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs
seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked
defendants' cigarettes.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in Medical Monitoring Cases to Begin Jan. 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that trial is scheduled
to begin January 25, 2016 and will take place in multiple phases
in the so-called medical monitoring class actions.

In medical monitoring actions, plaintiffs seek to recover the cost
for, or otherwise the implementation of, court-supervised programs
for ongoing medical monitoring purportedly on behalf of a class of
individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose
liability under various product-based causes of action and the
creation of a court-supervised program providing members of the
purported class Low Dose CT ("LDCT") scanning in order to identify
and diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases do not seek
punitive damages, although plaintiffs in Donovan have sought
permission from the court to seek to treble any damages awarded.
The future defense of these cases may be negatively impacted by
evolving medical standards and practice.

One medical monitoring class action is currently pending against
PM USA. In Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs purportedly
brought the action on behalf of the state's residents who are: age
50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or
more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are
under investigation by a physician for suspected lung cancer. The
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in answering questions
certified to it by the district court, held in October 2009 that
under certain circumstances state law recognizes a claim by
individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the absence of
an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or not the
case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is a
factual issue to be determined at trial. The case was remanded to
federal court for further proceedings.

In June 2010, the district court granted in part the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, certifying the class as to
plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty and violation of
the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, but denying
certification as to plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July 2010, PM
USA petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for
appellate review of the class certification decision. The petition
was denied in September 2010. As a remedy, plaintiffs have
proposed a 28-year medical monitoring program with a cost in
excess of $190 million. In October 2011, PM USA filed a motion for
class decertification, which motion was denied in March 2012. In
February 2013, the district court amended the class definition to
extend to individuals who satisfy the class membership criteria
through February 26, 2013, and to exclude any individual who was
not a Massachusetts resident as of February 26, 2013.

Trial is scheduled to begin January 25, 2016 and will take place
in multiple phases. Phase I will address liability. To the extent
a Phase II is necessary, it would be tried to the court and
address common questions of remedies and costs. In July 2015, both
parties filed various motions relating to Phase I, including
motions for partial summary judgment and to exclude certain
evidence. On October 2, 2015, the district court granted PM USA's
motion for partial summary judgment holding that e-vapor products
may not be deemed an alternative design for ordinary cigarettes.


ALTRIA GROUP: 12 "Lights/Ultra Lights" State Court Cases Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a total of 12
"Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases are pending in various U.S. state
courts as of October 26, 2015.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory
fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in
certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been
brought against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and, in certain
instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of
individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of
cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights,
Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge
Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of
misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury and damages, the
statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory
provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory
directives, and the First Amendment. As of October 26, 2015, a
total of 12 such cases are pending in various U.S. state courts.

Since the December 2008 United States Supreme Court decision in
Good, and through October 26, 2015, 26 purported "Lights" class
actions were served upon PM USA and, in certain cases, Altria
Group, Inc. These cases were filed in 15 states, the U.S. Virgin
Islands and the District of Columbia. All of these cases either
were filed in federal court or were removed to federal court by PM
USA and were transferred and consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPMDL") before the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maine for pretrial proceedings ("MDL
proceeding").

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in four cases, covering
the jurisdictions of California, the District of Columbia,
Illinois and Maine. These jurisdictions were selected by the
parties as sample cases, with two selected by plaintiffs and two
selected by defendants. Plaintiffs sought appellate review of this
decision but, in February 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal.
Later that year, plaintiffs in 13 cases voluntarily dismissed
their cases without prejudice.

In April 2012, the JPMDL remanded the remaining four cases
(Phillips, Tang, Wyatt and Cabbat) back to the federal district
courts in which the suits originated. These cases were ultimately
resolved in a manner favorable to PM USA.

           Some Courts Refused to Certify Class Actions

Altria Group also said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that as of October 26,
2015, in addition to the federal district court in the MDL
proceeding, 19 courts in 20 "Lights" cases have refused to certify
class actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior
class certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA").

Trial courts in Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin have refused to
grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class
action allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in
Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs
asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection
Act. Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either
affirmed rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or
reversed rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Began October 19 in Aspinall Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that trial began on
October 19, 2015, in the Aspinall case.

In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed
the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial court
denied Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA")'s motion for summary
judgment and granted plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment
on the defenses of federal preemption and a state law exemption to
Massachusetts' consumer protection statute. On motion of the
parties, the trial court subsequently reported its decision to
deny summary judgment to the appeals court for review and stayed
further proceedings pending completion of the appellate review.

In March 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed
the order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the
plaintiffs' cross-motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for
partial summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral
estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department
of Justice. In March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs'
motion. In February 2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the
parties, dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against
Altria Group, Inc. PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case.

In September 2013, the case was transferred to the Business
Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court. Also in
September 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the scope of remedies available in the case, which the
Massachusetts Superior Court denied in February 2014, concluding
that plaintiffs cannot obtain disgorgement of profits as an
equitable remedy and that their recovery is limited to actual
damages or $25 per class member if they cannot prove actual
damages greater than $25. Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the
trial court to report its February 2014 ruling to the
Massachusetts Appeals Court for review, which the trial court
denied. In March 2014, plaintiffs petitioned the Massachusetts
Appeals Court for review of the ruling, which the appellate court
denied.

On August 10, 2015, the trial court denied various pre-trial
motions filed by PM USA, including a motion for summary judgment
on the ground that plaintiffs have no proof of injury. Trial began
on October 19, 2015.


ALTRIA GROUP: Judgment Affirmed in "Brown" Case
-----------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a Court of Appeal
in California affirmed a trial court judgment and dismissed Philip
Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA")'s conditional cross-appeal as moot in
the Brown case.

In June 1997, plaintiffs filed suit in California state court
alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA
and others, violated California law regarding unfair, unlawful and
fraudulent business practices.  In May 2009, the California
Supreme Court reversed an earlier trial court decision that
decertified the class and remanded the case to the trial court.
At that time, the class consisted of individuals who, at the time
they were residents of California, (i) smoked in California one or
more cigarettes manufactured by PM USA that were labeled and/or
advertised with the terms or phrases "light," "medium," "mild,"
"low tar," and/or "lowered tar and nicotine," but not including
any cigarettes labeled or advertised with the terms or phrases
"ultra light" or "ultra low tar," and (ii) who were exposed to
defendant's marketing and advertising activities in California.
Plaintiffs are seeking restitution of a portion of the costs of
"light" cigarettes purchased during the class period and
injunctive relief ordering corrective communications.

In September 2012, at the plaintiffs' request, the trial court
dismissed all defendants except PM USA from the lawsuit.  Trial
began in April 2013. In May 2013 the plaintiffs redefined the
class to include California residents who smoked in California one
or more of defendant's Marlboro Lights cigarettes between January
1, 1998 and April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to defendant's
marketing and advertising activities in California.

In June 2013, PM USA filed a motion to decertify the class. Trial
concluded in July 2013. In September 2013, the court issued a
final Statement of Decision, in which the court found that PM USA
violated California law, but that plaintiffs had not established a
basis for relief. On this basis, the court granted judgment for PM
USA. The court also denied PM USA's motion to decertify the class.

In October 2013, the court entered final judgment in favor of PM
USA. In November 2013, plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which the
court denied. In December 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal and PM USA filed a conditional cross-appeal.

In February 2014, the trial court awarded PM USA $764,553 in costs
and plaintiffs appealed the costs award. Oral argument occurred on
September 15, 2015.  On September 28, 2015, the Court of Appeal
affirmed the trial court judgment and dismissed PM USA's
conditional cross-appeal as moot. The court also affirmed the cost
award in favor of PM USA.


ALTRIA GROUP: Re-Trial to Begin February 29 in "Larsen" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that re-trial is
scheduled to begin on February 29, 2016, in the Larsen case.

In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class
certification order in Larsen. In December 2009, the trial court
denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during
which potential class members can qualify to become part of the
class. The class period remains 1995-2003.

In June 2010, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA")'s motion for
partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request for
punitive damages was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for
partial summary judgment as to an element of liability in the
case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case
brought by the Department of Justice. The plaintiffs' motion was
denied in December 2010.

In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions
challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling
that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on
allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro
Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment
motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October
2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach
a verdict.

In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior ruling
granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more
dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim. In
October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class and for
partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim,
which the court denied in June 2015. Re-trial is scheduled
to begin on February 29, 2016.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Scheduled for August 2016 in "Miner" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that trial is scheduled
for August 2, 2016 in the Miner case.

In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower
court rulings in Miner (formerly known as Watson) that denied
plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as opposed
to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected defendants'
contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the
"federal officer" statute. Following remand, the case was removed
again to federal court in Arkansas and transferred to the MDL
proceeding.

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding
remanded the case to Arkansas state court. In December 2011,
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Altria
Group, Inc. without prejudice.

In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion. In
November 2013, the trial court granted class certification. The
certified class includes those individuals who, from November 1,
1971 through June 22, 2010, purchased Marlboro Lights, including
Marlboro Ultra Lights, for personal consumption in Arkansas.
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") filed a notice of appeal of the
class certification ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court in
December 2013.

In February 2015, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the trial
court's class certification order. In May 2015, PM USA filed a
motion for partial summary judgment seeking to foreclose any
recovery for purchases of Marlboro Lights prior to 1999, when a
private right of action was added to the consumer protection
statute under which plaintiffs are suing. The trial court denied
the motion in July 2015. Trial is currently scheduled for August
2, 2016.


ALTRIA GROUP: Oregon Supreme Court Junks Class Bid in "Pearson"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Oregon Supreme
Court has affirmed the trial court's order denying class
certification in Pearson case.

In Oregon (Pearson), a state court denied plaintiffs' motion for
interlocutory review of the trial court's refusal to certify a
class. In February 2007, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") filed a
motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption and the
Oregon statutory exemption. In September 2007, the district court
granted PM USA's motion based on express preemption under the
FCLAA, and plaintiffs appealed this dismissal and the class
certification denial to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

In June 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court's denial of class certification and remanded to the trial
court for further consideration of class certification. In July
2013, PM USA filed a petition for reconsideration with the Oregon
Court of Appeals, which was denied in August 2013. PM USA filed
its petition for review to the Oregon Supreme Court in October
2013, which the court accepted in January 2014. On October 22,
2015, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order
denying class certification, thereby reversing the decision of the
Oregon Court of Appeals.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Filed Summary Judgment Motion in "Carroll"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Philip Morris USA
Inc. ("PM USA") has filed a summary judgment motion in Carroll
case seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' claims in their entirety on
preemption grounds.

In December 2009, the state trial court in Carroll (formerly known
as Holmes) (pending in Delaware) denied PM USA's motion for
summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the Delaware
Consumer Fraud Act. In January 2011, the trial court allowed the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint substituting class
representatives and naming Altria Group, Inc. and PMI as
additional defendants. In February 2013, the trial court approved
the parties' stipulation to the dismissal without prejudice of
Altria Group, Inc. and PMI, leaving PM USA as the sole defendant
in the case. In March 2015, plaintiffs moved for class
certification and, in July 2015, PM USA filed a summary judgment
motion seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' claims in their entirety on
preemption grounds.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: PSO Continues to Defend Employee Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Electric Power Company, Inc., Appalachian Power Company,
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Public Service
Company of Oklahoma, Southwestern Electric Power Company said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 22, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015, that PSO continues to defend the class action
filed by line and warehouse employees.

In August 2013, PSO received an amended complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by 36
current and former line and warehouse employees alleging that they
have been denied overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to
overtime pay for "on call" time. They allege that restrictions
placed on them during on call hours are burdensome enough that
they are entitled to compensation for these hours as hours worked.
Plaintiffs also filed a motion to conditionally certify this
action as a class action, claiming there are an additional 70
individuals similarly situated to plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs seek
damages in the amount of unpaid overtime over a three-year period
and liquidated damages in the same amount.

In March 2014, the federal court granted plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify the action as a class action.  Notice was
given to all potential class members and an additional 44
individuals opted in to the class, bringing the plaintiff class to
80 current and former employees. Two plaintiffs have since
dismissed their claims without prejudice, leaving 78 plaintiffs.

"We will continue to defend the case," the quarterly report said.
"We do not believe a loss is probable. If there is an unfavorable
outcome contrary to our expectations, we estimate possible losses
of up to $30 million."


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Accord in "Do Not Call Registry" Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Electric Power Company, Inc., Appalachian Power Company,
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Public Service
Company of Oklahoma, Southwestern Electric Power Company said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 22, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015, that a court has granted final approval of the
settlement in the National Do Not Call Registry lawsuit but
reserved decision on the appropriate fee for plaintiff's counsel.

In May 2014, AEP Energy was served with a complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA). The plaintiff alleges that he received telemarketing calls
on behalf of AEP Energy despite having registered his telephone
number on the National Do Not Call Registry. Plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of persons who allegedly received such calls.
Plaintiff seeks statutory damages under the TCPA on behalf of
himself and the alleged class as well as injunctive relief.

As a result of a mediation held in October 2014, the parties
reached an agreement in principle, subject to final documentation
and preliminary and final court approval.

"In April 2015, we filed a motion with the court for preliminary
approval of the settlement. In June 2015, the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement. In September 2015, the
court granted final approval of the settlement, reserving decision
on the appropriate fee for plaintiff's counsel," the Companies
said.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Appeal in Gavin Landfill Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Electric Power Company, Inc., Appalachian Power Company,
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Public Service
Company of Oklahoma, Southwestern Electric Power Company said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 22, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015, that an appeal by the companies in the Gavin
Landfill Litigation remains pending.

In August 2014, a complaint was filed in the Mason County, West
Virginia Circuit Court against AEP, AEPSC, OPCo and an individual
supervisor alleging wrongful death and personal injury/illness
claims arising out of purported exposure to coal combustion by-
product waste at the Gavin Plant landfill.  The lawsuit was filed
on behalf of 77 plaintiffs, consisting of 39 current and former
contractors of the landfill and 38 family members of those
contractors.  Eleven of the family members are pursuing personal
injury/illness claims and the remainder are pursuing loss of
consortium claims.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive
damages, as well as medical monitoring.

"In September 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
contending the case should be filed in Ohio," the Company said.
"In August 2015, the court denied our motion. We appealed that
decision to the West Virginia Supreme Court. We will continue to
defend against the claims.  We are unable to determine a range of
potential losses that are reasonably possible of occurring."


ANGIE'S LIST: Plaintiff Fails to Timely Amend Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a securities class action has not filed an
amended complaint within the time prescribed by the Court, Angie's
List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015.

Two putative securities class action complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
naming the Company and several of its current and former directors
and officers as defendants. Baron v. Angie's List, Inc. et al.,
1:13-cv-2032, filed on December 23, 2013, and Bartolone v. Angie's
List, Inc., et al, 1:14-cv-0023, filed on January 9, 2014, allege
that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making material misstatements in, and
omitting material information from, the Company's public
disclosures concerning its paid membership model. The two cases
were consolidated on June 16, 2014. The Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice on June 18, 2015.
The plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within the time
prescribed by the Court, which entered judgment in favor of the
defendants on July 27, 2015.


ANGIE'S LIST: Parties in "Moore" Case in Settlement Talks
---------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties in the
case, Moore v. Angie's List, Inc., 2:15cv-01243-SD, are
entertaining a potential early settlement.

On March 11, 2015, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit alleges claims of breaches
of contract and covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and
fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and violation of
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 13, 2015. On August
7, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion,
specifically dismissing the plaintiff's breach of covenant of good
faith and unjust enrichment claims based on the face of the
plaintiff's complaint. The parties are entertaining a potential
early settlement.


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Defending Case by Police and Fire Retirement
--------------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc. continues to defend the case, Police and Fire
Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Epocrates, Inc. et
al., athenahealth disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

"On March 1, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California captioned
Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v.
Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-945, on behalf of a
putative class of Epocrates' stockholders against Epocrates and
its former officers and directors," the Company said.  "The
complaint asserted claims under sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all stockholders that
purchased Epocrates stock in its initial public offering ("IPO")
and claims under sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 on behalf of all stockholders that purchased shares
between February 2, 2011 (the day after the IPO) and August 9,
2011."

"On October 8, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
alleging only claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
voluntarily dismissing a number of the individual defendants.
Plaintiffs allege that Epocrates made false or misleading
statements with respect to the fact that Epocrates' pharmaceutical
clients were awaiting guidance from the Food and Drug
Administration on the use of advertising and social media, which
caused the clients to delay marketing and negatively impacted the
timing of Epocrates' sales and revenue growth. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action, compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, plaintiffs' costs, attorneys' fees, and such
other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

"On December 9, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On June 4, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing
the complaint and granting plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint. On June 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, which asserts substantially similar claims as those set
forth in the first amended complaint. On July 14, 2014, we filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On October 2,
2014, the court granted plaintiffs leave to file a third amended
complaint by October 23, 2014, and denied the motion to dismiss as
moot. Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on October
23, 2014, which asserts substantially similar claims on behalf of
all stockholders that purchased shares between February 1, 2011,
and August 9, 2011. We filed a motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint on November 10, 2014, and the court denied the motion on
March 13, 2015. On April 27, 2015, we filed our answer to the
third amended complaint denying the allegations. Should this
litigation continue, we would contest the claims vigorously."


BANK OF AMERICA: "Shaouli" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Shaouli, and all others similarly situated v. Bank of
America Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00511 (W.D.N.C., October 22,
2015), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
the Defendant in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant is a multinational banking and financial services
corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Proffitt, Esq.
      PROFFITT & COX, LLP
      140 Wildewood Park Drive, Suite A
      Columbia, S.C. 29223
      Tel: (803) 834-7097
      Fax: (888) 711-1057
      E-mail: dproffitt@proffittcox.com


CORATO I PIZZA: "Tankamash" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Tankamash, and all others similarly situated v. Corato I
Pizza & Restaurant Corp. dba Corato I Pizza adn Giuseppe Barretta,
Case No. 1:15-cv-06093 (E.D.N.Y., October 22, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime premium pay
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin N. Dictor, Esq.
      EISNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      113 University Place, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10003
      Tel: (212) 473-8700
      Fax: (212) 473-8705
      E-mail: ben@eisnerassociates.com


DROMADAIRE ASSOCIATE: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Sanchez, and all others similarly situated v. Dromadaire
Associate, Inc., dba Edible Arrangements and Ed Alexander, Case
No. 1:15-cv-08334 (S.D.N.Y., October 22, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a store selling gift baskets and
specialty foods to the general public called "Edible Arrangements"
in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 209-3933
      Fax: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


EASTMAN KODAK: Continues to Defend ERISA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend the In re Eastman Kodak ERISA Litigation.

On January 19, 2012, the Company and its U.S. subsidiaries filed
voluntary petitions for relief (the "Bankruptcy Filing") under
chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
Subsequent to the Company's Bankruptcy Filing, between January 27,
2012 and March 22, 2012, several putative class action suits were
filed in federal court in the Western District of New York against
the committees of the Company's Stock Ownership Plan ('SOP') and
Savings and Investment Plan ("SIP"), and certain former and
current executives of the Company. The suits have been
consolidated into a single action brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), styled as In re Eastman
Kodak ERISA Litigation. The allegations concern the decline in the
Company's stock price and its alleged impact on SOP and SIP.
Plaintiffs seek the recovery of any losses to the applicable
plans, a constructive trust, the appointment of an independent
fiduciary, equitable relief, as applicable, and attorneys' fees
and costs. Defendants' motion to dismiss the litigation was denied
on December 17, 2014 and the case is proceeding. On behalf of the
defendants in this case, the Company believes that the case is
without merit and will vigorously defend the defendants on their
behalf.


EMC CORPORATION: Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Frank Vassallo, and all others similarly-situated v. EMC
Corporation, Jose E. Almeida, Michael W. Brown, Donald J. Carty,
Randolph L. Cowen, James S. Distasio, John R. Egan, William D.
Green, Edmund F. Kelly, Jami Miscik, Paul Sagan, Laura J. Sen,
Joseph M. Tucci, Denali Holding Inc., Dell, Inc., and Universal
Acquisition Co., Case No. 15-3173 (Mass. Cmmw., October 19, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty
arising from their attempts to sell EMC Corporation to Denali
Holding Inc. and Dell Inc.

The Individual Defendants are EMC's board of directors.

Defendant EMC is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal
place of business in Hopkinton, Massachusetts. EMC securities are
traded on the NASDAQ stock market under the ticker symbol "EMC."
EMC purports to be a global leader in enabling businesses and
service providers to transform their operations and deliver IT as
a service.

Defendant Dell is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Round
Rock, Texas.

Defendant Denali Holding Inc. is a Delaware corporation.

Defendant Universal Acquisition Co. is Delaware corporation and
direct wholly owned subsidiary of Denali.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 398-5600
      Fax: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: jason@blockesq.com

          - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
      & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

      Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
      THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
      8150 N. Central Expressway, Ste 1575
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Tel: (214) 239-4568
      Fax: (281) 254-7789
      E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com


EXCELLUS HEALTH: "Boomershine" Suit Alleges Negligence
------------------------------------------------------
Therese Boomershine, Julia Polidore, and all others similarly
situated v. Excellus Health Plan, Inc. and Lifetime Healthcare,
Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-06641 (W.D.N.Y., October 23, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for alleged negligence, bailment,
breach of fiduciary duty, deceptive acts or practices in violation
of the N.Y. General Business Law, and Indiana Deceptive Consumer
Sales Act.

Excellus is the primary health care provider in upstate New York
State, and maintains four regional headquarters in Rochester,
Syracuse, Elmira, and Utica, New York. Excellus also maintains
additional field offices in Watertown, Binghamton, Oneonta, and
Plattsburgh, New York.

Lifetime is the parent and/or holding corporation of a $6.6
billion family of companies known as The Lifetime Healthcare
Companies that finances and delivers health care in New York
State, as well as long term care and other services nationwide.

Excellus operates as a subsidiary of Lifetime and is a licensee of
the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Hadley L. Matarazzo, Esq.
      FARACI LANGE, LLP
      28 E. Main Street, Suite 1100
      Rochester, NY 14614
      Tel: (585) 325-5150
      Fax: (585) 325-3285
      E-mail: hmatarazzo@faraci.com


EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: Suit Seeks Damages Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Gonzales, and all others similarly situated v. Experian
Holdings, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01721 (C.D. Calif., October 23,
2015), seeks damages and equitable relief for Defendant's failure
to safeguard consumers' sensitive personal information from data
breach, pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California
Unfair Competition Law and common law.

Experian Holdings Inc. is a management service located in Costa
Mesa, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
      FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      750 B Street, Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 239-4599
      Fax: (619) 234-4599
      E-mail: rickert@whafh.com


EXTREME NETWORKS: "Hong" Suit Alleges Securities Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jui-Yang Hong, and all others similarly situated v. Extreme
Networks, Inc., Charles W. Berger, Kenneth B. Arola and John T.
Kurtzweil, Case No. 5:15-cv-04883 (N.D. Calif., October 23, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Federal
Securities Laws.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the securities laws
by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and
concealing material adverse facts regarding Extreme Networks'
current financial condition and growth prospects.

This is a securities class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Extreme
Networks between November 4, 2013 and April 9, 2015.

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

The Individual Defendants are current and former officers and
directors of Extreme Networks.

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
      Tel: (415) 288-4545
      Fax: (415) 288-4534

          - and -

      Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
      HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
      1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Tel: (770) 392-0090
      Fax: (770) 392-0029


FIFTH STREET: Named as Defendant in 2 Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Finance Corp. ("FSC") has been named as a defendant
in two putative securities class-action lawsuits, the Company
revealed in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015.

The first lawsuit was filed on October 1, 2015 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is
captioned Howard Randall, Trustee, Howard & Gale Randall Trust FBO
Kimberly Randall Irrevocable Trust UA Feb 15, 2000 v. Fifth Street
Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07759. The second lawsuit
was filed on October 14, 2015 in the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut and is captioned Lynn Waters-
Cottrell v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-
01488. The defendants in both cases are FSC, Fifth Street Asset
Management Inc. ("FSAM"), Leonard M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D.
Berman, Alexander C. Frank, Todd G. Owens, Ivelin M. Dmitrov, and
Richard Petrocelli.

Both lawsuits assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of
persons and entities who purchased FSC common stock between July
7, 2014 and February 6, 2015, inclusive. The complaints allege
that, during the putative class period, the defendants engaged in
a fraudulent scheme and course of conduct to artificially inflate
FSC's assets and investment income and, in turn, FSAM's valuation
at the time of its IPO in October 2014. The plaintiffs have not
quantified their claims for relief.

FSC believes that the claims are without merit and intends
vigorously to defend itself against the plaintiffs' allegations.


FIRST AMERICAN: Class Cert. Granted in "Lewis" and "Raffone"
------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a
court has granted class certification in Lewis and Raffone cases.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses.  These lawsuits
include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions,
that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents
charged an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance
transaction.  The cases include:

     * Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
November 28, 2006 and pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho, and

     * Raffone v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
February 14, 2004 and pending in the Circuit Court, Nassau County,
Florida.

Both of these lawsuits are putative class actions. A court has
granted class certification in Lewis and Raffone.  The Company has
been unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate the
possible loss or the range of loss or, where the Company has been
able to make an estimate, the Company believes the amount is not
material to the condensed consolidated financial statements as a
whole.


FIRST AMERICAN: Narrow Class Certified in "Edwards" Action
----------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in
the Edwards class action a narrow class has been certified.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses.  These lawsuits
include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions,
that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents
purchased minority interests in title insurance agents as an
inducement to refer title insurance underwriting business to the
Company or gave items of value to title insurance agents and
others for referrals of business in violation of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, including:

     * Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on
June 12, 2007 and pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.

In Edwards a narrow class has been certified.  The Company
believes the estimate of the possible loss or range of loss is not
material to the condensed consolidated financial statements as a
whole.


FIRST AMERICAN: Class Certified in "Gale" Action Decertified
------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
class originally certified in the Gale class action has been
decertified.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses.  These lawsuits
include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions,
that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  The cases include:

     * Gale v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
filed on October 16, 2006 and pending in the United States
District Court of Connecticut.

The class originally certified in Gale was subsequently
decertified.  The Company has not yet been able to assess the
probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of
loss.


FIRST AMERICAN: Class Not Certified in Sager and Weber Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a
class has not been certified in the Sager and Weber lawsuits.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses.  These lawsuits
include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions,
that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents
misclassified certain employees.  The cases include:

     * Sager v. Interthinx, Inc., filed on January 23, 2015 and
pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, and

     * Weber v. Interthinx, Inc., et al., filed on April 17, 2015
and pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

Both of these lawsuits are putative class actions for which a
class has not been certified.  The Company has not yet been able
to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or
the range of loss.


FIRST AMERICAN: Appeal Filed in "Kirk" Case
-------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company ahs filed a cross appeal in the Kirk matter.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses.  These lawsuits
include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions,
that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents
overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and services,
denied home warranty claims, failed to timely file certain
documents, and gave items of value to developers, builders and
others as inducements to refer business in violation of certain
laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally
prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain obligations.
These cases include:

     * Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on January 22, 2009 and pending in the United States
District Court of New Jersey,

     * Downing v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
filed on October 2, 2015 and pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia,

     * Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

     * Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on June 15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles,

     * Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

     * Snyder v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on June 21, 2014 and pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado,

     * Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, and

     * In re First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation,
consolidated on October 9, 2014 and pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

All of these lawsuits, except Kaufman and Kirk, are putative class
actions for which a class has not been certified. In Kaufman a
class was certified but that certification was subsequently
vacated. A trial of the Kirk matter has concluded, plaintiff has
filed a notice of appeal and the Company filed a cross appeal.

The Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of
loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where
the Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company
believes the amount is not material to the condensed consolidated
financial statements as a whole.


JIE JIE SHENG: "Wang" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Wei Wang, and all others similarly situated v. Jie Jie Sheng Corp.
dba Fried Dumpling, Xiaohu Zhao, John Doe and Jane Doe #1-10, Case
No. 1:15-cv-06090 (E.D.N.Y., October 22, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Queens, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KLA-TENCOR CORP: Faces "Hedgecock" Suit Over Lam Take Over
----------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Hedgecock, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KLA-Tencor Corp., et al., Case No. 111-CV-
287329 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 28, 2015) is brought on behalf of
all the public stockholders of KLA-Tencor Corp. to enjoin a
proposed transaction, pursuant to which KLA-Tencor will be
acquired by Lam Research Corporation, through a flawed process and
inadequate consideration.

Headquartered in Milpitas, California, KLA-Tencor Corp. is a
global, capital equipment company, supplying process control and
yield management products for the semiconductor, data storage,
LED, and related nano-electronics industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 300-8425
      Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smilh.com
              makerman@brodsky-smith.com

         - and -

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      30 Broad Street, 241h Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: srowley@zlk.com


KLA-TENCOR CORP: Faces "Karr" Suit Over Proposed Lam Take Over
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Karr, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. KLA-Tencor Corporation, et al., Case No. 115-cv-287331
(Cal. Super. Ct., October 29, 2015) is brought on behalf of all
the public stockholders of KLA-Tencor Corp. to enjoin a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which KLA-Tencor will be acquired by Lam
Research Corporation, through a flawed process and inadequate
consideration.

Headquartered in Milpitas, California, KLA-Tencor Corp. is a
global, capital equipment company, supplying process control and
yield management products for the semiconductor, data storage,
LED, and related nano-electronics industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMTTH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 534-2590
      Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


LANDERS AUTO: "Shipley" Class Action in Arkansas Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENNIS SHIPLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; and CYNTHIA JOHNSON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LANDERS
AUTO GROUP, LLC; NP VKW, LLC, d/b/arth Point Volkswagen; and
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants, NO. 4:15CV00696 JLH
(E.D. Ark.), District Judge J. Leon Holmes granted a consent
motion to stay the proceedings pending action by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on matters relevant to the case.

"Issues excluded from the stay are (1) the dismissal of Landers
Auto Group, LLC, and NP VKW, LLC, and (2) a determination by this
Court as to whether the instant case is the first class action in
the State of Arkansas regarding the subject matter of this
action," the court said.

A copy of the Court's November 18, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/XNmtedfrom Leagle.com.

Dennis Shipley, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Allison Elizabeth Ann Koile,
Sanford Law Firm, Joshua Sanford, Sanford Law Firm & Maryna O.
Jackson.

Cynthia Johnson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Allison Elizabeth
Ann Koile, Sanford Law Firm, Joshua Sanford, Sanford Law Firm &
Maryna O. Jackson.

Volkswagen Group of America Inc, Defendant, represented by Gail
Ponder Gaines, Barber Law Firm PLLC, Mark Evan Stallings, Barber
Law Firm PLLC & Michael E. Hale, Barber Law Firm PLLC.


LOGISTICS PARCEL: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Eusse and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Logistics Parcel Network Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-23826-DLG
(S.D. Fla., October 13, 2015) is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Logistics Parcel Network Corp. operates a transportation services
company in Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      9100 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


LTD FINANCIAL: Accused Of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Cohen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LTD Financial Services, LP and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:15-cv-07422-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., October 13, 2015) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

LTD Financial Services, LP owns and operates a debt collection
firm in New Jersey.

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


MARRIOTT HOTEL: "Cuellar" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Josue Cuellar, as an individual
and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated v. Marriott
Hotel Services, Inc. and Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., Case
No. 15-021251-CA-01 11th, was removed from the 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-23818-DPG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., a hospitality company, engages in
operating and franchising hotels and related lodging facilities
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosy Anette Aponte, Esq.
      R. APONTE & ASSOICATES
      8180 NW 36th Street, Suite 100j
      Doral, FL 33166
      Telephone: (786) 360-3263
      Facsimile: (786) 360-3266
      E-mail: a2aponte@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Joyce Ackerbaum Cox, Esq.
      Krista Anne Sivick, Esq.
      BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
      200 S Orange Avenue
      Suite 2300 PO Box 112
      Orlando, FL 32802-0112
      Telephone: (407) 649-4000
      Facsimile: 841-0168
      E-mail: jacox@bakerlaw.com
              ksivick@bakerlaw.com


MAYOR LOGISTICS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence Clark, an individual v. Mayor Logistics, Inc. and Does 1
to 10, inclusive, Case No. BC600042 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 5,
2015) seeks to recovery unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
reimbursement for unlawful deductions, indemnification for
necessary business expenses, restitution, injunctive relief, civil
and statutory penalties, damages, and attorneys' fees pursuant to
the California Labor Code.

Mayor Logistics, Inc. operates a private trucking company in the
business of transporting freight within the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan D. Saba, Esq.
      Jonathan S. Dennis, Esq.
      ROSEN SABA, LLP
      9350 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 250
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 285-1727
      Facsimile: (310) 285-1728
      E-mail: rsaba@rosensaba.com
              jdennis@rosensaba.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Frantz" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Frantz, and all others similarly situated v. Nationstar
Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-03444 (N.D. Tex., October 23,
2015), seeks damages for Defendant's failure to pay overtime
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-
to-Portal Pay Act.

The Defendant provides technology and data enhanced solutions to
the real estate market and companies engaged in the origination
and servicing of mortgage loans.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Tel: (214) 521-3605
      Fax: (214) 520-1181
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


OCWEN LOAN: "Stromberg" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Bonnie Lynne Stromberg, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC and Morgan Stanley Credit Corporation, Case No. 1-
15-CV-285321, was removed from the Santa Clara Superior Court to
the U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Jose).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-04719 to the
proceeding.

The Defendants offer residential mortgage loans and home equity
lines of credit.

Bonnie Lynne Stromberg is a pro se plaintiff.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jordan David Grotzinger, Esq.
      GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
      1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 586-7700
      Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
      E-mail: grotzingerj@gtlaw.com


OIL STATES: "Whann" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------
John Whann, and all others similarly situated v. Oil States
Industries, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-03115 (S.D. Tex., October 22,
2015), seeks to recover damages for unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and a reasonable
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendant operates a company that primarily provides
maintenance and repair services for the oil and gas industries
throughout the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      1104 San Antonio Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Tel: (512) 474-7677
      Fax: (512) 474-5306
      E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com


PACIFIC COAST: Continues to Defend "Welch" & "Berliner" Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Coast Oil Trust continues to defend the Welch and Berliner
class actions, according to the Company's Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On July 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy
Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and
others.

The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the
Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and the
prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement that
became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the
prospectuses issued thereto. The complaint states that the
plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under
the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that both such registration
statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts
and omitted material facts. The plaintiff seeks class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on
certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court
may deem just and proper.

On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class
action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast
Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC
and others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and
makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are
made in the Welch complaint. In November 2014, the Welch and
Berliner actions were consolidated into a single action.

The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against
any liability or expense it might incur in connection with the
consolidated action. Nevertheless, the Trust may incur expenses in
connection with the litigation. The Trust will estimate and
provide for potential losses that may arise out of litigation to
the extent that such losses are probable and can be reasonably
estimated. Significant judgment will be required in making any
such estimates and any actual liabilities of the Trust may
ultimately be materially different than any such estimates. The
Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or
estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in
connection with the consolidated action, and has not established
any reserves relating to the litigation. The Trust may withhold
estimated amounts from future distributions to cover future costs
associated with the litigation if determined necessary at any
time.


PARISI HOUSE: "Peterson" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Peterson, and all others similarly situated v. Parisi House
on the Hill, Parisi House on the Hill, Inc. and Does 1 through 20,
Case No. 115CV287170 (Cal. Super., October 22, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

The Defendants own and operate a rehabilitation and
recovery center located in San Jose, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel A. Menendez, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL A. MENENDEZ
      P.O. Box 1328
      San Jose, CA 95109
      Tel: (408) 479-4969
      Fax: (408) 273-6912
      E-mail: daniel@siliconvalleylegal.com


PCA ACQUISITIONS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Katzoff" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yisroel M. Katzoff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. PCA Acquisitions V, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
06307 (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

PCA Acquisitions V, LLC operates a financial services company.

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


PHARMAVITE LLC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin A. Herrera on behalf of himself and, others similarly
situated v. Pharmavite LLC and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No.
BC599201 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 28, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Pharmavite LLC operates a dietary supplements company based in
Northridge, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
      8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 432-0000
      Facsimile: (310) 432-0001


RAMTIN JAHANI: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Vehicle History
------------------------------------------------------------
Ayanda T. Frazier and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Ramtin Jahani, d/b/a Euro Auto Sales,  A-L
Financial Corp., and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
RG15792323 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 5, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to disclose to the Plaintiff the
vehicle's known history as a prior dealer vehicle.

The Defendants are in the business of buying, repairing and
reselling used vehicles to the general public and, taking vehicles
in trade.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander A. Guillen, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF OTTO & GUILLEN, PC
      559 Pilgrim Drive, Suite D
      Foster City, CA 94044
      Telephone: (650) 781-3162
      Facsimile: (650) 781-3169
      E-mail: aguillen@ottoguillenlaw.com

         - and -

      Jason D. Lazark, Esq.
      ATTORNEY ATLAW
      3410 Mission A venue, Suite 48
      Carmichael, CA 95841
      Telephone: (916) 217-6960
      E-mail: jlazark@yahoo.com


RCS LLC: "Galloway" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Durrell Galloway, and all others similarly situated v. RCS, LLC,
Case No. 6:15-cv-02578 (W.D. La., October 25, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

RCS, LLC has provided tank cleaning services to offshore rigs and
offshore supply vessels servicing the Gulf of Mexico's energy
industry. The Defendant maintains offices and business operations
in Lafayette, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: mparmet@brucknerburch.com


RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sholomo Golovenzitz, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. The Receivable Management Services
Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-07467 (D.N.J., October 13, 2015)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

The Receivable Management Services Corporation provides debt
recovery services to companies from a wide range of industries.

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


RITE AID: Faces "Smukler" Suit Over Proposed Walgreens Take Over
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Smukler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Rite Aid Corporation, et al., Case No. 11663 (Del. Ch.
Ct., November 3, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Rite Aid Corporation, to enjoin a proposed
transaction announced on October 27, 2015, pursuant to which Rite
Aid will be acquired by Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., through a
flawed process and inadequate consideration.

Rite Aid Corporation operates a drugstore chain that sells
prescription drugs and a range of other merchandise.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is the largest drug retailing chain
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com


SAND AND SEA: Faces "Prado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shantall Prado, Felecia Scott, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Sand and Sea Inc. d/b/a Shore Hotel
and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC600236 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
November 4, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Sand and Sea Inc. owns, operates, and manages one of the top-tier
hotels throughout Los Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Z. Srourian, Esq.
      SROURIAN LAW FIRM
      3440 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 915
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (310) 601-3131
      Facsimile: (310) 388-8444
      E-mail: legal@slfla.com

         - and -

      Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
      SOLOUKI & SAVOY, LLP
      316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
      Los Angeles, CA 90012
      Telephone: (213) 814-4940
      Facsimile: (213) 814-2550


SANDISK CORP: Faces "Cloud" Suit Over Proposed Western Take Over
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cloud, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sandisk Corp., et al., Case No. 115-CV-28770 (Cal.
Super. Ct., November 4, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the
public stockholders of SanDisk Corporation, to enjoin the
Defendants' attempt to sell the Company to Western Digital
Corporation for inadequate consideration.

Sandisk Corp. is a data storage provider with operations in the
United States and across the globe.

Western Digital Corporation is a provider of digital storage
solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Punzalan, Esq.
      PUNZALAN LAW. P.C.
      600 Allerton Street, Suite 201
      Redwood City, CA 94063
      Telephone: (650) 362-4150
      Facsimile: (650) 362-4151
      E-mail: markp@punzalanlaw.com

         - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202)337-1567
      E-mail: denright@zlk.com


SCHERR & MCCLURE: "Peter" Suit Removed to N.J. District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Peters, individual and on behalf of all those similarly
situate v. Scherr & McClure, P.A., Harold Scherr, Alex McClure,
and John Does 1-10, Case No.________, was removed to the U.S.
District Court District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-07426-SDW-SCM to the proceeding.

The case asserts claims for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Scherr & Mcclure, P.A. is a law firm in Atlanta, GA practicing in
Credit & Debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew T. Thomasson, 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


SELLAND AUTO: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Garland Parker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Selland Auto Transport, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No.
RG157919S2 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 3, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

Selland Auto Transport, Inc. operates a trucking company in
California engaged in transportation services for new and used
vehicles from manufacturing plants, ports, railhead, and auctions,
to retail dealerships.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Turley, Esq.
      David Mara, Esq.
      THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
      E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com
              dmara@turleylawfirm.com


SIENTRA INC: Faces "Albano" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angelo Albano and Charles Alabano d/b/a CA Productions,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Sientra, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV-536138 (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 issued in connection with Sientra's  September 17, 2015
secondary offering.

Sientra, Inc. operates a medical aesthetics company in Santo
Barbara, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPECIAL TOUCH: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Turgunbaev" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ikram Turgunbaev, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Special Touch Home Care Services,
Inc., Case No. 513551/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 5, 2015) is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc. provides home health care
to frail elderly individuals who live in New York City.

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


TMSO INC: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Watts" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darlene Watts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TMSO, Inc., Anabi Oil Corporation, and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. BC599358 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 28, 2015)
arises out of the Defendants' unlawful employment policies,
practices and procedures which have resulted in the failure of the
Defendant to pay the Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class
all wages due to them.

The Defendants operate and own several gas stations within the
state of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
      Cody R. Kennedy, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
      29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818)991-8080
      Facsimile: (818)991-8081
      E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzrnan.com
              kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com
              ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com


TONSOR LLC: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal & Rest Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Garrett on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Tonsor LLC and Does l-50, inclusive, Case No.
RG15792301 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 5, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to provide all the legally required
off-duty meal and rest breaks in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Tonsor LLC owns and operates hair salons throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Benowitz, Esq.
      LAW OFFIC-ES OF LOUIS BENOWITZ
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 844-5141
      Facsimile: (310) 492-4056
      E-mail: Louis@benowitzlaw.com

         - and -

      David Pourati, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DAVID POCRATL APC
      12400 Wilshire Boulevard. Suite 920
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 494-7900, Extension 160
      Facsimile: (310) 494-790
      E-mail: david@pourati.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Salas" Suit Over Defective HVAC System
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Salas and Gloria Ortega, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08629-FMO-E (C.D. Cal.,
November 4, 2015) is brought on behalf of all persons in the
United States who purchased or leased any Toyota Camry XV50 model
vehicles designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold,
warranted and serviced by the Defendants, with defects in the
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning ("HVAC") system of an
entire class of automobiles that poses an unreasonable health risk
to the driver and passengers of the vehicle.

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. designs and manufactures motor
vehicles, parts, and other products for sale in California, in the
United States, and throughout the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
      Robert Friedl, Esq.
      Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
      Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
      CAPSTONE LAW APC
      1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
      E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
              Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com
              Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
              Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com


UNION PACIFIC: Class Action Parties Must File Briefing Statement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that parties in a
class action lawsuit are required to file a joint schedule and
briefing statement within 14 days after the U.S. Supreme Court
decision in the Tyson Foods matter.

"As we reported in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2007, 20 rail shippers (many of whom are
represented by the same law firms) filed virtually identical
antitrust lawsuits in various federal district courts against us
and four other Class I railroads in the U.S. Currently, UPRR and
three other Class I railroads are the named defendants in the
lawsuit," the Company said. " The original plaintiff filed the
first of these claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on
May 14, 2007. The number of complaints reached a total of 30.
These suits allege that the named railroads engaged in price-
fixing by establishing common fuel surcharges for certain rail
traffic."

"In addition to suits filed by direct purchasers of rail
transportation services, a few of the suits involved plaintiffs
alleging that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail
transportation and sought to represent a purported class of
indirect purchasers of rail transportation services that paid fuel
surcharges. These complaints added allegations under state
antitrust and consumer protection laws. On November 6, 2007, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the
rail fuel surcharge cases be transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of
the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Following
numerous hearings and rulings, Judge Friedman dismissed the
complaints of the indirect purchasers, which the indirect
purchasers appealed. On April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's ruling
dismissing the indirect purchasers' claims based on various state
laws.

"On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued a decision that certified
a class of plaintiffs with eight named plaintiff representatives.
The decision included in the class all shippers that paid a rate-
based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant railroads for
rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1, 2003, through
December 31, 2008. This was a procedural ruling, which did not
affirm any of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs and does not
address the ability of the railroad defendants to disprove the
allegations made by the plaintiffs. On July 5, 2012, the defendant
railroads filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia requesting that the court review the class
certification ruling. On August 28, 2012, a panel of the Circuit
Court of the District of Columbia referred the petition to a
merits panel of the court to address the issues in the petition
and to address whether the district court properly granted class
certification. The Circuit Court heard oral arguments on May 3,
2013. On August 9, 2013, the Circuit Court vacated the class
certification decision and remanded the case to the district court
to reconsider the class certification decision in light of a
recent Supreme Court case and incomplete consideration of errors
in the expert report of the plaintiffs. On October 31, 2013, Judge
Friedman approved a schedule agreed to by all parties for
consideration of the class certification issue on remand.

"On October 2, 2014, the plaintiffs informed Judge Friedman that
their economic expert had a previously undisclosed conflict of
interest. Judge Friedman ruled on November 26, 2014, that the
plaintiffs had until April 1, 2015, to file a supplemental expert
report to support their motion for class certification. The
plaintiffs filed their supplemental expert report on April 1,
2015. Judge Friedman issued a scheduling order on June 19, 2015,
scheduling a class certification hearing for November 2, 2015.
Judge Friedman then vacated the hearing date in an Order on
September 28, 2015 because of the potential impact resulting from
the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court case, Tyson Foods v.
Bouaphakeo, related to class action certification and damages,
which will be heard on November 10, 2015. The Order requires the
parties to file a joint schedule and briefing statement within
fourteen days after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Tyson
Foods matter."


UNIRUSH LLC: Faces Suit Over Fraud and Misrepresentation
--------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Fuentes, Jetaime Howard, Mianika Smith, Shari Goodman,
Jermain Hayes, and all others similarly situated v. UniRush LLC
dba UniRush Financial Services, Rush Communications, LLC, Rush
Communications, of NYC, Inc., Meta Financial Group, Inc. and
MetaBank, Case No. 1:15-cv-08372 (S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2015),
seek damages and injunctive relief based on Defendants' alleged
unlawful conduct to deny account holders the ability to obtain
funds in their accounts and in misappropriating funds held in the
RushCard accounts.

The Plaintiffs alleged negligence, fraud and misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, breach of contract, conversion, breach of
fiduciary duty, violation of the New York Deceptive Acts and
Practices Law, violation of the New York False Advertising Law,
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
and violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act.

The Defendants provide financial services to those who do not have
access to traditional banking services. In January of 2003, Rush
began offering the RushCard to consumers throughout the country.
The RushCard is a prepaid VISA card currently issued by MetaBank
pursuant to a license from Visa USA, Inc.

MetaBank is a federally chartered savings bank with its
headquarters in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Domenico Minerva, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.C.
      28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 564-1637
      Fax: (212) 564-1807
      E-mail: dminerva@forthepeople.com


UNITED CONTINENTAL: Faces Class Action Over Sherman Act
-------------------------------------------------------
United Continental Holdings, Inc. on June 30, 2015, received a
Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") from the Antitrust Division of
the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") seeking documents
and information from the Company in connection with a DOJ
investigation related to statements and decisions about airline
capacity. The Company is working with the DOJ and has completed
its response to the CID. The Company is not able to predict what
action, if any, might be taken in the future by the DOJ or other
governmental authorities as a result of the investigation.

United Continental Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that beginning
on July 1, 2015, subsequent to the announcement of the CID, UAL
and United were named as defendants in multiple class action
lawsuits that asserted claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act,
which have been consolidated in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia. The complaints generally allege
collusion among U.S. airlines on capacity impacting airfares and
seek treble damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend
against the class action lawsuits.


UNITIL CORP: Massachusetts Court Okays Motion for Direct Review
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court has granted the Company's motion for direct
review of a class action.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against
Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in Massachusetts'
Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned Bellermann et
al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of
temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and
physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly
incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric
service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in
December 2008. The Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch. 93A
claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related
to the December 2008 ice storm. Following several years of
discovery, the plaintiffs in the complaint filed a motion with the
Court to certify the case as a class action.

On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its decision denying
plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. The
plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court (the "SJC"), and the SJC upheld the lower Court's
order. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to certify
a class under a different theory than previously argued. The
Company filed its opposition to this motion and also filed a
motion for summary judgment.

On July 27, 2015, the Court issued its decision allowing class
certification and denying the Company's motion for summary
judgment. The Company appealed this decision to the SJC, and on
October 15, 2015, the SJC granted the Company's motion for direct
review of the case.

The Town of Lunenburg has filed a separate action in the Court
arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The Court accepted the
parties' joint schedule with discovery continuing into 2016 and
trial likely in late 2016. The Company continues to believe that
both of these suits are without merit and will continue to defend
itself vigorously.


UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Castanon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Universal Protection Service, LP, and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. BC599950 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 4,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide
Security Guards' meal periods.

Universal Protection Service, LP is a nationwide provider of
security services in the United States and headquartered in Santa
Ana, County of Orange in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ophir J. Bitton, Esq.
      Cesar G. Lachica, Jr.
      BITTON & ASSOCIATES
      7220 Melrose Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90046
      Telephone: (310) 356-1006
      Facsimile: (818) 524-1224


USG CORPORATION: Wallboard Settlement Approval Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that one person has
taken an appeal from the final judgment order approving the
indirect purchaser settlement in the wallboard pricing class
action lawsuits, and therefore that settlement is not yet final.

In late 2012, USG Corporation and United States Gypsum Company
were named as defendants in putative class action lawsuits
alleging that since at least September 2011, U.S. wallboard
manufacturers conspired to fix and raise the price of gypsum
wallboard sold in the United States and to effectuate the alleged
conspiracy by ending the practice of providing job quotes on
wallboard. These lawsuits are consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under the
title In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437.
One group of plaintiffs brings their claims on behalf of a class
of entities that purchased gypsum wallboard in the United States
directly from any of the defendants or their affiliates from
January 1, 2012 to the present. The second group of plaintiffs
brings their claims on behalf of indirect purchasers of gypsum
wallboard who from January 1, 2012 through the present indirectly
purchased wallboard in the United States from the defendants or
their affiliates for end use and not for resale. Similar lawsuits
have been filed in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia courts on
behalf of purchasers of wallboard in Canada. The Canadian lawsuits
also name as defendants CGC Inc., our Canadian operating
subsidiary, as well as other Canadian and U.S. wallboard
manufacturers.

USG has denied the allegations made in these wallboard pricing
lawsuits, believes these cases are without merit, and that USG's
pricing and selling policies were and are made independently and
in full compliance with the law. Class action antitrust litigation
in the United States, however, is expensive, protracted, and
carries the risk of triple damages and joint and several
liability.

"To avoid the expense, risk and further distraction of management,
in late 2014, we agreed to a settlement of the U.S. direct and
indirect purchaser plaintiff class actions and in the third
quarter of 2014, we recorded a $48 million charge for the
settlements ($39.25 million for the direct purchaser settlement
and $8.75 million for the indirect purchaser settlement)," the
Company said. "On August 20, 2015, the court entered final
judgment orders approving both the direct and indirect purchaser
settlements. No member of the direct purchaser class appealed from
the final judgment order approving the direct purchaser
settlement, and therefore, that settlement should be final. One
person appealed from the final judgment order approving the
indirect purchaser settlement, and therefore that settlement is
not yet final. We believe that the appeal is without merit and
that the indirect purchaser settlement order will be affirmed on
appeal, but the indirect purchaser settlement will not become
final unless and until the appeal is favorably resolved."

The settlement of the U.S. class action lawsuits does not include
the Canadian lawsuits.  "At this stage of the Canadian lawsuits,
we are not able to estimate the amount, if any, of any reasonably
possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses. We believe,
however, that these Canadian lawsuits will not have a material
effect on our business, financial condition, operating results or
cash flows," the Company said.


USG CORPORATION: Wallboard Manufacturers Face Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in the first
quarter of 2015, USG and seven other wallboard manufacturers were
named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in federal court in
California by 12 homebuilders asserting individual claims similar
to the claims asserted in the U.S. class action lawsuits. These
homebuilders opted out of the class action settlements, and their
lawsuit has been transferred to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that is presiding over
the U.S. class action lawsuits.

"We believe that the cost, if any, of resolving these
homebuilders' claims will not materially increase our exposure
above the $48 million agreed to in the U.S. class action
settlements," the Company said.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Wolf" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Wolf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
07899-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., November 4, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged installation of defeat devices in
approximately 482,000 Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the
United States, and more than 11 million vehicles worldwide, to
cheat on emissions tests, that is, to engage full emissions
controls only when undergoing official emissions testing.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 623.3000
      Facsimile: (973) 623.0858
      E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
      Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
      KARON LLC
      700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 612.1851
      Facsimile: (216) 241.8175
      E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
              bhollowell@karonllc.com

         - and -

      Jay R. Faeges, Esq.
      MILLER GOLER FAEGES LAPINE, LLP
      1301 E. 9th Street, Suite 2700
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (216) 696.3366
      Facsimile: (216) 363.5835
      E-mail: faeges@mgfl-law.com

         - and -

      Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
      PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, PLC
      1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1610
      Cleveland, OH 44115
      Telephone: (216) 589.9280
      Facsimile: (888) 411.0038
      E-mail: arosca@prwlegal.com


WONG & LAU: Faces "Yee" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kjen Gee Yee and Richard Zhi Qiang Chen as individuals, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wong & Lau, Inc., et
al., Case No. BC600087 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 4, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Wong & Lau, Inc. owns and operates several Chinese restaurants in
Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ray Hsu, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RAY HSU
      200 South Garfield Avenue, Suite 105
      Alhambra, CA 91801
      Telephone: (626) 600-1086
      Facsimile: (877) 771-3407
      E-mail: Iabor@rayhsuIaw.com


WONG & LAU: Faces "Yu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sen Zhi Yu, an individual v. Wong & Lau, Inc., et al., Case No.
BC600088 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 4, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Wong & Lau, Inc. owns and operates several Chinese restaurants in
Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ray Hsu, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RAY HSU
      200 South Garfield Avenue, Suite 105
      Alhambra, CA 91801
      Telephone: (626) 600-1086
      Facsimile: (877) 771-3407
      E-mail: Iabor@rayhsuIaw.com


XTREME CUSTOM: "Monterrey" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
David Monterrey, and all others similarly situated v. Xtreme
Custom Group, Inc., Wade D. Jones, Jovanka Nussberger and Jessica
M. Quintero, Case No. 33586159 (Fla. Cir., October 22, 2015),
seeks damages for unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a company that customizes residential and
hospitality furniture and specialized interior applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *