CAR_Public/151207.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 7, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 243


                            Headlines


1ST MIDAMERICA: Sued in Ill. for Charging Wrong Overdraft Fees
ALBERTA: Settlement OK'd in Suit by Former Foster Children
AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Violation of Securities Laws
APPLE INC: Wins Summary Judgment in Suit Over Security Checks
ASSET RECOVERY: "Anderson" Suit Seeks Damages Over FDCPA Breach

ASSOCIATED READY MIX: Faces "Ambrose" Wage and Hour Suit
AT&T MOBILITY: Suit Over Unli Data Plans Sent to Arbitration
AUTOTRADER.COM INC: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of RICO Act
BALTIMORE, MD: Attys Want Class Status of Suit vs. Housing Agency
BP: Rhode Island Ers Named Lead Plaintiff In Oil Spill Class Suit

CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION: Amended Pleadings in "Flanagan" Okayed
CINNABAR SERVICE: Out-of-Court Deal OK'd in Picher Buyout Suit
CLIFFS NATURAL: Court Denies Request for Oral Argument
CRESPI CARMELITE: "Badilla" Suit Seeks Damages for Age Bias
CYTEC INDUSTRIES: "Andersen" Suit Challenges Merger with Solvay

DELTA AIRLINES: "Cumming" Suit Included in Airline Antitrust MDL
DELTA AIRLINES: "Curley" Suit Included in Airline Antitrust MDL
DELTA AIRLINES: "Devivo" Suit Included in Airline Antitrust MDL
DELTA AIRLINES: "Hersh" Suit Included in Airline Antitrust MDL
DELTA AIRLINES: "Raji" Suit Included in Airline Antitrust MDL

DELTA AIRLINES: "Repan" Suit Included in Airline Antitrust MDL
DELTA AIRLINES: "Winton" Suit Included in Airline Antitrust MDL
DOLLAR TREE: Removes "Greer" Suit to Southern District of Florida
DRAFTKINGS INC: Rigged Online Games, "Brown" Claims in SDNY Suit
EMC CORP: "Barret" Suit Challenges Sale Agreement with Dell

ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suit Over Packaging Errors
EROS INTERNATIONAL: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
EROS INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
EXCELLUS: Judge Waives Right to Funds
FGX INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Strike Affirmative Defenses Denied

FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Michigan Court Wants FCRA Suit Revised
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: January 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Suit
GERBER PRODUCTS: Labeling Case Remanded to Calif. State Court
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Ragland" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL

GREENWELL LLC: "Bradshaw" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
H2S HOLDINGS: "Bailon" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: "Lindsey" FLSA Case Loses Class Cert. Bid
HUNTSMAN INT'L: Faces "Fuentes" Wage & Hour Action in Los Angeles
ICHIRO RESTAURANT: Court Grants in Part Plaintiffs' Motion

INT'L CRUISE & EXCURSION: "Coulter" Sues for Phone Scam
INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Settles Securities Class Suit for $14-Mil.
INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: "Shah" Suit Moved From California to N.Y.
J.L.H. INVESTMENTS: SC Affirms Verdict in "Freeman" Case
J.M. FIELD: Improperly Sacked Employee, "Caravello" Action Claims

KAG WEST: Court Sends "Malone" Claims to Arbitration
LABOR READY: Court Sends "Machado" Suit to Arbitration
LITOW & PECH: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Feb. 19
MACON CONSTRUCTION: Faces Breach of Contract Suit in New York
MANPOWER INC: Must Comply with Discovery Order, Judge Says

MAPLEBEAR INC: Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
MARYLAND: Baltimore Law Firm Files $38MM Suit Over Tax Refund
MEMPHIS, TN: Atty Says City Withheld Docs About Rape Kit Backlog
MICHIGAN: Briefing in Dental Suit to be Completed by Dec. 11
NAT'L DISTRIBUTION CENTERS: Faces "Hardaway" Wage Action

NATIONAL BUSINESS: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: "Beechum" Suit Alleges Excessive Fees
NICK & HOWARD: Court Trims Ex-Employees Suit Against Nightclub
NEW YORK: Debt Collection Scheme Victims Wins $59 Million
NOBILIS HEALTH: Sued Over Violation of Federal Securities Law

NUCOR STEEL: Plaintiffs' Motion for Judicial Notice Denied
OSP GROUP: Court Denies Motion to Stay "McEwan" Case
PACIFIC INT'L SERVICES: "Aguirre" Action Seeks to Recover OT Pay
PENN-RIDGE: Court Remands "Castellon" Action to State Court
PETER T. ROACH: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

PHARMERICA: Settles Suit Over Unsolicited Ads for $15-Mil.
PMC-SIERRA INC: "Bhakta" Action Seeks to Bar Skyworks Merger
PORSCHE: Faces First Class Suit in Home State
PRESBYTERIAN HOMES: "Armitage" Action Seeks to Bar Eviction
RETTA DIXON: Former Residents Sue Over Alleged Crimes

SEATTLE SERVICE BUREAU: " Schaefer" Stays in Fla. District Court
SIENTRA INC: Wagner Firm Files Securities Class Suit
STARZ: January 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
STRAIGHT PATH: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit
SUNSOF INC: Removes "Hernandez" Suit to Florida District Court

SUN WEST: "Johnson Action" Remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court
SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY: 3rd Cir. Upholds Ruling in Strip Search Case
TRICOMM LLC: "Contreras" Action Seeks to Recover Wages
UBM LLC: Wins Summary Judgment in Grind Lap Class Suit
UNCLE JULIO'S: Faces "Castaldo" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wage

UNITED STATES: OPM Faces "Cavis" Suit Over Cyber-Breach
URBAN ELEVATOR: Court Dismisses Plaintiff's Claims v. Sinopec USA
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: "Youngers" Suit Moved From California to N.Y.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Boisselle" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Bjelic" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating

WALGREEN BOOTS: Consumers Consolidates Herbal Supplement Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Court Grants Class Certification in ATM Fee Suit
WALT DISNEY: Movies Lack Subtitles, "Anthony" Suit Says
WAREHOUSE DEMO: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
WELLS FARGO: Summary Judgment Bid in Wage & Hour Suit Granted

YMCA OF MEMPHIS: Faces "Ausburn" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ZAFGEN INC: Artificially Inflated Shares, "Bessler" Action Claims

* CFPB Arbitration Plan Provokes Dubious Industry Claims
* Rationale Behind Arbitration Clauses at Odds with Class Suit
* Supreme Court Intends to Limit Class Suit and Access to Trials


                            *********


1ST MIDAMERICA: Sued in Ill. for Charging Wrong Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Towner, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 1st MidAmerica Credit Union, and Does 1-100, Case No.
3:15-cv-01162 (S.D. Ill., October 20, 2015), alleges that 1st
MidAmerica charged overdraft fees for transactions for which there
was money in the checking account to cover the transactions,
thereby, breaching the express terms of its consumer contracts.

1st MidAmerica is a state chartered credit union with its
headquarters located in Bethalto, Illinois.  1st MidAmerica
provides banking services in Illinois and Missouri to over 45,000
members.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
          BRANDT LAW LLC
          P.O. Box 487
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 307-6116
          E-mail: derek@brandtlawllc.com

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq.
          MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
          Redlands, CA 92374
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  jkk@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Thomas A. Segal, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          201 Wilshire Boulevard
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  thomas@kicklawfirm.com


ALBERTA: Settlement OK'd in Suit by Former Foster Children
----------------------------------------------------------
Deb Zinck, writing for Global News, reported that an application
for a settlement was granted in a class-action lawsuit by former
foster children who were victims of child abuse and other crimes.

The settlement will allow people who were in the care of the
province between 1966 and February of 2008 to apply to Alberta
Victim Services for financial compensation.

Lawyer Michael Peerless, who represented the class, says that
includes people who would otherwise not have been able to make a
claim, because too much time had passed since the crimes had been
committed.

"That's on top of the 1,000 or 1,500 other people we expect to
make claims whose limitation periods weren't blocked, but who did
not know they could make a claim."

Peerless estimated the final payouts could amount to between $30
million and $50 million, with a typical claim being in the range
of $15,000 to $30,000.

The settlement includes $7.5 million that has been set aside by
the provincial government specifically to cover claims which would
have fallen outside the time limitations.

An Edmonton judge granted the application for approval of the
class-action settlement. The judge said he was satisfied the
settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the
class.

Alberta's minister of Human Services issued a statement:

"I am pleased the settlement will be moving forward, and I hope it
provides a sense of closure for people who were victims of crime
before coming into or while in the government's guardianship.
"Government has a legal and moral obligation to provide for the
safety and well-being of children in its guardianship.

"We believe this is a fair agreement that respects people who were
in provincial guardianship as children and gives them access to
legislated compensation similar to other victims of crime," said
Irfan Sabir.


AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Violation of Securities Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC announces a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. ("Amicus" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: FOLD) concerning possible violations of federal
securities laws between September 15, 2015 and October 1, 2015.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm in advance of the December 7,
2015, lead plaintiff motion deadline.

To join this class action lawsuit, please contact Brian Lundin,
Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or via e-mail at
brian@lundinlawpc.com.

According to the complaint, on October 2, 2015, Amicus announced
that after meeting with FDA officials, the Company does not
anticipate being able to submit a new drug application (NDA) for
migalastat, the company's Fabry disease treatment, by the end of
the year. When the truth was revealed, shares dropped, harming
investors.

No class has been certified in the action. Until a class is
certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You
may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.
Lundin Law PC was created by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles.

Brian Lundin, Esq.
LUNDIN LAW PC
10 Post Office Rd #300, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: 888-713-1033
Facsimile: 888-713-1125
Email: brian@lundinlaw.com


APPLE INC: Wins Summary Judgment in Suit Over Security Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory V. Mersol, Esq. -- gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- at Baker &
Hostetler LLP, in an article for Lexology, reported that the
Supreme Court held in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk,
135 S. Ct. 513 (2014) that employees working at an Amazon.com
warehouse were not entitled to overtime pay for time they spent in
exit security checks designed to ensure that they were not taking
company product with them. The crux of the court's decision was
that the checks themselves involved no work and were not "integral
and dispensable" parts of the employees' workdays.

In 2013, or the year before Busk was handed down, three class
actions were brought against Apple Inc. raising similar claims on
behalf of Apple's 52 California retail stores. Frlekin v. Apple
Inc., Case No. C 13-03451 (N.D. Cal). They contended that Apple
workers leaving the premises with a bag, purse, backpack, or
briefcase or with technology such as an iPhone would need to
undergo an exit search before leaving for the day. The plaintiffs
sought unpaid overtime under the FLSA as well as under California
law and the laws of a handful of other states.

In the wake of Busk, the court granted summary judgment as to the
plaintiffs' FLSA claims, as well as a number of FLSA claims
relying on state laws that paralleled the FLSA. That left claims
under California's stricter wage and hour laws, for which the
court certified a class of California hourly retail workers since
2009 -- still, a healthy-sized class for the plaintiffs.

On November 7, 2015, however, the court granted summary judgment
as to the remaining claims under California law. Interestingly,
there was little dispute that the employees spent varying times
undergoing checks after punching out and that the checks were
undergone for Apple's benefit. Nor did the court rely directly on
Busk for much of its holding, as the case was being decided under
California state law. Instead, the court found that the employees
themselves could avoid the checks simply by not bringing a bag or
purse or Apple device to work. As the court concluded: "our
plaintiffs could all freely choose not to bring bags to work,
thereby avoiding Apple's restrictions during exit searches. That
free choice is fatal to their claims."

The Frlekin decision reflects that even if a case is certified,
even one under California law, the employer can still prevail in a
big way by obtaining a judgment against the entire class.


ASSET RECOVERY: "Anderson" Suit Seeks Damages Over FDCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rafieh Anderson on behalf of himself and others similarly-situated
v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-07590-PGS-LHG (D.N.J.,
October 20, 2015), alleges that the Defendants use an unfair and
unconscionable means of debt collection in violation of the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act.

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a collection agency with its
principal office located at 2200 E. Devon Avenue, Ste 200, Des
Plaines, Illinois 60018-4501.

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC is a collection agency with its
principal office located at 16 McLeland Road, St. Cloud, Minnesota
56303.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Marcus, Esq.
      Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
      MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Tel: (732) 695-3282
      Fax: (732) 298-6256


ASSOCIATED READY MIX: Faces "Ambrose" Wage and Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Sean Ambrose, on behalf of himself and others similarly-situated
v. Associated Ready Mixed Concrete, Inc. Case No. BC593309 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles County, October 19, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to provide all meal periods, authorize
and permit all paid rest periods, furnish accurate itemized wage
statements and unfair business practices in accordance to the
California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code
and applicable Wage Orders issued by the California Industrial
Welfare Commission.

Associated Ready Mixed Concrete, Inc. is a corporation licensed to
do business in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
      Gregg Lander, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
      5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
      Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
      Tel: (323) 549-9100
      Fax: (323) 549-0101
      Email: Barnes@kbarnes.com

         - and -

      Bruce Kokozian, Esq.
      KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC
      9440 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4608
      Tel: (323) 857-5900
      Fax: (310) 275-6301
      Email: BKokozian@kokozianlawfirm.com


AT&T MOBILITY: Suit Over Unli Data Plans Sent to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronnie L. White of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Defendant AT&T
Mobility LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration of Claims and to Stay
Litigation in the case captioned, RAUL CORTES SOLIS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AT&T
MOBILITY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:15-CV-1343-RLW (E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiff Raul Cortes Solis alleges claims for Violation of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (Count I) and fraudulent
misrepresentation (Count II). Solis contends that Defendant AT&T
Mobility LLC (AT&T) has been selling "unlimited data plans" to
customers without informing the customers that the plans had built
in restrictors based upon the quantity of data used by the
customer.

The case was initially filed in state court.  AT&T removed the
action to the Eastern District of Missouri claiming that the Court
has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
(CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d).

In the motion, AT&T maintains that the arbitration provision in
the contracts governing Solis' service requires both the account
holder and any users on the account to arbitrate any claims
against AT&T.

In his Memorandum and Order dated November 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/KF6F41from Leagle.com, Judge White found no basis
for determining that the claims in the First Amended Petition are
not covered by the arbitration provision. The Court found that
Solis' claims are subject to arbitration and stays the litigation
pending the outcome of that arbitration.

The Court directed the parties to jointly submit a notice updating
the Court on the status of the case no later than 10 days
following the completion of arbitration.

Raul Cortes Solis is represented by Jeremy D. Hollingshead, Esq. -
- j.hollingshead@HPElaw.com -- HOLLINGSHEAD AND PAULUS

AT&T Mobility LLC is represented by Kevin S. Ranlett, Esq. --
kranlett@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP


AUTOTRADER.COM INC: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of RICO Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fairfield Motors, Inc. d/b/a Route 23 Honda, Adjess Motors LLC,
d/b/a Route 46 Chevrolet and Alfred Stein, Inc., d/b/a Keystone
Volvo of Berwyn d/b/a Keystone Volvo of Doylestown, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AutoTrader.com,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-06017-SJF-SIL (E.D.N.Y., October 20, 2015),
is brought over alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

AutoTrader.com, Inc. is an online marketplace for car shoppers and
sellers.  The Atlanta, Georgia-based company aggregates millions
of new, used, and certified second-hand cars from thousands of
dealers and private sellers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Leonard A. Bellavia, Esq.
          Shaun M. Malone, Esq.
          BELLAVIA BLATT & CROSSETT, PC
          200 Old Country Road, Suite 400
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 873-3000
          Facsimile: (516) 873-9032
          E-mail: lbellavia@bellavialaw.com
                  smalone@dealerlaw.com


BALTIMORE, MD: Attys Want Class Status of Suit vs. Housing Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Puente, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reported that
attorneys are seeking class-action status for a lawsuit against
the Housing Authority of Baltimore City and some of its
maintenance workers, arguing that many more tenants may have been
victims of an alleged sex-for-repairs scheme.

The request, filed in U.S. District Court, would allow more
residents to join the lawsuit but shield their names and
embarrassing encounters from the public, the lawyers said. If a
judge approves the status and the allegations are proved, damages
against the housing authority could increase.

"Many victims continue to suffer in circumstances that leave them
afraid to come forward publicly in a lawsuit," attorneys Cary J.
Hansel and Annie B. Hirsch said in a statement to The Baltimore
Sun.

They filed suit in September on behalf of tenants who allege that
maintenance workers in three public housing developments demanded
sexual favors as a condition for making repairs to their homes.
Some tenants have been denied needed repair work for months as a
result, the suit contends.

Along with the class-action request, nine more women joined the
lawsuit Friday, bringing the total to 20. The lawsuit alleges
sexual harassment or assault at Gilmor Homes, Westport and Govans
Manor. The housing authority has said it will begin settlement
talks with women named in the suit, who are seeking more than $10
million each.

Housing authority spokeswoman Tania Baker said the agency "has not
had a chance to fully review the additional allegations. Matters
related to this lawsuit will be discussed at the scheduled
mediation conference on December 14th."

Investigators from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development have been looking into the allegations, and the
Baltimore state's attorney's office has said it is conducting its
own criminal investigation.

The women named in the lawsuit allege assault and violations of
their constitutional and fundamental rights, including the right
to physical security. Class-action status would allow other
victims to benefit from any relief granted by the court without
having their names listed in public documents.


BP: Rhode Island Ers Named Lead Plaintiff In Oil Spill Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Comtois, writing for Pensions and Investments, reported that
the Rhode Island Employees' Retirement System, Providence, was
named the lead plaintiff in two class-action lawsuits against
fossil-fuel companies BP and Plains All American Pipeline for oil
spills that harmed both investors and the environment, state
Treasurer Seth Magaziner's office reported.

"To protect the pension investments of Rhode Islanders, we are
seeking restitution for the financial harm caused to the pension
system by Plains All American and BP's environmental
recklessness," Mr. Magaziner said in a news release.

Both lawsuits accuse the companies of reckless behavior,
misrepresentation and fraud related to the spills.

Plains All American Pipeline is responsible for an oil spill off
the coast of California in May. The BP oil spill in question
relates to an incident in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, in 2006.

After the Plains spill, the price of the company's securities
declined by nearly 30%, causing Rhode Island's $8.3 billion
pension fund to lose $3.9 million on its investment in Plains
securities.

The suit against BP alleges the company intentionally failed to
disclose the foreseeable risk that oil production at Prudhoe Bay
would have to be shut down or curtailed because its pipelines were
severely corroded as a result of BP's substandard maintenance and
monitoring practices.

In 2006, BP discovered that a leak in a pipeline in Prudhoe Bay
had caused a massive spill of more than 200,000 gallons of oil
covering more than two acres of tundra. BP said the spill was an
anomaly and announced measures to prevent another leak. Months
later, BP announced multiple leaks in another Prudhoe Bay
pipeline, spilling about 1,000 more gallons of oil. BP then shut
down its entire Prudhoe Bay operation, which represented 8% of its
U.S. oil production. News of the shutdown caused oil prices to
surge more than $2 a barrel, the news release said.

As a result of the BP spills, ERS lost about $150,000, said David
Ortiz, spokesman for Mr. Magaziner's office.

BP spokesman David Nicholas and Plains spokesman Brad Leone could
not be reached for comment by press time.


CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION: Amended Pleadings in "Flanagan" Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jane J. Boyle of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas granted in part Plaintiffs'
proposed amended pleadings in the case captioned, THERESA R.
FLANAGAN and DAVID L. PATTERSON, Plaintiffs, v. CHESAPEAKE
EXPLORATION, LLC, CHESAPEAKE ENERGY MARKETING, INC. and CHESAPEAKE
OPERATING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-0222-B (N.D. Tex.).

Plaintiffs and Chesapeake Exploration entered into oil and gas
leases to pay 25% royalties on proceeds computed at an undefined
point of sale. Chesapeake Exploration sold gas covered by the
leases at the wellhead to its wholly-owned subsidiary Chesapeake
Energy Marketing that would then sell the gas on the open market
to an unaffiliated purchaser for a much higher price.  From this,
Plaintiffs would receive royalty payments on the lower wellhead
sales price rather than the higher open-market price. Plaintiffs
believed they were entitled to the higher royalties, and that
Chesapeake Exploration, Chesapeake Energy Marketing, and
Chesapeake Operating had executed sham transactions to improperly
minimize their royalty payments.

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the Defendant for
underpayment of oil and gas royalties. They brought numerous
claims against Chesapeake Defendants, including claims for breach
of contract, breach of the implied duty to reasonably market oil
and gas, and for declaratory judgment.  The Court's August 10
Order dismissed all of Plaintiffs' claims except for their breach
of contract claim, but allowed Plaintiffs to replead their claims
for breach of the implied duty to reasonably market oil and gas
and for declaratory judgment.

The Court, in its Memorandum Opinion and Order issued August 10,
2015, permitted Plaintiffs to replead their claims to overcome the
deficiencies identified in the order.

In the motion, Plaintiffs Theresa Flanagan and David Patterson
seek to amend their claims for breach of the implied duty to
reasonably market oil and gas and for declaratory judgment
following dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 4, 2015
available at http://is.gd/S8MO7Ifrom Leagle.com, Judge Boyle
concluded that the futility of amendment factor weighs against
granting Plaintiffs leave to amend its declaratory judgment claim.
The Court granted leave to Plaintiffs to amend their claim for
breach of the implied duty to reasonably market oil and gas and
dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claim.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Donald H. Ray, Esq.
RAY & WILSON
6300 Ridglea Pl
Fort Worth, TX 76116
Tel: (817) 377-0500

     - and -

J. Jeffrey Springer, Esq.
SPRINGER & LYLE LLP
1807 Westminster St
Denton, TX 76205
Tel: (940)387-0404

Defendants are represented by Craig A. Haynes, Esq. --
Craig.Haynes@tklaw.com -- Greg W. Curry, Esq. --
Greg.Curry@tklaw.com -- Jennifer P. Henry, Esq. --
Jennifer.Henry@tklaw.com -- Julie Christine Abernethy, Esq. --
Julie.Abernethy@tklaw.com -- Pervis Jefferson Ballew, Jr., Esq.
-- Jeff.ballew@tklaw.com -- Rachelle H. Glazer, Esq. --
Rachelle.Glazer@tklaw.com -- THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP


CINNABAR SERVICE: Out-of-Court Deal OK'd in Picher Buyout Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wall Kennedy, writing for The Joplin Globe, reported that a class-
action lawsuit on behalf of former residents of Picher against a
Tulsa-based appraisal firm involved with the federal buyout of
property at the old mining town has been resolved in an out-of-
court settlement.

Tulsa County District Court Judge Dana Kuehn signed off on the
$1.3 million settlement on Thursday. The 161 plaintiffs in the
class action could receive their share of the settlement before
Christmas.

The settlement, reached after mediation in June, provides $650,000
to the plaintiff's lawyers and $650,000 to the plaintiffs. Each of
the Cinnabar-appraised households could receive about $4,000.
Original estimates had placed that amount at $5,700 per household.

The appraisal company, Cinnabar Service Co., of Tulsa, settled the
suit by offering "every dime of insurance which Cinnabar has
available" for the claims sought by the residents.

Cinnabar had a liability insurance policy for $2 million, covering
its action with the Lead-Impacted Communities Relocation
Assistance Trust. The trust oversaw the buyout of Picher, which
was completed in 2009, with guidance from state environmental
officials. Cinnabar and another company, Van Tuyl, appraised the
properties. Van Tuyl has filed for bankruptcy.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in an October 2014 ruling, said the
affected residents could move forward as a class.

The former residents of Picher alleged that their properties were
intentionally undervalued by Cinnabar during the company's
appraisals for the Lead-Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance
Trust.

Picher, located in Ottawa County, lies at the heart of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Tar Creek Superfund Site. Years
of zinc and lead mining led to studies conducted by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers that found 86 percent of the properties in the
town were undermined and at high risk of caving in. That prompted
the buyout action.

There were hundreds of buyout offers totaling nearly $45 million
for property in the area.

The properties were to be sold to a trust for an amount equal to
the average cost of housing elsewhere in Ottawa County. The offers
were approved by the LICRAT. Taxpayer money was put into the trust
for distribution to property owners.

According to court documents, the plaintiffs alleged that their
appraisals were consistently "lowballed" and that through other
improper practices their appraisals were lower than "the average
cost of comparable housing elsewhere in the county."

Picher history

Many of the properties that were scheduled to be bought out were
heavily damaged by an EF-4 tornado that struck the town on May 10,
2008. The federal government provided no further aid to rebuild
homes, instead opting to expedite the buyout.


CLIFFS NATURAL: Court Denies Request for Oral Argument
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dan Aaron Polster of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied Defendants' request
for oral argument in the case captioned, THE DEP'T OF THE TREASURY
OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND ITS DIVISION OF INVESTMENT, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CLIFFS
NATURAL RESOURCES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:14 CV 1031
(N.D. Ohio).

The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of publicly traded stock of Defendant Cliffs Natural
Resources, Inc. between March 14, 2012 and March 26, 2013.
Specifically, the claims are alleged against Cliffs and certain of
its former and current executives and arise under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Lead Plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint that complied with the Court's page limitation, included
the suggested attachment, and reduced the number of confidential
witnesses from 29 to 19.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint;
motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(F) to strike certain allegations
from the second amended complaint; and motion to schedule oral
argument on motion to dismiss and motion to strike.

In an Opinion and Order dated November 6, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Zkl6FJfrom Leagle.com, Judge Polster held that the
benefit of oral argument is unwarranted because the briefs were
thorough and well-written.  The Court also said the baseless
allegations of fraudulent behavior by Defendants should also be
stricken because they are scandalous under Rule 12(f).

Counsel for both parties were slated to confer and file on
November 16, 2015, a proposed agreed discovery schedule.

Department of Treasury of the State of New Jersey is represented
by Adam D. Hollander, Esq. -- adam.hollander@blbglaw.com --
BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER & GROSSMAN, Brandon M. Fierro, Esq.
-- bfierro@lowenstein.com -- Jamie R. Gottlieb, Esq. --
jgottlieb@lowenstein.com -- Joseph A. Fischetti, Esq. --
jfischetti@lowenstein.com -- Michael B. Himmel, Esq. --
mhimmel@lowenstein.com -- Michael T.G. Long, Esq. --
mlong@lowenstein.com -- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER & Scott D. Simpkins,
Esq. -- sdsimp@climacolaw.com -- CLIMACO, WILCOX, PECA, TARANTINO
& GAROFOLI

Defendants are represented by Adrienne F. Mueller, Esq. --
afmueller@jonesday.com -- Brett W. Bell, Esq. --
bbell@jonesday.com -- Geoffrey J. Ritts, Esq. --
grits@jonesday.com -- John M. Newman, Jr., Esq. --
jnewman@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY


CRESPI CARMELITE: "Badilla" Suit Seeks Damages for Age Bias
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Badilla, Joan Weaver, Simon Chavez and Janet Nungester,
individually, Plaintiff, v. Crespi Carmelite High School Inc. and
John Does 1-100, Case No. BC598212 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
County, October 16, 2015), seeks damages for lost wages and other
employment benefits, pain, suffering and emotional distress,
medical costs, attorneys' fees, punitive damages, wages in lieu of
meal periods denied, wages in lieu of rest periods denied, and
interest thereon and all penalties in violation of the Government
Code section 12900 et seq. of the Fair Employment and Housing Act,
Age Discrimination in Employment Act 29 USC section 62l et seq.
and Title 7 42 USC section 2000(e) et seq.

The Plaintiffs' employments were allegedly terminated wrongfully
as a result of age-discrimination given that their respective ages
were well above 60 years of age.

Crespi Carmelite High School Inc. is a private High School located
at 5031 Alonzo Avenue, Encino, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy B. Sottile, Esq. SBN: 127026
      Michael F. Baltaxe, Esq. SBN: 129532
      Jeremy D. Scherwin, Esq. SBN: 274632
      Payam I. Aframian, Esq. SBN: 299345
      SOTTILE & BALTAXE
      4360 Park Terrace Drive, Suite 140
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Tel: (818) 889-0050
      Fax: (818) 889-6050

          - and -

      Paul Tashnazi, Esq.
      THE TASHNIZI LAW FIRM
      200 N. Westlake Blvd., Suite 204
      Westlake Village, CA 91362
      Tel: 805-719-2010
      Fax: 866-973-3368


CYTEC INDUSTRIES: "Andersen" Suit Challenges Merger with Solvay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Andersen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. Cytec Industries Inc., Chris A. Davis, Anthony G.
Fernandes, Shane D. Fleming, David P. Hess, Louis L. Hoynes, Jr.,
Barry C. Johnson, Carol P. Lowe, William P. Powell, Thomas W.
Rabaut, Raymond P. Sharpe, Solvay SA, and Tulip Acquisition Inc.,
(D. Del., October 21, 2015), seeks enjoinment of the acquisition
of Cytec by Solvay S.A. and its parent company Tulip Acquisition
Inc. and alternatively, rescission of the merger should it push
through.

The Complaint alleges that the merger deprives Cytec's public
stockholders of the ability to participate in the Company's long-
term prospects and is in breach of its fiduciary duties in
accordance to violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

Cytec is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices Five Garret Mountain Plaza, Woodland Park, New
Jersey 07424. Cytec is a global specialty materials and chemicals
company.

Solvay S.A. is a public limited company organized under the laws
of Belgium and is an international chemical group.

Tulip Acquisition Inc. is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Solvay S.A.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-5310


DELTA AIRLINES: "Cumming" Suit Included in Airline Antitrust MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cumming, et al. v. American
Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02253, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington,
DC).  The DC District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01753-
CKK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 2656.

The actions in the litigation arose from the Defendants' alleged
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of airline
tickets through a number of mechanisms, including signaling one
another how quickly they would add new flights, routes, and extra
seats to limit the capacity, and limiting access to competitive
fare information to keep the price of airfares artificially high.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia.  The Defendants are operators of
major airlines.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Warren T. Burns, Esq.
          Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          500 North Akard Street, Suite 2810
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (469) 904-4550
          Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
          E-mail: dcharest@burnscharest.com
                  wburns@burnscharest.com

               - and -

          Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Roche, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com
                  eroche@burnscharest.com

Defendant American Airlines, Inc., is represented by:

          Benjamin Bradshaw, Esq.
          Katrina M. Robson, Esq.
          Richard Parker, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5300
          Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
          E-mail: bbradshaw@omm.com
                  krobson@omm.com
                  rparker@omm.com

               - and -

          Paul Thomas Denis, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          1900 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 261-3430
          Facsimile: (202) 261-3029
          E-mail: paul.denis@dechert.com

Defendant Southwest Airlines Co. is represented by:

          Alden Lewis Atkins, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 500W
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 639-6613
          Facsimile: (202) 879-8813
          E-mail: aatkins@velaw.com

Defendant Delta Airlines Inc. is represented by:

          James P. Denvir, III, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: jdenvir@bsfllp.com

Defendant United Airlines, Inc., is represented by:

          Michael Lacovara, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 277-4000
          E-mail: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com


DELTA AIRLINES: "Curley" Suit Included in Airline Antitrust MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Curley, et al. v. Delta
Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04062, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
(Washington, DC).  The DC District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-01762-CKK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 2656.

The actions in the litigation arose from the Defendants' alleged
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of airline
tickets through a number of mechanisms, including signaling one
another how quickly they would add new flights, routes, and extra
seats to limit the capacity, and limiting access to competitive
fare information to keep the price of airfares artificially high.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia.  The Defendants are operators of
major airlines.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas G. Amon, Esq.
          Peter B. Patterson, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS G. AMON
          250 West 57th Street, Suite 1316
          New York, NY 10107
          Telephone: (212) 810-2430
          Facsimile: (212) 810-2427
          E-mail: tamon@amonlaw.com
                  ppatterson@amonlaw.com

               - and -

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

Defendant American Airlines, Inc., is represented by:

          Sloane Ackerman, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          E-mail: sackerman@omm.com

                - and -

          Benjamin Bradshaw, Esq.
          Katrina M. Robson, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5300
          Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
          E-mail: bbradshaw@omm.com
                  krobson@omm.com

Defendant Southwest Airlines Co. is represented by:

          Alden Lewis Atkins, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 500W
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 639-6613
          Facsimile: (202) 879-8813
          E-mail: aatkins@velaw.com

Defendant United Airlines, Inc., is represented by:

          Michael Lacovara, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 277-4000
          E-mail: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com


DELTA AIRLINES: "Devivo" Suit Included in Airline Antitrust MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Devivo, et al. v. Delta Airlines
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05162, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).
The DC District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01754-CKK to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 2656.

The actions in the litigation arose from the Defendants' alleged
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of airline
tickets through a number of mechanisms, including signaling one
another how quickly they would add new flights, routes, and extra
seats to limit the capacity, and limiting access to competitive
fare information to keep the price of airfares artificially high.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia.  The Defendants are operators of
major airlines.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Sung-Min Lee, Esq.
          One North Broadway, Suite 509
          White Plains, NY 10601-2301
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: bhart@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com
                  slee@lowey.com

Defendant American Airlines, Inc., is represented by:

          Paul Thomas Denis, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          1900 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 261-3430
          Facsimile: (202) 261-3029
          E-mail: paul.denis@dechert.com

Defendant Southwest Airlines Co. is represented by:

          Alden Lewis Atkins, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 500W
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 639-6613
          Facsimile: (202) 879-8813
          E-mail: aatkins@velaw.com

Defendant United Airlines, Inc., is represented by:

          Michael Lacovara, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 277-4000
          E-mail: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com


DELTA AIRLINES: "Hersh" Suit Included in Airline Antitrust MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Hersh v. Delta Airlines, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03908, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).  The
DC District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01756-CKK to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 2656.

The actions in the litigation arose from the Defendants' alleged
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of airline
tickets through a number of mechanisms, including signaling one
another how quickly they would add new flights, routes, and extra
seats to limit the capacity, and limiting access to competitive
fare information to keep the price of airfares artificially high.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia.  The Defendants are operators of
major airlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Susan R. Schwaiger, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 702-7053
          Facsimile: (212) 681-0300
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                  sschwaiger@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 SW 57TH Court, Suite 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 357-9000
          E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com

Defendant Delta Airlines Inc. is represented by:

          James P. Denvir, III, Esq.
          Michael S. Mitchell, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: jdenvir@bsfllp.com
                  mmitchell@bsfllp.com

Defendant American Airlines, Inc., is represented by:

          Sloane Ackerman, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          E-mail: sackerman@omm.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Bradshaw, Esq.
          Katrina M. Robson, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5300
          Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
          E-mail: bbradshaw@omm.com
                  krobson@omm.com

Defendant Southwest Airlines Co. is represented by:

          Alden Lewis Atkins, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 500W
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 639-6613
          Facsimile: (202) 879-8813
          E-mail: aatkins@velaw.com

Defendant United Airlines, Inc., is represented by:

          Michael Lacovara, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 277-4000
          E-mail: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com


DELTA AIRLINES: "Raji" Suit Included in Airline Antitrust MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Lilian M. Raji v. American
Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05384, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
(Washington, DC).  The DC District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-01765-CKK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 2656.

The actions in the litigation arose from the Defendants' alleged
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of airline
tickets through a number of mechanisms, including signaling one
another how quickly they would add new flights, routes, and extra
seats to limit the capacity, and limiting access to competitive
fare information to keep the price of airfares artificially high.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia.  The Defendants are operators of
major airlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
          1311 Mamaroneck Ave., Suite 220
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
                  gblankinship@fbfglaw.com

Defendant Southwest Airlines Co. is represented by:

          Alden Lewis Atkins, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 500W
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 639-6613
          Facsimile: (202) 879-8813
          E-mail: aatkins@velaw.com


DELTA AIRLINES: "Repan" Suit Included in Airline Antitrust MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Repan v. American Airlines,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04036, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).
The DC District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01760-CKK to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 2656.

The actions in the litigation arose from the Defendants' alleged
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of airline
tickets through a number of mechanisms, including signaling one
another how quickly they would add new flights, routes, and extra
seats to limit the capacity, and limiting access to competitive
fare information to keep the price of airfares artificially high.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia.  The Defendants are operators of
major airlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          Gregory K. Arenson, Esq.
          Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq.
          Donald R. Hall, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                  ffox@kaplanfox.com
                  garenson@kaplanfox.com
                  rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com
                  dhall@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Marc A. Wites, Esq.
          WITES & KAPETAN, P.A.
          4400 N. Federal Highway
          Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
          Telephone: (954) 570-8989
          Facsimile: (954) 428-3929
          E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com

Defendant American Airlines, Inc., is represented by:

          Sloane Ackerman, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 728-5864
          E-mail: sackerman@omm.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Bradshaw, Esq.
          Katrina M. Robson, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5300
          Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
          E-mail: bbradshaw@omm.com
                  krobson@omm.com

Defendant Southwest Airlines Co. is represented by:

          Alden Lewis Atkins, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 500W
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 639-6613
          Facsimile: (202) 879-8813
          E-mail: aatkins@velaw.com

Defendant United Airlines, Inc., is represented by:

          Michael Lacovara, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 277-4000
          E-mail: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com


DELTA AIRLINES: "Winton" Suit Included in Airline Antitrust MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Winton v. Southwest Airlines Co.,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05231, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).  The
DC District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01755-CKK to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 2656.

The actions in the litigation arose from the Defendants' alleged
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of airline
tickets through a number of mechanisms, including signaling one
another how quickly they would add new flights, routes, and extra
seats to limit the capacity, and limiting access to competitive
fare information to keep the price of airfares artificially high.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia.  The Defendants are operators of
major airlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Sung-Min Lee, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN& HART, P.C.
          One North Broadway, Suite 509
          White Plains, NY 10601-2301
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: bhart@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com
                  slee@lowey.com

Defendant Southwest Airlines Co. is represented by:

          Alden Lewis Atkins, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 500W
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 639-6613
          Facsimile: (202) 879-8813
          E-mail: aatkins@velaw.com

Defendant American Airlines, Inc., is represented by:

          Jeffrey Allen Nuxoll Kopczynski, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 728-5675
          Facsimile: (212) 326-2061
          E-mail: jkopczynski@omm.com

               - and -

          Paul Thomas Denis, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          1900 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 261-3430
          Facsimile: (202) 261-3029
          E-mail: paul.denis@dechert.com

Defendant United Airlines, Inc., is represented by:

          Michael Lacovara, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 277-4000
          E-mail: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com


DOLLAR TREE: Removes "Greer" Suit to Southern District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Greer, et al. v. Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc., Case No. 2015-021859-CA01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County, Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-23923-JLK to
the proceeding.

The Complaint contains one cause of action, which alleges a
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Specifically, the
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant misclassified them as exempt
from the overtime requirements of the FLSA during their employment
as Store Managers.

Dollar Tree is a corporation formed under the laws of the state of
Virginia.  The Defendant's headquarters, executive and senior
management personnel, and primary management operations are all
located in Virginia.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Aaron Jarett Reed, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Wells Fargo Center
          333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          Facsimile: (305) 603-2552
          E-mail: areed@littler.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: Rigged Online Games, "Brown" Claims in SDNY Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Draftkings, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-08165-GBD
(S.D.N.Y, October 16, 2015), seeks seek treble damages and an
award of reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to section 349(h) of
the New York General Business Law.

The class action complaint arises out of an alleged internal
rigging of online gaming website, Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS), an
online game that allows paying participants to engage in virtual
athletic draft with data tied to actual player statistics that
allows game simulations.  Draftkings entices participants to play
by offering cash winnings.  DraftKings employees had access to
material nonpublic player ownership statistics and were using this
information in DFS contests on the website of their chief
competitor FanDuel, Inc. to profit at the expense of FanDuel's DFS
participants.

DraftKings is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 225 Franklin St., 26th Floor, Boston,
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
      Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq.
      Justin A. Kuehn, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 308-5858
      Fax: (212) 486-0462
      Email: eagel@bespc.com
             squire@bespc.com
             kuehn@bespc.com


EMC CORP: "Barret" Suit Challenges Sale Agreement with Dell
-----------------------------------------------------------
Breffni Barrett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. Joseph M. Tucci, William D. Green, Jose E. Almeida,
Michael W. Brown, Donald J. Carty. Randolph L. Cowen, James S.
Distasio, John R. Egan, Edmund F. Kelly. Judith A. Miscik, Paul
Sagan, Laura J. Sen, Dell Inc., Denali Holding, Inc. and Universal
Acquisition Co. (Mass. Cmmw., October 16, 2015), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from further breaching their fiduciary duties in their
pursuit of a sale of EMC at an unfair price through an unfair
process that was tilted in favor of Dell, Inc. The EMC Board had
agreed to sell EMC to Dell which will acquire the company at
$24.05 per share against the current $33.15 per share.

EMC is a Massachusetts corporation with principal executive
offices at 176 South Street, Hopkinton, Massachusetts. It supports
businesses and service providers in transforming IT operations to
an ITaaS model.

Joseph M. Tucci is EMC's Chairman of the Board.

William D. Green is EMC's Lead Independent Director.

Jose E. Almeida, Michael W. Brown, Donald J. Carty, Randolph L.
Cowen, James S. Distasio, John R. Egan, Edmund F. Kelly, Judith A.
Miscik, Paul Sagan and Laura J. Sen are the members the EMC Board
of Directors

Dell, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with principal executive
offices at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas. It provides computer
and other related products and specializes in desktop, laptops,
tablets, mobile phones, monitors, projectors, electronic
accessories, printers, servers, storage, networking, and other
equipment.

Denali Holding Inc. and Universal Acquisition Co. are Delaware
corporations tasked with facilitating the merger.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
      HUTCHINGS, BARSAMIAN, MANDELCORN ROBINSON, LLP
      110 Cedar Street
      Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
      Tel: (781) 431-2231
      Fax: (781) 431-8726
      E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suit Over Packaging Errors
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Gray, writing for BioPharmaDive, reported that in fall
2011, Qualitest, a subsidiary of Endo Pharmaceuticals, recalled
eight brands of oral contraceptives. The reason: A packaging error
in which the top row (active hormonal) and the bottom row
(placebo) were mixed up. As a result, there were 113 unintended
pregnancies in 26 states, according to a class-action suit filed
in a Pennsylvania State Court.
The suit is seeking millions of dollars in damages and is intended
to cover many different costs related to unintended pregnancies,
such as the cost of raising a child to adulthood.
Additionally, the lot number and expiry date were no longer
visible due to the turnabout in the packaging.

The Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) categorizes packaging
errors under the umbrella of medication errors, which it calls "a
major public health concern."
The birth control products named in the suit included one or more
types of Cyclafem; Emoquette; Gildess; Orsythia; Previfem; and
Tri-Previfem. Although a total of 1.4 million packages were
recalled, Endo only confirmed one defective pack was sold to a
customer. Apparently, the defective packaging occurred at an
external manufacturing facility.


EROS INTERNATIONAL: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class")
of purchasers of the securities of Eros International Plc ("Eros"
or the "Company") (NYSE: EROS): (1) pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively,
the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the
Company's initial public offering on the New York Stock Exchange
on or about November 12, 2013 (the "IPO" or the "Offering");
and/or (2) between November 12, 2013 and November 12, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have 60 days from the
date of this notice to file a motion to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit.

Please contact Lesley Portnoy at 888-773-9224 or 310-201-9150, or
at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. If you
inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone
number, and number of shares purchased.

Eros is in the Indian film entertainment industry. The Company co-
produces, acquires and distributes Indian language films in
multiple formats worldwide.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
the following: (1) the Company enriched its controlling family at
the expense of shareholders through a series of related-party
transactions; (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls;
(3) Eros overstated the number of movies it has distributed during
fiscal years 2014 and 2015; (4) Eros overstated its theatrical
revenue during fiscal years 2014 and 2015; (5) the Company's
financial results and operating metrics were overstated as a
result; (6) the Company's financial statements were not prepared
in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP"); and (7) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements and Defendants' statements about Eros's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

If you are a member of the Class, you may move the Court no later
than January 12, 2016, to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet
certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by
e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website
at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email, please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
Casey Sadler, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Toll-free: (888) 773-9224
Fax: (310) 432-1495
Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com
       csadler@glancylaw.com


EROS INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Eros
International Plc (NYSE:EROS) securities, from June 17, 2014
through October 30, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Eros investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Eros class action, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-770.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS
CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Eros' reported earnings
significantly overstated the economic viability of Eros's business
model; (ii) Eros' accounting policy for amortization was
unjustifiably aggressive in light of the impact of piracy on the
long-term value of Eros's assets; (iii) despite Eros' reported
profitability, Eros generates no cash; (iv) Eros has only been
able to stay afloat by issuing stock and taking on debt; (v) Eros
significantly overstated the number of Eros distributed and Eros'
theatrical revenues during fiscal years 2014 and 2015; and (vi) as
a result of the foregoing, Eros's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
January 12, 2016. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-770.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free
at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY  10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrose@rosenlegal.com
       pkim@rosenlegal.com
       kchan@rosenlegal.com


EXCELLUS: Judge Waives Right to Funds
-------------------------------------
Democrat & Chronicle reported that the federal judge now presiding
over many of the legal actions filed in relation to the massive
Excellus computer breach has renounced her right to any settlement
in the cases.

U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Wolford said in a written order that
she realized that she, like many other people in the Rochester
region, could wind up a plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit she
is handling.

"I have further determined that the appropriate course is to
renounced any financial interest that could arise from my
potential membership in the plaintiff class," Wolford wrote.


FGX INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Strike Affirmative Defenses Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Thomas Marten of the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas denied Plaintiff's motion to
strike affirmative defenses in the case captioned, KRYSTAL LARSON,
On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. FGX INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:14-CV-02277-JTM
(D. Kan.).

Plaintiff Krystal Larson filed this action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of employees who have worked for
FGX International as "Merchandisers". The second amended complaint
alleges that FGX requires Merchandisers to perform various
uncompensated tasks, including reviewing and printing daily
schedules, reading emails, and reporting data about store visits.
Count I alleges an FLSA claim for willful nonpayment of minimum
wages, straight time and overtime pay for work performed by past,
present and future Merchandisers. Count II alleges a claim for
unpaid straight time wages under Kansas law. Count III alleges a
Rule 23 class action claim on behalf of current and former FGX
Merchandisers for unpaid minimum wages under Missouri law.

In the motion, Plaintiff moves to strike numerous defenses alleged
by FGX in its answer to the second amended complaint. Plaintiff
argues that the defenses "contain threadbare allegations without
any factual support" and that they should be stricken under the
standards of Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

In the Memorandum and Order dated November 4, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/tFbB26from Leagle.com, Judge Marten concluded that
Twombly and Iqbal do not govern the pleading of affirmative
defenses and that the motion to strike should be denied in its
entirety.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Matthew Edward Osman, Esq.
Kathryn J. Starrett Rickley, Esq.
OSMAN & SMAY, LLP
8500 W 110th St #330,
Overland Park, KS 66210
Tel: (913)667-9243

FGX International, Inc. is represented by Jeannie DeVeney, Esq. --
jdeveney@littler.com -- Lisa A. Schreter, Esq. --
lschreter@littler.com -- Richard W. Black, Esq. --
rblack@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, PC


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Michigan Court Wants FCRA Suit Revised
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George Caram Steeh of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted Defendant's
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint in the case captioned,
JAMES LOSSIA, JR. and ALEXANDRA PLAPCIANU, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FLAGSTAR
BANCORP, INC., a/k/a FLAGSTAR BANK, Defendant, Case No. 15-12540
(E.D. Mich.).  The Court directed plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint, stating a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, in
compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standards.

Plaintiffs James Lossia Jr. and Alexandra Plapcianu filed this
proposed class action lawsuit against Flagstar Bank alleging five
state law claims and one federal claim which includes breach of
contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and
violations of Michigan Consumer Protection Laws -- focus on the
manipulation and re-ordering of electronic check transactions. The
federal claim is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq., and alleges that "Flagstar bank
frequently furnishes inaccurate information to consumer reporting
agencies by reporting that customers did not have sufficient funds
in their checking accounts when the customers did in fact have
sufficient funds.

In the motion, Defendant, refers to another class action lawsuit,
filed by different plaintiffs, pending in Oakland County Circuit
Court1 which focuses on Flagstar Bank's alleged manipulation of
customers' account balances when engaged in point of sale (POS)
transactions using debit cards or ATM cards, argues that both
lawsuits cover the same subject matter -- namely Flagstar's
overdraft fees -- so the plaintiffs' federal case should be
dismissed and should be brought as part of the similar action
pending in state court.

In his Order dated November 4, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/yPBms1from Leagle.com, Judge Steeh held that
Defendant is correct that plaintiffs' complaint does not assert
that a credit reporting agency notified Flagstar of a dispute.

Plaintiffs are represented by Ronald G. Acho, Esq. --
racho@cmda-law.com -- CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY

Flagstar Bancorp is represented by Caroline B. Giordano, Esq. --
giordano@millercanfield.com -- Sonal H. Mithani, Esq. --
mithani@millercanfield.com -- MILLER, CANFIELD


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: January 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors that they have until January 11, 2016 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Flotek Industries Inc. (NYSE:FTK) if they purchased the
Company's securities between October 23, 2014 and November 9,
2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Flotek and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF
Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com). If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by January 11, 2016.

                       About the Lawsuit

Flotek and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

These false statements and omissions included, in part, that:  (i)
Flotek's proprietary software application FracMax had data and
process errors; (ii) the reported production data from FracMax for
three of the wells in the Company's New York City Investor
Presentation on September 11, 2015 were inaccurate; and (iii) an
application from Flotek claiming to be FracMax available in the
Apple iTunes Store does not work.

On this news, the price of Flotek's stock plummeted.

                About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices
in New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

CONTACT:

Lewis Kahn, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI,, LLC
206 Covington St. Madisonville, LA 70447
1-877-515-1850
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the common stock of Flotek Industries Inc. (NYSE: FTK)
("Flotek" or the "Company") between October 23, 2014 and November
9, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Flotek shareholders may, no later than January 11, 2016, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of Flotek and would like to learn more about
these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to
sign up online, visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/ftk.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Flotek Industries' proprietary
software application -- FracMax -- had data and process errors;
(2) the reported production data from FracMax for three of the
wells in the Company's New York City Investor Presentation on
September 11, 2015 were inaccurate; (3) an application from the
Company claiming to be FracMax available in the Apple iTunes Store
does not work; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than January
11, 2016, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,
LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of
individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in
state and federal courts nationwide.  To learn more about the
class action process, please visit: www.rmclasslaw.com

Richard A.Maniskas, Esq.
RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
995 Old Eagle School Rd, Wayne, PA 19087
Phone:+1 877-316-3218
www.rmclasslaw.com


GERBER PRODUCTS: Labeling Case Remanded to Calif. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE GYORKE-TAKATRI AND KATIE SILVER, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NESTLE USA, INC. AND
GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-03702-TGR
(N.D. Cal.), is remanded to the San Francisco Superior Court,
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, ruled at
the behest of the Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed the putative food-labeling class action on behalf
of a statewide class of California consumers in San Francisco
Superior Court on July 14th, 2015, alleging Gerber Graduates Puffs
mislead consumers to believe that Puffs are healthier than they
actually are through vibrant images of fruits and vegetables on
the outside of the Puffs' packaging. On August 13, 2015, defendant
Gerber removed this action to the federal district court under
CAFA.

In the motion, plaintiffs contend that defendant Gerber Products
Company has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in
this case exceeds $5 million, a requirement of defendant's earlier
removal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), the Class Action Fairness
Act.

In his Order dated November 6, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/qODh10from Leagle.com, Judge Rogers found that the
Gerber has failed to carry its burden as to the amount in
controversy requirement and despite the evidentiary objections
having been raised by Plaintiffs, Gerber did not offer, or seek
leave to offer, any supplemental proffer in support of
jurisdiction. The Court remanded the action because Gerber has not
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in
controversy in this case exceeds five million dollars.

Plaintiffs are represented by Elizabeth Ryan, Esq. --
eryan@baileyglasser.com -- John Roddy, Esq. --
jroddy@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER LLP

     - and -

Matthew Joseph Zevin, Esq.
Stephen Henry Gardner, Esq.
Amanda Marie Howell, Esq.
STANLEY LAW GROUP
6116 N. Central Expressway
Suite 1500, Dallas, TX 75206
Tel: (214) 443-4300

Gerber Products Company is represented by Bryan Alexander
Merryman, Esq. -- bmerryman@whitecase.com -- Arash V. Sadat, Esq.
-- asadat@whitecase.com -- Rachel J. Feldman, Esq. --
rfeldman@whitecase.com -- WHITE AND CASE LLP


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Ragland" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Ragland v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-01053, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The Massachusetts
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-13604-FDS to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-md-2657-FDS.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that Zofran and its generic equivalent, a prescription
medication for the treatment of nausea, causes birth defects in
children when their mothers ingest the drug while pregnant.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC is a limited liability corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Delaware.  GSK designed,
manufactured or distributed Zofran, the drug that is the subject
of the lawsuit.  Zofran is a drug developed to treat severe nausea
on cancer patients resulting from chemotherapy or radiation
therapy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B. Kristian W. Rasmussen, Esq.
          Stephen R. Hunt, Jr., Esq.
          CORY WATSON ATTORNEYS, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
          E-mail: krasmussen@corywatson.com
                  shunt@corywatson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Maibeth J. Porter, Esq.
          Bryan A. Coleman, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Avenue North
          2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254-1000
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1999
          E-mail: mporter@maynardcooper.com
                  bcoleman@maynardcooper.com


GREENWELL LLC: "Bradshaw" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Bradshaw, on behalf of himself and others similarly-
situated v. Greenwell Energy Solutions, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-
00900 (W.D. Tex., October 17, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in excess of 40 hours
per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bradshaw is a field employee whose primary duty involves operating
and maintaining oilfield machinery.

Greenwell Energy Solutions, LLC is a domestic limited liability
company headquartered in Houston, Texas. It is an oilfield
services company that provides pressure control, spill prevention
services, well stimulation and cleanout services and fluid
management services. It also markets, sells, and rent outs a
variety of pressure-containing, fracture-related equipment that is
used for well control and proper flow-back of the wells. Greenwell
operates throughout the Southwest region of the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      711W Alabama St.
      Houston, TX 77006
      Tel: (713) 523-0001
      Fac: (713) 523-1116
      Email: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


H2S HOLDINGS: "Bailon" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marina Bibiano Bailon v. H2S Holdings, LLC, Here to Serve
Restaurants, Inc., Big Fish Enterprises, Inc., Oasis Outsourcing,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03664-MHC (N.D. Ga., October 16, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failing to pay her and
similarly situated employees earned overtime wages in excess of 40
hours per week and failing to pay for all work performed in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et
seq.  Bailon works as an hourly non-FLSA-exempt pantry cook at
said restaurants.

The defendants jointly operate under the Aja, Coast, Noche, Prime,
Shucks, Smash, Strip & Twist and Crust brands. Owners Leigh and
Tom Catherall have temporarily closed the said restaurants as a
result of their divorce settlement.

Here to Serve Restaurants, Inc. is a Georgia corporation with its
principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia.

H2S Holdings, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company with its
principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia.

Big Fish Enterprises, Inc. is a Georgia corporation with its
principal place of business located at 3500 Peachtree Road, Suite
1095A, Atlanta, GA 30326

Oasis Outsourcing, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its
principal place of business in West Palm Beach, Florida and
maintains a registered agent in Fulton County, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher B. Hall, Esq.
      Andrew Lampros, Esq.
      HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
      Suite 950, 1230 Peachtree St. NE
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Tel: (404) 876-8100
      Fax: (404) 876-3477
      Email: chall@hallandlampros.com
             alampros@hallandlampros.com


HARRIS COUNTY, TX: "Lindsey" FLSA Case Loses Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nancy K. Johnson of the United States District
Court for Southern District of Texas denied Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the case captioned, CORDELL LINDSEY, JR.,
and ROBERT L. WILSON, Plaintiffs, v. HARRIS COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. H-15-630 (N.D. Tex.).

Plaintiffs Cordell Lindsey, Jr., and Robert L. Wilson, former
officers employed by Harris County Constable's Office Precinct 3,
jointly filed the instant action against Defendants Harris County,
Ken Jones and John Ray Harrison in their official and individual
capacities, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, and for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1981 and 1983. Lindsey additionally filed a claim of age
discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Plaintiffs allege that all officers were instructed not to record
all the hours they actually worked, but to instead report forty
hours worked each week and  as a result, Harris County failed to
pay officers their required overtime.

In the motion, Plaintiffs seek to certify a class: "All current
and former non-exempt law enforcement officers who worked at
Harris County Constable's Office for Precinct 3 anytime during the
last three years." Plaintiffs also ask the court to: (1)
conditionally certify thes suit as a collective action; (2) order
Defendants to produce within ten days, all names, addresses, phone
numbers, and email addresses of all potential class-members; and
(3) authorize and approve notice to be sent to class-members.

In her Memorandum Opinion dated November 6, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Hbkqryfrom Leagle.com, Judge Johnson concluded that
Plaintiffs have failed to meet even the lenient standard of
conditional class certification because Plaintiffs cannot meet
their minimal burden by showing a common policy or plan or that a
potential class contains similarly situated individuals. The Court
directed individuals interested in asserting FLSA claims may move
to intervene as individual plaintiffs if they choose.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

David J. Quan, Esq.
DAVID J. QUAN LAW OFFICES
808 Travis St #1800,
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: (713)225-5300

Defendants are represented by:

Barbara Ann Callistien, Esq.
Pegi Block, Esq.
HARRIS COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
1019 Congress, 15th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
Office: (713)755-5101


HUNTSMAN INT'L: Faces "Fuentes" Wage & Hour Action in Los Angeles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Fuentes, individually and on behalf of others similarly-
situated v. Huntsman International LLC, a corporation and Does 1-
100, Case No. BC598231 (Cal. Super, Los Angeles County, October
16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
meal and rest period provisions of Industrial Wage Commission Wage
Order No. 1 Section 11 and 12, failure to pay all compensation
owed at the time of termination of employment according to the
California Labor Code Sections 201, 202 and 203, missed meal and
rest periods provision in violation of the California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200, itemized wage statement
requirements of California Labor Code Section 226 as well as
damages for the amount of unpaid compensation for missed meal and
rest periods, including interest.

Huntsman International LLC is a corporation doing business in the
State of California. Defendant is a global manufacturer and
marketer of differentiated chemicals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arthur Kim, Esq.
      ARTHUR KIM LAW FIRM
      433 N. Camden Drive, Suite 600
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Tel: (310) 246-0316
      Fax: (310) 246-0328
      Email: akim@arthurkimlaw.com


ICHIRO RESTAURANT: Court Grants in Part Plaintiffs' Motion
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, JI LI, JIANHUI WU, BIN ZHANG, DE PING ZHAO,
and KAI ZHAO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ICHIRO RESTAURANT INC., ICHIRO SUSHI
INC., NEW ICHIRO SUSHI INC., and ICHIRO ASIAN FUSION, INC., all
d/b/a ICHIRO, JIAN PING CHEN, JIN LI, HIU CHEN, and JUHANG WANG
a/k/a: JAMES WANG, Defendants, Case No. 14 CIV 10242 (AJN)(JCF)
(S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted in part plaintiffs' motion to:

     (1) conditionally certify a collective action pursuant
         to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b);

     (2) require the defendants to produce contact information
         for all non-managerial employees who have worked for
         the defendants since December 31, 2011;

     (3) authorize plaintiffs' counsel to send notice of this
         action to prospective members of the collective action;

     (4) toll the statute of limitations for opt-in plaintiffs
         during the proposed ninety-day opt-in period; and

     (5) order the defendants to post the plaintiffs' proposed
         notice in conspicuous locations at the places where
         the prospective collective action members worked or
         are now working.

Plaintiffs Ji Li, Jianhui Wu, Bin Zhang, De Ping Zhao, and Kai
Zhao bring this action alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law against the restaurant
where they have worked, as well as against various related persons
and entities. The plaintiffs' operative complaint names four
corporations and four individuals as defendants. The plaintiffs
first allege that they were not paid the federally required
minimum wage in violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 206(a). The plaintiffs
submit that the defendants have "a straightforward uniform policy"
of not paying their non-managerial employees minimum wage or
overtime.

In the motion, the plaintiffs move to conditionally certify a
collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) with respect
to two causes of action. The proposed collective action would
include "those hourly paid, non-managerial employees of the
Defendants, including but not limited to or any other equivalent
employee, who previously worked, or is currently working for the
Defendants during the past three (3) years."

In his Memorandum and Order dated November 5, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Uywk8Nfrom Leagle.com, Judge Francis, IV found that
both the complaint and the supporting declarations lack even
minimal detail about the plaintiffs' conversations with, and
observations of, the defendants' other employees and the evidence
the plaintiffs have provided regarding the defendants' treatment
of their other employees is consistent with, if not suggestive of,
a lawful policy, at least with regard to minimum wage and
overtime. The Court directed the defendants to produce the names,
last known mailing addresses, last known telephone numbers, last
known e-mail addresses, and dates of employment for all delivery
persons employed by the defendants at Ichiro 2nd Avenue between
December 31, 2011, and the present.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

John Troy, Esq.
Honhohn Zeiss, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Blvd #119,
Flushing, NY 11355
Tel: (718)762-1324

Defendants are represented by:

David Yan, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID YAN
39-15 Main Street Suite
203 Flushing, NY 11354


INT'L CRUISE & EXCURSION: "Coulter" Sues for Phone Scam
-------------------------------------------------------
Kamille Coulter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly-
situated v. International Cruise & Excursion Gallery, Inc. and
John Does 1-20, Case No. Case 2:15-cv-08504 (C.D. Cal., July 20,
2015), seeks to recover statutory damages, and preliminary and
injunctive relief enjoining the Defendant from engaging in and
continuing to engage in the unlawful calls made with automated
dialing systems to cellular phones without prior express consent
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 47 U.S.C.
227, et seq.

The defendant used an automated dialing machine in calling
Coulter, introducing their services including loyalty rewards for
an international cruise in which she incurs a charge for incoming
calls.

International Cruise & Excursion Gallery, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business at 15501 North
Dial Boulevard, Scottsdale, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John P. Kristensen, Esq.
      David L. Weisberg, Esq.
      KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
      12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Tel: (310) 507-7924
      Fax: (310) 507-7906
      Email: john@kristensenlaw.com
             david@kristensenlaw.com


INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Settles Securities Class Suit for $14-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has granted final approval of the $14 million
settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
federal securities laws against IntraLinks Holdings Inc., a
virtual data room (VDR) -- or cloud computing -- company, and
other defendants for allegedly misleading statements and omissions
regarding the strength of the company's business, and failing to
disclose to investors the loss of the company's largest client.
The settlement in the lawsuit, Wallace v. IntraLinks Holdings,
Inc., et al, reached by Lead Counsel Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll
PLLC on behalf of Lead Plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters National
Pension Fund, was approved on Nov. 12, by Judge Thomas Griesa, of
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

"This settlement is a great result that will resolve a hotly
contested case," said Lead Attorney Carol Gilden, a Partner at
Cohen Milstein. "It will provide eligible class members with a
long-awaited recovery."

The settlement was the culmination of nearly four hard-fought
years of litigation in which the Lead Plaintiff successfully
obtained certification of a class of IntraLinks investors who
purchased IntraLinks stock between Feb. 17 and Nov. 11, 2011, and
a subclass of investors who purchased stock in the company's April
6, 2011, secondary offering. The decision was significant in that
it was one of the first such decisions following the U.S. Supreme
Court's opinion in Halliburton II, which held that defendants
could defeat class certification by rebutting the "fraud-on-the-
market" theory of reliance with evidence that the alleged
misrepresentations had no impact on the price of the stock in
question.

Judge Griesa had previously granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on July 31, 2015, and ordered that notice of the
pending settlement and Cohen Milstein's fee and expense request be
disseminated to the Class. Since then, more than 31,000 notices
have been disseminated to potential class members and their
nominees.

To participate in the settlement, Class Members need to submit a
proof of claim form with the requested supporting documentation.
The deadline to submit claim forms is Nov. 30, 2015.   Claim forms
can be downloaded from the Settlement Website at
www.IntraLinksSecuritiesSettlement.com.

In addition to Lead Attorney Carol Gilden, others involved in the
case and settlement were Steve Toll, Joshua Devore, Kenneth Rehns,
and Elizabeth Aniskevich, all of Cohen Milstein.

For more information about Wallace v. IntraLinks Holdings, Inc.,
et al, visit http://www.cohenmilstein.com/news.php?NewsID=814.
Founded in 1969, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a national
leader in plaintiff class action lawsuits and litigation. As one
of the premier firms in the country handling major complex cases,
including consumer protection and product liability issues, Cohen
Milstein, with over 80 attorneys, has offices in Washington, D.C.,
New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., and
Denver, Colo. For more information, visit
http://www.cohenmilstein.comor call (202) 408-4600.


INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: "Shah" Suit Moved From California to N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rajesh Shah v. Investment
Technology Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-05921, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-08246-UA to the proceeding.

The action is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities, other than the Defendants and their
affiliates, who purchased or acquired the securities of ITG from
February 28, 2011, to July 29, 2015, inclusive, seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations
of federal securities laws.

New York City-based ITG is an independent execution and research
broker in the United States, Canada, Europe, and the Asia Pacific
regions.  One of its principal subsidiaries, AlterNet Securities,
Inc., is a U.S. broker-dealer registered with the SEC, FINRA,
NASDAQ, EDGA, EDGX and 14 states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

Movant Christine M. Bernacchi is represented by:

          Laurence David King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com

Movant Metzler Investment GmbH is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          GLANCY & BINKOW GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com

Defendants Investment Technology Group, Inc., and Steven R.
Vigliotti are represented by:

          Albert J. Martinez, Esq.
          WACHTELL LIPTON ROSEN AND KATZ
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 403-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 403-2000
          E-mail: ajmartinez@wlrk.com

Defendant Robert C. Gasser is represented by:

          Andrew C. Finch, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON AND GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-6064
          Telephone: (212) 373-3460
          Facsimile: (212) 492-0460
          E-mail: afinch@paulweiss.com


J.L.H. INVESTMENTS: SC Affirms Verdict in "Freeman" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Justice Donald W. Beatty of the Supreme Court of South Carolina
affirmed the rulings of the trial judge and the verdict rendered
by the jury in the case captioned, Julie Freeman, Appellant/
Respondent, v. J.L.H. Investments, LP, a/k/a Hendrick Honda of
Easley, Respondent/Appellant, Case No. 27586 (S.C.).

Julie Freeman, individually and on behalf of 5,314 similarly
situated car buyers, filed a lawsuit against J.L.H. Investments,
LP, a/k/a Hendrick Honda of Easley (Hendrick), seeking damages
under the South Carolina Dealers Act (the Dealers Act) on the
ground that Hendrick "unfairly" and "arbitrarily" charged all of
its customers "closing fees" that were not calculated to reimburse
Hendrick for actual closing costs. Hendrick filed motions seeking
judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment.

In these motions, Hendrick posited that it was entitled to
judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that Freeman: (1) could
not pursue a cause of action under the Dealers Act because section
37-5-202, which is located within the SCCPC, provides her
exclusive remedy; (2) had not complied with the provisions of Rule
23, SCRCP for class certification; and (3) was precluded from
recovery based on the voluntary payment doctrine.

A jury returned a verdict in favor of Freeman in the amount of
$1,445,786.00 actual damages. In post-trial rulings, the trial
judge: (1) denied Hendrick's motions to overturn or reduce the
jury's verdict; (2) granted Freeman's motions to double the actual
damages award and to award attorneys' fees and costs; and (3)
denied Freeman's motion for prejudgment interest.

On appeal, Hendrick contends that the judge erred in submitting a
general verdict form to the jury rather than the special verdict
form proposed by Hendrick.

In the Order dated November 4, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/yZfXeZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Beatty held that the
trial judge that none of the affirmative defenses or arguments
asserted by Hendrick entitled it to judgment as a matter of law
prior to trial. The Court discerns no reversible error as to the
judge's refusal to charge Hendrick's requests.

Appellants are represented by Terry E. Richardson, Esq. --
trichardson@rpwb.com -- James David Butler Esq. --
dbutler@rpwb.com -- Brady Ryan Thomas, Esq. -- bthomas@rpwb.com
-- WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, L.L.C.

     - and -

A. Camden Lewis, Esq.
LEWIS, BABCOCK & GRIFFIN, L.L.P.
1513 Hampton St,
Columbia, SC 29201
Tel: (803)771-8000


J.M. FIELD: Improperly Sacked Employee, "Caravello" Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Caravello, and those similarly-situated to him, Plaintiff,
v. J.M. Field Marketing, Inc., and Jack M. Field, Defendants, Case
Number: CACE-15-018848 Division: 14 (Fla. Cir., Broward County,
October 23, 2015), alleges violations of the Family Medical Leave
Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., and seeks recovery of unpaid overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. 29 U.S.C.
Section 201, et. seq.

Caravello was summarily terminated by J.M. Field Marketing after
taking a leave of absence due to his wife's pregnancy.

J.M. Field Marketing, Inc. is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida
and is involved in a variety of businesses from logistics to
e-commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Behren, Esq.
      BEHREN LAW FIRM
      2893 Executive Park Drive, Suite 110
      Weston, FL 33331
      Tel: (954) 636-3802
      Fax: (772) 252-3365
      Email: Scott@behrenlaw.com


KAG WEST: Court Sends "Malone" Claims to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted Petitioners'
motion to compel the arbitration of Respondent's claims in the
case captioned, KAG WEST, LLC, et al., Petitioners, v. PATRICK
MALONE, Respondent, Case No. 15-CV-03827-TEH (N.D. Cal.).

When Malone began working with Petitioner KAG West, LLC, a
subsidiary of Petitioner Kenan Advantage Group, Inc., he signed a
Binding Arbitration Agreement. The arbitration agreement contained
a provision that expressly informed Respondent that (1) he had
seven days from receipt of the agreement to consult with counsel
of his choosing; (2) the agreement was expressly voluntary and
revocable; and (3) his decision to sign or not sign the agreement
would not affect the decision to hire him or his employment
status.

On July 22, 2015, Respondent sent a demand letter, through
counsel, to Petitioner Kenan Advantage Group, which alleged
various wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code,
the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and the California Private
Attorney General Act (PAGA). In response, Petitioners filed a
petition to compel arbitration on August, 21, 2015. On September
1, 2015, Respondent filed a separate class action complaint in
state court, which Petitioners removed to the federal district
court. On September 14, 2015, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the case, but withdrew
the motion eight days later, after stipulating to administratively
relate the two cases.

Petitioners and Respondent agree that there was a "clear and
unmistakable" delegation of arbitrability to the arbitrator,
because the arbitration agreement expressly incorporated the
American Arbitration Association (AAA) Rules. The only remaining
issues are whether Respondent's non-PAGA claims should be
arbitrated on a class-wide or individual basis, and whether
Respondent's representative PAGA claims should be arbitrated.

Petitioners assert that Respondent's claims should be compelled to
individual arbitration. Petitioners argue that absent an express
agreement to submit to class arbitration, Petitioners may not be
compelled to arbitrate on a class basis.

In the Order dated November 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/TBwtm5from Leagle.com, Judge Henderson held that the
question of arbitrability of all of Respondent's claims including
whether such claims must be arbitrated on a class-wide or
individual basis to be decided by the arbitrator in accordance
with the clear and unmistakable intent of the parties. All of
Respondent's claims are stayed pending a decision by the
arbitrator.

The parties are directed to file a joint statement with ten days
of the arbitrator's decision on arbitrability, or by February 1,
2016, whichever is sooner.

Petitioners are represented by Brian Lee Johnsrud, Esq. --
bjohnsrud@curleyhessinger.com -- Christopher W. Loweth, Esq. --
cloweth@curleyhessinger.com -- Patrick Michael Sherman, Esq. --
psherman@curleyhessinger.com -- CURLEY, HESSINGER & JOHNSRUD LLP

Patrick Malone is represented by:

Michael Scott Morrison, Esq.
ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
401 Wilshire Blvd # 1000
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Tel: (310)394-0888

     - and -

Michael Hagop Boyamian, Esq.
Thomas Walker Falvey, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
301 N Lake Ave # 800
Pasadena, CA 91101
Tel: (626)795-0205


LABOR READY: Court Sends "Machado" Suit to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joan A. Lenard of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida granted Labor Ready's Motions
to Compel Arbitration as to Plaintiffs Daniel Santiago, Zulaida
Romero, Jose Breton, Luis de Lao, Miguel Cruz and Raudel Cruz
Machado and dismissed Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint  as to
Defendant Labor Ready Southeast, Inc. in the case captioned,
RAUDEL CRUZ MACHADO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LABOR READY SOUTHEAST,
INC., and MDT PERSONNEL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 14-2434-CIV-
LENARD/GOODMAN (S.D. Fla.).

The lawsuit alleges unpaid overtime and minimum wage violations
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida Minimum Wage Act.
Labor Ready is a national temporary work agency that provides
temporary labor to businesses that need additional workers.

Labor Ready employed Plaintiffs as Temporary Associates at the
Alamo Rent-A-Car located at Miami International Airport.
Plaintiffs' job duties included cleaning and fueling rental
vehicles. As a condition of employment with Labor Ready, plaintiff
signed an Employment Agreement which contains an arbitration
provision which provides procedures for resolving disputes between
Labor Ready and its employees.

In the motion, labor Ready filed motions to compel arbitration as
to Plaintiffs Santiago, Romero, Breton, Lao, Cruz, and Machado
which seek an order compelling Plaintiffs to arbitrate their
claims pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained in the
Employment Agreements. Plaintiffs also filed the operative Second
Amended Complaint.

In her Order dated November 6, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/USmUugfrom Leagle.com, Judge Lenard found that Labor
Ready did not act inconsistently with its right to arbitrate.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
782 NW 42nd AveSte 350
Miami, FL 33126
Tel: (305) 448-9292

Defendants are represented by Dori Katrine Stibolt, Esq. --
dstibolt@foxrothschild.com -- Susanne Mary Calabrese, Esq. --
scalabrese@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP


LITOW & PECH: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Feb. 19
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska preliminarily approved the
class action settlement in the case captioned, LEE A. JENKINS, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v.
CHRISTOPHER E. PECH, AND PECH, HUGHES, & McDONALD, P.C., d/b/a
Litow & Pech, P.C., A Fictitious Name; Defendants, Case No.
8:14CV41 (D. Neb.).

The Court certified as class of "(a) All persons residing in
Nebraska (b) to whom Defendants Christopher E. Pech and/or Pech,
Hughes & McDonald, P.C. sent, or caused to be sent, a letter in
the form of Exhibit A (attached to the First Amended Complaint),
(c) in an attempt to collect a purported obligation which, as
shown by the nature of the alleged obligation, Defendants'
records, or the records of the original creditors, was primarily
for personal, family, or household purposes." And the class period
runs from February 6, 2013 through June 12, 2015.

In his Order dated November 4, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/HZhpyKfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bataillon found that
the Lawsuit satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class
action treatment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Court designated
Plaintiff Lee A. Jenkins as class representative and William L.
Reinbrecht and Pamela A. Car of the law firm Car & Reinbrecht,
P.C., L.L.O., and attorney O. Randolph Bragg of the law firm
Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, LTD, as counsel for the class.

In his Memorandum and Order dated November 4, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Z556iNfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bataillon found that
the proposed settlement class meets the requirements of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 and that the claims of the plaintiff class
representative, Lee A. Jenkins, are typical of the claims of the
class members; the plaintiff and class counsel have fairly and
adequately represented and protected the interest of all of the
class members; and class treatment of these claims will be
efficient and manageable.

A fairness hearing will be conducted on February 19, 2016 at 1:00
p.m.  The Court directed Plaintiff to file his petition for an
award of attorney's fees, costs, and expenses within 30 days of
entry of the Final Order unless otherwise ordered.

Lee A. Jenkins is represented by:

O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM
25 E Washington St #900,
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312)372-8822

     - and -

Pamela A. Car, Esq.
William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM
8720 Frederick St Ste 105
Omaha, NE 68124
Tel: (402)3918484

Defendants are represented by Jeffrey A. Topor, Esq. --
jtopor@snllp.com -- Tomio B. Narita, Esq. -- tnarita@snllp.com --
SIMMONDS, NARITA LAW FIRM


MACON CONSTRUCTION: Faces Breach of Contract Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Airrefco Corp. v. Macon Construction Group, Inc., Pret A Manger,
USA Ltd., and John Does 1-10 or others similarly situated, Case
No. 160745/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., October 20, 2015) accuses the
Defendants of breaching their contract with Airrefco by failing to
pay Airrefco for work performed and material supplied under the
Contract.

Macon is a foreign business corporation authorized to do business
in New York.  Based in Chicago, Illinois, Macon is in business as
a general contractor and builder.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katie L. Bireley, Esq.
          KING & KING, L.L.P.
          27-12 37th Ave.
          Long Island City, NY 11101
          Telephone: (718) 896-6554
          E-mail: pkutil@King-King-Law.com


MANPOWER INC: Must Comply with Discovery Order, Judge Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California directed the Defendants to
comply with the discovery order to produce a statistically
significant sample of the putative class in the case captioned,
JUVENTINA MATA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MANPOWER INC./CALIFORNIA
PENINSULA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-03787-LHK(HRL)(N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiffs Claudia Padilla and Lesli Guido bring the instant wage
and hour class action against Defendants Manpower, Inc./
California Peninsula, Manpower US Inc., ManpowerGroup Inc., and
ManpowerGroup US Inc. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal, in a
similar case called Ramirez v. Manpower, Inc. et al. that involved
several of the same defendants, ordered the production of the
contact information for a random and statistically significant
sample of the putative class. Judge Lucy Koh held a case
management conference and then ordered that Judge Grewal's
previous order shall apply in the case.

Defendants have not produced pursuant to the order issued by Judge
Grewal and adopted by Judge Koh. Plaintiffs unilaterally filed
discovery dispute joint report. Defendants argue in response that:
(1) the order does not apply to one of the defendants because that
defendant was not involved in Ramirez; and (2) the privacy rights
of the putative class members should be protected by giving each
randomly selected person notice and the opportunity to opt out
before Defendants produce their information.

In his Order dated November 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/9UHY5Ofrom Leagle.com, Judge Lloyd concluded that
Defendants were wrong to delay compliance with the discovery order
that Judge Koh adopted in the instant case. The superfluous
privacy protections demanded by Defendants would distort the
sampling process with non-random bias, and the resultant sample
would not be reliable.

The Court directed Defendants to provide a numbered list to a
third-party company which includes every member of the putative
class and shall tell Plaintiffs how many people are on that list
within five days.

Plaintiffs are represented by David E. Cameron, Esq. --
dcameron@wjhattorneys.com -- Patrick Darryn Toole, Esq. --
ptoole@wjhattorneys.com -- WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC

     - and -

Charles Swanston, Esq.
Bernard James Fitzpatrick, Esq.
FITZPATRICK SPINI & SWANSTON
555 South Main St.
Salinas, CA 93901

Defendants are represented by Jon David Cantor, Esq. --
jdcantor@dykema.com -- DYKEMA GOSSETT, LLP


MAPLEBEAR INC: Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted Defendant's motion
to compel arbitration in the case captioned, DOMINIC COBARRUVIAZ,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAPLEBEAR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-
00697-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Dominic Cobarruviaz sued on behalf of himself and a
putative class of former and current shoppers and grocery delivery
drivers who work for Defendant Maplebear, Inc., which does
business as Instacart. Plaintiffs were classified by Instacart as
independent contractors. They claim, however, that they are
Instacart's employees, and thus are entitled to various
protections for employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and under the labor codes of various states where
Plaintiffs worked, such as California, New York, and Colorado. The
California-based Plaintiffs have also pled a claim for civil
penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Prior to working for Instacart, Plaintiffs were required to
electronically sign identical Independent Contractor Agreements
which contains an arbitration clause that requires that "any
controversy, dispute or claim arising out of or relating to the
Services performed by the Contractor be submitted to and
determined exclusively by binding arbitration.

Defendant moves to compel arbitration which was opposed by the
Plaintiffs arguing that the arbitration clause is unconscionable
and unenforceable.

In his Order dated November 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/B0wnGrfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chen concluded that the
agreement to arbitrate is enforceable, subject to severance of the
fee-splitting and fee-shifting provision.  The Court granted
Instacart's motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis,
except for the PAGA representative claim. However, the Court will
granted Instacart's request to stay this litigation, including the
PAGA representative claim, pending the outcome of the arbitration.

Dominic Cobarruviaz is represented by Robert Stephen Arns, Esq.
-- rsa@arnslaw.com -- Jonathan Ellsworth Davis, Esq. --
jed@arnslaw.com -- Julie C. Erickson, Esq. -- jce@arnslaw.com --
THE ARNS LAW FIRM, Michael Scimone, Esq. --
mscimone@outeengolden.com -- Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. --
jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP & Shannon Liss-
Riordan, Esq. -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

Maplebear, Inc. is represented by Benjamin Berkowitz, Esq. --
bberkowitz@kvn.com -- Nikki Khanh Vo, Esq. -- nvo@kvn.com --
Rachael Elizabeth Meny, Esq. -- rmeny@kvn.com -- Ryan K.M. Wong,
Esq. -- rwong@kvn.com -- KEKER & VAN NEST LLP


MARYLAND: Baltimore Law Firm Files $38MM Suit Over Tax Refund
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Republic reported that two Baltimore law firms have filed a
$38 million class action lawsuit against Maryland's comptroller
relating to the amount of interest the state should pay on certain
tax refunds relating to a Supreme Court ruling.

The law firms of Brown Goldstein & Levy and the Law Offices of
Stuart Levine announced the lawsuit filing.

In May, the Supreme Court ruled it is unconstitutional for
counties and some city governments to double-tax income residents
earn in other states, entitling those taxpayers to refunds.

The lawsuit says state lawmakers braced for losing the case by
passing legislation to lower the amount of interest to be paid on
those refunds from 13 percent to 3.25 percent. The lawsuit alleges
that violates the takings and due process clauses of the U.S.
Constitution.


MEMPHIS, TN: Atty Says City Withheld Docs About Rape Kit Backlog
----------------------------------------------------------------
WM Action News reported that a lawsuit against the City of Memphis
over rape kits is moving forward.

Attorney David Lofton said he hopes the judge will force the city
to turn over evidence in a number of rape cases.

He represents several women whose rape kits sat untested for
years. Those women filed a class action lawsuit against the
government for failing to test the kits.

The victims said the untested kits allowed their rapists to
continue operating freely.

Lofton requested 29 sets of documents, but said the city refuses
to cooperate and is withholding those files.

Lofton hopes the judge will make the city honor his request.


MICHIGAN: Briefing in Dental Suit to be Completed by Dec. 11
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT JOHANNES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HEIDI WASHINGTON, and
DALTON SANDERS, D.D.S. Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-11691 (E.D.
Mich.) sets forth factual allegations related to allegedly
unconstitutional dental care.

Plaintiff Johannes, currently a prisoner at the Gus Harrison
Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan, filed this proposed
class action under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated prisoners, against
Defendants Heidi Washington (Director of the Michigan Department
of Corrections (MDOC)) and Dr. Dalton Sanders (a general dentist
in charge of Plaintiff's dental care). His Amended Complaint added
five additional Plaintiffs as proposed class representatives:
Michael Woroniecki (incarcerated at the Muskegon Correctional
Facility), Phillip Turner (incarcerated at the Chippewa
Correctional Facility), Joe Evans (on parole as of June 30, 2015),
Roger Stephenson (incarcerated at the Muskegon Correctional
Facility), and Max Rogers (on parole as of July 8, 2014, but
currently in custody in Porter County, Indiana).

Each Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' failure to provide
adequate care was a result of deliberate indifference in violation
of the Eighth Amendment and that the violation stems from the
MDOC's policy and practice.  Each Plaintiff seeks to represent a
class of similarly situated individuals that have been harmed by
these polices.

Plaintiff Johannes alleges that from 2008 through the time of the
Complaint, he lost several teeth "due to periodontal disease
and/or extractions and/or other reasons," that these conditions
were caused primarily due to substandard dental care, and that
Defendants failed to provide any dentures or bridges (until
recently) that would allow him to eat properly; he adds that the
dentures he received recently only fill a portion of his mouth and
that they fit improperly, so they cut into his gums when he chews.

In the motion, Defendants filed motions for leave to file more
than one summary judgment motion and for leave to file excess
pages in defendants' summary judgment brief are interrelated in
that they both assert that additional briefing and dispositive
motions are necessary to properly adjudicate the matter.

In her Opinion dated November 6, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/2U66jOfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Mona K.
Majzoub of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan granted Defendants' motion for leave to file excess
pages.  The Court directed Defendants to file their motion for
summary judgment no later than November 13, 2015.  Briefing
related to the summary judgment motion should be completed no
later than December 11, 2015.

Robert Johannes is represented by:

Robert Gittleman, Esq.
ROBERT GITTLEMAN LAW FIRM, PLC
31731 Northwestern Hwy Ste 101E,
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Tel: (248)737-3600

Defendants are represented by:

A. Peter Govorchin, Esq.
James T. Farrell,
Cori E. Barkman, Esq.
Lisa M. Geminick, Esq.
Rock A. Wood, esq.
MI DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL


NAT'L DISTRIBUTION CENTERS: Faces "Hardaway" Wage Action
--------------------------------------------------------
William Hardaway, an individual, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, vs.
National Distribution Centers LP, a Delaware limited partnership,
NFI Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Does 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC598298 (Cal. Super, Los Angles
County, October 19, 2015), alleges that the Defendants fail to
provide and maintain accurate itemized wage statements in
violation of the Labor Code Section 226.

Plaintiff worked as a forklift operator between June 2013 and June
2015 for the company.

National Distribution Centers LP, a Delaware warehousing company
providing distribution and warehouse services in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David R. Markham, Esq.
      Peggy J. Reali, Esq.
      Janine R. Menhennet, Esq.
      Maggie K. Realin, Esq.
      THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
      750 B Street, Suite 1950
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 399-3995
      Fax: (619) 615-2067

           - and -

      Debra L. Hurst, Esq.
      Kyle Van Dyke, Esq.
      Julie Corbo Ridley, Esq.
      HURST & HURST
      701 B Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 236-0016
      Fax: (619) 236-8569

           - and -

      Walter F. Haines, Esq.
      UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
      5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
      Huntington Beach, CA 92649
      Tel: (310) 234-5678
      Fax: (310) 652-2242


NATIONAL BUSINESS: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer of the United States District
for the District of Connecticut granted final approval to the
Settlement Agreement in the case captioned, 3081 MAIN STREET, LLC
d/b/a NEW ENGLAND WINE AND SPIRITS, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL BUSINESS
CAPITAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:12 CV 0531(JAM) (D. Conn.).

The Court previously gave its preliminary approval to the
Settlement Agreement. A Final Approval Hearing was held on
November 3, 2015, on a proposed settlement of the instant class
action and the issues having been duly heard and a decision having
been duly rendered.

In his Order dated November 6, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/muCDMafrom Leagle.com, Judge Meyer found that the
Settlement Agreement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and
adequate and that all requirements of statute, rule, and
Constitution necessary to effectuate this Settlement have been met
and satisfied. The Settlement Class certified for settlement
purposes was defined as anyone who, from April 10, 2008 through
April 10, 2012 was sent or caused to be sent one or more facsimile
advertisements by National Business Capital, Inc., its employees,
agents, vendors or contractors. The Court approved Settlement
Class Counsel's request for a Fee Award in the amount of $75,000;
$6,000 as payment to Plaintiff 3081 MAIN STREET, LLC d/b/a NEW
ENGLAND WINE AND SPIRITS as incentive award.

3081 Main Street is represented by George J. Kelly, Jr., Esq. --
gkelly@siegeloconnor.com -- SIEGEL, O'CONNOR, O'DONNELL & BECK,
P.C.

     - and -

Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
85 Miles Ave
White Plains, NY 10606
Tel: (914)358-5345

Defendants are represented by Christopher F. Wanat, Esq. --
cwanat@mwllc.us & Sean R. Caruthers, Esq. -- scaruthers@mwllc.us -
- MILANO & WANAT


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: "Beechum" Suit Alleges Excessive Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Beechum, Jeannie Hart and Monica Hervey on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Navient
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-08239-BRO-MRW (C.D. Cal.,
October 21, 2015), seeks to recover treble damages for usurious
interest exceeding 10% per annum, return of all interest
previously paid exceeding 10% per annum and injunctive relief
prohibiting Defendant from charging interest at rate exceeding 10%
per annum.

Plaintiffs have been charged interest above 18% per annum on their
private credit student loans by Navient Solutions, Inc. Each has
been charged interest over 13% per annum within the past three
years and two are currently being charged interest above 13% since
obtaining their loans over ten years ago.

Navient Solutions, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation and is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Navient Corporation. It is currently servicing
the Plaintiffs' private credit student loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sally M. Handmaker, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
      1100 New York Ave., Suite 500
      Washington, D.C. 20005
      Tel: (202) 408-4600
      Email: shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Michael D. Braun, Esq.
      BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
      10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Tel: (310)836-6000
      Email: mdb@braunlawgroup.com


NICK & HOWARD: Court Trims Ex-Employees Suit Against Nightclub
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, ZONAHI ARIANA ZAMUDIO, LESLIE MORALES, and
BRIANNE STRINGHAM, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. NICK & HOWARD
LLC d/b/a THE UNDERGROUND, ROCKIT RANCH PRODUCTIONS, INC., and
SCOTT HORWITCH, individually, Defendants, Case No. 15 C 3917 (N.D.
Ill.), District Judge John Z. Lee of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Defendants'
request to dismiss the class action allegations and Count IX, but
granted the request to dismiss Count VI as to The Underground and
Rockit Ranch.

Plaintiffs Zonahi Zamudio, Leslie Morales, and Brianne Stringham
are former employees of a nightclub, Nick & Howard LLC d/b/a The
Underground. They brought suit against the nightclub, its owner,
Rockit Ranch Productions, Inc., and their former supervisor, Scott
Horwitch, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (Counts I, II, III, and IV), battery (Count V), violation
of the Illinois Gender Violence Act (Count VI), violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (Count VII), violation of the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law (Count VIII), and violation of the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act (Counts IX and X).

As employees of The Underground, Plaintiffs were required to
attend and participate in various activities for which they were
not paid. Plaintiffs assert that they and other female employees
of The Underground were subjected to these and other instances of
harassment by Horwitch.

In the motion, Defendants seek to strike the class action
allegations contained in Counts I, II, V, and VI on the basis that
the complaint does not satisfy the pleading requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Defendants argue only
that Plaintiff's class action allegations are insufficient to
withstand the Rules' pleading requirements. Defendants also move
to dismiss (1) the class action allegations in Counts I, II, V,
and VI; (2) Count VI as to corporate Defendants The Underground
and Rockit Ranch; and (3) Count IX.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November
4, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/YiFGZ5from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq.
Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq.
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W Washington St #1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312)419-1008

Defendants are represented by David M. Holmes, Esq. --
david.holmes@wilsonelser.com -- Lisa Handler Ackerman, Esq. --
lisa.ackerman@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN
& DICKER


NEW YORK: Debt Collection Scheme Victims Wins $59 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Mueller, writing for The New York Times, reported that
tens of thousands of New Yorkers who had their wages garnished or
bank accounts frozen in a surreptitious debt-collection scheme
will receive $59 million in a class-action settlement that also
bars a major network of collectors from continuing the practice.

The settlement, which was filed in Federal District Court in
Manhattan, deals a significant blow to an industry that in recent
years fed off a recessionary rise in consumer debt actions as
companies bought up charged-off debt at low rates and then sought
to recover the full debt for themselves.

It also gives hope to a larger group of mainly low-income,
minority New Yorkers who are under a cloud of about $800 million
in default judgments that the collectors won using fraudulent
documents in court, according to legal filings. The plaintiffs
will probably have those judgments vacated, and a major network of
firms will be forced to stop buying and collecting debt, according
to the settlement terms.

"I'm happy that it's finished -- that these companies pay for what
they did, and they will not be able to do that again," said Rea
Veerabadren, 63, a plaintiff who had her bank account restrained
after a default judgment in 2006. "Maybe one day I will be able to
forget, but this was the worst time of my life."

A class-action lawsuit filed in 2009 accused debt collectors of
using a practice known as "sewer service." That meant debt
collectors failed to serve a notice of complaint but filed a false
affidavit claiming that the notice had been properly served and
that they had evidence of the money owed. People with the alleged
debt, unaware of the complaint, did not show up in court, setting
off a legal proceeding under which the collector almost always won
a default judgment against them.

In Ms. Veerabadren's case, the lawsuit says a process server swore
in an affidavit to leaving papers with a man at her Queens home
whom she had never heard of. Ms. Veerabadren, a nanny from
Mauritius, said she panicked and did not know where to turn when
the bank froze her account and charged her a $125 legal processing
fee.

Consumer advocates say victims often first learn they are being
targeted when property is seized. A default judgment on its own
can follow someone for decades, making it difficult for that
person to rent an apartment, open a bank account or get a job.

"There's wealth being systematically extracted, which will be
restored through this settlement," said Sarah Ludwig, the founder
and a co-director of the advocacy group the New Economy Project,
which filed the lawsuit along with MFY Legal Services and the law
firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady.

Ms. Ludwig said a vast majority of the judgments were entered
against people living in minority neighborhoods. "They end up on
people's credit reports," she said. "This has a spiraling effect."

The settlement, which advocates say is unprecedented in its scale,
curtails the activity of companies along the whole debt-collection
chain, including the debt-buying companies, the law firm hired to
collect the debt and the process-serving firm that is supposed to
notify debtors.

The law firm that had collected the debt, Mel S. Harris &
Associates, went out of business in September.

The process-serving company named in the lawsuit, Samserv Inc., of
Brooklyn, agreed to stop serving process in consumer debt-
collection cases and to start paying process servers as much money
for unsuccessful attempts as for successful ones, according to the
settlement. Advocates say unbalanced rates put pressure on servers
to lie about whether they had actually served notice, and state
inquiries have suggested that servers sometimes claim to be in
several places at once.

Advocates said the monetary scale of the settlement would probably
reverberate across the industry. Debt collectors have already
become more constrained by state reforms enacted after the suit
was filed that require them to provide more evidence in cases,
said Carolyn Coffey, the supervising attorney at MFY.

Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, of the law firm, said, "This sends a huge
message to other debt buyers and other debt collection firms."
Mr. Brinckerhoff said the firm's projections showed that people
who participated in the settlement would get all of their money
back, and maybe more. About 75,000 people are expected to receive
monetary compensation under the settlement, which also sets in
motion the vacating of about 115,000 additional default judgments.

The settlement names several debt-buyer firms with variations on
the name L-Credit, which are subsidiaries of Leucadia National, a
publicly traded holding company. A Leucadia spokeswoman said the
company had no comment on the settlement.

Representatives for Samserv could not be reached for comment on
Friday. A person who answered the phone at the law firm Stephen
Einstein & Associates, which is now processing the accounts,
declined to comment.


NOBILIS HEALTH: Sued Over Violation of Federal Securities Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC announces a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Nobilis Health Corp. ("Nobilis" or the "Company") (NYSE
MKT: HLTH) concerning possible violations of federal securities
laws between April 2, 2015 and October 8, 2015. Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period
should contact the Firm in advance of the December 21, 2015, lead
plaintiff motion deadline.

To join this class action lawsuit, please contact Brian Lundin,
Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or via e-mail at
brian@lundinlawpc.com.

According to the complaint, on October 9, 2015, SeekingAlpha.com
published a report on Nobilis asserting, among other things:
accounting red flags, questionable marketing practices and
substantial insider sales.

No class has been certified in the action. Until a class is
certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You
may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.
Lundin Law PC was created by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles.

Brian Lundin, Esq.
LUNDIN LAW PC
10 Post Office Rd #300, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: 888-713-1033
Facsimile: 888-713-1125
Email: brian@lundinlaw.com


NUCOR STEEL: Plaintiffs' Motion for Judicial Notice Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jack Zouhary of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio granted in part Defendant's
motion to exclude and denied Plaintiffs' motion for judicial
notice in the case captioned, Michael F. Abrams, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. Nucor Steel Marion, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:13-
CV 137 (N.D. Ohio.).

Plaintiffs Randall Bush and Ronald Tolle live near Defendant Nucor
Steel Marion, Inc.'s steel mill and claim Nucor's slag processing
operations have resulted in dangerous levels of manganese being
released and entering into, onto and around [their] properties,
thus contaminating their soil, vegetation, air, land, and
dwellings. At trial, Plaintiffs intend to prove Nucor is liable
for indirect trespass and private nuisance because the "hazardous"
and "ultra-hazardous" levels of manganese Nucor allegedly emitted
are harmful to human health, damaged Plaintiffs' properties, and
adversely affected the value of their real estate. Plaintiffs seek
recovery for property damage.

In the motion, Defendant moves to exclude Plaintiffs' three expert
witnesses. Plaintiffs oppose the Motion and request Defendant be
judicially estopped from advancing arguments at trial that
allegedly contradict Defendant's position in other litigation.
Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Judicial Notice of information
found on the EPA's website, and documents related to other
litigation involving Defendant. The Court held a record hearing on
the Motions.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 9, 2015
available at http://is.gd/qTKvrCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Zouhary
granted as to Dr. Jonathan Rutchik and Craig Cantrall, and granted
in part and denied in part as to Lance Traves. As for the EPA
publications, Plaintiffs must show how the specific information
they seek to introduce by judicial notice relates to the claims of
these Plaintiffs, which they have yet to do.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Michael R. Blumenthal, Esq.
David B. Waxman, Esq.
WAXMAN BLUMENTHAL
29225 Chagrin Blvd
Beachwood, OH 44122
Tel: (216)514-9400

Nucor Steel Marion, Inc. is represented by Douglas J. Suter, Esq.
-- dsuter@hahanlaw.com -- Marc J. Kessler, Esq. --
mkessler@hahnlaw.com --  Aubrie A. Wancata, Esq. --
awancata@hahanlaw.com -- Christopher W. St. Marie, Esq. --
cstmarie@hahnlaw.com -- Derek E. Diaz, Esq. -- ddiaz@hahnlaw.com -
- HAHN, LOESER & PARKS


OSP GROUP: Court Denies Motion to Stay "McEwan" Case
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Roger T. Benitez of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California denied Defendants'
motion to stay in the case captioned, HONEY McEWAN, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OSP
GROUP, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; et al, Defendants,
Case No. 14-CV-2823-BEN(WVG)(S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff initiated the putative class action in state court,
alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act
(CIPA). Defendants removed the matter to the federal district
court on November 26, 2014. On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed
a First Amended Complaint. On July 2, 2015, the Court granted in
part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Defendants attest that they made a, Rule 68 offer to Plaintiff,
which she declined. As a result, they move to stay this action
pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-
Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 135 S.Ct. 2311 (2015).

In the motion, Defendants argue that (1) neither party will be
damaged by a stay because this case is still in its infancy; (2)
both parties will suffer hardship if forced to continue litigation
because they will incur "potentially avoidable costs" and struggle
through discovery disputes; and (3) the Gomez decision will
simplify, if not dispose of, the instant case.

In his Order dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/veELBTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Benitez held that that
the ordinary hardship of litigation is not sufficient to warrant a
stay and that prolonging the resolution of the alleged privacy
violations, and whether Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive
relief, is not necessary.

Honey McEwan is represented by Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq. --
zdostart@sdlaw.com -- James T. Hannink, Esq. --
Jim.Hannink@sdlaw.com -- DOSTART HANNINK & COVENEY LLP

Defendants are represented by Ana Tagvoryan, Esq. --
ATagvoryan@BlankRome.com -- Brendan F. Hug, Esq. --
Bhug@BlankRome.com -- Joshua Briones, Esq. --
Jbriones@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME, LLP


PACIFIC INT'L SERVICES: "Aguirre" Action Seeks to Recover OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Aguirre and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b), Plaintiff, vs. Pacific International Services Inc., Alvaro
Noboa, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-23946-CMA (S.D. Fla., October
21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back three years in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Pacific International Services Inc., is a corporation that
regularly transacts business within Dade County.

Alvaro Noboa is a corporate officer of the Defendant who ran the
day-to-day operations for the relevant time period and was
responsible for paying Plaintiff's wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


PENN-RIDGE: Court Remands "Castellon" Action to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Andrew J. Guilford of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California granted Plaintiff's
motion to remand to state court the case captioned, CARLOS
CASTELLON v. PENN-RIDGE TRANSPORTATION, INC et al, Case No. SACV
15-1966 AG(DTBX)(C.D. Cal.).

On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff Carlos Castellon filed the putative
class action against Defendant Penn-Ridge Transportation, Inc. in
San Bernardino Superior Court. Plaintiff worked for Defendant from
2011 to 2015. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges various violations of
the California Labor Code. Specifically, the Complaint alleges
that Defendant misclassified its employees as independent
contractors; failed to pay employees minimum wages, overtime
wages, and double time wages; failed to reimburse employees for
business expenses; failed to provide employees rest periods and
meal breaks; failed to provide employees itemized wage statements
during the pay period; and failed to pay employees all earned
wages on separation. Plaintiff seeks damages, unpaid wages,
restitution, penalties, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and
attorney's fees.

Plaintiff moved to remand the action on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a).  Defendant filed a
motion to dismiss complaint and motion to strike class
allegations".

In a Civil Minutes dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/AeRS6Efrom Leagle.com, Judge Guilford held that
Defendant does not sufficiently convince the District Court that
the inclusion of attorneys' fees will bring the amount in
controversy over the $75,000 threshold.

Carlos Castellon is represented by:

Ann Hendrix, Esq.
David P. Myers, Esq.
Jason T. Hatcher, Esq.
Robert M. Kitson, Esq.
THE MYERS LAW GROUP APC
9327 Fairway View Pl Suite 100,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Tel: (909)579-2282

Penn-Ridge Transportation is represented by Jahmal Tondi Davis,
Esq. -- jdavis@hansonbridgett.com -- Jennifer M. Martinez, Esq.
-- jmartinez@hansonbridgett.com -- Kyle A. Mabe, Esq. --
kmabe@hansonbridgett.com -- HANSON BRIDGETT LLP


PETER T. ROACH: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Lazar, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Peter T. Roach & Associates, P.C., Peter T. Roach and
Catalina T. Soriano, Case No. 1:15-cv-06002 (E.D.N.Y., October 20,
2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Peter T. Roach & Associates, P.C.is a New York law firm
specializing in default mortgage services, including foreclosure,
bankruptcy, evictions, reo sales, loss mitigation and litigation.
The Individual Defendants are members of the Firm.


PHARMERICA: Settles Suit Over Unsolicited Ads for $15-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Rattigan, Esq. -- krattigan@rc.com -- at Robinson+Cole, in
an article for JD Supra, reported that PharMerica settled a
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action initiated by
a group of nursing homes over allegations that the pharmacy
inundated the nursing homes with unsolicited fax advertisements in
violation of the TCPA.

The class action was filed back in October 2013, after PharMerica
sent out over 100 fax-blasts to advertise the "PharMerica
Education Symposium & Exhibition Series" in Orlando, Florida. The
fax advertisements went to at least 11,000 nursing home
facilities. Now, PharMerica has agreed to pay $15 million to
settle these allegations and will also implement a new training
program to educate staff members about TCPA compliance.

As of Nov. 13, 409 valid claims have been submitted for a piece of
the settlement, and in the end, none of the settlement will revert
back to PharmMerica. This shows us that businesses not only need
to comply with TCPA regulations when it comes to telephone calls
and text messages, but consumers are still seeking damages for
unwanted fax advertisements as well.


PMC-SIERRA INC: "Bhakta" Action Seeks to Bar Skyworks Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Sudhir Bhakta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated v. PMC-Sierra, Inc., Gregory S. Lang, Richard E.
Belluzzo, Michael R. Farese, Jonathan J. Judge, Michael A. Klayko,
William H. Kurtz, Richard N. Nottenburg, Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
and Amherst Acquisition, Inc., Case No. 115-CV-286967 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara County, October 8, 2015), seeks enjoinment of
the proposed acquisition of PMC-Sierra, Inc. by Skyworks
Solutions, Inc.

PMC-Sierra entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
Amherst Acquisition, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Skyworks.
The deal is allegedly in breach of its fiduciary duties to PMC-
Sierra's stockholders following a flawed process as well as
failing to pursue alternatives to the acquisition that would more
fully maximize value to PMC-Sierra shareholders.

PMC-Sierra Inc. develops, markets and supplies semiconductors and
embedded software for communications networks infrastructure
equipment. The company is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California
and operates in North America, Europe and Asia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      Shawn E. Fields, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      600 West Broadway Suite 1540
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 230-0063
      Fax: (619) 255-1856
      Email: frankJ@johnsonnandweaver.com
             ShawnF@johnsonnandweaver.com


PORSCHE: Faces First Class Suit in Home State
---------------------------------------------
Harris Penn Lowry LLP has filed the first class action lawsuit
against Porsche Cars North America, INC., et al., in the company's
home state of Georgia (Case 1:15-cv-03867-SCJ).

The suit alleges that defendant Porsche installed "defeat devices"
on its 3.0-liter diesel engines, including vehicles such as the
2014 -- 2016 Porsche Cayenne Diesel.

"Consumers paid a premium price for these Porsche models, among
others, believing the company's false claims that the Cayenne
Diesel was a combination of superior performance, impressive fuel
mileage and environmentally-friendly low emissions," said Steve
Lowry of Harris Penn Lowry.

While Porsche and other defendants profited, consumers will pay
the price, including the premium paid to own or lease "clean"
diesel vehicles, the inevitable reduction in resale value caused
by recalls and the increase in fuel expenses as the vehicles
become less efficient following reprogramming.

"Even if Porsche moves forward with a recall and proposed 'fix,'
our client and class members would not have purchased the vehicles
in question -- and certainly would not have paid premium prices
for them -- had they been aware of the deceptive marketing claims
of the defendants," said Lowry.

In addition to the Porsche Cayenne Diesel, other vehicles with
3.0-liter diesel engines, manufactured by the defendants, are also
in question. Those include: VW Touareg, Audi Q5, Audi A6, Audi A7
and Audi A8.

The complaint was filed November 5, 2015, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.
For more information, contact Harris Penn Lowry at
http://hpllegal.com/defeat-device-class-action-attorneys/


PRESBYTERIAN HOMES: "Armitage" Action Seeks to Bar Eviction
-----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Armitage, Christine Broxon, Patricia Healy, Margaret-Lilek,
Barbara Madro, and Carolyn Summers, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Presbyterian Homes, Inc.,
Case No. 2015CH15231 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County, October 16,
2015), is a putative class action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801
over the Plaintiff's eventual eviction from their leased homes due
to the sale of the property.  The case seeks damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief for violation of the Chicago
Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, and of their life
leases and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

Presbyterian Homes, Inc. is an Illinois corporation headquartered
at 3200 Grant Street, Evanston, Illinois. It operates upscale
living facilities for senior citizens and retirees in Evanston,
Lake Forest, Arlington Heights and the disputed three subsidized-
rent independent living apartment buildings for seniors in
Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
      Charles D. Wysong, Esq.
      HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
      Three First National Plaza
      70 West Madison Street Suite 4000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 580-0100


RETTA DIXON: Former Residents Sue Over Alleged Crimes
-----------------------------------------------------
Nadia Daly, writing for ABC News, reported that class action has
been launched by 85 former residents of Darwin's Retta Dixon home.
The case was launched by plaintiffs including a man who lived with
convicted pedophile Donald Henderson after he left the home in the
Northern Territory.

At a direction's hearing in the Northern Territory Supreme Court,
the first ever case brought against alleged crimes at Retta Dixon
was heard before Master Vince Luppino.

The solicitor launching the class action on behalf of the group of
former residents, Bill Piper, said it could be the largest civil
legal action the Territory's Supreme Court had ever seen.

"They're alleging they have been the victims of either sexual
assault of severe physical assault during their time at Retta
Dixon," Mr Piper said.

"Many of them were victims of sexual abuse by house parents.
"There's a wide range of claims but in each case the allegation is
that they've experienced substantial trauma in their childhood
which has had a significant effect on their life."

Retta Dixon home housed scores of Aboriginal children from 1946 to
1980, when it closed.

The children are now adults and last year's Royal Commission into
Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse laid bare
allegations of horrific sexual, physical and mental abuse.

The commission also heard much of that was at the hands of
convicted paedophile Donald Henderson, a house parent at Retta
Dixon.

"As was apparent from the royal commission last year, there are
many, many former children of Retta Dixon home allege they were
regularly sexually abused, in many cases quite severely over a
long period of time, by this individual," Mr Piper said.

Evidence heard in support of new charges for prior alleged assault

Henderson is also being sued for assault, and has a history of
interfering with children.

In 1984, Henderson was found guilty of sexually abusing two boys
at a public pool.

Henderson, now 79, was never successfully prosecuted for criminal
offences allegedly committed at the home, but the royal commission
heard there was evidence to support charges.

The pedophile is one of eight defendants in the class action,
along with other former employees of Australian Indigenous
Missionaries and the Commonwealth, as many of the children were
wards of the state.

The court heard most of the defendants were now elderly.

Mr Piper said other staff at the home failed to report abuse or
listen to children when it was reported.

He said the group had not determined the exact amount of
compensation it would seek for a failure of duty of care.

"They need to prove not only that there were breaches of duty of
care against them by the respective defendants but also that
they've suffered damage and loss as a consequence of the
assaults," Mr Piper said.

The court heard not all of the defendants had been serviced with
the statement of claim, and the case was adjourned until next
year.


SEATTLE SERVICE BUREAU: " Schaefer" Stays in Fla. District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the United States
District Court for Middle District of Florida denied Plaintiff's
motion to remand the action to state court in the case captioned,
AMANDA SCHAEFER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. SEATTLE SERVICE BUREAU, INC. and STATE FARM
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-
444-FTM-38CM (M.D. Fla.).

On July 12, 2013, Amanda Schaefer, was involved in an auto
accident with State Farm's insured who drove the other vehicle.
Schaefer was ticketed by police as the party at fault in the
accident. State Farm paid its insured's claim for damages in the
amount of $21,366.90. State Farm subsequently subrogated the claim
and turned collection of the $21,366.90 to a collection bureau,
Seattle Service Bureau d/b/a National Service Bureau (NSB).

NSB was hired by State Farm as its agent to collect the alleged
subrogated claim. In that regard, NSB sent Schaefer a demand
letter seeking to collect the $21,366.90 claim. NSB identified
itself as a debt collector and informed Schaefer that State Farm
had assigned it her debt. In response to the collection letters,
Schaefer filed a class suit against NSB and State Farm in the
Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee
County, Florida. The Complaint alleges six (6) counts as follows:
Count I a violation of the Florida Consumer Credit Protection Act
(FCCPA) Fla. Stat. Sec.559.715; Count II, a violation of FCCPA
Fla. Stat. Sec.559.72(10); Count III, for injunctive relief; Count
IV, for declaratory relief; Count V, violation of Florida Consumer
Protection Act Fla. Stat. Sec.501.24; and Count VI, for unjust
enrichment. The proposed class is defined as "All Florida citizens
who have had accidents with other Florida citizens who were
insured by State Farm." The Defendant State Farm removed the case
to the Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(2)(A), (d)(5), (d)(6).

In the motion, Schaefer moves the Court to remand the case to
state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Schaefer
argues that State Farm has not put forth any evidence that would
establish the $5,000,000 amount in controversy because it is
unknown how many of the putative class members actually paid the
subrogated claim.

In the Order dated November 5, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ORFUZhfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chappell found that
Schaefer's argument that State Farm could not establish the
$5,000,000 amount in controversy under CAFA because no one knows
which putative class members paid the subrogation claims at issue
lacks merit and that State Farm has met the amount in controversy
requirement of CAFA and there is minimal diversity and the
putative class contains more than 100 members.

Amanda Schaefer is represented by:

Maria Alaimo, Esq.
VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
6350 Presidential Ct
Fort Myers, FL 33919
Tel: (239)334-3933

Defendants are represented by:

Ernest H. Kohlmyer, III, Esq.
URBAN THIER & FEDERER, PA
200 S Orange Ave #2000
Orlando, FL 32801
Tel: (407)245-8352


SIENTRA INC: Wagner Firm Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The Wagner Firm announces that a class action has been filed on
behalf of investors of Sientra, Inc. ("Sientra" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:SIEN) securities between Mar 18, 2015 to Sept 24, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors that have suffered a
loss on their Sientra securities holdings are encouraged to
contact Avi Wagner, Esq. to discuss their legal rights prior to
the November 24, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline.

On September 23, 2015, the Company announced the closing of a
public offering of 3 million shares of common stock. Then on
September 24, 2015, the Company disclosed that the U.K.'s
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has suspended
distribution of its Silimed products due to issues with a
manufacturing facility in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. On this news the
Company's shares fell $10.88 per share, or over 52%, to close on
September 24, 2015 at $9.70 per share. The Company's shares have
continued to decline on news in further disruptions to production
at the Company's Rio de Janeiro manufacturing facility.

The complaint alleges that Sientra, made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Sientra's exclusive
reliance on Silimed's Brazilian manufacturing facilities carried
significant quality control risks; (ii) the manufacturing
processes at the Silimed Rio de Janeiro manufacturing plant were
contaminated; and (iii) as a result, the Company's statements
regarding quality control and other financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased shares of Sientra, if you have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or if you wish to
discuss these matters or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Avi Wagner, Esquire, of The Wagner Firm,
c, at (310) 491-7949, by e-mail at info@thewagnerfirm.com, or
visit our website at http://thewagnerfirm.com.

Avi Wagner, Esq.
THE WAGNER FIRM
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 491-7949
Email: info@thewagnerfirm.com


STARZ: January 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Starz
(Nasdaq:STRZA) (Nasdaq:STRZB) ("Starz" or the "Company")
securities during the period between August 1, 2014 and October
29, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who wish to
become proactively involved in the litigation have until January
8, 2016 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you have suffered a loss from investment in Starz securities
purchased on or after August 1, 2014 and held through the
revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the
Class Period, and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and
your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or
obligation to you, please visit our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-
6616.  No class has yet been certified in the action.

Members of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Company securities during the Class Period.  Brower
Piven also encourages anyone with information regarding the
Company's conduct during the period in question to contact the
firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and
others.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company's
contract with Comcast Corporation ("Comcast") was a result of
illicit business practices.

According to the complaint, online magazine Deadline Hollywood
revealed that the company's former Senior Vice President of Sales
and Affiliate Marketing, Keno Thomas, filed a lawsuit against the
company alleging that the company's contract with Comcast was the
result of illicit business practices. Further, Thomas alleges that
the company's senior management instructed him to fabricate
revenue and subscriber information.  On this news, the value of
Starz shares declined substantially.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.

Charles J. Piven, Esq.
BROWER PIVEN
1925 Old Valley Road, Stevenson, Maryland 21153
Telephone:410.332.0030
Facsimile:410.685.1300
Email: piven@browerpiven.com


STRAIGHT PATH: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit
against Straight Path Communications Inc. ("Straight Path" or the
"Company") (NYSE MKT: STRP).

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between
October 29, 2015 and November 5, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm in advance of the
January 12, 2016, lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall,
of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del
Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without
cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.Goldberglawpc.comor by email at info@goldberglawpc.com

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the complaint, on October 29, 2015, Kerrisdale
Capital Management issued a report on Straight Path asserting that
Straight Path is worth at least "90% less than its current market
cap" due to, among other things: (1) shortcomings in its spectrum;
(2) low demand in light of high supply, and (3) difficulties of
practical mmWave deployments.

If you have any questions concerning your legal rights in this
case, please immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401,
via email at info@goldberglawpc.com, or visit our website at
Goldberglawpc.com.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.

Michael Goldberg, Esq
Brian Schall, Esq
GOLDBERG LAW PC
13650 Marina Pointe Dr., Suite 1404
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 800-977-7401
Email: info@goldberglawpc.com


SUNSOF INC: Removes "Hernandez" Suit to Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Hernandez v. Sunsof Inc., et al.,
was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-23916-UU to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sunsof Inc. is a Florida profit corporation based in Miami.
Sunsof makes "authentic, high quality, and delicious empanadas
using real ingredients," according to its Web site.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Patrick Edward Gonya, Jr., Esq.
          CAREY RODRIGUEZ GREENBERG O'KEEFE, LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-7474
          Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
          E-mail: pgonya@crgplaw.com


SUN WEST: "Johnson Action" Remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John F. Walter of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California granted Plaintiff's motion
to remand the case captioned, Charles Johnson, et al. v. Sun West
Mortgage Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-7329-JFW(ASX)(C.D.
Cal.).

On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Los Angeles
Superior Court. On August 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First
Amended Complaint. On August 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Second
Amended Complaint. In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
alleges that Sun West, through its preferred force placed
insurance provider, Proctor, purchased excessively priced
insurance policies, which include unauthorized and wrongful
charges, including kickbacks and duplicative charges. Plaintiff
also alleges that Sun West charged the excessively priced forced
placed insurance premiums to the escrow accounts and mortgage loan
balances of Plaintiff and the putative class. Defendants assumed
that the $5,000,000 amount in controversy requirement is met
because the total amount of net written premiums for the force
placed insurance policies at issue in the Second Amended Complaint
is in excess of $5 million.

On September 18, 2015, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal of
Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332 alleging that the Court
has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").

Plaintiff argues that Defendants cannot meet their burden of proof
that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, and moves to
remand the action to Los Angeles Superior Court.

In his Civil Minutes dated November 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/PgBArdfrom Leagle.com, Judge Walter held that the
defendants had merely stated the total amount of sales but failed
to show the amount of economic injury sustained individually or in
the aggregate by the class". The Court found that Defendants have
failed to carry their burden to show by a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.  The
action is remanded to the Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

Charles Johnson is represented by Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. --
canderson@gslawny.com -- GISKAN SOLOTARAFF ANDERSON AND STEWART
LLP

     - and -

Peter E. Garrell, Esq.
John M. Kennedy, Esq.
GARRELL LAW PC,
1875 Tandem Way
Norco, CA 92860
Tel: (714)451-4148

Defendants are represented by Joseph E. Addiego, III, Esq. --
joeaddiego@dwt.com -- James Gordon Parker, Esq. --
jamesparker@dwt.com -- Jennifer L. Brockett, Esq. --
jenniferbrockett@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP


SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY: 3rd Cir. Upholds Ruling in Strip Search Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman of the United States Court of
Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed a district court order granting
summary judgment in favor of Susquehanna County in the case
captioned, EDWIN A. BLAISURE, Individually and on behalf of
Classes of Similarly Situated Persons, Appellant, v. SUSQUEHANNA
COUNTY; NICHOLAS CONIGLIARO, Individually and in his official
capacity as Warden of the Susquehanna County Correctional
Facility, Case No. 15-1360 (3rd Cir.).

For six weeks in 2010, Blaisure was held in Susquehanna County
Correctional Facility (SCCF) as a pretrial detainee. Blaisure
brought a putative class action on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated inmates, claiming that SCCF's strip search
policy violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Shortly thereafter,
the Supreme Court decided Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders
of the County of Burlington, which held that a regulation
requiring strip searches of every inmate who entered a prison did
not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was reasonably related
to legitimate penological interests namely, preserving and
protecting prison security.

The County then moved for summary judgment asserting, inter alia,
that SCCF's strip search policy was constitutional under Florence
which the district court granted.

On appeal, Blaisure argues that SCCF's blanket policy of strip
searching inmates upon leaving the prison to attend court
appearances violates their Fourth Amendment rights because it is
unrelated to prison security or keeping contraband out of jail and
that SCCF shouldn't be allowed to conduct them without providing
evidence that they address actual problems of jail security.

In the Opinion dated November 4, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/yLFO8pfrom Leagle.com, Judge Hardiman held that the
District Court did not err in finding that SCCF's strip search
policy serves a legitimate penological interest.


TRICOMM LLC: "Contreras" Action Seeks to Recover Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Contreras, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, vs. Tricomm Utility Services LLC,
a North Carolina limited liability company; Michael Sweat, an
individual; and Nicholas Boney, an individual; jointly and
severally, Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-00173-FL (E.D.N.C.), seeks
to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29
U.S.C. 201, et seq.

TriComm Utility Services LLC, is a North Carolina limited
liability company based in Raleigh, North Carolina 27628.

Contreras was an employee of TriComm and worked as a utility
locator from February 2015 to July 2015.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Pedro Krompecher, Esq.
      KROMPECHER LAW FIRM, PLLC
      4010 Barrett Drive #203
      Raleigh, NC 27609
      Tel: (919) 977-8082
      Email: pedro@krompecherlaw.com

           - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Tel: (248) 355-0300
      Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com
             kstoops@sommerspc.com
             jyoung@sommerspc.com


UBM LLC: Wins Summary Judgment in Grind Lap Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Defendants'
motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, GRIND LAP
SERVICES, INC., individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. UBM LLC and JOHN DOES
1-12, Defendants, Case No. 14 C 6448 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Grind Lap Services, Inc. filed a three-count putative
class action complaint against defendants UBM LLC (UBM) and 12
John Does, alleging that defendants violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (Count I),
unlawfully converted plaintiff's fax machine, toner, and paper
(Count II), and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act (ICFA), 815 ILCS 505/2 (Count III), by
sending plaintiff a one-page fax.

In the motion, UBM argues that it is entitled to summary judgment
because there is no issue of material fact as to whether the fax
it sent plaintiff is an "unsolicited advertisement." According to
UBM, the record establishes that the fax is not an unsolicited
advertisement, but instead is a subscription renewal notice, a
communication expressly permitted by the Federal Communications
Commission and therefore does not run afoul of the TCPA.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 10, 2015
available at http://is.gd/ulnytHfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gettleman
granted UBM's motion for summary judgment because the fax at issue
was not sent in violation of the TCPA, plaintiff's conversion and
ICFA claims also failed.

Grind Lap Services is represented by Phillip A. Bock, Esq. --
phil@bockhatchllc.com -- Christopher Phillip Taylor Tourek, Esq. -
- Christopher@bockhatchllc.com -- Julia Lynn Titolo, Esq. --
julia@bockhatchllc.com -- James Michael Smith, Esq. --
jim@bockhatchllc.com -- BOCK & HATCH LLC

UBM LLC is represented by Eric L. Samore, Esq. --
esamore@salawus.com -- Erin Anne Walsh, Esq. -- ewalsh@salawus.com
-- SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC


UNCLE JULIO'S: Faces "Castaldo" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cheri Castaldo on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Uncle Julio's
Corporation and Uncle Julio's of Illinois, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
09176 (N.D. Ill., October 16, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failing to pay minimum wages in accordance to Fair
Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law,
820 ILCS 105/1 and requiring her to perform improper types and
excessive amounts of non-tipped side-work.

Castaldo worked as server at its Skokie, Illinois restaurant from
October 1, 2014 to August 24, 2015.

Uncle Julio's Corporation's principal place of business is located
at 1101 N. Union Bower Road, Suite 160, Irving, Texas 75061-5850
and operates Uncle Julio's of Illinois, Inc. located in Skokie,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: OPM Faces "Cavis" Suit Over Cyber-Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas D. Cavis and William Preston and all others similarly-
situated, Plaintiffs v. United States Of America, Office of
Personnel Management and Keypoint Government Solutions,
Defendants, Case 1:15-cv-01810-ABJ (D.D.C., October 26, 2015),
seeks damages arising from inept credit monitoring services,
compensation for current and future losses, after-the-fact
identity repair services, identity theft insurance, re-issuance of
certain government issued identification and documentation and
injunctive relief according to the Privacy Act of 1974.

The case arises out of multiple cyber-breaches of OPM's systems
that compromised the security of more than 20 million individuals.

The Office of Personnel Management is government agency
responsible for maintaining large amounts of data about federal
applicants and related non-applicants.

Keypoint Government Solutions is the private contractor that
handled the majority of federal background checks at the time. It
is based in 8260 Willow Oaks Corporate Drive, Suite 320, Fairfax,
Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Jonathan Schraub, Esq.
      Paige Levy Smith, Esq.
      SANDS ANDERSON PC
      1497 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
      Mclean, V A 22101
      Tel: (703) 893-3600
      Fax: (703) 893-8484
      Email: plevv@sandsanderson.com
             jjschraubl@sandsanderson.com

           - and -

      Joel H. Bernstein, Esq.
      Garrett Bradley, Esq.
      Corban S. Rhodes, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 901-0700
      Fax: (212) 818-0477
      Email: jbernstein@labaton.com
             gbradley@labaton.com
             crhodes@labaton.com


URBAN ELEVATOR: Court Dismisses Plaintiff's Claims v. Sinopec USA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Manish S. Shah of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed as to Sinopec USA
without prejudice Plaintiff's corrected class action in the case
captioned, URBAN ELEVATOR SERVICE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. STRYKER
LUBRICANT DISTRIBUTORS INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15 CV
2128 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Urban Elevator Service, LLC, filed a class action
complaint claiming defendants Stryker Lubricant Distributors,
Inc., Sinopec Lubricant Co., Ltd., Sinopec USA, Inc., and John
Does 1-12, collectively sent plaintiff an unsolicited
advertisement by fax. Plaintiff claims such conduct amounted to a
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Count I),
conversion under Illinois law (Count II), and a violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
(Count III).

Defendant Sinopec Lubricant is the largest high-tier lubricant
manufacturer and marketer in China integrating the function of
lubricant manufacturing, research, storage, transportation, sales
and service. Defendant Sinopec USA, by contrast, is the "liaison
between Sinopec [Lubricant] and U.S. oil and gas companies and is
in charge of organizing regular coordination meetings for all
Sinopec entities in the U.S.

In the motion, Sinopec USA argues on Count I that the claim should
be dismissed because Sinopec USA is not alleged to have sent the
fax in question, its products are not advertised in the subject
fax, and the complaint says nothing about the relationship between
Sinopec Lubricant and Sinopec USA other than that Sinopec USA is a
liaison which organizes meetings. On Count II, Sinopec USA argues
that plaintiff "makes no substantive allegations that could
support any of the elements of a conversion claim against Sinopec
USA. On Count III, Sinopec USA says dismissal is warranted because
plaintiff does not allege that it made any representations to
plaintiff, let alone a representation that was "false, misleading,
or unscrupulous."

In his Order dated November 4, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/1LXOwVfrom Leagle.com, Judge Shah found that
plaintiff's complaint does not contain sufficient factual content
to support its claim that Sinopec USA personally participated in
the conversion of its paper and toner and to the sending of the
fax in question.


Urban Elevator Service is represented by Phillip A. Bock, Esq. --
phil@bockhatchllc.com -- Christopher Phillip Taylor Tourek, Esq. -
- Christopher@bockhatchllc.com -- James Michael Smith, Esq. --
jim@bockhatchllc.com -- Julia Lynn Titolo, Esq. --
julia@bockhatchllc.com -- BOCK & HATCH LLC

Defendants are represented by Ian Howard Fisher, Esq. --
ifisher@honigman.com -- Steven A. Weiss, Esq. --
sweiss@honigman.com -- HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ & COHN LLP


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: "Youngers" Suit Moved From California to N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Mark Youngers v. Virtus Investment
Partners, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03496, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Foley Square).  The New York District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-08262-UA to the proceeding.

The action is brought on behalf of purchasers of Virtus Allocator
Premium AlphaSector Fund Class A, C, and I shares, Virtus
AlphaSector Rotation Fund Class A, C, and I shares, Virtus Dynamic
AlphaSector Fund Class A, B, C, and I shares, Virtus Global
Premium AlphaSector Fund Class A, C, and I shares, and Virtus
Premium AlphaSector Fund Class A, C, and I shares between May 8,
2010, and December 22, 2014, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act
of 1933.

Virtus is incorporated under the laws of the Delaware.  Virtus is
a financial services company, which provides investment products
and solutions, primarily through its subsidiary investment
managers.  Virtus offers a wide range of open- and closed-end
mutual funds, managed accounts and variable insurance products to
retail and institutional investors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Virtus Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph Michael McLaughlin, Esq.
          Daniel Joseph Stujenske, Esq.
          Shannon Kyle McGovern, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 455-2502
          E-mail: jmclaughlin@stblaw.com
                  dstujenske@stblaw.com
                  smcgovern@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Michael David Kibler, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          1999 Avenue of The Stars, 29th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 407-7515
          Facsimile: (310) 407-7502
          E-mail: mkibler@stblaw.com

Defendants Leroy Keith, Jr., Philip R. McLoughlin, Geraldine M.
McNamara, James M. Oates, Richard E. Segerson and Ferdinand L. J.
Vredonck are represented by:

          Geoffrey Hunter Coll, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          45 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York City, NY 10111
          Telephone: (212) 589-4200
          E-mail: gcoll@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Matthias, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Telephone: (310) 820-8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
          E-mail: mmatthias@bakerlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Boisselle" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Boisselle, Mari-Elena Davis and Lief Doezema,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi of America,
Inc. and Robert Bosch GMBH, Case No. 1:15-cv-09168 (N.D. Ill.,
October 16, 2015), seeks damages, injunctive and equitable relief
as a result of the diminution of value of his vehicle.

Boisselle purchased a new 2013 Volkswagen Jetta with the
Turbocharged Direct Injection diesel engine from a Volkswagen
dealer in Evanston in May 2013.

The class action complaint arises out of an installed component in
the vehicle called a defeat device that allegedly turns on the
emission controls during mandated testing but turns it off during
regular operations thus rendering it non-compliant to emission
standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
and the California Air Resources Board.

Volkswagen AG is an automotive company organized and existing
under German law with its principal place of business in
Wolfsburg, Germany and is the parent company of Audi. It
manufactures vehicles under the Volkswagen brand.

Audi of America, Inc. is a Michigan corporation with its principal
place of business located in Virginia. It does business in all 50
states and in the District of Columbia.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under New Jersey law with headquarters in Hemdon,
Virginia and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG. Their
operations in the United States include research and development,
parts and vehicle processing, parts distribution, sales, marketing
and service offices, financial service centers and manufacturing.

Robert Bosch GmbH is a German corporation with principal place of
business located in Stuttgart, Germany. Bosch designs and
manufactures automotive components and industrial products
including the alleged defeat device.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      EIMER STAHL LLP
      Nathan P. Eimer, Esq.
      Vanessa G. Jacobsen, Esq.
      Alexis G. Chardon, Esq.
      224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel: (312) 660-7600
      Fax: (312) 692-1718
      Email: neimer@eimerstahl.com
             vjacobsen@eimerstahl.com
             achardon@eimerstahl.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Bjelic" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danijela Bjelic, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Martin Winterkorn, Michael Horn and Does 1-25,
Case No. 2:15-cv-13784-PDB-DRG (E.D. Mich., October 26, 2015),
seeks monetary damages including treble damages, appropriate
restitution and injunctive relief due to fraud by concealment
under Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act 18 U.S.C.
1961, et seq., violation of Michigan's express warranty statute
440.2323, violation of Michigan's implied warranty statute
440.2314, violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act
445.901, et seq. and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 15 U.S.C.
2301, et seq.

The class action complaint arises out of an installed component in
the vehicle called a defeat device that allegedly turns on the
emission controls during mandated testing but turns it off during
regular operations thus rendering it non-compliant to emission
standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
and the California Air Resources Board.

Bjelic, resident of Roseville, Michigan, purchased a 2015 Golf TDI
in August 2014, from LaFontaine Automotive Group of Dearborn,
Michigan, an authorized Volkswagen dealership.

Volkswagen AG is an automotive company organized and existing
under German law with its principal place of business in
Wolfsburg, Germany. It manufactures vehicles under the Volkswagen
brand.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under New Jersey law with headquarters in Hemdon,
Virginia and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG. Their
operations in the United States include research and development,
parts and vehicle processing, parts distribution, sales, marketing
and service offices, financial service centers and manufacturing.

Michael Horn is the President and CEO of Volkswagen America.

Martin Winterkorn was CEO of Volkswagen AG until September 23,
2015.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Powell Miller, Esq.
      Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      950 West University Drive, Suite 300
      Rochester, MI 48307
      Tel: (248) 841-2200
      Fax: (248) 652-2852
      Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
             ssa@millerlawpc.com

           - and -

      David Boies, Esq.
      BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      333 Main Street
      Armonk, NY 10504
      Tel: (914) 749-8200
      Fax: (202) 749-8300
      Email: dboies@bsfllp.com

           - and -

      Paul J. Geller, Esq.
      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Tel: (561) 750-3000
      Fax: (561) 750-3364
      Email: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
             sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
             mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
             pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
             sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
             mdearman@rgrdlaw.com

           - and -

      Jonathan D. Schiller, Esq.
      Damien J. Marshall, Esq.
      BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      575 Lexington Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 446-2300
      Fax: (212) 446-2350
      Email: jschiller@bsfllp.com
             dmarshall@bsfllp.com

           - and -

      Stephen N. Zack, Esq.
      BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      100 SE Second Street, Suite 2800
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 539-8400
      Fax: (305) 539-1307
      Email: szack@bsfllp.com

           - and -

      Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
      Rachel J. Jensen, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423
      Email: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
             rachelJ@rgrdlaw.com


WALGREEN BOOTS: Consumers Consolidates Herbal Supplement Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Natural Products Insider reported that more than 20 consumers
from across the United States have filed an amended class-action
lawsuit in Illinois against national retailers in reliance on an
herbal supplement investigation that was announced nine months ago
by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

The proposed class-action complaint, which reflects a
consolidation of lawsuits that have been pending against the
retailers, was filed Nov. 11 in federal court against Walgreen
Boots Alliance Inc. (Walgreens), Target Corp., Walmart Stores Inc.
and NBTY Inc. The named plaintiffs hail from California, Florida,
Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, Oregon, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
New Jersey and New York.

The lawsuit cited findings from Schneiderman's office that store-
brand nutritional supplements sold by Walgreens, Target and
Walmart failed to contain the labeled ingredients such as
Echinacea, St. John's Wort and Ginkgo biloba.

NBTY manufactures herbal supplements and sells them wholesale to a
number of retailers including Target, Walgreens and Walmart,
according to the 107-page complaint, which accused the defendants
of violating consumer protection laws in more than 30 states. The
lawsuit also asserted breaches of express and implied warranties
and unjust enrichment.

"Notwithstanding their superior position of knowledge and
experience, defendants turned a blind eye to a supply and testing
chain known as 'the wild wild west,' allowing third parties to
manufacture, test and label their store-branded products without
independent verification at each step in the supply chain," the
lawsuit alleged. "Why? Because the profit margin on supplements is
nearly 10 times as high as that for food items. Further, virtually
no regulations govern the herbal supplement industry, leaving
defendants to self-police themselves."

Andrea Staub, an NBTY spokeswoman, declined to comment on the
lawsuit, and the three retailers had no immediate comment.
The complaint seeks to represent three distinct classes: consumers
who purchased the relevant herbal supplements from Target;
individuals who purchased affected products from Walgreens; and
Walmart customers who paid for the relevant herbal supplements.
Complaint Relies on NYAG Findings

The complaint's sole reliance on Schneiderman's findings could be
problematic, according to two defense lawyers with the New York
law firm Rivkin Radler LLP who are not involved in the litigation,
but familiar with the allegations.

"I see absolutely nothing there," said Marc Ullman, a partner with
Rivkin Radler who is an expert on the regulations governing the
dietary supplement industry. "I [don't] understand how you can
file a complaint like that based on a cease-and-desist letter from
an attorney general that hasn't released any data on the actual
tests."

Industry critics have questioned the reliability of the DNA
technology that Schneiderman used to identify the herbs since DNA
can become degraded or lost when an herbal product is processed
into an extract.

But the complaint sought to address such criticisms.

"Even if the DNA molecule is fragmented in the extraction process,
the DNA can be detectable because a fragment as small as 200 base
pairs may be enough DNA to allow for the identification of the
plant species from which the DNA came," the lawsuit asserted.
"Indeed, the New York Attorney General had found DNA in most of
the finished herbal supplements tested -- all of which were
extracts -- but not the DNA of plants listed on the label."

John Darrah, the federal judge in the Northern District of
Illinois who is overseeing the litigation, encouraged the parties
during a hearing in August to conduct tests of the products by an
independent company. Elizabeth Fegan, a lawyer in Chicago who is
representing the plaintiffs with the class-action law firm Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, confirmed in an email over the summer
that plaintiffs have conducted their own tests on products.

But in the lawsuit, plaintiffs only referenced Schneiderman's
findings that various products failed to contain herbs and were
contaminated with other substances not listed on the label, such
as house plants, rice and wild carrot. The affected herbal
supplements were marketed for such conditions as heart health,
urinary health and immune function, but they were "worthless and
had no value" as a result of the retailers' deceptive and
misleading statements, the lawsuit alleged.

"The whole suit is premised on the press release by the New York
Attorney General, and I think that the defense strategy would
certainly be attacking this right out of the box," said Michael C.
Mule, a partner and litigator with Rivkin Radler. "The complaint
itself is really based on hearsay allegations. It doesn't mean a
complaint can't be based on information and belief" but typically
such information is solely within the defendants' control.

Mule also questioned whether the consolidated lawsuit could meet
the requirements for a class action, an issue that typically is
challenged by the defense. A class-action must share common issues
of fact and law, he said, but the herbal supplements complaint
references state laws across the country.
"Definitions are going to be different" under the state laws, Mule
said. "There is going to be different levels of proof. There is
going to be separate defenses as to the underlying claims."
For instance, he cited a defense available under the New York
General Business Law if a disputed action complies with the
federal government's regulations.

GNC's settlement with Schneiderman, which was announced in March,
recognized that New York authorities found no evidence that the
retailer deviated from federal regulations. GNC was a named
defendant in a number of putative class-action lawsuits that
relied on Schneiderman's findings, but the plaintiffs agreed to
drop the company from the cases.

During a conference hosted by the United Natural Products Alliance
(UNPA), GNC's chief legal officer Jim Sander said the company
cooperated with the attorney general's office, turning over raw
material specs, batch records and other documents that revealed
the products contained all the listed ingredients on the product
labels.


WAL-MART STORES: Court Grants Class Certification in ATM Fee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon P. McCalla of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee granted Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification regarding the claims against Defendant
Wal-Mart, Inc. (Wal-Mart) and Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification regarding the claims against Defendant Satellite
Receivers, Ltd. d/b/a Cash Depot in the case captioned, IN RE:
WAL-MART ATM FEE NOTICE LITIGATION, Case No. MDL NO. 2:11-MD-
02234-JPM-DKV, CASE NO. 1:10-CV-01223, NO. 2:10-CV-02620, 2:11-CV-
02512, 2:11-CV-02530, 2:11-CV-02536 (W.D. Tenn.).

On October 11, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint
against Defendants Wal-Mart, Cash Depot, and Diebold Inc. alleging
violations of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1693b(d)(3)(C) and its implementing
regulation, 12 C.F.R. Sec. 205.16(e), stemming from Defendants'
failure to post notice of an ATM fee on or at Defendants' ATMs.

Plaintiffs propose class definitions as to the claims against
Defendant Wal-Mart as:

     "All persons who initiated an electronic funds transfer at
the Wal-Mart ATM located at 5255 Elvis Presley Blvd., Memphis, TN,
and were assessed a fee for using that ATM on or after August 24,
2009 through August 31, 2010, the date Defendant posted a
complaint [sic] notice on the ATM (the Class Period).All persons
who initiated an electronic funds transfer at the Wal-Mart ATM
located at 2856 Hickory Hill Ext., Memphis, TN, and were assessed
a fee for using that ATM on or after September 22, 2009 through
September 23, 2010, the date Defendant posted a complaint [sic]
notice on the ATM (the Class Period).  All persons who initiated
an electronic funds transfer at the Wal-Mart ATM located at 175
Beasley Drive, Dickson, TN, and were assessed a fee for using that
ATM on or after August 24, 2009 through August 31, 2010, the date
Defendant posted a complaint [sic] notice on the ATM (the Class
Period)" and

as to the claims against Defendant Cash Depot:

     "All persons who initiated a transaction at the Cash Depot
ATM located at the Wal-Mart store at 175 Ji Bell Lane, Savannah,
Tennessee, and were assessed a fee for using that ATM on or after
August 23, 2009 through September 24, 2010, the date Defendant
Cash Depot posted a compliant notice on the ATM. All persons who
initiated a transaction at the Cash Depot ATM located at the Wal-
Mart store at 202 Plaza Drive, New Albany, Mississippi, and were
assessed a fee for using that ATM on or after March 11, 2010
through September 27, 2010, the date Defendant Cash Depot posted a
compliant notice on the ATM. All persons who initiated a
transaction at the Cash Depot ATM located at 822 City Avenue, S.,
Ripley, Mississippi, and were assessed a fee for using that ATM on
or after September 20, 2009 through September 27, 2010, the date
Defendant Cash Depot posted a compliant notice on the ATM."

On December 20, 2011, Defendants filed separate Motions for
Summary Judgment, each alleging that it was not the automated
teller machine operator at any of the ATMs at issue. On March 23,
2012, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint,
which addressed the arguments raised in Defendants' Motions for
Summary Judgment and abandoned claims against Defendant Diebold.

Plaintiffs assert that their putative classes meet all the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and argue
that the class should be certified under Rule 23(b)(3).

In his Order dated November 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Bp1Xv9from Leagle.com, Judge McCalla found that
common issues of law and fact predominate in the case, and class
treatment is the superior procedural approach.

Plaintiffs are represented by Eric G. Calhoun, Esq. --
eric@travislaw.com -- TRAVIS & CALHOUN

Defendants are represented by Kacey Leigh Faughnan, Esq. --
kfaughnan@wyattfirm.com -- WYATT TARRANT & COMBS, LLP


WALT DISNEY: Movies Lack Subtitles, "Anthony" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Christine Anthony, Susan Boswell, Evan Brunell, Darby Leigh, Ken
Levinson, Catharine McNally, Pauline Newton, Jay Wyant, Kristin
Zlogar, individually, v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc., The
Walt Disney Company, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., Warner Home
Entertainment, Inc., Universal Studios Home Entertainment LLC,
Paramount Pictures Corporation, Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.,
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment Inc, Netflix and Does 1 to 20,
Case No. BC598251 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, October 19,
2015), seeks damages resulting from purchasing movies without
captions or subtitles from the defendants in violation of the
Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code 17200,
breach Of Implied Warranty of Fitness, Civil Code 1792.1 and
1792.2, breach of implied Warrant of Merchantability, Civil Code
1791.1, Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Civ. Code 1770(A)(5),
violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, breach of Covenant Of
Good Faith and Fair Dealing, false advertising in violation of
Business and Profession Code.

Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc. is a California corporation
with its principal place of business in Burbank, California. Buena
Vista is in the business of distributing movies, shows, and DVDs.

The Walt Disney Company is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in Burbank, California.

Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Burbank, California.

Warner Home Entertainment, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Burbank, California. It is in the
business of distributing movies, shows, and DVDs.

Universal Studios Home Entertainment LLC is a California LLC with
its principal place of business in Universal City, California. It
is in the business of distributing movies and DVDs produced by
Universal and Focus Features.

Paramount Pictures Corporation is California corporation with its
principal place of business in Hollywood, California and is in the
business of producing and distributing movies, shows and DVDs.

Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Culver City, California.

Netflix is an American provider of on-demand Internet streaming
media with its principal place of business in Los Gatos,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John A. Girardi, Esq.
      GIRARDI - KEESE
      1126 Wilshire Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Tel: (213) 977-0211
      Fax: (213) 481-1554


WAREHOUSE DEMO: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John F. Walter of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California granted final approval of
class action settlement in the case captioned, SELENE PRADO, and
CINDY CALAHAN, as individuals, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WAREHOUSE DEMO SERVICES, INC., a
Washington Corporation; CLUB DEMONSTRATION SERVICES, INC., a
Connecticut Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case
No. CV14-3170 JFW (C.D. Cal.).

A hearing on the settlement was held November 2, 2015.

Judge Walter, in his Order dated November 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/NeKbJBfrom Leagle.com, granted final approval of the
Parties' Settlement Agreement because it meets the criteria for
final settlement approval and that that the Settlement Class
satisfies the applicable standards for certification under Federal
Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3) and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Court appoints Selene Prado and Cindy Calahan as class
representatives and Hernaldo J. Baltodano of Baltodano & Baltodano
LLP, and Paul K. Haines and Fletcher W. Schmidt of Boren, Osher &
Luftman LLP as class counsel.

The Court approves the payment of settlement administration costs
in the amount of $55,000 to CPT Group, Inc., the Claims
Administrator, for services rendered, Incentive Payments to Class
Representative Prado in the amount of $10,000, Class
Representative Calahan in the amount of $5,000 to reimburse the
Class Representatives, Class Counsel the amount of $1,275,000 for
attorney's fees, and the amount of $71,716.44 for costs.

Selene Prado is represented by Paul Keith Haines, Esq. --
phaines@bollaw.com -- Fletcher W. H. Schmidt, Esq. --
fschmidt@bollaw.com -- BOREN OSHER AND LUFTMAN LLP

     - and -

Erica Flores Baltodano, Esq.
Hernaldo Jose Baltodano, Esq.
BALTODANO AND BALTODANO LLP
1411 Marsh St
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: (805)322-3412

Defendants are represented by Andrea R. Milano, Esq. --
amilano@littler.com -- Natalie Ann Pierce, Esq. --
npierce@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, PC


WELLS FARGO: Summary Judgment Bid in Wage & Hour Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gray H. Miller of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas granted Well Fargo's motion for
summary judgment in the case captioned, IN RE: WELLS FARGO WAGE
AND HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION (NO. III), Case No. H-11-
2266 (S.D. Tex.).

This is a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. The
majority of the plaintiffs have settled their claims. The
remaining plaintiffs consist of 1,516 individuals who work or
worked for Wells Fargo in California and were previously part of a
class action settlement in the case Lofton v. Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage, No. CGC-11-509502. Lofton was a class action filed on
behalf of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Consultants who, according to
the plaintiffs, were improperly classified as exempt and
consequently did not receive overtime compensation for the hours
of overtime they worked.

On July 15, 2015, the California trial court issued an order
holding that the funds in the separate ILG fund should be
distributed to the Lofton class because if the payment was for
class action attorneys' fees as ILG claimed, it should have been
disclosed to and approved by the court.  Since ILG failed to
disclose the payment as fees, the court found it was not entitled
to any fees.

In the motion, Wells Fargo originally moved for summary judgment
in the case with regard to the California Plaintiffs' claims on
September 22, 2014, which was prior to the California appellate
court's ruling that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in entering a temporary restraining order relating to the ILG
funds. Wells Fargo argued that the final judgment approving the
settlement, which included a release of all FLSA claims,
prohibited the plaintiffs in the case, who were members of the
Lofton class, from pursuing their FLSA claims.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 4, 2015
available at http://is.gd/bI5KIufrom Leagle.com, Judge Miller
held that the Lofton judgment is final and binding, and the
California Plaintiffs released their FLSA claims in the settlement
in the said case. Their claims in the case are therefore barred
under the doctrine of res judicata.

Plaintiffs are represented by R. Paul Yetter, Esq. --
pyetter@yettercoleman.com -- YETTER COLEMAN LLP

     - and -

Rhonda Hunter Wills, Esq.
WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC
1776 Yorktown Street #570
Houston, TX 77056
Tel: (713)528-2936

Defendants are represented by David Bryce Jordan, Esq. --
djordan@littler.com -- Lindbergh Porter, Esq. --
lporter@littler.com -- Philip L. Ross, Esq. -- plross@littler.com
-- LITTLER MENDELSON


YMCA OF MEMPHIS: Faces "Ausburn" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Ausburn and Kimberly Henderson, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated current and former employees,
Plaintiffs, v. YMCA of Memphis and the Mid-South, Case No. 2:15-
cv-02695 Document No. 1 (W.D. Tenn., October 21, 2015), asserts
"off-the-clock" minimum wage and overtime pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, and state common law claims of
unjust enrichment/quantum meruit and breach of contract and
violation of the Tennessee Wage Regulation Act.

Plaintiffs were employed as hourly-paid employees of the Defendant
and rendered work in excess of 40 hours per week but were not
compensated at one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of
pay for all such hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
They also rendered "off-the-clock" work for which they were not
compensated to such an extent that it reduced their hourly rate of
pay below the minimum wage as required by the FLSA.

YMCA of Memphis and the Mid-South is a Tennessee Nonprofit
Corporation with its principal place of business located in Shelby
County (Memphis), Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 754-8524
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             jholt@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com


ZAFGEN INC: Artificially Inflated Shares, "Bessler" Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aviad Bessler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Zafgen, Inc. and Thomas E. Hughes,
Defendants, Case 1:15-cv-13618 (D. Mass., October 21, 2015), seeks
compensatory and punitive damages sustained as a result of non-
disclosure of material facts resulting to the drop in Zafgen
shares, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs and
expenses in this litigation violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and
78t(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5.

Bessler acquired and held shares of the Company at artificially
inflated prices during the class period. He accuses Zafgen of
insider trading and failure to disclose results of clinical trials
especially one resulting in death, which, upon corrective
disclosure, caused a significant drop in share prices.

Zafgen, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in Boston, Massachusetts and is well known for its
anti-obesity drug called "Beloranib." It is publicly traded on the
NASDAQ.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
      Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
      Bradley Vettraino, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 398-5600
      Fax: (617) 507-6020
      Email: jeff@blockesq.com
             joel@blockesq.com
             bradley@blockesq.com


* CFPB Arbitration Plan Provokes Dubious Industry Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sovern, writing for American Banker, reported that industry
advocates say they oppose regulatory restrictions on arbitration
clauses because arbitration is superior to litigation in resolving
disputes. You might expect that they would favor arbitration in
the vast majority of cases. But the evidence suggests the industry
is merely out to block class-action lawsuits.

Upon the release of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's
proposed restrictions, CFPB Director Richard Cordray said
arbitration clauses give businesses a "free pass" to evade
accountability to their customers. The clauses say that disputes
will be resolved in arbitration rather than litigation, which may
appear innocuous enough, but what gives them added significance is
that they block the use of class actions.

Because consumer claims are often for small amounts and the cost
of arguing cases is high, many consumer disputes can affordably be
decided only in class actions -- in which the expense of
litigation can be shared by many plaintiffs. That means class
actions are sometimes the only vehicle for enforcing consumer
protection laws. But businesses can prevent the use of class
actions by employing arbitration clauses that waive the right to
bring group claims.

In short, companies can use class action waivers to block consumer
protection laws unless consumer protection laws find a way to
block class action waivers.

That way now exists. Congress gave the CFPB the power to regulate
arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts. In March, the
bureau issued its study showing that litigation offers consumers
significant advantages over arbitration. The industry forcefully
disagreed, arguing that arbitration should not be regulated
because arbitration is better for consumers than litigation. For
example, last summer, the American Bankers Association and other
industry trade groups submitted comments to the CFPB stating
"arbitration has significant, demonstrable benefits over
litigation in general and class action litigation in particular."

The trade organizations predicted that consumers would be harmed
if the bureau acted. They argued that "if the Bureau were to . . .
prohibit the use of class action waivers in such agreements, as
some parties advocate, many companies are likely to discontinue
offering arbitration to consumers. That outcome would harm
consumers, as they would be deprived of a valuable and time-tested
procedure for economically, expeditiously, conveniently, and
efficiently resolving individual consumer disputes."

That way now exists. Congress gave the CFPB the power to regulate
arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts. In March, the
bureau issued its study showing that litigation offers consumers
significant advantages over arbitration. The industry forcefully
disagreed, arguing that arbitration should not be regulated
because arbitration is better for consumers than litigation. For
example, last summer, the American Bankers Association and other
industry trade groups submitted comments to the CFPB stating
"arbitration has significant, demonstrable benefits over
litigation in general and class action litigation in particular."

But if the industry truly believes that arbitration is so much
better than litigation at resolving disputes, shouldn't it prefer
arbitration to litigation for resolving individual disputes, where
there is not a threat of a class action? Or should we be shocked,
shocked, to discover the industry's love of arbitration is about
barring class actions?

There is not a lot of research on what businesses would do if they
could use arbitration in consumer disputes but not to prevent
class actions. (The CFPB proposal would still allow arbitration in
individual claims, but the agency would monitor arbitrations in
such cases to assess the fairness of the process.)

However, some evidence from other types of disputes suggests the
industry is not as enamored with arbitration as it claims. A
recent paper by Cornell Law School's Theodore Eisenberg and two
other authors shows that companies are far less likely to insert
arbitration clauses in business-to-business contracts -- where
class actions pose little threat.

Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of businesses
show that they prefer litigation to resolve disputes when class
actions are removed from the equation.

Jeff Sovern is a professor of law at St. John's University School
of Law in New York City and co-coordinator of the Consumer Law and
Policy Blog.


* Rationale Behind Arbitration Clauses at Odds with Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Lockwood, Esq. -- clockwood@osler.com -- and Vanessa Cotric,
Esq. -- vcotric@osler.com -- at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP,
wrote that the public policy rationales for enforcing arbitration
agreements are arguably at odds with the policy rationales
underpinning the class actions regime. Over the past few years,
courts in Canada and the United States have been engaged in this
dialogue through cases involving consumer contracts.

The Seidel decision continues to be applied by Canadian courts for
the proposition that arbitration clauses should be enforced unless
expressly prohibited by the legislature. The Supreme Court only
certified the Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") claim as a class
action and held that the other non-consumer claims would proceed
to arbitration. The Supreme Court's decision in Seidel built on
the principles previously articulated in Griffin v Dell Canada
Inc., where the Ontario Court of Appeal certified a class action
in which a consumer contract contained an arbitration clause on
the basis that the "CPA provisions resolve the tension between the
Arbitration Act and the Class Proceedings Act in favour of class
proceedings".

Late last year, in Wellman and Corless v TELUS and Bell, the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a class proceeding
despite an arbitration clause in the underlying consumer contract.
The plaintiffs asserted, among other claims, breach of Ontario's
CPA, which was deemed to relieve consumers from mandatory
arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. Unlike the Supreme
Court's decision in Seidel, the Court in this case decided that
the non-consumer claims and consumer claims would be heard
together. Following the decision in Griffin v Dell Canada Inc.,
the Court held that separating the consumer claims and non-
consumer claims could lead to inefficiency, risk inconsistent
results and create a multiplicity of proceedings.

In contrast to the Canadian trends, arbitration clauses in
consumer contracts have been upheld in the United States so as to
preclude class actions. The U.S. Supreme Court in AT&T v
Concepcion (2011) and Italian Colors v American Express (2013)
upheld the public policy rationale of enforcing arbitration
clauses over the availability of class actions. In fact, in Del
Toro v Applebee's in late 2013, a federal court judge ruled in
Applebee's favour and enforced an arbitration clause, saying he
was bound by the Supreme Court decisions.

The New York Times recently reported that in 2014 alone, roughly
83% of cases in the U.S. upheld class-action waivers.

As evidenced by the jurisprudence, the approach of the Canadian
and U.S. courts to the interplay between arbitration clauses in
consumer contracts and the ability of consumers to seek redress by
means of class actions has differed in recent years. In Canada,
the courts have generally interpreted the provincial consumer
legislation as evidencing a legislative intent to permit consumer
class proceedings in the face of arbitration clauses.

Indeed, some Canadian courts to date have expanded this analysis
so as to include any parallel common law claims that are asserted
in the same proposed proceedings. Conversely, the U.S. courts have
tended to enforce the arbitration provisions in consumer
contracts, such that collective consumer actions have often been
precluded.



* Supreme Court Intends to Limit Class Suit and Access to Trials
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Andrews, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reported that
the day after ruling that a police officer who shot and killed a
motorist had "qualified immunity," which denied the survivors
access to a jury trial, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in
a case that threatens to overturn almost seven decades of law by
throwing out a jury verdict against a large corporation found to
have denied workers legally required wages.

The hearing follows on the heels of a similar case during which
other corporate lawyers argued that lower state courts cannot use
rules of contract interpretation to protect consumers from unfair
arbitration provisions that strip away the right to a jury for
claims based on business overcharges.

Both cases are class actions, which have the potential to generate
substantial fees for the law firms that bring them, but are the
only means under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for groups
of workers or consumers to aggregate their individually small
claims into a sufficiently large amount to justify the huge
expense of prosecuting civil actions against miscreant businesses.

Four years ago, the Supreme Court denied around one million female
Wal-Mart workers their right to pursue a class action for alleged
gender-based job discrimination, rejecting previously accepted
statistically based methods for proving discriminatory patterns
within a large workforce. Instead, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote,
with his customary contempt for the working class that the female
Wal-Mart workers had "little in common but their sex and this
lawsuit."

Now the Supreme Court is considering whether to prohibit class
actions based on statistical evidence of systemic wage theft. In
Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, the plaintiffs, a class composed of
meat workers at an Iowa slaughterhouse, sued Tyson Foods, which
has 115,000 workers and generates about $35 billion a year in
sales, for unpaid time spent putting on and taking off special
protective and sanitary clothing and gear.

The plaintiffs proved that workers were not allowed to punch the
time clocks until they were dressed, and had to punch them before
they undressed, a violation of federal labor law. Without records
for how long individuals actually took to change, the jury had to
rely on statistical estimates and averaging. After a full trial,
the jury returned a $5.8 million verdict against Tyson Foods,
roughly half the amount the plaintiffs requested.

The Supreme Court accepted the case to rule on whether differences
among individual workers -- some wore more special gear than
others, some could change faster than others, and at trial it
turned out that some wore none at all -- invalidated the class-
action process that led to the jury's verdict.

Because workers invariably suffer different losses depending on
scheduling, work assignments and other factors, most commentators
noted the obvious when the Supreme Court accepted the case: the
justices were looking for more ways to limit federal class-actions
as a mechanism to holding corporations responsible for wage theft.

The justices' comments during the argument gave little indication
how the case would be resolved. A decision is expected to be filed
sometime during the next several months.

In the mandatory arbitration case, DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, a
lower California state court interpreted convoluted fine print in
a consumer contract for television subscription services to
invalidate DIRECTV's mandatory arbitration clause, thus allowing
ripped-off customers to band together and present their case to a
jury.

California state law has long protected people from mandatory
arbitration clauses under the theory that consumers generally do
not know they are surrendering their right to a jury trial when
purchasing goods or services.

In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, decided only a few months after
the Wal-Mart class action, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal
law allowing for businesses to impose mandatory arbitration
preempts state laws protecting the right to a jury trial. So much
for the right-wing doctrine of "state's rights."

DIRECTV is a subsidiary of AT&T, and has equity of almost $7
billion. The class action alleged that DIRECTV improperly assessed
"termination fees" on tens of thousands of its customers. The case
turns on whether lower courts can use traditional principles
governing contract interpretation -- traditionally within the
purview of state rather than federal law -- in a manner that, in
Justice Samuel Alito's words, demonstrates "hostility to
arbitration."

Again, a decision is expected within the next few months.

The fundamental democratic right to a jury trial in civil cases
extends at least as far back as the reign of King Henry II (1154-
1189). Attempts by the British crown to deny American colonists
juries, particularly in civil claims under the hated British
Navigation Acts, was a trigger of the American Revolution, listed
among the grievances in the Declaration of Independence.

The right to a civil jury is spelled out in the Seventh Amendment
to the US Constitution, a less commonly cited provision than some
others, but still a cornerstone of the founders' conception of
democratic rights.

Limitations on class actions and expansion of mandatory
arbitration clauses are legal forms in which courthouse doors are
being slammed in the face of workers and consumers who try to
mount legal challenges against the rapaciousness and lawlessness
of corporations.


                            *********

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  * * *