CAR_Public/151210.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, December 10, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 246


                            Headlines


ADVANTAGE HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AGNICO-EAGLE: Jan. 20 Toronto Settlement Approval Hearing Set
AMERICAN REALTY: "Esposito" Suit Seeks Damages over Merger
ANTHEM INC: Responds to Data Breach Class Action
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Faces "Minzer" Suit Over Proposed Sale to NYCB

AUTO HOLDINGS: Faces "Rogers" Suit Over Documentary Service Fees
BUILDING UNLIMITED: Faces "Irias" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BUNNEL OPERATING: Wendy's Outlet Doesn't Pay OT, "Love" Suit Says
BUTLER COUNTY, PA: Dismissal of Lunch Break Class Action Upheld
CARDENAS MARKETS: Sued Over Handicapped Inaccessible Stores

CITCO GROUP: Judge Okays $125MM Madoff Ponzi Scheme Settlement
CONEY ISLAND: Sued in N.Y. Over Company Assets Mismanagement
CUDD PRESSURE CONTROL: "Humphrey" Action Seeks to Recover OT
CUMBERLAND UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Pension Benefits
DAYLIGHT TRANSPORT: "Utterbach" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

DINER 84: Faces "Acevedo" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Holland" Suit Alleges Rigging in Online Game
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "Hale" Suit Over Online Fantasy Gambling
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "Coleman" Suit in Cal. Over Misleading Ads
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "Hodge" Suit Over Online Fantasy Gambling

EMC CORPORATION: Faces "Jacobs" Suit Over Denali Takeover
EMC CORPORATION: "Lasker" Suit Challenges Sale Agreement with Dell
EROS INT'L: Faces "Arsani" Suit Alleging Securities Act Violation
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Jallo" Suit Hits Credit Report Flaw
EXTREME SERVICES: Faces "Amezcua" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

FANDUEL INC: Faces "Coleman" Suit Over Misleading Advertisement
FANDUEL INC: Faces "Hodge" Suit Over Online Fantasy Gambling
FARMER BROS: "Zuno" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FILE & SERVE: Best Jewelry Loses Suit Over Services Fees
FREDERICK J HANNA: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hall" Action Claims

FULTON COUNTY, GA: Settles Suit Over "Premium Pay" Suit $18MM
GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Can't Access Internal Notes
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Jordan" Suit Alleges Drug Side Effects
HIT MOBILE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Martinez" Suit Says
INTERSTATE AUTO: Sued Over Consumers Legal Remedies Act Violation

KKW TRUCKING: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Glenn" Suit Says
LG ELECTRONICS: January 7 CRT Class Action-Opt Out Deadline Set
LOBEL FINANCIAL: Sued Over Retail Installment Sale Contract
LUCRETIA & RICHARD: Faces "Rios" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MASSACHUSETTS: MBTA Sued Over Failure to Provide Rail Service

MICHAELS STORES: "Gomez" Suit Removed to Central Dist. California
NASTASI & ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Breach of Contract Agreement
NEWMARK: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Health Specialists
NEW YORK: Faces "Resch" Suit Over Unlawful Exclusion Policies
NY888 CLEANERS: "Lin" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages

ON GRAPHICS: Faces "Pulido" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RITE AID: Faces "Orr" Suit in Del. Over Sale to Walgreens
SALVATORE'S OLD FASHIONED: "Homer" Action Seeks to Recover Wages
SOUTHWEST PATROL: Faces "Franceschi" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
STIEFEL LABS: Law Firms in Dispute Over Fraud Case Costs

TAINO STAR: Faces "Garay" Suit Over Gender Discrimination
TAPAS FOOD: Sued in N.Y. Over Unlawful Diversion of Company Funds
TUESDAY MORNING: Recent Ruling on Bias Suit to Impact Employers
UNLIMITED BAKING: Faces "Terrazaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "O'Brien" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Jung" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued in Mich. Over "Defeat Devices" in Vehicles
WILSON SPORTING: Falsely Marketed Tennis Balls, Action Claims
YELP INC: Judge Tosses Investor Suit Over False Reviews

* Companies Re-evaluate Hiring Policies Following No-Poach Ruling



                            *********

ADVANTAGE HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Rodriquez, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Advantage Healthcare, Inc., et al, Case No. CACE-15-020005 (Fla.
11th Ct., November 10, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Advantage Healthcare, Inc. operates a health care management
company in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AGNICO-EAGLE: Jan. 20 Toronto Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in the class actions against
Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited arising from the company's alleged
failure to disclose operational issues at its Goldex mine before
the mine's closure in 2011.  Agnico has agreed to pay $17,000,000.
The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an
admission of liability or wrongdoing by Agnico.

The settlement must be approved by the Ontario and Quebec Courts.
Settlement approval hearings have been set for January 20, 2016,
in Toronto and January 27, 2016, in Val-d'Or. At the hearings, the
Courts will also address motions to approve Class Counsel's fees,
which will not exceed 30% of the recovery plus reimbursement for
expenses incurred in the litigation.

Class members may express their views about the proposed
settlement to the Courts.  If you wish to do so, you must act by
January 6, 2016.  For more information about your rights and how
to exercise them, see the long-form notice available online at
http://www.siskinds.com/agnico-eagle-mines-ltd-2/ortoll-free at
1-877-672-2121 x2380.


AMERICAN REALTY: "Esposito" Suit Seeks Damages over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
IRA FBO John Esposito, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc.,
American Realty Capital Trust IV, Inc., Nicholas S. Schorsch,
Edward M. Weil, William G. Stanley, Peter M. Budko, Brian Block,
William M. Kahane, Leslie D. Michelson, Edward G. Rendell, Scott
J. Bowman, Abby M. Wenzel, Lisa Beeson, AR Capital LLC, Nicholas
Radesca and Grant Thornton, Case No. 1:15-cv-08508-UA (S.D.N.Y.,
October 29, 2015), seeks damages and equitable relief under 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act 15 U.S.C. 77k, 77l(a)(2) and
77o and 14(a) of the Exchange Act 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78n(a) and
78t(a).

This securities class action is brought on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired ARCP common stock and ARCP 6.70%
Series F Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock issued in
connection with the merger of ARCP and American Realty Capital
Trust, IV, Inc.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
artificially inflated the price of securities by making false and
misleading statements and omitting material information about its
operations and financial results.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. is a corporation
organized and existing under the state of Maryland, and maintained
its headquarters at all relevant times at 405 Park Avenue, 15th
floor, New York, New York 10022. William M. Kahane, William G.
Stanley, Leslie D. Michelson, Edward G. Rendell and Scott J.
Bowman served as members of its Board of Directors.

American Realty Capital Trust IV, Inc. was a Maryland corporation
with principal executive offices were located at 405 Park Avenue,
15th Floor, New York, New York 10022 with Nicholas S. Schorsch,
Edward M. Weil, William G. Stanley, Peter M. Budko and Brian Block
held executive officer and/or director positions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
      Mark T. Millkey, Esq.
      El H. Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
             rrothman@rgrdlaw.com
             mmillkey@rgrdlaw.com

           - and -

      Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
      Michael J. Dowd, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Tel: (619) 231-1058
      Fax (619) 231-7423 (fax)
      Email: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
             miked@rgrdlaw.com

           - and -

      Howard T. Longman, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 687-7230
      Fax: (212) 490-2022
      Email: hlongman@ssbny.com

           - and -

      Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      9430 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 400
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (310) 209-2468
      Fax: (310) 209-2087
      Email: service@ssbla.com


ANTHEM INC: Responds to Data Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Anthem Inc., the
nation's second-largest health insurer, has taken its first swing
at narrowing litigation stemming from a major data breach
affecting about 80 million customers.

In court papers filed on Nov. 23, Anthem's lawyers at Hogan
Lovells maintain that customers have failed to show any actual
damages as a result of the cyberattack on Anthem, especially since
the company has offered two years of free credit monitoring to all
those affected.

Anthem announced in February that hackers accessed a database
containing customer records, including names, birthdates, home
addresses and Social Security numbers.  More than 100 breach-
related suits were filed against Anthem and affiliated companies
in state and federal courts across the country in the months that
followed.  In June, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred the suits to U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh
of the Northern District of California.

In October, plaintiffs co-lead counsel Eve Cervantez of Altshuler
Berzon and Andrew Friedman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll filed
a 200-plus page consolidated amended complaint seeking relief on
behalf of 53 separate statewide classes.  To deal with a
manageable slice of the case at the motion to dismiss stage,
Judge Koh asked the plaintiffs to put forward their five strongest
claims while letting defendants pick the five where they think
they can mount the strongest case.

In Anthem's motion filed on Nov. 23, Craig Hoover --
craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan Lovells points out that
in the past two years data thieves have targeted other companies
including eBay, Target, Home Depot and JPMorgan Chase as well as
the federal government's Office of Personnel Management.
Mr. Hoover maintains that even plaintiffs who have been victims of
fraud since the breach have failed to allege "that any purported
fraud was caused by the cyberattack on Anthem."

Mr. Hoover further contends that plaintiffs cannot show that they
would have paid less for their health insurance had they known
about the company's allegedly inadequate data security practices.

Plaintiffs are set to respond to Anthem's motion this month.
Judge Koh is scheduled to hear arguments on the motion in
February.


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Faces "Minzer" Suit Over Proposed Sale to NYCB
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shoshana Minzer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Astoria Financial Corporation, Case No.
607358/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 12, 2015) is brought on
behalf of all the public holders of common stock of Astoria
Financial Corporation, to enjoin the sale of the Company to New
York Community Bancorp, Inc. at a grossly unfair price as a result
of a materially unfair and conflict-ridden process.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      WEISS LAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
              mrogovin@weisslawllp.com


AUTO HOLDINGS: Faces "Rogers" Suit Over Documentary Service Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Rogers on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons v. Auto Holdings, Inc., Case No. L-
7926-15 (N.J. Super. Ct., November 12, 2015) alleges that the
Defendant overstated the amount of the documentary service fees
due for customers' vehicles by adding amounts that were not paid
to the motor vehicle commission for official fees, but instead
were retained by the Defendant or its agents for documentary
services.

Auto Holdings, Inc. owns and operates a used car shop located at
651 US Highway 22, Hillside, NJ 07205.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lessie Hill, Esq.
      480 Nye Avenue
      Irvington, NJ 07111
      Telephone: (973) 373-0413


BUILDING UNLIMITED: Faces "Irias" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marvin Antonio Irias, and all others similarly situated v.
Building Unlimited, Inc. and Martin Curi, Case No. 1:15-cv-24236-
JAL (S.D. Fla., November 12, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Building Unlimited, Inc. is a roofing contractor in Miami,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BUNNEL OPERATING: Wendy's Outlet Doesn't Pay OT, "Love" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rashonda Love, on behalf of herself and others similarly-situated
v. Bunnel Operating Co., Carobama Operating Co. and Wencoast
Foods, Inc. Case No. 3:15-cv-1269-J-39JRK (M.D. Fla., October 23,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime and
liquidated damages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, 29 U.S.C. 201.

Bunnel Operating Co., Carobama Operating Co. and Wencoast Foods,
Inc. are joint enterprises that operate Wendy's Old Fashioned
Hamburgers in Flager County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kelly H. Chanfrau, Esq.
      CHANFRAU & CHANFRAU
      701 N. Peninsula Drive
      Daytona Beach, FL 32118
      Tel: (386) 258-7313
      Fax: (386) 258-8783
      E-mail: kelly@chanfraulaw.com


BUTLER COUNTY, PA: Dismissal of Lunch Break Class Action Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a split federal appeals court has ruled that a putative class of
Butler County corrections officers is not entitled to be
compensated under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the 15 unpaid
minutes of their hour-long mealtime periods.

Recognizing the FLSA does not specifically address the issue of
whether a mealtime is compensable, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, in upholding the district court's dismissal of
the case, held the "predominant benefit" analysis used by other
circuits was the appropriate measure.

The analysis looks at which party received the predominant benefit
of the meal period. That benefit, Judge Dolores Sloviter wrote in
the court's majority opinion, belonged to the corrections
officers.

In their suit against the county, the plaintiffs argued that
without permission from their superiors, they are unable to leave
the prison grounds to run personal errands, sleep or breathe fresh
air outside of the prison walls on their meal breaks, essentially
because they are on call in case of an emergency.  Because of
that, the officers requested compensation for the full hour.

"Here, although plaintiffs face a number of restrictions during
their meal period, the district court correctly found that, on
balance, these restrictions did not predominantly benefit the
employer," Judge Sloviter said.

The majority also focused on the officers' collective bargaining
agreement, which, according to Judge Sloviter, contains an agreed-
upon provision for an unpaid 15-minute portion of the meal break.

She further noted the agreement is set to expire soon, so the
parties will have an opportunity to revisit the issue of
compensation for the 15 unpaid minutes.

However, Judge Joseph A. Greenaway Jr. said the majority
mischaracterized the issue.

"The issue before us is not whether plaintiffs are paid for the
first 45 minutes of their meal period and paid if called upon to
work during their lunch hour.  Nor is the issue before us whether
plaintiffs may request permission to leave the prison," Judge
Greenaway wrote in his dissent.  "Instead, it is whether
plaintiffs should be paid because they allege that they are
required to be prepared to serve at a moment's notice for the
entirety of the meal period."

Judge Greenaway pointed to the Second Circuit's 1997 holding in
Reich v. Southern New England Telecommunications that "workers'
on-site presence [during meals] is solely for the benefit of the
employer and, in their absence, the company would have to pay
others to perform those same services."

Judge Greenaway said the plaintiffs' claims over the restrictions
of their movements were sufficient to state a claim under the
FLSA.

In the majority opinion, Judge Sloviter said courts have generally
avoided a literal reading of the Department of Labor's definition
of a mealtime and looked instead at the totality of the
circumstances in cases to determine who received the benefit.

"For some courts, whether the employee is free to leave the
premises is of particular importance.  Others emphasize the number
of interruptions to which the employees are subject," Judge
Sloviter said.  "As the Eleventh Circuit has stated, 'the
essential consideration in determining whether a meal period is a
bona fide meal period or a compensable rest period is whether the
employees are in fact relieved from work for the purpose of eating
a regularly scheduled meal.'"

In response to Greenaway's point in his dissent that the majority
disregarded U.S. Supreme Court precedent, focused too much on the
collective bargaining agreement, and relied on outdated case law,
Judge Sloviter wrote, "In reality, our approach is consistent with
the weight of precedent, considers the [collective bargaining
agreement] as one relevant -- though not dispositive
-- factor, and merely comes to a different conclusion regarding
the predominant benefit of the corrections officers' uninterrupted
mealtime period under the totality of the circumstances."


CARDENAS MARKETS: Sued Over Handicapped Inaccessible Stores
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Green, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cardenas Markets, Inc., Case No. BC600777 (Cal. Super.
Ct., November 12, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged
discrimination against people who are disabled, in ways that block
them from equal access to and use of their stores.

Cardenas Markets, Inc. operates approximately 25 supermarkets in
the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CITCO GROUP: Judge Okays $125MM Madoff Ponzi Scheme Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a New
York federal judge on Nov. 18 approved a $125 million settlement
for victims of Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme.  The settlement was
negotiated in part by Fort Lauderdale attorneys from Boies,
Schiller & Flexner.

Thirty percent of the fund will go to attorney fees for the
plaintiffs.  The victims' legal team, co-led by Boies Schiller
partner Stuart Singer -- ssinger@bsfllp.com -- will receive $4.4
million in costs.  The financial services company Citco Group Ltd.
agreed to the proposed settlement in August.

The plaintiffs alleged Citco breached its obligation to investors
by not providing them with accurate information about the quality
of its feeder funds.  The settlement does not include any
admission of wrongdoing.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in the Southern District of
New York approved the settlement, which was reached after three
full-day mediation sessions.

The approval leaves the case with just one defendant,
PricewaterhouseCoopers. Claims against PwC are scheduled for trial
in January.

In addition to Mr. Singer, the plaintiffs lawyers include Boies
Schiller attorneys Eli Glasser -- eglasser@bsfllp.com --
Sashi Bach -- sbach@bsfllp.com -- and Carlos Sires in Fort
Lauderdale and David Barrett and Howard Vickery in New York;
Robert C. Finkel -- rfinkel@wolfpopper.com -- of Wolf Popper in
New York; and Christopher Lovell -- CLovell@lshllp.com -- and
Victor E. Stewart of Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson in New York.

Citco's lawyers are Brad S. Karp -- bkarp@paulweiss.com --
Leslie Gordon Fagen -- lfagen@paulweiss.com -- Allan J. Arffa,
Walter Rieman and Andrew G. Gordon of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison in New York.

Mr. Madoff is serving a 150-year federal sentence for engineering
the largest swindle in U.S. history.  About $65 billion was
missing from client accounts, and the Securities Investor
Protection Corp. estimated actual losses at $18 billion.


CONEY ISLAND: Sued in N.Y. Over Company Assets Mismanagement
------------------------------------------------------------
Arshad Khan individually and on behalf of all stockholders of
Coney Island Day Care Center, Inc. v. Khalid Mahmood, Asad
Mahmood, Coney Island Day Care Center, Inc., Case No. 513818/2015
(N.Y. Super. Ct., November 11, 2015) is an action for damages as a
result of the Defendants' alleged misuse of the income and assets
of the corporation.

The Defendants own and operate a child and daycare center in
Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Silver, Esq.
      80-02 Kew Gardens Road
      Kew Gardens, NY 11415
      Telephone: (718) 520 1010


CUDD PRESSURE CONTROL: "Humphrey" Action Seeks to Recover OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Humphrey, individually and on behalf of others similarly-
situated v. Defendant Cudd Pressure Control, Inc., Case No. Case
2:15-cv-01399-MRH Document No. 1 (W.D. Pa., October 28, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act 43 Pa.
Stat. Ann. 333.104, Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C.
4111 et seq. and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act Rev. Code 4113.15.

Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. is a national company offering a wide
ride range of drilling, completions, and production services to
the oil and gas industry. Cudd maintains offices in Pennsylvania,
Texas, Utah, Wyoming, Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan,
Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota and Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      Goodrich & Geist, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Tel: (412) 766-1455
      Fax: (412) 766-0300
      Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

           - and -

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

           - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


CUMBERLAND UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Pension Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eloise Hitchcock, Sheryl Kae, and Robert Grubb v. Cumberland
University 403(B) DC Plan, Cumberland University, and John Does 1-
10, Case No. 3:15-cv-01215 (M.D. Tenn., November 12, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay pension benefits
to Plan participants and beneficiaries.

Cumberland University is a private, not-for-profit, four-year
university incorporated pursuant to the laws of the State of
Tennessee, with its principal place of business at 1 Cumberland
Square, Lebanon, Tennessee, 37087, in Wilson County.

Cumberland University 403(B) DC Plan is an employee pension
benefit plan and a defined contribution plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe P. Leniski Jr., Esq.
      Karla M. Campbell, Esq.
      Seamus Kelly, Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
      223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Telephone: (615) 254-8801
      E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com
              karlac@bsjfirm.com
              skelly@bsjfirm.com


DAYLIGHT TRANSPORT: "Utterbach" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Utterbach individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Daylight Transport, LLC, and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC600994 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
November 12, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Daylight Transport, LLC operates a trucking company located at
1501 Hughes Way #200, Long Beach, CA 90810.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 265-1020
      Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
      E-mail: lfj@lfjpc.com


DINER 84: Faces "Acevedo" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
David Osmin Carnejo Acevedo, and others similarly-situated, v.
Diner 84 Inc. a Florida Corporation Anestis Nikiforidis, Case
0:15-cv-62406-KMM (S.D.Fla., November 16, 2015), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and
attorney's fees for failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Diner 84 is a restaurant operating in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD P.A.
     20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (786) 923-5899
     E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

        - and -

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     MAMANE LAW LLC
     1150 Kane Concourse, Second Floor
     Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
     Phone 305-773-6661
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Holland" Suit Alleges Rigging in Online Game
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Holland, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Draftkings, Inc., and Fanduel, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-13650-IT (D. Mass., October 26,
2015), seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d).

The class action complaint arises out of an alleged internal
rigging of online gaming website, Daily Fantasy Sports, an online
game that allows paying participants to engage in virtual athletic
drafting with data tied to actual player statistics that allows
game simulations. Draftkings, Inc. and Fanduel, Inc. entice
participants to play by offering cash winnings.

DraftKings is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 225 Franklin St., 26th Floor, Boston,
Massachusetts. FanDuel is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located at 41 East 11th Street, 10th
Floor, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Weld, Jr., Esq.
      Corrina L. Hale, Esq.
      TODD & WELD LLP
      One Federal Street, 27th Floor
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 720-2626
      Email: cweld@toddweld.com
             chale@toddweld.com

           - and -

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
      Ashley R. Rifkin, Esq.
      Leonid Kandinov
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 525-3990
      Fax: (619) 525-3991
      Email: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
             kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
             arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com
             lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com

           - and -

      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
             rapeterson@locklaw.com

           - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Tel: (240) 483-4292
      Fax: (202) 789-1813
      Email: charles@cuneolaw.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "Hale" Suit Over Online Fantasy Gambling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Hale, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Draftkings, Inc., and Fanduel, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-
01879 (C.D. Cal., November 12, 2015) seeks redress for the
deceptive and collusive practices committed by the Defendants in
connection with their online fantasy gambling enterprise, and to
obtain full remuneration for every dollar lost by players on
either site.

The Defendants operate a fantasy sports website that permits
individuals to play one-day fantasy sports contests.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
      Kevin F. Calcagnie, Esq.
      Daniel S. Robinson, Esq.
      ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS, INC.
      19 Corporate Plaza Dr.
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 720-1288
      Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
      E-mail: mrobinson@rcrsd.com
              kcalcagnie@rcrsd.com
              drobinson@rcrsd.com

          - and -

      Wayne R. Gross, Esq.
      Michael I. Katz, Esq.
      GREENBERG GROSS LLP
      650 Town Center Drive, Suite 650.
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (949) 380 2800
      Facsimile: (949) 383-2801
      E-mail: WGross@GGTrialLaw.com
              MKatz@GGTrialLaw.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "Coleman" Suit in Cal. Over Misleading Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Coleman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Draftkings Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
BC600787 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 12, 2015) is an action for
damages as a result of the unlawful practices with regard to the
Defendant's misleading ads used in the recruitment of new
participants on the Defendant's daily fantasy sports website.

Draftkings Inc. operates a fantasy sports website that permits
individuals to play one-day fantasy sports contests.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "Hodge" Suit Over Online Fantasy Gambling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Hodge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Draftkings, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03951-RWS (N.D.
Ga., November 12, 2015) seeks redress for the deceptive and
collusive practices committed by Defendants in connection with
their online fantasy gambling enterprise, and to obtain full
remuneration for every dollar lost by players on either site.

Draftkings, Inc. operates a fantasy sports website that permits
individuals to play one-day fantasy sports contests.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James F. McDonough, III.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Telephone: (404) 996-0869
      Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
      E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com

          - and -

      W. Lewis Garrison Jr., Esq.
      Christopher Hood, Esq.
      Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      2224 First Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 326-3336
      Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
      E-mail: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
              chood@hgdlawfirm.com
              taylor@hgdlawfirm.com


EMC CORPORATION: Faces "Jacobs" Suit Over Denali Takeover
---------------------------------------------------------
David Jacobs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. EMC Corporation, Joseph M. Tucci, Michael Brown, John
R. Egan, and Paul Sagan, Case No. 15-6318 (Mass. Cmmw., November
12, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the stockholders of EMC
Corporation to enjoin the proposed acquisition of the company by
Denali Holding, Inc. and Universal Acquisition Co., through a
flawed process and inadequate consideration.

EMC Corporation operates a computer data storage company
headquartered in Hopkinton, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
      GILMAN LAW LLP
      8951 Bonita Beach Road, S.E. Suite 525
      Bonita Springs, FL 34135
      Telephone: (781) 307-2526
      E-mail: kgilman@gilman1awllp.com


EMC CORPORATION: "Lasker" Suit Challenges Sale Agreement with Dell
------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Lasker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated v. EMC Corporation, Jose E. Almeida, Michael W. Brown,
Donald J. Carty, Randolph L. Cowen, James S. Distasio, John R.
Egan William D. Green, Edmund F. Kelly, Jami Miscik, Paul Sagan,
Laura J. Sen, Joseph M. Tucci Denali Holding Inc., Dell Inc. and
Universal Acquisition Company, Case No. 15-3214-BLS, (D. Mass.
Cmmw., October 16, 2015), seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking
any steps to consummate the sale of EMC Corp. to Dell, Inc., or,
in the event the merger is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' violation of their fiduciary duties
of loyalty, good faith, due care and full and fair disclosure.

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:

      Kevin T. Peters, Esq.
      ARROWOOD PETERS LLP
      10 Post Office Square, 7th Floor South
      Boston, MA 02109
      Tel: (617) 849-6200
      Fax: (617) 849-6201
      E-mail: kpeters@arrowoodpeters.com

           - and -

      Mark Levine, Esq.
      Aaron Brody, Esq.
      Jason D' Agnenica. Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 687-7230
      Fax: (212) 490-2022


EROS INT'L: Faces "Arsani" Suit Alleging Securities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jawed Asrani, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Eros International Plc, Inc., Kishore Lulla, Jyoti
Desphande, and Prem Parameswaran, Case 2:15-cv-08054-CCC-JBC
(D.N.J., November 13, 2015), is a purported federal securities
class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other
than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Eros
securities between June 17, 2014 and October 30, 2015, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

Eros, together with its subsidiaries, co-produces, acquires, and
distributes Indian language films in various formats worldwide.
The Company distributes its film content across various
distribution channels, such as theatrical, television syndication,
and digital platforms.

The Company also distributes its film content through physical
formats, such as DVDs and video compact discs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Phone: (973) 623-3000
     Fax: (973) 623-0858
     E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Jallo" Suit Hits Credit Report Flaw
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Jallo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Trans Union,
LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00745-RC (E.D. Tex., October 26, 2015),
seeks damages resulting from loss of credit, ability to purchase
and benefit from credit, time and expense disputing the incorrect
reporting, mental and emotional pain and anguish and the
humiliation and embarrassment of credit denials, in violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.

Jallo alleges inaccuracies on his Experian and TransUnion credit
reports concerning certain of his child support payments.

Experian is a corporation headquartered in Schaumburg, Illinois
engaged in the business of assembling or evaluating consumer
credit information.

TransUnion is a corporation headquartered in Chicago, Illinois
engaged in the business of assembling or evaluating consumer
credit information or other information on consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      Greenwald Davidson PLLC
      106 E. Sixth Street, Suite 913
      Austin, TX 78701
      Phone: (512) 322-3912
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


EXTREME SERVICES: Faces "Amezcua" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Amezcua, Marcos Arteaga, Miguel Barrios, Felipe Catalan,
Luis Catalan, Josue Car, Jose Juarez, Ricardo Lopez, Edgar
Marroqun, Luis Ramirez, Julio Ramos, Juan Carlos Pensamiento
Archila, Andres Cervantes, Erwin Jimenez, and Arnoldo Morales v.
Extreme Services, Inc., et al., Case No. BC600979 (Cal. Super.
Ct., November 12, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

The Defendants operate a business by which they supply workers to
other employers for monetary consideration.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FANDUEL INC: Faces "Coleman" Suit Over Misleading Advertisement
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Coleman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fanduel Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
BC600889 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 12, 2015) is an action for
damages as a result of the unlawful practices with regard to the
Defendant's misleading advertisement used in the recruitment of
new participants on the Defendant's daily fantasy sports website.

Fanduel Inc. operates a fantasy sports website that permits
individuals to play one-day fantasy sports contests.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FANDUEL INC: Faces "Hodge" Suit Over Online Fantasy Gambling
------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Hodge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fanduel, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03950-TWT (N.D. Ga.,
November 12, 2015) seeks redress for the deceptive and collusive
practices committed by Defendants in connection with their on-line
fantasy gambling enterprise, and to obtain full remuneration for
every dollar lost by players on either site.

Fanduel, Inc. operates a fantasy sports website that permits
individuals to play one-day fantasy sports contests.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James F. McDonough, III.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Telephone: (404) 996-0869
      Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
      E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com

          - and -

      W. Lewis Garrison Jr., Esq.
      Christopher Hood, Esq.
      Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      2224 First Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 326-3336
      Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
      E-mail: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
              chood@hgdlawfirm.com
              taylor@hgdlawfirm.com


FARMER BROS: "Zuno" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Zuno, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Farmer Bros. Co., and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC600995 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
November 12, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Farmer Bros. Co. operates a coffee foodservice company based in
Northlake, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 265-1020
      Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
      E-mail: lfj@lfjpc.com


FILE & SERVE: Best Jewelry Loses Suit Over Services Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Daily Report, reports that more than seven
months after the State Court of Fulton County dropped its longtime
e-filing vendor, File & Serve, in favor of a competitor, the
Georgia Court of Appeals has shut down an effort to have the
service fees File & Serve collected declared illegal.

A plaintiff's attorney, Atlanta solo Steven Newton, said he
"respectfully disagrees" with the ruling, and will likely file an
appeal to the state Supreme Court.

The opinion involves a five-year-old challenge to the usage fees,
which were part of the State Court's 2006 mandatory implementation
of the File & Serve system for most cases in that court.  In
varying forms the case had been before the U.S. District Court in
Atlanta, where its federal claims were dismissed, and in Fulton
Superior Court.

The putative class action, filed on behalf of The Best Jewelry
Manufacturing Co., argued that by implementing a mandatory program
that barred paper filings in nearly all State Court cases and
mandating that litigants and attorneys pay File & Serve fees of
between $7 and $12 per document, both the county and the vendor's
then-owner, Reed Elsevier (LexisNexis), had conspired in a scheme
that "violates Georgia law and comes at great expense to Georgia
litigants."

The Fulton bench recused itself and the case was heard by DeKalb
County Superior Court Judge Clarence Seeliger, who dismissed it,
ruling that both the county and the vendor were protected by
sovereign immunity, and that the complaint failed to state a
claim.

Best Jewelry did not contest Seeliger's ruling regarding sovereign
immunity, but it appealed the rest of his dismissal.

The Nov. 20 opinion penned by Georgia Court of Appeals Judge
Elizabeth Branch, in concurrence with Judges Gary Andrews and
M. Yvette Miller, said that both Georgia law and the rules of the
court clearly allowed the state court to contract with an e-file
vendor and to charge usage fees.  Because of that determination,
she wrote, the court did not need to address the plaintiff's claim
that the vendor was not protected by sovereign immunity.

In addition to Mr. Newton, the plaintiff's attorneys include
Decatur solo Shuli Green, and Irwin Stolz Jr. and James Hurt Jr.
of Athens' Hurt, Stolz & Cromwell, were not available for comment.

Reed Elsevier was represented by Cynthia Burnside and Vernon
Strickland of Holland & Knight; Burnside said she did not have her
client's permission to comment.

In April, the Fulton State Court discontinued using File & Serve
in favor of eFile-Ga, an e-filing system that has also been
adopted by the Superior Court and several other courts throughout
Georgia and the United States.


FREDERICK J HANNA: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hall" Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda F. Hall and Linda M. Weeks and on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Frederick J. Hanna & Associates,
P.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-03948-ELR-AJB (N.D. Ga., November 12, 2015)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P.C. operates a law firm located
at 2253 NW Pkwy SE, Marietta, GA 30067.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig J. Ehrlich, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG J. EHRLICH, LLC
      Suite 300, 2300 Henderson Mill Road
      Atlanta, GA 30345
      Telephone: (404) 365-4460
      Facsimile: (855) 415-2480
      E-mail: craig@ehrlichlawoffice.com

          - and -

      Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON & RADBIL, PLLC
      Suite 500, 5550 Glades Road
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 826-5477
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


FULTON COUNTY, GA: Settles Suit Over "Premium Pay" Suit $18MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Law.com, reports that Fulton County has
agreed to pay $18 million in back pay and attorney fees to settle
claims by nearly 350 county lawyers and sheriff's deputies who had
sued over a 1997 policy that paid some employees as much as 36
percent more than others in the same civil service category.

The settlement, which includes $5.9 million in attorney fees to
the plaintiffs' counsel at Parks, Chesin & Walbert, wraps up
multiple suits that were filed over the space of 12 years on
behalf of hundreds of county lawyers.  They include prosecutors,
public defenders, state court solicitors and Juvenile Court
advocates, as well as about 70 deputies, said Lee Parks, the
plaintiffs' lead lawyer.

The county also agreed to fund $500,000 in annual raises for
current employees left out of the so-called "premium pay" program
from which the suit stemmed, along with pension increases for 40
retirees.  Mr. Parks said that, after factoring in salary and
pension increases over five years, the value of the settlement is
$21 million.  Mr. All of the litigation over the program will have
cost the county $26 million, he said.

The unpaid back pay has been accruing at more than $300,000 a
month, Mr. Parks said.  Trial was set to begin next month in a
case brought by county public defenders.  Last year, after the
Georgia Court of Appeals ruled against the county in similar
litigation, the state Supreme Court refused to take up the case.
The county paid about $4.6 million to settle claims by 23 current
and former law clerks for the judges of the Fulton County State
and Superior Courts.

"They called it 'premium pay' and the county's certainly paying a
premium," said Mr. Parks.

Interim County Attorney Jerolyn Ferrari said the settlement "is
the most efficient and economical resolution for the county and
its employees.  It brings certainty, avoids additional costs, and
allows all parties to move forward."


GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Can't Access Internal Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge has found that although there was probable
cause to believe General Motors Co. committed a crime in failing
to disclose a deadly ignition-switch defect, plaintiffs lawyers
failed to prove that GM's outside lawyers at King & Spalding
should have to turn over their internal notes and memos on the
matter.

The Nov. 25 ruling is a setback for plaintiffs lawyers who are
suing GM over the defect, which led to 2.6 million cars and trucks
being recalled worldwide last year and has been linked to 124
deaths.  The first bellwether trial against GM is set for Jan. 11
in New York.

Citing the crime-fraud exception, plaintiffs lawyers had sought
King & Spalding's internal documents pertaining to the ignition
switch, claiming that GM used the firm to quietly settle ignition-
switch cases rather than disclose the defect to federal
regulators.

To bolster their case, they cited a Sept. 17 deferred-prosecution
agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, in which GM
admitted it had failed to adequately disclose the defect to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

"In light of the fact that New GM was recently charged with
violating federal criminal law by scheming to conceal material
facts from a government regulator and committing wire fraud, the
court finds that there is probable cause to believe that New GM
committed a 'crime' or 'fraud,' " wrote U.S. District Judge Jesse
Furman of the Southern District of New York.  "But plaintiffs fail
to show that the documents at issue . . . were made with the
intent to further that -- or any other -- 'crime' or 'fraud.' "

Robert Hilliard, co-lead plaintiffs attorney in the ignition-
switch litigation, issued a statement in response to the ruling.

"There is a reason that the almost impenetrable vaulted wall
protecting the attorney-client privilege is difficult to
overcome," said Mr. Hilliard, a partner at Hilliard Munoz Gonzales
in Corpus Christi, Texas.  "We believed that this case and these
facts supported the defeat of the privilege.  The court
disagreed."

Judge Furman's order ignored the fact that King & Spalding lawyers
were working with GM's in-house counsel, some of whom were fired
in the wake of the recalls, said co-lead plaintiffs attorney Steve
Berman.

"Although Judge Furman found these were routine settlement
matters, these outside lawyers, in our view, were acknowledging a
safety defect that could expose GM to punitive damages,"
Mr. Berman, managing partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, wrote in an email.  "I continue to believe that once a
lawyer knows his client has a product that may kill or maim
others, and that client has a duty to report defects to the
government, the lawyer cannot simply zip it up and remain silent."

GM spokesman James Cain wrote in an email: "We're pleased with the
court's ruling.  As GM has said previously, the company did not
conspire with King & Spalding to further any crime or fraud."

King & Spalding defended GM in at least three accident cases tied
to ignition-switch problems, including a wrongful-death action
that first identified the defect in 2013.

"King & Spalding lawyers did exactly what one would expect ethical
and diligent litigators to do on behalf of their client throughout
the course of evaluating and defending individual accident
claims," King & Spalding spokeswoman Micheline Tang wrote in an
email.  "Judge Furman's detailed analysis unequivocally confirms
that view."

In his order, Judge Furman acknowledged that King & Spalding's
advice to settle the cases confidentially might have contributed
to GM's delay in disclosing the defect and that GM could have
intentionally meant to hide the problem from the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.  But communications between King &
Spalding and GM "did not reveal any evidence that New GM's intent
in seeking to settle the matters was to conceal the defect from
the public and its regulators."

King & Spalding's reports on the accident cases, he wrote, "have
all the hallmarks of dispassionate, sober evaluations (perhaps, in
hindsight, too dispassionate and sober for their own good) by
counsel of the costs and benefits of litigating the cases to their
conclusion -- just what one would expect in a defense file and in
the absence of a crime or fraud."


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Jordan" Suit Alleges Drug Side Effects
------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Jordan and Johnathan Jordan, individually and on behalf
of their daughter, D.C.J., a minor, v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case
1:15-cv-00543 (S.D. Ala. October 28, 2015), seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, equitable relief, and such other relief arising
from the injuries to D.C.J. as a result of her prenatal exposures
to the generic bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran,
also known as Ondansetron.

D.C.J. was born with congenital heart defects allegedly after her
mother, Plaintiff Jamie Jordan, took the generic bioequivalent of
Zofran from early in her first trimester of pregnancy through her
second trimester to alleviate and prevent the symptoms of morning
sickness.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC is pharmaceutical company organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

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


HIT MOBILE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Martinez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HIT Mobile Inc., Maruo Martinez Jr., and Does 1-100
Inclusive, Case No. BC601018 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 13, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a cell phone shop located at 2123
South Atlantic Blvd, Monterey Park, CA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent Rosenzweig, Esq.
      Jong Lee, Esq.
      LEE & ROSENZWEIG
      3580 Wiishire Boulevard, 17th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90010-2418
      Telephone: (213)221-4502
      Facsimile: (213)402-6021


INTERSTATE AUTO: Sued Over Consumers Legal Remedies Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elisha J. Tidwell, an individual and on behalf of herself, and all
others similarly situated v. Interstate Auto Group, Inc. (CA),
d/b/a CARHOP, Universal Acceptance Corporation (CA), and Does 1
through 500, inclusive, Case No. RG15792724 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
November 10, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for violation
of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, specifically by falsely
advertising that consumer would get $500.00 discount on Vehicle if
she purchased it prior to the end of May 2014 and adding bank fees
to consumer with poor credit with no disclosure.

Interstate Auto Group, Inc. is engaged in the business of buying,
repairing and re-selling used vehicles to the general public and
taking vehicles in trade.

Universal Acceptance Corporation operates a financial institution
engaged in the business of holding conditional sale contracts and
collecting payments made by consumers pursuant to such contracts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis A. Liberty, Esq.
      553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A-1
      2 Foster City, CA 94404
      Telephone: (650) 341-0300
      Facsimile: (650) 341-0302
      E-mail: lou@carlawyer.com


KKW TRUCKING: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Glenn" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathon Glenn, an individual, on behalf of all others similarly
situated and the general public v. KKW Trucking, Inc., KKW
Logistics, Inc., Furniture Transportation Systems, Inc., and Does
1-10, Case No. BC600878 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 12, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Headquartered and based in Pomona, California, the Defendants
operate a motor freight carrier company which service 11 western
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.D. Henderson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF J.D. HENDERSON
      215 North Marengo Avenue, Suite322
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (626) 529-5891
      E-mail: JDLAW@charter.net

          - and -

      Alireza Alivandivafa, Esq.
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 1990
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 570-2238
      Facsimile: (310)300-1015


LG ELECTRONICS: January 7 CRT Class Action-Opt Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
If You Bought A Cathode Ray Tube ("CRT") or CRT Product, A Class
Action May Affect You.

CRT Products include Televisions or Computer Monitors that contain
Cathode Ray Tubes.

On July 8, 2015, the District Court certified a direct purchaser
plaintiff class.  A copy of the Order granting class certification
is available on the class website at
www.CRTDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com
The class consists of "All persons and entities who, between
March 1, 1995 and November 25, 2007, directly purchased a
CRT Product in the United States from any Defendant or any
subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator or any
subsidiary or affiliate thereof.  Excluded from the class are
defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries or affiliates,
any co-conspirators, all governmental entities, and any judges or
justices assigned to hear any aspect of this action."

What is this lawsuit about?

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants and co-conspirators engaged in
an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
prices of Cathode Ray Tubes.  Plaintiffs further claim that direct
purchasers of televisions and monitors that contain a cathode ray
tube from the Defendants may recover for the effect that the
cathode ray tube conspiracy had on the prices of televisions and
monitors.  Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of the unlawful
conspiracy involving cathode ray tubes, they and other direct
purchasers paid more for CRT Products than they would have paid
absent the conspiracy.  Defendants deny Plaintiffs' claims.

Who are the Defendant and Co-Conspirator companies?

The Defendants and alleged Co-Conspirators are: Beijing-Matsushita
Color CRT Company, Ltd.; Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn.
Bhd.; Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd.; Daewoo Electronics Corporation
(f/k/a Daewoo Electronics Company, Ltd.); Daewoo International
Corporation; Daewoo-Orion Societe Anonyme; Hitachi America, Ltd.;
Hitachi Asia, Ltd.; Hitachi Displays, Ltd.; Hitachi Electronic
Devices (USA), Inc.; Hitachi Ltd.; Irico Display Devices Co.,
Ltd.; Irico Group Corporation; Irico Group Electronics Co., Ltd.;
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (n/k/a Koninklijke Philips
N.V.); LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd.; LG Electronics USA,
Inc.; LG Electronics, Inc.; LP Displays International, Ltd.;
Matsushita Electronic Corporation (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd.; Mitsubishi
Electric Corporation; Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. (f/k/a
Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.); Mitsubishi Electric
Visual Solutions America, Inc. (f/k/a Mitsubishi Digital
Electronics America Inc. (f/k/a Mitsubishi Consumer Electronics
America, Inc.)); MT Picture Display Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Matsushita
Toshiba Picture Display Co., Ltd.); Orion Electric Co.; Panasonic
Corporation (f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.);
Panasonic Corporation of North America; Philips Consumer
Electronics Co.; Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda.
(n/k/a Philips do Brasil, Ltda.); Philips Electronics Industries
(Taiwan), Ltd. (n/k/a Philips Taiwan Limited); Philips Electronics
Industries Ltd.; Philips Electronics North America Corporation;
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Sdn.
Bhd.; Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. (f/k/a
Samsung Display Device Company); Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V.;
Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.; Shenzhen SEG Hitachi Color Display
Devices, Ltd.; Technicolor SA (f/k/a Thomson SA); Technicolor USA,
Inc. (f/k/a Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.); Technologies
Displays Americas LLC (f/k/a Thomson Displays Americas LLC); Thai
CRT Company, Ltd.; Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Toshiba America
Consumer Products LLC; Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc.;
Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; Toshiba America
Information Systems, Inc.; Toshiba America, Inc.; Toshiba
Corporation; Toshiba Display Devices (Thailand) Company, Ltd.; and
Videocon Industries, Ltd.

Who are the affiliates and subsidiaries mentioned in the class
definition?

The "affiliates and subsidiaries" are: Chunghwa Picture Tubes
Fuzhou; Chunghwa Picture Tubes Taiwan; Daewoo Electronics America,
Inc.; Hitachi Electronic Display (USA); Hitachi High-Technologies
America, Inc. (f/k/a Nissei Sangyo America, Ltd.); Hitachi High-
Technologies Corporation (f/k/a Nissei Sangyo Co., Ltd.); LG
Electronics Service Europe Netherlands B.V.; LG Electronics Wales
Ltd.; LG Philips Displays; LG.Philips Displays Brasil Ltda.;
LG.Philips Displays Holding B.V.; LG.Philips Displays
International Ltd.; LG.Philips Displays Korea Co. Ltd.; LG.Philips
Displays Mexico SA de CV; LG.Philips Displays USA Inc.; MELCO
Display Devices Mexico, S.A. de C.V.; Mitsubishi Display Devices
America, Inc.; Mitsubishi Electric Sales America, Inc.; Mitsubishi
Electric US Holdings, Inc.; Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc.;
Mitsubishi Electronics Industries Canada, Inc.; MT Picture Display
Corporation of America (New York); MT Picture Display Corporation
of America (Ohio); NEC-Mitsubishi Electric Visual Systems
Corporation; NEC-Mitsubishi Electronics Display of America, Inc.;
NM Visual Systems de Mexico S. A. de C.V.; Orion Electric
Components, Co., Ltd.; Orion Engineering & Service, Inc.; Orion
Mexicana, SA de CV; P.T. Tosummit Electronic Devices Indonesia;
Panasonic AVC Networks America; Panasonic Sikoku Electronics
Corporation of America; PCB Integrated Manufacturing System, S.A.
de C.V.; Philips Holding USA Inc.; PT.MT Picture Display
Indonesia; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI (Hong Kong),
Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Samsung SDI Co. Ltd. (Korea);
Samsung SDI Germany GmbH; Samsung SDI Hungary Ltd.; Samtel Color,
Ltd.; Tatung Company of America, Inc.; TCL International Holdings
Ltd.; TCL Thomson Electronics Corporation; Technologies Displays
Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. (f/k/a Thomson Displays Mexicana, S.A. de
C.V.); Tianjin Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.; TTE Technology, Inc.; and
Zenith Electronics Corporation (a/k/a Zenith Electronics LLC).

What are my rights?

If you wish to remain a member of the Litigated Class you do not
need to take any action at this time.  If you do not want to be
legally bound by future judgments with regard to the Litigated
Class, you must exclude yourself in writing by January 7, 2016, or
you will not be able to sue, or continue to sue, the remaining
Defendants about the legal claims in this case.

This is a Summary Notice.  For more details call toll free 877-
224-3063, visit
http://www.CRTDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.comor write to
CRT Direct Settlement, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 808003,
Petaluma, CA 94975-8003.


LOBEL FINANCIAL: Sued Over Retail Installment Sale Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ashraf Fadlalla, an individual, and on behalf of himself, and all
others similarly situated v. Lobel Financial Corporation, Phantom
Recovery, and Does 1 through 500, inclusive, Case No. RG15792715
(Cal. Super. Ct., November 10, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to disclose deferred down payments on
retail installment sale contracts.

The Defendants operate a financial institution engaged in the
business of holding conditional sale contracts and collecting
payments made by consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Liberty, Esq.
      LOUIS LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES, a PLC
      553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A
      Foster City, CA 94404
      Telephone: (650) 341-0300
      Facsimile: (650) 341-0302


LUCRETIA & RICHARD: Faces "Rios" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Eleazar Rios v. Lucretia & Richard, Inc., d/b/a MC Donald's,
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC600864 (Cal. Super.
Ct., November 10, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a franchised McDonald's(R) fast food
restaurant in the County of Los Angeles, state of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MASSACHUSETTS: MBTA Sued Over Failure to Provide Rail Service
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raquel Rodriguez, John Doe A-Z, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority and Keolis Commuter Services, LLC, Case No. 1584cv3426
(Mass. Cmmw., November 10, 2015) is brought on behalf of all
persons who suffered financial harm as a result of the Defendants'
complete and utter failure in providing commuter rail service for
the end of January 2015, the full month of February 2015, and most
of March 2015.

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, ("MBTA"), was
statutorily created by the Commonwealth and charged with providing
commuter rail service and subway service.

Keolis Commuter Services, LLC, is a Maryland corporation that
transacts business in the Commonwealth and contracted with the
MBTA to operate and provide the MBTA's commuter rail service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Richardson, Esq.
      P.O Box 960525
      Boston, MA 02196
      Telephone: (617) 816-9950
      Facsimile: (888) 512-1599
      E-mail: rrichardson@mbclassaction.com


MICHAELS STORES: "Gomez" Suit Removed to Central Dist. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Nicole Gomez, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated and the general public v.
Michaels Stores Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
CIVDS1514501, was removed from the San Bernardino County Superior
Court - Central Division to the U.S District Court for the Central
District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02328-JGB-DTB to
the proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

Michaels Stores Inc. is an arts and crafts retail chain in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 907
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
      E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
              tuvia@setarehlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jeremy F. Bollinger, Esq.
      Jonathan S. Christie, Esq.
      Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
      AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER AND FELD LLP
      2029 Century Park East Suite 2400
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012
      Telephone: (310) 229-1000
      Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
      E-mail: jbollinger@akingump.com
              christiej@akingump.com
              gknopp@akingump.com


NASTASI & ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Breach of Contract Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
Island Diversified, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Anthony J. Nastasi, Christopher Black,
Nastasi & Associates, Inc., and New England Construction Company,
Inc., Case No. 607312/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 11, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the full payment
for the labor, materials and equipment the Plaintiff provided at
the Viacom Entrance Lobby Project.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Parshhueram T. Misir, Esq.
      FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN, SCHWARTZ, MINEO & TERRANA, LLP
      Island Diversified, Inc.
      333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 1010
      Uniondale, NY 11553
      Telephone: (516) 248-1700
      E-mail: info@forchellilaw.com


NEWMARK: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Health Specialists
-------------------------------------------------------------
AFSCME Council 52, LOCAL 2299, Robert Ferrell, Tanya Fraser,
Martha Duque, Tessa Samuels, Lowella Hardy, Abraham Sissoko,
Gessy Theodore, & Berlyne Vilcant v. City of Newark, Case No. L-
7839-15 (N.J. Super. Ct., November 10, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay employees the maximum of their
salary ranges within five years of their appointment to their
positions as registered environmental health specialists.

City of Newark is a municipal corporation of the State of New
Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul L. Kleinbaum, Esq.
      ZAZZALI, FAGELLA, NOWAK, KLEINBAUM & FRIEDMAN
      One Riverfront Plaza, Suite 320
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973)623-1822
      Facsimile: (973)623-2209
      E-mail: pkleinbaum@zazzali-law.com


NEW YORK: Faces "Resch" Suit Over Unlawful Exclusion Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Weinman Resch and Susan Scarpati-Reilly, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. State of New York,
Andrew M. Cuomo, The City of New York, and Bill De Blasio, Case
No. 161701/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 13, 2015) seeks
injunctive relief and damages for the economic harms resulting
from the Defendants' unconstitutional employment exclusion of the
hearing officers or administrative law judges at NYC Department of
Finance's Parking Violations Bureau.

State of New York is a political body organized and governed under
the NYS Constitution.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William J. Sipser, Esq.
      TUCKNER, SIPSER, WEINSTOCK & SIPSER, LLP
      120 Broadway, 18th Floor
      New York, New York 10271
      Telephone: (212) 766-9100
      E-mail: wsipser@womensrightsny.com


NY888 CLEANERS: "Lin" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Naw Lin, individually and on behalf of others similarly-situated
v. PDI, Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-08361-RWS
(S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants to
recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid spread of hour wages, unpaid
overtime pay, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest and post
judgment interest, and attorney fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. and the New York
Labor Law 190 et seq.

NY Triple Eight Cleaners Inc., is a New York Corporation that owns
and operates NY888, a dry cleaners located at 358 East 51st
Street, New York, New York 10022.

Naw Lin was been employed as a worker at NY888 for 14 years from
January, 2001 through December, 2014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell Segal
      LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL, P.C.
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel: (516) 415-0100
      Email: msegal@segallegal.com


ON GRAPHICS: Faces "Pulido" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elias Pulido v. On Graphics, Oscar Neri, Rosa Maria Neri, and Does
1-50, inclusive, Case No. BC600988 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 12,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate a graphic design company at 15903 Lakewood
Blvd #101, Bellflower, CA 90706.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Julia A. Mercado, Esq., Esq.
      APARICIO-MERCADO LAW, L.C.
      3320 West Victory Boulevard
      Burbank, CA 91505
      Telephone: (818)260-9904
      Facsimile: (818)450-0964


RITE AID: Faces "Orr" Suit in Del. Over Sale to Walgreens
---------------------------------------------------------
John Orr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rite Aid Corporation, Case No. 11708 (Del. Ch. Ct.,
November 13, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Rite Aid to enjoin a proposed transaction
announced on October 27, 2015, pursuant to which Rite Aid will be
acquired by Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., through a flawed
process and deprives Rite Aid's public stockholders of the ability
to participate in the Company's long-term prospects.

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

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates a drug retailing chain
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SALVATORE'S OLD FASHIONED: "Homer" Action Seeks to Recover Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Homer, Dylan Galusha, Eric Heisig and Eric Tramontana, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated v.
Salvatore's Old Fashioned Pizzerias Since 1978, Inc., Salvatore
Fantauzzo, Michael DelGaizo, Inc., Michael DelGaizo, C&N Pizza
Works, Inc., Clayton Pearl, Culver Road Pizza Parlor, Inc., John
Coraggioso, Aragona Pizzeria, Inc., Raimondo Lore and Via Ape 13,
Inc, Case No. 6:2015cv06630 (W.D.N.Y, October 20, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants to recover minimum wages, unpaid
gratuities, unpaid wages, injunctive and declaratory relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. and New York
Labor Law Sections 2(7) and 109(2).

The Defendants own and operate pizza parlors, both company-owned
and franchised, within the New York area under the "Salvatore's
Old Fashioned Pizzeria" brand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cordello, Esq.
      CORDELLO LAW PLLC
      693 East Avenue, Suite 220
      Rochester, NY 14607
      Tel: (585) 857-9684
      Email: justin@cordellolaw.com

           - and -

      James Harrison, Esq.
      THE HARRISON LAW OFFICE
      69 Cascade Dr., Suite 305
      Rochester, NY 14614
      Tel: (585) 232-4878
      Email: jahesq@cordellolaw.com


SOUTHWEST PATROL: Faces "Franceschi" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Franceschi, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. Southwest Patrol, Inc.
and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC601043 (Cal. Super.
Ct.) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Southwest Patrol, Inc. operates a security guard services company
in Diamond Bar, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raul Perez, Esq.
      Melissa Grant, Esq.
      Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
      Suzy E. Lee, Esq.
      CAPSTONE LAW APC
      1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310)556-4811
      Facsimile: (310)943-0396
      E-mail: Raul.Perez@capstonelawyers.com
              Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com
              Arnab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com
              Suzy.Lee@capstonelawyers.com


STIEFEL LABS: Law Firms in Dispute Over Fraud Case Costs
--------------------------------------------------------
Julie Kay, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
Greenspoon Marder lawyers have been accused of violating the
Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct by seeking to seize
$562,316 in litigation costs after withdrawing from an alleged
securities fraud case following the denial of class certification.

Greenspoon Marder lawyers Beth-Ann Krimsky and John Pelzer filed a
charging lien in that amount after a Detroit man won a $1.5
million jury verdict in Miami federal court.

An attorney for Podhurst Orseck, the law firm that won the
verdict, was outraged by the request, calling it "outrageous,"
"egregious" and a violation Bar rules for reasonable litigation
costs.

Timothy Finnerty was one of about 200 former Stiefel Laboratories
Inc. employees who retained Ruden McClosky for a class action
lawsuit against the Coral Gables-based dermatological
pharmaceutical company in 2009.  The Fort Lauderdale law firm
filed for bankruptcy protection, and its assets were bought by
Greenspoon Marder.  Ms. Krimsky and Mr. Pelzer were with Ruden
when the case began and moved to Greenspoon after the asset sale.

The Stiefel employees alleged they were victims of securities
fraud after the company merged with drug giant GlaxoSmithKline plc
in 2009.  Stiefel stock represented most of the employees'
savings, and they alleged Stiefel encouraged them to sell their
stock to the company before the merger announcement for $16,469
per share, promising the company would remain privately held as it
had been for 162 years.

After the merger announcement, the share value shot up to $70,000.
By then, most of the shares were owned by the Stiefel family, the
suit alleged.

A separate Securities and Exchange Commission case alleging
securities fraud is pending before U.S. District Judge William
Zloch in Fort Lauderdale.

In 2011, Senior U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in Miami
refused to certify the class.  The Ruden McClosky lawyers appealed
unsuccessfully to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.  Three weeks later, the lawyers withdrew from the case.

Ms. Krimsky and Mr. Pelzer did not return calls or emails for
comment by deadline.

Podhurst Orseck lawyers Peter Prieto and Matt Weinshall agreed to
take over Mr. Finnerty's individual case against the company.
Several other individual cases are pending around the country.

Mr. Finnerty, a 22-year Stiefel salesman who lives in Detroit,
lost his life savings when he sold his shares back to the company
after he was terminated and before the merger, his lawyers
alleged.  Jurors set $1.5 million in damages in 2012 based on the
difference between the merger value of his shares and the price
paid by his former employer.  Stiefel appealed, and Mr. Finnerty
prevailed in the Eleventh Circuit last year.

                        'New Injustice'

Greenspoon Marder filed its charging lien notice in 2012, and a
motion to enforce it was submitted Oct. 21 and amended Nov. 2.
King referred the request to U.S. Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres
for review.

Lawyers for Podhurst Orseck objected, saying the lien represents
the original firm's full costs for the failed class action.
Mr. Finnerty's portion of the expenses would amount to 4 percent,
they stated.

"It's incredibly unfair what they are trying to do to Tim,"
Mr. Prieto said by email.  "They're trying to recover from Tim
half a million dollars in costs attributable to an entire class of
plaintiffs after they withdrew from representing Tim and the
others. There's no legal support for that. And it's just not
right."


TAINO STAR: Faces "Garay" Suit Over Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
Luisa Maria Alvis Garay a/k/a Luisa Alvis, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Taino Star Pharmacy, Inc.
d/b/a Taino Pharmacy, and Elmhurst Star Pharmacy Inc. d/b/a
Elmhurst 82 Pharmacy, and Satya Dasari a/k/a Sam Dasari, in his
individual and professional capacities, Case No. 708123/2014 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., October 31, 2015) arises out of the Defendants alleged
unlawful practices based on gender.

The Defendants own and operate two retail pharmacies in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: rsp@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


TAPAS FOOD: Sued in N.Y. Over Unlawful Diversion of Company Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Antoni Lucin, a Shareholder of Tapas Food and Wine, Inc., suing in
the right of Tapas Food and Wine, Inc., v. Tapas Food and Wine,
Inc. and Lawrence Bondulich, Case No. 53738/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
November 11, 2015) is an action for damages as a result of the
Defendants' alleged diversion of funds from the corporation
without justification by failing to include cash payments and
other monies received for food and beverage sold at the
restaurant.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 2020
Broadway, New York, New York 10023.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Giusti, Esq.
      42-40 Bell Blvd., Suite 601
      Bayside, NY 11361
      Telephone: (718) 224-5431


TUESDAY MORNING: Recent Ruling on Bias Suit to Impact Employers
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a recent federal court ruling detailing the right of temporary
employees to sue for discrimination will mean changes in the way
businesses interact with staffing agencies, employment lawyers
said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently ruled in
Faush v. Tuesday Morning that temporary workers could sue for
discrimination the employers that contracted with their agencies,
provided those employers had a significant degree of control over
the employees' day-to-day duties, among other factors.

The plaintiff, Matthew Faush, claimed he and fellow African-
American employees were subject to racial slurs and discriminatory
treatment by staff at retailer Tuesday Morning Inc.  The primary
dispute in the case was whether Tuesday Morning, as a client of
the Labor Ready staffing service, was considered an employer of
the temporary workers it used and ostensibly liable for
discrimination claims under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human
Relations Act.

In reaching its conclusion, the Third Circuit was guided by the
1992 U.S. Supreme Court holding in Nationwide Mutual Insurance v.
Darden, which looks at a hiring party's right to control the
manner and means in which work is done to determine whether the
hired individual is an employee.

Employment lawyer Michael Salmanson of Salmanson Goldshaw, who
represents plaintiffs in employment litigation, said the ruling,
which establishes Darden as the test in similar cases, will go a
long way in clearing up an ambiguity, especially in terms of
payroll companies versus actual employers.

"There are lots of situations where the company that pays your
salary is not truly your employer," Mr. Salmanson said.

He noted that companies sometimes set up payroll entities that
will appear on W-2 forms as the company that pays an individual's
salary, but in reality does not control the employee's work.

Mr. Salmanson said oftentimes those companies have no assets and
exist solely to funnel pay from the employer to the worker, making
lawsuits against them troublesome.

Until now, he added, temporary employees were extremely vulnerable
in instances of discrimination: They can't go through a human
resources process and "they don't have the opportunity to rectify
the discriminatory conduct that a regular employee might have,"
Mr. Salmanson said.  But the court's use of Darden helped advance
the rights of those employees.

While the Darden test is by no means new, employment lawyer
Ronda K. O'Donnell -- rkodonnell@mdwcg.com -- noted, the Third
Circuit's ruling did illustrate a need for clients of staffing
agencies to structure their contractual relationships more clearly
to clarify the intent of the business relationship.

Ms. O'Donnell, who chairs Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman &
Goggin's employment law practice group and represents employers,
said, "That may mean that staffing agencies will need to have a
firmer hand in day-to-day interactions and communications with
their workers on assignment."

She added that educating the client's supervisors, account
managers and recruiters of staffing agencies will be critical to
making sure that all parties understand the ins and outs of the
law affecting the employee-management relationship.

Sidney Gold -- SGold@DiscrimLaw.net -- who handles employment
discrimination cases for employees at his firm, Sidney L. Gold &
Associates, said the Third Circuit's decision clamps down on an
employer's capacity to sidestep liability.

"It wasn't just the right decision but the only decision,"
Mr. Gold said, adding that temporary employees would otherwise
have no recourse.

Mr. Gold said the issues presented in Faush's case are common
because employers will hire temporary workers thinking that they
can insulate themselves from liability from Title VII and workers'
compensation claims as well as avoiding giving out benefits.


UNLIMITED BAKING: Faces "Terrazaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aurelio Terrazaz and Enrique Ocampos Ortiz v. Unlimited Baking
Ingredients, Inc., Celia Rodriguez, and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. BC600863 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 10, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate a food manufacturing supply company with
headquarters in the state of Arizona, and additional corporate
offices in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "O'Brien" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill O'Brien and Dan Maldonado, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated v. Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. and Robert Bosch GMBH, Case No. 1:15-cv-1408 LO/MSN
(E.D. Va., October 28, 2015), seeks to block further distribution,
sales and lease of defective vehicles, permanently, expeditiously,
and completely repair defective vehicles to eliminate the illegal
defeat devices, compensatory, exemplary and statutory penalties,
damages, including interest, return of the purchase prices of the
defective vehicles with interest and for the reimbursement of
reasonable expenses, damages and attorney fees in violation of the
Cal. Civ. Code 1709, et seq. (fraudulent deceit); Cal. Civ. Code
1571, et seq. (fraud), Cal. U. Com. Code 2313-15 breach of express
and implied warranty, Cal. Bus. & Prof Code 17500, et seq. (false
advertising and marketing) and Cal. Civ. Code 1750, et seq.
(violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act).

O'Brien purchased a 2014 Passat 2.0 TDI on March 22, 2014.

Maldonado leased a 2014 Passat with a 2.0 TDI Clean Diesel engine
and has been making monthly payments on the vehicle since.

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.

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:

      Peter A. Miller, Esq.
      MILLER LEGAL LLC
      175 S. Pantops Drive, Third Floor
      Charlottesville, VA 22911
      Tel: (434) 529-6909
      Fax: (888) 830-1488
      Email: pmiller@millerlegalllc.com

           - and -

      R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
      Michael L. Baum, Esq.
      BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
      12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Tel: (310)207-3233
      Fax: (310)820-7444
      Email: rbwisner@.baumhedlimdlaw.com
             mbaum@baumliedlundlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Jung" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
------------------------------------------------------------
Sun Mi Jung and Yaewon Lim, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc.,
Volkswagen Group Of America - Chattanooga Operations, LLC, Audi AG
And Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-08300 (C.D. Cal., October 23,
2015), seeks to enjoin Volkswagen from continuing its unlawful,
deceptive, fraudulent and unfair business practices resulting from
the installation of the defeat device; as well as injunctive
relief in the form of a recall or free replacement of affected
vehicles, environmental remediation, costs, restitution, damages,
including punitive damages and disgorgement in violation of the in
violation of Article 48 of the Korean Clean Air Conservation Act
and Fraud By Concealment and Breach of Contract under Virginia
Law.

The class action complaint arises out of an installed component in
the Turbocharged Direct Injection variants of the light passenger
vehicles made by the car companies -- 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.

Jung purchased a Passat 2.0 TDI (2013) from Meister Motors Co. in
262 Itaewon-ro, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Korea, an authorized dealer of
the Defendants.

Lim purchased an Audi Q5 in April 2012 from Webon Motors Co.,
Ltd., located in Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Korea, an
authorized dealer of the Defendants.

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 AG.

Audi AG is an automotive company organized and existing under
German law, with its principal place of business in Ingolstadt,
Germany and is a 99.55% owned subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group
and manufactures luxury vehicle under the Audi 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.

Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations LLC is
organized under the laws of the State of Tennessee and is a
subsidiary of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John B. Quinn, Esq.
      Shon Morgan, Esq.
      Stephen A. Swedlow, Esq.
      QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
      865 South Figuueroa Street, 10th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
      Tel: (213) 443-3000
      Fax: (213) 443-3100
      Email: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com
             stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com
             johnquinn@quinnemanuel.com

           - and -

      Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Tel: (206) 623-7292
      Fax: (206) 623-0594
      Email: toml@hbsslaw.com

           - and -

      Jong Sun Ha, Esq.
      Rieu Kim. Esq.
      Thomas Charles Villalon, Esq.
      BARUN LAW LLC
      Barun Law Building, 92 gil 7, Teheran-ro
      Gangnam-gu, Seoul 135-846
      Republic of Korea
      Tel: +82-2-3479-2360
      Fax: +82-2538-3533


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued in Mich. Over "Defeat Devices" in Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaan William Beard, Nancy Stirek, Matt And Tammy Moeller, Linda
Babinski, John Gatti, and Karin And Leo Mccloskey, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Volkswagen
Group Of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Audi Of America
LLC, Audi of America, Inc., VW Credit, Inc., Porsche AG and
Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Case: 2:15-cv-13998-GER-APP
(E.D.Mich., November 13, 2015), concerns the installation of so-
called "defeat devices" on over 500,000 diesel Volkswagen, Audi,
and Porsche vehicles sold in the United States since 2009 ("Defeat
Device Vehicles") and was allegedly marketed deceptively as
environmentally-friendly cars.

Defendants and each of them individually and/or collectively, are
automobile design, manufacturing, distribution and/or service
corporations doing business throughout the United States

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
     Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
     Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
     Tana Lin, Esq.
     Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
     Daniel Mensher, Esq.
     Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue Suite
     3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
             dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
             awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
             tlin@kellerrohrback.com
             gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
             dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
             rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com

        - and -

     Matthew Preusch, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1129 State Street, Suite 8
     Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Phone: (805) 456-1496
     Fax: (805) 456-1497
     E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com


WILSON SPORTING: Falsely Marketed Tennis Balls, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Urbanczyk, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., and Does 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. BC600892 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 12, 2015) seeks to
stop the Defendants' practice of selling cans of tennis balls
falsely marked as "U.S. Open Official Ball," and bearing the
description "Extra Duty," to California consumers.

Wilson Sporting Goods Co. is a sports equipment manufacturer based
in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David F. Berry, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID F. BERRY
      2300 S. Sepulveda Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90064-8009
      Telephone: (310) 473-1200
      Facsimile: (310) 473-7144
      E-mail: dberrv@.nagler.com

         - and -

      Derrick Rostagno, Esq.
      ROSTAGNO LAW OFFICE
      2300 South Sepulveda Blvd.
      Los Angeles, CA 90064-1911
      Telephone: (310) 979-4500
      E-mail: derrick@.rostagnolaw.com


YELP INC: Judge Tosses Investor Suit Over False Reviews
-------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge on
Nov. 24 threw out a shareholder suit that accused Yelp Inc. of
misleading investors about the reliability of its reviews and how
they're filtered.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of
California, who previously turned back investor claims in April,
dismissed them for good on Nov. 24, finding that the company had
"explicitly and implicitly" acknowledged that some reviews weren't
authentic.

"Those acknowledgements, along with a common-sense understanding
of what it means for a website to host user-generated content,
demonstrates that no reasonable investor could have understood
defendants' statements to mean that all Yelp reviews were
authentic," Judge Tigar wrote.

Lawyers at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd had accused Yelp of
propping up its earnings by coercing business into buying ads to
get fake negative reviews removed from the site.  Plaintiffs said
Yelp stock prices tanked after a Wall Street Journal article about
Yelp's alleged shakedown tactics cited 2,046 complaints about the
company to the Federal Trade Commission.

Judge Tigar, however, found that plaintiffs had failed to show
that the complaints held up under scrutiny.

"Yelp has repeatedly stated that it does not manipulate reviews in
favor of advertisers or against non-advertisers, and the court saw
through plaintiffs' attempts to cast these statements as false," a
company spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement.

Judge Tigar pointed out that only 11 of the 2,000-plus FTC
complaints contained allegations that a Yelp representative had
told a potential advertiser that Yelp would manipulate reviews for
a fee.

"Especially when compared to the tens of millions of reviews
hosted by Yelp, a dozen relevant but unsubstantiated and divergent
consumer complaints over at least five years does not establish a
pattern of conduct sufficient to indicate that defendants'
statements were false," Judge Tigar wrote.

Judge Tigar dismissed an earlier version of the suit in April but
gave plaintiffs a chance to amend their complaint.  In the Nov. 25
order, Judge Tigar wrote that "further leave to amend would be
futile."

Robbins Geller's Shawn Williams didn't respond to messages.


* Companies Re-evaluate Hiring Policies Following No-Poach Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for Law.com, reports that the settlement
is nearly a year old, the attorney fees have been awarded, and the
water cooler buzz has fizzled out.  But the effects of the Silicon
Valley "no-poach" case are still being felt as companies contend
with a wave of interest in wage-suppression cases and re-evaluate
their own hiring policies.

Last January, Google Inc., Apple Inc., Intel Corp. and Adobe
Systems Inc. reached a $415 million deal to resolve claims that
they were part of a conspiracy to keep down engineer wages.
Plaintiffs lawyers claimed that executives at the highest levels
of those Silicon Valley giants had entered a series of overlapping
agreements not to recruit each other's employees, which suppressed
mobility and workers' leverage to negotiate better salaries.  The
groundbreaking class action, one of the first to successfully
apply antitrust law to employment activity, has ushered in a wave
of similar suits targeting California animation studios, North
Carolina medical schools, a mixed martial arts promoter and
additional tech companies.  And business leaders have taken note,
according to defense lawyers who say they are fielding calls from
clients worried their own agreements may be the next targets.

Not all nonsolicitation agreements are illegal but the price of
stepping over the line has never been clearer.

"I think the difference now is that there's a clearer road map for
getting a class certified," said Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
partner Daniel Small -- dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- who led a
panel discussion earlier in November on combination antitrust and
employment cases.

Small said the American Antitrust Institute picked the discussion
topic for its annual private enforcement conference in Washington,
D.C., because employment-related claims have become a "pretty
substantial part" of today's antitrust practice.

                     A BLUEPRINT FOR DAMAGES

The Silicon Valley settlement marked the largest payout ever in
the area, resulting in average payments of $5,000 to more than
60,000 skilled technical employees.

But accusing a company of conspiring to depress employee wages can
be more complicated than bringing a traditional product price-
fixing suit.  Calculating damages is especially challenging,
according to lawyers with experience, because it's not always
clear which employees were affected or how much money they lost.

"The tools didn't really exist before the high-tech case," said
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein partner Dean Harvey, who
represented plaintiffs in the Silicon Valley "no-poach" case
alongside partner Kelly Dermody and Joseph Saveri of the Joseph
Saveri Law Firm.  Their team struggled to create new economic
models that combined antitrust and employment-focused analysis,
and failed to persuade U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh to certify the
class the first time around.

But now, Mr. Harvey said, lawyers have a "blueprint"-one his team
pulled out this summer to sue Duke University and a senior
official at the University of North Carolina over an alleged no-
hire policy.

Jones Day partner Robert Mittelstaedt, who represented Adobe and
Intuit Inc. in the Silicon Valley litigation, said it's common-and
not illegal-for companies collaborating on a joint venture or
contemplating a merger to insist on hiring restrictions.  The
increased threat of litigation could make companies wary even of
entering into pro-competitive agreements with one another, he
said.

"That would discourage collaboration.  It would discourage joint
development and, in the end, innovation," Mr. Mittelstaedt said,
adding, "Consumers would be the victim."


                          C-SUITE UNEASE

Walter Stella, a Miller Law Group shareholder who counsels
corporate clients in employment law, said he's fielded questions
from dozens of concerned clients in the wake of the Silicon Valley
litigation.  Even companies without "no-poach" pacts began to
question other types of employee mobility restrictions.

"Suddenly it became something that they were more aware of,"
Mr. Stella said.

And the plaintiffs' strategy of using antitrust law to go after
those agreements exposes clients to significant financial risk,
Mr. Stella said.  Companies face treble damages under federal
antitrust law, on top of the threat of a U.S. Department of
Justice action.

The DOJ's settlement with the Silicon Valley defendants makes
clear not all "no-poach" pacts are antitrust violations.  The
settlement explicitly allows for nonsolicitation agreements that
are "reasonably necessary" for mergers, acquisitions, investments
and "legitimate collaboration agreements."

It's been commonplace for two companies in acquisition talks to
enter into such an agreement so the larger company can't poach the
smaller company's workforce if the deal falls through, said
Ulrico Rosales -- urosales@wsgr.com -- a partner with Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.  But some companies have started
resisting those pacts, either out of genuine concern, ignorance of
the law or a desire to get the upper hand, he said.  Mr. Rosales
has represented a handful of clients that complain they were
unable to secure "no-poach" pacts in negotiations with larger
companies.

"At that point it becomes convenient to say, 'Oh, gee we'd love to
enter into a nonsolicitation agreement but we really can't,'
"Mr. Rosales said.  "And frankly, I just don't believe that is
really true."

                        LITIGATION LEGACY

The civil "no poach" case was triggered by a DOJ Antitrust
Division investigation that resulted in a settlement with six
companies in 2010.  Ordinarily, the DOJ announcement would have
prompted a flurry of private lawsuits, but for months there was
only silence.  In May 2011, when a team of Lieff Cabraser lawyers
stepped forward and filed the first class action, they recognized
they would encounter some novel challenges, Harvey said.

"It's an unusual case that's outside of the comfort zone of almost
any antitrust lawyer and any employment lawyer, because it
combines both," Lieff Cabraser's Harvey said.

Judge Koh of the Northern District of California certified a class
of more than 60,000 skilled workers in 2013.  But the parties
ended up settling before trial-first for $324 million, a number
Judge Koh rejected as too low.

In September, Judge Koh approved the sweetened $415 million deal
that involved Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe. Smaller defendants
LucasFilm, Pixar Animation Studios Inc. and Intuit Inc. settled in
2013 for a combined $20 million.

Evidence unearthed during the litigation prompted plaintiffs
lawyers to file follow-on suits against Microsoft Corp., Oracle
Corp. and a group of animation studios that includes Walt Disney
Co. and Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc. (Judge Koh dismissed claims
against Microsoft without leave to amend, ruling the plaintiffs
claims were time-barred.)Joseph Saveri, who represented plaintiffs
in the first Silicon Valley case alongside Lieff Cabraser, sued
the Ultimate Fighting Championship's parent company in December,
claiming UFC prevents fighters from working with other promoters
during and after their UFC engagements.

This summer Lieff sued Duke University and the dean of medical
affairs for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
claiming the two schools secretly agreed not to hire certain
medical faculty from each other's institutions.

The UFC and medical school cases stand out from, and in some
respects will be easier to litigate than, the Silicon Valley
"no-poach" case.  They involve an alleged monopoly and duopoly,
respectively, as opposed to the unwieldy seven-company conspiracy
plaintiffs described in the Silicon Valley case.  That simplifies
the case and eliminates removes what was one of the plaintiffs'
biggest hurdles-convincing the judge that all seven companies
participated in the conspiracy.

But Mr. Saveri said the Silicon Valley case has lessons that carry
over to the UFC, particularly on how to conduct the economic
analysis.  He added he's not finished with these
antitrust/employment hybrids, saying there's "more to come."

Mr. Harvey of Lieff Cabraser wouldn't say whether his team has its
sights set on other targets, but he said he suspects "no-poach"
pacts are more widespread than many people think.

"We'll see how big of a practice area this becomes," he said.
"But I would expect to see more."


                            *********

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  * * *