CAR_Public/151216.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, December 16, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 250


                            Headlines


6D GLOBAL: Top Trenton Official Named in Federal Securities Suit
AIR CHINA: 2nd Cir. Denies to Hear Interlocutory Appeal
APPLE INC: Can't Nix Calif. Class Action Over Crashing Laptops
ATLANTA, GA: Employees Lose Pension Lawsuit Against City
AUSTRALIA: Scores of Retta Dixon Sexual Abuse Survivors Join Suit

BLUE SHIELD: Fined for Overstating Obamacare Networks
BRISBANE GRAMMAR: Counsellor Ritually Abused Students
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Methadone Patient Files Discrimination Suit
CALIFORNIA: Court Hears First Phase Of Sewer Fee Challenge
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Appeal from Dismissal of Class Suit Junked

CEPHALON INC: Split Rulings Regarding Class Certification
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 2nd Class Action Over Royalties Filed
CHICAGO, IL: Police Officers' Anti-Tattoo Policy Suit Dismissed
CHINACACHE INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Settlement in Softsoap Labeling Case Okayed

COMPUWARE: Founder's Suit Could Unravel $2.5-Bil. Sale
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Kirkland Quinoa Salad Products
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Loses Set-Top Box Class Action in Oklahoma
CRABBY BILL'S: Servers Sue Over Shared Tips, Lost Wages
DADE MEDICAL COLLEGE: Sued by Former Workers After Sudden Closure

DISTRIBUTION EPICERIE: Recalls Black Olive Pesto Due to Milk
EMC: Slapped With Shareholders Class Suit
EROS INT'L: US Law Firms Launch Investigations
ETSY INC: Securities Class Suit Not Removable Under SLUSA
FACEBOOK INC: Court Dismisses Potential $15B Class Action

FARMERS INSURANCE: Female Attorneys Seek Class Status of Suit
GEO GROUP: Class Action Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
GEORGIA: High Court to Tackle Racial Bias in Jury Selecion
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Suit Seek Damages Over Zofran Drug
GONZALEZ & TAPANESE: "Jaliper" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

GOOGLE: Sued by Delivery Service Driver Over Status Question
HCA HOLDINGS: To Settle Shareholder Class-Action Suit For $215MM
ING USA: 3 Classes Certified in "Abbit" Suit
JACK IN THE BOX: Former Store Manager Files OT Class Action
JP MORGAN: Judge Dismisses Class Claims by Student Loan Borrowers

KING CITY, CA: Tentative Deal Reached on Towing Scheme Class Suit
LABORATORIOS LEON: Settles Canadian Suit Over Alysena(TM) 28
LIVWELL INC: Marijuana Industry Hit with First Ever PD Suit
LOTO-QUEBEC: Man Who Lost $13.5MM Lotto Jackpot Files Class Suit
LOUISVILLE GAS: U.S. Court Allows Class Suit to Proceed

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Suit
MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE: Taking Advantage of Elderly, Suit Says
MONTGOMERY COUNTRY, NY: Woman Sues Over Strip Searches
NATURAL AMERICAN: Must Change 'Deceptive' Marketing, Suit Says
NEOPETS INC: Accused for Violating California Business Law

NORDSTROM INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Class Action
ONTARIO: Faces $125MM Claim Over Mistreatment of Teens in Jails
PEET'S COFFEE: "Garrett" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud Act Breach
PEET'S COFFEE: Faces Suit Over Size of French Press Servings
PENNSYLVANIA: Mentally Ill in Jail Denied Treatment

PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL: Loses Bid to Quash Class Suit
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Overseers Not Covered Employees, Judge Says
PRIVATE LABEL: "DeVries" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
PUBLIC STORAGE: "Martinez-Santiago" Case Wins Class Status
RHODE ISLAND: Law Barring Sex Offenders Near Schools Has TRO

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Jail Health Care Lawsuit Settled
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Judge Rejects Bid to Release Detainees
SOUFUN HOLDINGS: Dec. 29 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
SPECIAL COUNSEL: "Parets" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SPECTRUM PHARMA: Grant Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

SPOKEO INC: U.S. Justices Divided Over Class Action Suit
ST. PAUL'S SCHOOL: Lawyers for Sex Assault Victim May Sue
STAR CAREER: Ordered to Pay $9.2MM for Defrauding Students
STERLING JEWELERS: Arbitrator's Award Vacated in Part
SUNNYSLOPE CEMETERY: Suit Alleges Cemetery Removed Headstones

SUPER FINE-1: "Hays Media" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
SYGENTA: Class Suits Filed by Farmers, Traders Reach 2,000
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Stull Stull Files Securities Class Suit
TRANSURBAN: Class Action Suit Can Proceed, Judge Rules
TRIPLE LEAF TEA: Class Action Settlement Approved

TRIVASCULAR TECH: Brodsky Smith Probing Board of Directors
USA SIGNS: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
VIMPELCOM LTD: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
WEST VIRGINIA: DHHR Calls for Suit Dismissals

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Radke" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Suro" Suit Seeks Damages for Deception
WIZARDS OF THE COAST: "Yale" Suit Seeks to Recover Compensation

* Skadden Arps Atty Says Public Citizen Report Misses Point
* UK Companies Alarmed at Order to Publish Gender Pay Gap





                            *********


6D GLOBAL: Top Trenton Official Named in Federal Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cristina Rojas, writing for NJ.com, reported that Trenton Business
Administrator Terry McEwen, who served as a member of the board of
directors of 6D Global Technologies, is among those named in a
class-action lawsuit alleging federal securities laws violations
against the company.

McEwen submitted his resignation from the board Oct. 5, just eight
days before the lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in
Manhattan by Sixto Castillo IV.

McEwen declined to comment.

Two other board members who were also named as defendants have
also resigned.

The suit seeks class-action status on behalf of investors who
bought stock from 6D or its predecessor CleanTech Innovations,
Inc. between Nov. 3, 2010 and Sept. 10, 2015.

The lawsuit charges the company with making false and misleading
statements. It alleges that during the period involved, the 33
defendants -- a group that includes top executives and board
members -- were engaged in a stock manipulation scheme and related
party transactions and failed to disclose that 6D lacked internal
controls.

McEwen was among those who signed off on three annual reports
required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the
lawsuit said. He signed Form 10-Ks for 2012, 2013 and 2014.

The lawsuit comes after the September indictment of Benjamin Wey,
the founder and CEO of New York Global Group who helped facilitate
the reverse merger of 6D's predecessor, CleanTech.

Wey, who is also named in the lawsuit, is accused of fraudulently
taking Chinese companies public in the United States through
reverse mergers, a process that involves buying the shell of an
American company that had been publicly listed. Federal
prosecutors said he manipulated their shares to reap tens of
millions of dollars in illegal profits.

CleanTech went public in 2010 but months later, was delisted by
Nasdaq for failing to disclose a financing deal, according to an
SEC complaint.

The decision was later reversed in July 2013. In October of that
year, McEwen joined CleanTech's board of directors. A press
release at the time called McEwen a "valuable addition ...
especially during the difficult period of CleanTech's potential
recovery from the impact of the company's wrongful delisting by
Nasdaq."

In June 2014, CleanTech announced that it entered into a merger
agreement with Initial Koncepts, Inc. and would become 6D. McEwen
briefly served as interim chairman and CEO through the deal's
closing, forms filed with the SEC show.

The lawsuit claims that 6D's lack of internal controls allowed Wey
to control the company.

In September 2014, McEwen stepped down as the interim CEO and was
reappointed to the board of directors.

Wey in an email called McEwen "an outstanding public servant and a
business executive with high moral standards and integrity."

A separate private action brought by Discover Growth Fund in
September was dismissed.  U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel said
the plaintiff had no probability of success on the merits of its
case.


AIR CHINA: 2nd Cir. Denies to Hear Interlocutory Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sided with
plaintiffs in declining to hear an interlocutory appeal of the
order granting them certification of a class of direct purchasers
of air cargo shipping services. Calling an immediate appeal
"unwarranted," the court's order removed the final obstacle that
stood between the plaintiffs and the trial of their claims.

The trial will begin in April 2016 against Air China, Air India,
Air New Zealand, and U.S. air cargo carrier Polar Air Cargo and
its parent, Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings.  The plaintiffs,
represented by Hausfeld (with other lead counsel), are seeking
billions in damages from the airlines' illegal price-fixing of air
cargo shipping services. The District Court has observed that
"plaintiffs have submitted a trove of direct and circumstantial
evidence that strongly suggests the existence of an agreement
among the defendants to fix prices," amounting to "compelling
common evidence of a global conspiracy."

If the plaintiffs prevail at trial, they will be entitled to
trebled damages under the Sherman Act. Many of the original
airline defendants have settled with the plaintiffs for a total of
more than $1 billion across twenty-seven settlements.

"We are pleased to have passed this milestone in seeking
compensation for the victims of this massive price-fixing
conspiracy," said Hausfeld Partner Brent Landau, who played a lead
role in the briefing and argument of class certification. "We look
forward to bringing the remaining cartelists to trial to obtain
the compensation the class members deserve under the antitrust
laws."

Hausfeld attorneys working on this case are Michael Hausfeld,
Brent Landau, Hilary Scherrer, and Melinda Coolidge. The case is
In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
06-MD-1175 (JG) (VVP) (E.D.N.Y.).

                          About Hausfeld

Hausfeld is a leading global law firm with offices in Brussels,
London, Philadelphia, San Francisco, New York, and Washington, DC.
The firm has a broad range of complex litigation expertise,
particularly in antitrust/competition, financial services, sports
and entertainment, environmental, mass torts, consumer protection,
and human rights matters, often with an international dimension.
Hausfeld aims to achieve the best possible results for clients
through its practical and commercial approach, avoiding litigation
where feasible, yet litigating robustly when necessary. Hausfeld's
extensive experience with alternative and innovative fee models
offers clients a diverse menu of engagement options and maximum
flexibility in terms of managing their cost exposure.

Hausfeld is the only claimants' firm to be ranked by the Legal 500
as a top tier firm in private enforcement of antitrust/competition
law in both the United States and the United Kingdom. For more
information about the firm, including recent trial victories and
landmark settlements, please visit: www.hausfeld.com.

For further information or to arrange interviews, please contact:
Brent Landau (215) 985-3273 blandau@hausfeld.com


APPLE INC: Can't Nix Calif. Class Action Over Crashing Laptops
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Eslinger, writing for Law360, reported that a California
judge rejected Apple's bid to end a putative class action alleging
its 2011 MacBook Pros contained defective graphics processing
chips that caused the computers to crash, saying laptop buyers had
pled enough facts to proceed with their suit.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle concluded that
consumer Paul Marshall, who said he experienced ongoing problems
with his 2011 MacBook Pro, alleged sufficient facts to back the
complaint's causes of action for false advertising, breach of
implied and express warranties, unjust enrichment and violation of
fair competition.

In doing so, the judge set aside Apple's contention that
Marshall's claims wouldn't hold up in light of a repair warranty
extension program the company established for handling problems
with the 2011 MacBook Pro. But he left the door open for the tech
giant to take another shot at having the case dismissed.

"In conclusion, the court finds the plaintiff has alleged
sufficient facts for the causes of action to overrule the
demurrer," Judge Berle said. "But that's without prejudice so the
defendant can come back to contest those issues."

In its motion to demur all of the alleged causes of action, Apple
asserts that Marshall never explains why he failed to bring his
laptop to Apple for a free repair, either during the original one-
year warranty or during a Repair Extension Program implemented
months before he sued,

"Marshall also implies (but does not allege) that all MacBooks
'began to severely malfunction shortly after purchase' and
speculates that most of the computers are 'resting in landfills' -
- even though Marshall pleads no facts to support those statements
in his [first amended complaint] and has carefully avoided
alleging any facts about how frequent (or infrequent) the
'graphics defect' actually was," Apple states.

In his opposition to the demurrer, Marshall calls Apple's Repair
Extension Program "too little, too late."

"Apple's remaining challenges to plaintiff's pleading fail to
recognize Apple's behavior out of which plaintiff's causes of
action arise . . . Apple was well aware of the substantial
graphics processing system defects, while at the same time, and
over several years, it represented that the laptops were premium
video processing devices and would function as represented,"
Marshall states.

The suit, first filed in November 2014, names nine models of 2011
MacBook Pro computers -- including 13-, 15- and 17-inch varieties
with several different types of processors -- which Apple
allegedly advertised as capable of handling professional-level
multimedia and video processing tasks.

"The defect causes these laptops to malfunction, breaks the
computer screen, causes computer freezes, crashes, and ultimately
renders the laptop computers unusable," the complaint says. "These
laptops cost between $1,100 and $3,000 on average and are often
rendered completely useless due to the defect."

The plaintiff seeks to establish a class of all people who bought
certain 2011 MacBook Pro laptops in California.

The suit points to numerous complaints in online forums --
including more than 600 pages purportedly on Apple's own community
forums and articles appearing in online and print publications.

Apple's laptops in 2008 had also suffered from similar problems,
showing that the company has "a pattern and practice of failing to
properly design, build and manufacture laptop computers," the
complaint says.

The suit switched lead plaintiffs in April 2015, when Marshall
submitted an amended complaint. It was determined that
the original plaintiff, Armen Soudjan, lacked standing "because he
did not actually buy one of the 2011 MacBook Pro computers at
issue," Apple stated in its demurrer.

The plaintiff and proposed class are represented by Brian S.
Kabateck, Evan M. Zucker, Jennifer Duffy, Joshua H. Haffner and
Levi Plesset of Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP.

Apple is represented by Matt Powers of O'Melveny & Meyers.

The case is Soudjian v. Apple Inc., case number BC562621, in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.


ATLANTA, GA: Employees Lose Pension Lawsuit Against City
--------------------------------------------------------
13WMAZ.com reported that the Georgia Supreme Court ruled in favor
of the City of Atlanta in a class action lawsuit filed by
firefighters, police and other city employees over changes to the
city's pension system.

Plaintiffs claimed a 2011 ordinance increasing their contribution
is unconstitutional.

The police and firefighter unions sued saying the five percent pay
raises they got were canceled out by the five percent they had to
pay into the pension.

The high court upheld a Fulton County court ruling that dismissed
their class-action lawsuit against the city.

Before the so called "pension reform," City of Atlanta employees
were required to contribute 7 to 8 percent of their annual salary
to their pension plan. In June 2011, the city amended the pension
plans to require employees to contribute 12 to 13 percent of their
annual salary to the plans and left room for the amount to be
increased to 12 and 13 percent.

In the decision, Presiding Justice P. Harris Hines wrote the local
ordinance "did not alter Plaintiffs' pension benefits, but rather
modified their pension obligations, and in no manner divested
Plaintiffs of their earned pension benefits, so as to implicate
constitutional concerns."


AUSTRALIA: Scores of Retta Dixon Sexual Abuse Survivors Join Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Brooks, writing for ABC News, reported that the Northern
Territory Supreme Court will hold the first directions hearing on
the action, as up to 86 former residents take civil action against
eight defendants.

Those targeted include a convicted paedophile, the Commonwealth,
the religious group that ran the home, Australian Indigenous
Ministries Pty Ltd (AIM), and people associated with that
organisation.

The class action has been building since stories of sexual and
physical abuse perpetrated at Retta Dixon between 1946 and 1980
were aired at an eight-day hearing of the Royal Commission into
Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in September 2014.

The group's lawyer, Bill Piper, believes the number of plaintiffs
in the class action will make it among the biggest to come before
the Territory's Supreme Court.

"I am not aware of any other class actions in the Supreme Court,"
Mr Piper said.

"I think it's the first of it's kind and certainly probably the
largest number of plaintiffs."

Convicted paedophile Donald Bruce Henderson is being sued for
assault.

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

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

The Commonwealth, who were responsible for placing many of the
children in Retta Dixon, is also one of the defendants.

Mr Piper said the findings of the royal commission showed the
Commonwealth had a duty of care to the children in the home prior
to Northern Territory self government in 1978.

"They were administering the welfare legislation under which
systemic failures occurred," Mr Piper said.

"We believe we can identify instances that can be considered
breaches of the duty of care that had consequences for our
clients."

Mr Piper said that because AIM was an unincorporated association
when the alleged abuse occurred, individual committee members were
being targeted.

"So we've got claim against AIM, what is now an incorporated
association, and a number of claims against surviving individual
committee members who controlled the organisation when the
atrocities occurred," he said.

The former superintendent of the home, Mervyn Pattemore, who the
royal commission heard last year was told about some of the abuse
at the time, is also being sued.


BLUE SHIELD: Fined for Overstating Obamacare Networks
-----------------------------------------------------
Chad Terhune, writing for Los Angeles times, reported that
California regulators fined two insurance giants for overstating
their Obamacare doctor networks and said the companies will pay
millions of dollars in refunds to patients who paid too much for
care.

The state's Department of Managed Health Care levied fines of
$350,000 against Blue Shield of California and $250,000 for Anthem
Blue Cross.

At issue were the companies' error-riddled provider directories
that frustrated many consumers statewide as they tried to find
doctors during the rollout of the Affordable Care Act in 2014. As
a result, some patients incurred big unforeseen medical bills
because they unwittingly went out of network for care.

In addition to the state's enforcement action, consumer lawsuits
are still pending against both insurers.

"The DMHC has taken enforcement action and fined Blue Shield and
Anthem due to unacceptable inaccuracies in their directories,"
said Shelley Rouillard, the agency's director. "These inaccuracies
limited enrollee access to care that resulted in an unacceptable
consumer experience and must be fixed."

Regulators said both plans must improve the accuracy of their
provider directories and reimburse enrollees who may have been
negatively affected by the misleading information.

The state said Blue Shield has already reimbursed more than $38
million to enrollees who incurred out-of-network costs. Officials
said they didn't have a reimbursement figure for Anthem yet.

Anthem and attorneys representing consumers said they are close to
settling a class-action case that would set aside money to cover
past medical bills.

Both companies will report to regulators on the final number of
enrollees reimbursed and the total amount paid out. The state
urged consumers who have questions -- or believe that they should
receive reimbursement -- to contact the companies.

A year ago, the Department of Managed Health Care released the
results of a five-month investigation into the doctor networks
advertised by both insurers.

More than 25% of physicians listed by Anthem and Blue Shield
weren't taking patients in the Covered California health exchange
or were no longer at the location listed by the companies,
according to the state's investigation.

In response to consumer complaints, California lawmakers approved
legislation this year requiring insurers to update their provider
directories weekly to improve accuracy.

"We don't allow grocery stores to sell food mislabeled with the
wrong ingredients," said Anthony Wright, executive director of
Health Access, a consumer advocacy group that backed the
legislation. "We can't have a functioning insurance market if
consumers don't know what they are buying."

Anthem and Blue Shield have been the top two insurers by
enrollment in the state's Obamacare exchange, with roughly 800,000
members combined.

The insurers have acknowledged mistakes were made as the companies
raced to overhaul their policies and networks for the
implementation of the health law in 2014.

"During this time of unprecedented change and despite Anthem's
continual efforts to improve the accuracy of the system, Anthem's
provider directory inadvertently listed some providers" that
weren't part of the policyholders' network, said spokesman Darrel
Ng.

"In the last two years, Anthem has spent more than $4 million
improving the provider directory to make it more user friendly and
to improve the accuracy of the data," he said.

Indianapolis-based Anthem is the nation's second-largest health
insurer.

In a statement, Blue Shield said it "believes this agreement is in
the best interest of our members. The settlement addresses past
issues raised in 2014, and our members should not be concerned
about their current plan or its networks."

State officials said they slapped Blue Shield with a heftier fine
because it was less cooperative during the investigation.

"There was a lack of timeliness in receiving responses and overall
cooperation from Blue Shield, so the fine was a little higher,"
said agency spokeswoman Rachel Arrezola.

Kevin and Jane McCarthy of Thousand Oaks are among the consumers
suing Blue Shield over out-of-network medical bills in San
Francisco County Superior Court.

McCarthy said he and his wife spent nearly $2,000 out of pocket to
see their primary-care physicians and a neurologist last year.

He said he had checked Blue Shield's online listing of network
doctors for his Silver PPO plan during the sign-up process and
confirmed the information with a company representative by phone.

But he said Blue Shield's information was wrong and that he got
stuck paying higher out-of-network charges.

"It was false advertising, and Blue Shield needs to pay for what
they did," McCarthy said. He wasn't impressed by the state's fine
of $350,000.

"Blue Shield is getting off with a slap on the wrist," he said.

Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica advocacy group, is spearheading
the litigation against Blue Shield and Anthem.

Jerry Flanagan, the group's lead staff attorney, said Blue
Shield's reimbursement process puts too big a burden on consumers
to file claims, so his organization will keep pursuing a legal
settlement with better terms.

Blue Shield said it doesn't comment on pending litigation.

The managed-care agency has begun a new survey of Anthem and Blue
Shield's physician networks to check whether problems have been
resolved. The results might be available early next year.


BRISBANE GRAMMAR: Counsellor Ritually Abused Students
-----------------------------------------------------
Joshua Robertson, writing for The Guardian, reported that a
counsellor at a prestigious Queensland private school ritually
hypnotised students before masturbating them, slapping them in the
face and putting acupuncture needles in one child's genitals, the
royal commission into institutional responses to child sex abuse
has heard.

The scores of alleged victims of Kevin Lynch at Brisbane Grammar
school included a boy who was sexually abused in a grief
counselling session given after learning his father had committed
suicide.

The commission hearing in Brisbane is examining the response to
abuse claims against Lynch from the 1970s to the 1990s at Grammar
and later St Paul's Anglican school, and another former St Paul's
teacher, Gregory Robert Knight in the 1980s.

Also to come under scrutiny is former South Australian education
minister Don Hopgood, who was a member of the same musical group
in Adelaide as Knight when he gave him a glowing personal
reference on parliamentary letterhead despite allegedly knowing a
departmental inquiry found Knight engaged in "disgraceful" conduct
with school students.

The royal commission also heard that Hopgood ordered that the
South Australian education department rescind its dismissal of
Knight and accept his resignation, which enabled him to get jobs
in Queensland schools. Knight lost his job at St Paul's over abuse
allegations but then taught in the Northern Territory, where he
was eventually jailed over indecent dealing with a student.

One alleged victim of Lynch, known only as BQK, told the
commission that the counsellor's "treatment [was] built around his
convincing me that I could harness the power of my orgasms to gain
an edge" in studies and sport.

"He would regularly masturbate me to the point of ejaculation and
sometimes would make me ingest my own semen," he said.

Lynch also slapped the boy in the face to "psyche me up about
winning a metaphorical race".

"Other times he would use acupuncture needles and put them into my
testicles or stick his thumb in my anus," BQK said.

BQK told the commission he "assumed this was a normal treatment
method" and did not appreciate he had been seriously abused until
"well into my adult life".

He said he could not understand why Grammar staff had not
questioned why Lynch operated out of a room that had two heavy,
soundproof doors, red and green light signals controlling student
access, and had significant stocks of tissues and towels, which he
used to wipe up semen.

The room was set up as a "sick conveyer belt of victims for
Lynch", he said.

BQK alleged to the commission that Wayne Cochrane, a former
Grammar schoolmaster, had failed to protect him.

BQK said Grammar was "essentially a business venture which traded
on its reputation and was blind to anything which didn't accord to
that vision".

"I was badly let down by this culture of turning a blind eye and
protecting the brand and it is hard not to see it is a deliberate
cover up," he said.

Counsel assisting the commission, David Lloyd, said that Lynch
abused "significant numbers" of students at Grammar from 1973 to
1988 and then at St Paul's Anglican school from 1989 to 1997.

The commission was in contact with 80 former students of both
schools claiming abuse, Lloyd said.

Lynch committed suicide in 1997 a day after he was charged with
sex offences against a St Paul's student who had secretly recorded
a confession.

The scale of Lynch's abuse only came into public view following
media revelations that Nigel Parodi, who shot three police then
himself in 2000, was among his victims at Grammar.

Lloyd said the commission would hear evidence from parents that
they raised allegations of sexual abuse by Lynch with then Grammar
headmaster Maxwell Howell.

Howell in affidavits before his death denied hearing any specific
allegations against Lynch. But Lloyd said the school's insurer had
concluded that Howell was aware of abuse claims, forcing the
school to shoulder much of its private settlements with
complainants.

Witnesses also told the hearing of the difficulties in seeking
redress in view of Grammar's link to the legal community.

During his testimony BQK angrily lashed out at prominent barrister
Walter Sofronoff, who is representing Grammar after the alleged
victim paid him $5,000 for a legal opinion on his case about 10
years ago.

BQK, the owner of a successful media business, said he was one of
the few former Grammar students who rejected the school's
"insulting" offer of $30,000 to settle a class action over Lynch
in 2002.

He said the mediation process, during which he was denied the
opportunity to speak about his abuse, "felt like a sausage factory
where all the claimants were simply herded in and out with very
little care and attention".

He told the commission he could not believe that Sofronoff was now
"on the payroll of the school" after he had given him
"confidential information from A to Z about my situation".

Sofronoff earlier told the commission he could resolve the
conflict by excusing himself from questioning of BQK. BQK told the
commission his acting for Grammar was "just so symbolic of the
fact the school does not get it -- that a person that I paid
$5,000 to for an opinion almost 10 years ago is buyable by the
school".

Another witness, BQG, told the commission that after the 2002
class action he had sought legal assistance from solicitor Stuart
Bale who had been chairman of the board of governors at Grammar at
the time the alleged abuse occurred.

"Looking back now I think Bale should have said to me, 'I've got a
conflict, I can't deal with this'," he said, adding he went to
another lawyer when Bale "stopped returning my calls".

The royal commission hearing continues.


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Methadone Patient Files Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Lupick, writing for Straight.com, reported that an advocate
for recovering heroin addicts has taken the first step in a
potential class-action lawsuit against the Government of British
Columbia.

"I want to help everybody in the Downtown Eastside who is on
methadone and who has to pay this," Laura Shaver told the
Straight.

According to a notice of civil claim filed on November 4 in the
B.C. Supreme Court, Shaver entered into an agreement with the
province that results in a monthly deduction from her social-
assistance payments (commonly referred to as welfare).

The claim alleges Shaver entered that agreement while under
duress, and that the nature of that agreement amounts to
discrimination on the basis of a disability.

None of the allegations included in the lawsuit's notice of claim
have been proven in court. The province has yet to file a
statement of defence.

The lawsuit pertains to a group of people who are both enrolled in
the province's methadone maintenance program (MMP) and who receive
social assistance under the B.C. Employment and Assistance Act.

The claim explains that as one of those people, Shaver was asked
to enter into a "fee agreement" with the Ministry of Social
Development before her physician would prescribe her methadone, a
form of an opioid-substitution therapy favoured in B.C. for the
treatment of an addiction to heroin.

"Ms. Shaver signed the Fee Agreement unwillingly and under duress
to gain access to necessary medical treatment," the notice of
claim reads.

That fee agreement preauthorizes the provincial government to
deduct an amount from Shaver's monthly social-assistance payments
and provide that money to the private clinic where she is
prescribed methadone.

"The Fee Agreement purports to allow the Province to deduct $18.34
from Ms. Shaver's social-assistance payment per month despite the
Province's implicit understanding and awareness that Ms. Shaver
has no resources to cover that cost and that going without
methadone was not a practicable option for Ms. Shaver," it
continues.

The notice of claim states that because the fee agreement in
question is only applied against methadone patients, the monthly
deduction from Shaver's social-assistance payments amount to a
violation of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. It states that every citizen is equal before the law and
ensured equal treatment regardless of any mental or physical
disability.

The Straight has requested an interview with the Ministry of
Social Development and Social Innovation. This article will be
updated if a representative is made available.

Shaver, who is also a member of the B.C. Association of People on
Methadone and the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (Vandu), is
represented in her legal challenge by Jason Gratl, a Vancouver-
based lawyer.

"From a legal point of view, the signature on patients' consent
forms -- the signature on the forms consenting to the payment --
was obtained by means of duress," he said.

Gratl conceded that to many people, $18.34 a month won't sound
like a lot of money. But to those on welfare, it can account for a
noticeable fraction of their budgets.

"The ministry and the prescribing doctors are forcing people to
choose between necessary medical treatment and food," he argued.

In B.C., the maximum amount of monthly income assistance for a
single employable person is $610, which includes a $375 shelter
allowance .

Gratl said that he wants the legal challenge to result in the
province refunding money to any patient enrolled in the methadone
maintenance program who saw money deducted from their monthly
social-assistance payments.

"There is no legal authority allowing for such deductions to
occur," he said. "Those services are medically necessary."

The B.C. Supreme Court has yet to certify the claim as a class-
action lawsuit. Gratl told the Straight he is confident it will
receive that classification and advance in the near future.

According to a May 2014 B.C. government report, in 2012-13 there
were 14,833 patients enrolled in the province's methadone-
maintenance treatment program.

That document states that to keep one patient in opiate
substitution therapy, it costs B.C. approximately $3,268 per year.

If the government were to stop its monthly deductions from cheques
like Shaver's, that number would grow to approximately $3,488 per
year.


CALIFORNIA: Court Hears First Phase Of Sewer Fee Challenge
----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Brainard, writing for Ramona Sentinel, reported that phase 1
of the class action suit challenging the Ramona Municipal Water
District's wastewater fee structure began in San Diego Superior
Court and concluded. A tentative ruling had not been issued before
press time.

Whether the trial would proceed to the second phase depended on
the ruling, according to the court.

Eugene Plantier, who owns the commercial property at 109 10th St.
that he leases to Marisco Mar De Cortez restaurant, filed a
lawsuit against the water district in January 2014 after he was
told in 2012 that he would have to pay $33,000 to bring the
building's wastewater service into compliance with the RMWD code.

Certified as a class action suit in February, the legal challenge
claims that RMWD's method of charging sewer fees based on a
parcel's assigned equivalent dwelling units (EDU), which estimate
wastewater flow for various types of occupancy, violates
Proposition 218 because the charges can exceed the proportional
cost of the service. Joining him in the suit is Ramona businessman
and developer Orrin Day.

At the request of the attorneys representing the water district,
the case was bifurcated so the court would first consider whether
the plaintiffs sufficiently protested the fees or exhausted their
administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit, which the
attorneys said would have bearing on their cause of action.

"There's a long-standing dispute between Mr. Plantier and the
district," attorney John Alessio with Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves &
Savitch LLP, representing RMWD, told Judge Timothy Taylor in his
opening statements.

Representing the plaintiffs, attorney Allison Goddard told the
judge that Plantier had appeared before the water board and tried
setting up meetings with the district "but trying to communicate
with the district, to put it mildly, is like hitting a wall."

Alessio said dating back to 2012, the plaintiffs never showed up
at a water district public hearing that gives the public an
opportunity to protest rates before the board votes on rate
increases and its new fiscal year budget.

"This is the time to be heard," he said.

Alessio said the court would hear that the plaintiffs felt that
attending a hearing was a "waste of time."

Goddard, however, said the Proposition 218 letter to customers
notices them on wastewater and water rate increases, and the
public hearing.

"It just says the fee is changing," she said.

The letter tells ratepayers what to say when protesting the rates
but doesn't include "why," said Goddard, and it says the board
will be authorized to approve the rate if it does not receive
protests from the majority of ratepayers.

Goddard ran through a timeline from April 2012, when Plantier
received a letter from the district that the parcel should have
6.82 EDUs, covering meetings he set up with district staff and
board members. According to Goddard, Plantier told RMWD General
Manager David Barnum that the sewer charges are unfair because
"it's arbitrary and based on square footage."

When Plantier got a hearing before the board, he was denied any
relief, she said, although Alessio noted that the board waived a
$96,000 mitigation fee for the additional EDUs.

Goddard said Plantier "tried everything he could to get them to
listen to him that this charge was illegal."

The plaintiffs are seeking refunds dating back to 2012 in the
class action suit that includes RMWD customers who have paid a
sewer service charge on or after Nov. 22, 2012.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Appeal from Dismissal of Class Suit Junked
----------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) (TASE: CEL) (hereinafter: the
"Company") announced the dissmisal with prejudice of an appeal
filed in May 2014 with the Israeli Supreme Court, challenging the
dismissal with prejudice by the District Court of a purported
class action against the Company reported on November 2011. The
purported class action alleged that the Company raised tariffs for
business customers unlawfully and in violation of its agreements
with them.

Had the lawsuit been certified as a class action, the total amount
claimed from the Company was estimated by the plaintiffs to be at
least hundreds of millions of NIS.

                    About Cellcom Israel

Cellcom Israel Ltd., established in 1994, is the largest Israeli
cellular provider; Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 2.848
million subscribers (as at June 30, 2015) with a broad range of
value added services including cellular and landline telephony,
roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers
abroad, additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile
office etc. and most recently -- also television over the internet
service in Israel, based on Cellcom Israel's technologically
advanced infrastructure. The Company operates an LTE 4 Generation
and HSPA 3.5 Generation networks enabling advanced high speed
broadband multimedia services, in addition to GSM/GPRS/EDGE
networks. Cellcom Israel offers Israel's broadest and largest
customer service infrastructure including telephone customer
service centers, retail stores, and service and sale centers,
distributed nationwide. Cellcom Israel further provides through
its wholly owned subsidiaries internet connectivity services and
international calling services, as well as landline telephone
communication services, in addition to data communication
services. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both on the New York
Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL). For
additional information please visit the Company's website
http://www.cellcom.co.il.

Company Contact:

Shlomi Fruhling
Chief Financial Officer
Email: investors@cellcom.co.il
Tel: +972-52-998-9755

Investor Relations Contact:

Ehud Helft
GK Investor & Public Relations  In partnership with LHA
Email: cellcom@GKIR.com
Tel: +1-617-418-3096


CEPHALON INC: Split Rulings Regarding Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
Rita J. Yoon, writing for MWE.com, reported that in two antitrust
class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, the court denied class certification as to
plaintiff consumers and third-party payors (such as health
insurance plans), but granted class certification as to direct
purchasers (such as drug wholesalers).

Vista HealthPlan, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc., No. 2:06-cv-1833 (E.D.
Pa. June 10, 2015) (Goldberg, D.J.) (denying class certification
of plaintiff consumers and third-party payors); King Drug Co. of
Florence, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc., No. 06-cv-1797 (In re Modafinil
Litigation) (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2015) (Goldberg, D.J.) (granting
class certification of plaintiff direct purchasers).

In April 1997, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued
U.S. Patent No. 5,618,845 to Cephalon, Inc. for the modafinil
formulation in Provigil(R). In 2002, Cephalon was granted a re-
issue patent on Provigil, U.S. Patent No. RE 37,516 (RE'516
patent), which was scheduled to expire October 6, 2014. Cephalon
received an additional six months of pediatric exclusivity on
Provigil through April 6, 2015.

On December 24, 2002, four generic manufacturers were first filers
of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for generic Provigil,
all of which included Paragraph IV certifications that Cephalon's
patent was either invalid or not infringed. These first filers
were Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc. (Teva); Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd. and Ranbaxy
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Ranbaxy); Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Mylan Laboratories, Inc. (Mylan), and Barr Laboratories, Inc.
(Barr). Cephalon sued these generic defendants for patent
infringement on March 28, 2003.

From 2005 to 2006, Cephalon entered into four reverse-payment
settlements with the four generic defendants. The settlements
allowed the generic defendants to launch their generic Provigil
product on April 6, 2012, prior to the expiration of the RE'516
patent. Cephalon agreed to pay the generic defendants a total of
approximately $300 million.

Plaintiffs filed antitrust class actions against Cephalon and the
generic defendants beginning 2006, which were consolidated as In
re Modafinil Litigation. Plaintiffs alleged that these settlement
agreements were anticompetitive reverse-payment settlement
agreements that violate the antitrust laws. Plaintiffs also
alleged that Cephalon violated the antitrust laws by procuring its
Provigil patent by fraud on the PTO, and then enforcing said
patent to keep competitors off of the market.

Plaintiffs sought class certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3), which requires proof of, among other things,
(1) questions of law or fact common to class members that
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members;
and (2) a class action that is superior to other available methods
for fairly and efficiently adjudicating  the controversy.  These
requirements are known as predominance and superiority.

In seeking class certification, Plaintiffs argued that but for the
settlement agreements, the generic defendants would have launched
their generic Provigil products at risk in June 2006, which would
have lowered the cost of Provigil through generic competition and
brought significant savings to plaintiffs.

The court held that predominance was not established as to the
consumers and third-party payors, but established as to the direct
purchasers. The court held that the consumers and third-party
payors failed to identify a means of distinguishing between
injured and un-injured class members. Specifically, the consumers
and third-party purchasers failed to offer a reliable methodology
for identifying those persons who purchased Provigil or its
generic equivalent from those persons who would be excluded from
this class, such as brand loyalists and persons with flat co-pays.

By contrast, the court held that the direct purchasers established
predominance because all of these class members purchased Provigil
directly from Cephalon or one of the generic defendants. "The
alleged overcharge, or antitrust injury, occurred when Plaintiffs
purchased Provigil from Cephalon at an artificially inflated
price."

The court also held that superiority was not established as to the
consumers and third-party payors, but established as to the direct
purchasers. As to the consumers and third-party payors, the court
held that the variations in the 26 state unjust enrichment laws
rendered the class litigation un-manageable. As to the direct
purchasers, however, the court held that the putative class of
direct purchasers established superiority because these 22 class
members have identical claims, and, therefore, "a class action
would achieve economies of time, effort, and expense without
bringing about undesirable results."


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 2nd Class Action Over Royalties Filed
--------------------------------------------------------
Deanne Johnson, writing for Morning Journal News, reported that a
second class action lawsuit has been filed by local property
owners against Chesapeake Energy Corp., claiming royalties are
being underpaid on the actual production of wells in the area.

There are several claims made by the lawsuit, including that
Chesapeake Energy, the parent company of Chesapeake Exploration,
and Chesapeake Operating LLC, an affiliate of Chesapeake
Exploration, are conspiring to defraud local landowners with gas
and oil leases out of full royalty payments.

The lawsuit claims three items are being fraudulently calculated -
the amount of product produced, the price paid by the buyer and
the costs deducted.

According to the lawsuit, in some cases the Chesapeake defendants
are claiming the costs of extracting the product is so large that
the deductions are completely canceling out the amount of the
royalty being paid for that product and other products.

In particular with natural gas liquids calculations, the lawsuit
said the defendants falsely reported the natural gas liquids were
being sold at a steep loss, canceling out the royalties and
sometimes diminishing the royalties of other products such as
natural gas and oil being produced.

In one example in the lawsuit, over a five-month period the costs
deducted for processing natural gas liquids was listed at 142
percent, 176 percent, 164 percent, 133 percent and 106 percent of
the value of the natural gas liquids. Yet Chesapeake Energy
reportedly has been increasing the amount of natural gas liquids
being produced by 31 percent, a move the lawsuit claims does not
make sense if that amount of money is being lost in production.

Further, the lawsuit claims instead of the usual industry norm of
3 percent being taken for fuel, the defendant told property owners
about 17 percent of the gas being produced was being used for the
fuel needed to produce the product. Yet the gross volume amounts
being reported to the property owners is reportedly 17 percent
less than the produced volumes being reported to the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources for the wells.

The lawsuit also claims a fuel charge to produce natural gas of 51
cents per thousand cubic feet was charged to the property owners,
while investors were told fuel costs were held down to 10 cents
per thousand cubic feet.

After the products have been sold to Chesapeake Energy Marketing
LLC, at the well, the lawsuit claims additional costs are being
deducted from the royalties being paid, including a 3 percent
marketing fee. This, the lawsuit claims, the additional cost being
alleged after Chesapeake Exploration no longer holds the title to
the gas and the oil are fraudulent. Additionally, the lawsuit
claims there were fraudulent claims for costs incurred by Total E
and P USA Inc., another purchaser of the gas produced.

The lawsuit talks about some of the financial history of
Chesapeake Energy, claiming in a deal to help raise money
Chesapeake Energy was part of the creation of a new company,
Access Midstream Partners L.P. After 2010, nearly all the gas
produced in the Utica shale in Ohio is being serviced by Access
Midstream Partners L.P., which charges "exorbitant gathering fees"
to try to recoup the billions of dollars that company invested in
Chesapeake.

Similar to the previous lawsuit filed in Columbiana County Common
Pleas Court in late October, this lawsuit claims the royalties are
being paid on a much lower than market sales price, instead of the
final price being paid by the third-party buyer. Additionally the
lawsuit claims the property owners were not paid $1.5 billion in
royalties from derivative contract sales.

This lawsuit was filed on behalf of a long list of plaintiffs and
led by Hope Christian Fellowship, which is also known as New Hope
Community Church, state Route 39, Wellsville.

The lawsuit also names Julius P. Heil, Thomas Hanson, Dale and
Melinda Henceroth, Ruth Burchfield, James and Toni Burchfield,
Marilyn S. Wendt, Janet K. Cooper, Wilford L. Copeland, Lance and
Nicole Hull, John and Ruth Williams, Zeb and Judith Locklear,
Leroy and Christine Baker, Thomas and Nancy Sherwood, Thomas and
Nancy Keating, Bruce and Irma Meadows and Samantha, Debra and
Holly Meister.

It is also noted there are more than 2,000 people and
organizations who could be party to the class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit asks the court to find the Chesapeake defendants in
violation of the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act, including engaging in
patterns of corrupt activity, racketeering activity and theft by
deception. It further asks the court to stop future fraudulent
activities by the defendants and to pay compensatory damages to
the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was filed electronically in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, in Youngstown by
Robert C. Sanders, a Maryland attorney who specializes in natural
gas lawsuits, along with Ohio attorneys James A. Lowe of
Cleveland, Robert L. Guehl of Dayton and Mark A. Hutson of
Columbiana.


CHICAGO, IL: Police Officers' Anti-Tattoo Policy Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- and
Christina M. Janice, Esq. -- cjanice@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, in an article for Lexology.com, wrote that in a recent
order in Medici, et al. v. City of Chicago, Case No. 15 C 5891,
2015 WL 6501153 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2015), Judge Charles P.
Kocoras of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois dismissed a class action brought by three City of Chicago
police officers who alleged that a new Chicago Police Department
policy requiring on-duty officers to cover personal tattoos
violated the officers' First Amendment rights.

This opinion is instructive for public and private employers
formulating and enforcing uniform and dress code policies.

Case Background

On June 8, 2015 the Chicago Police Department ("CPD") revised its
uniform policy to require on-duty officers to cover tattoos on
their hands, face, neck, and other areas not covered by clothing,
with skin tone adhesive bandages or tattoo covers. Id. at *1.
Three CPD officers, Daniel Medici, Dennis Leet and John Kukielka
("Plaintiffs"), had religious tattoos, and Medici also had a
tattoo relating to his service as a U.S. Marine. Plaintiffs filed
their complaint on July 2, 2015, against the City of Chicago
("City"), alleging the City had violated 42 U.S.C. Sec 1983 by
infringing on their First Amendment rights to display their
tattoos.  Plaintiffs also complained that the new tattoo policy
required them to wear additional clothing or adhesives that
subjected them to overheating, skin irritation, and discomfort.
Id. Plaintiffs sought class certification, a declaratory judgment
that the tattoo policy was unduly broad and violated the First
Amendment, and an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and other
appropriate relief. Id.

The City moved the Court to dismiss the complaint as a matter of
law, arguing that the Court could dismiss the complaint without
any discovery because Plaintiffs had articulated in their
complaint the City's interest in "promot[ing] uniformity and
professionalism" in adopting the tattoo policy. Id. at *2.

The Court's Decision

The Court agreed with the City that the Plaintiffs, by including
in their complaint a statement of the City's interest in the
tattoo policy, afforded the Court the factual allegations
sufficient to scrutinize the tattoo policy under two prevailing
First Amendment "balancing tests" articulated by the U.S. Supreme
Court in Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School
District 205, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), and United States v. National
Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), 513 U.S. 454 (1995),
respectively. Applying in turn each of the "balancing tests" in
these public worker cases, the Court found that the City's tattoo
policy does not violate Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. Id. at
*3.

The Court focused primarily on the Pickering test, which it
reasoned requires "that a restraint on government employee speech
must 'arrive at a balance between the interests of the [employee],
as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the
interest[s] of the State, as an employer, in promoting the
efficiency of the public services it performs through its
employees,' [internal citations omitted]." Id. at *2. The Court
found that the tattoos were not a form of speech on matters of
public concern, but a form of personal expression: "[w]hen an
individual decides to place a symbol, a set of words, or a design
on his or her body, he or she is engaging in a form of personal
expression, rather than a form of commentary on the interest of
the public." Id. at *3.

Further, the Court observed that on-duty police officers "are not
part of the citizenry at large, but instead government employees,
whose speech may be subject to restrictions that, if applied to
the general public, may be unconstitutional." Id. Even assuming
Plaintiffs were citizens commenting on matters of public concern,
the Court found that the City's interests would outweigh
Plaintiffs' First Amendment interests. Reasoning that police
officers "have the difficult responsibility of ensuring public
safety and maintaining order among the populous,"  the Court
reasoned that tattoos may undermine the CPD's ability to maintain
the public's trust and respect, and negatively impact the CPD's
ability to ensure safety and order. Id.  This was so, the Court
explained, because tattoos, as symbols, can be easily
misinterpreted and "cause members of the public to question
whether allegiance to their welfare and safety is paramount." Id.
at *3-4.  Accordingly, the Court found no First Amendment
violation under Pickering.

The Court further determined that the balancing test articulated
in NTEU wholly disfavored Plaintiffs, as the Complaint failed to
demonstrate: (1) that the speech took place outside the workplace;
(2) that the speech addressed public concerns; (3) that the
restriction upon speech was a wholesale deterrent to a broad
category of expression by a massive number of potential speakers;
and (4) that the speech had little if any adverse impact on the
efficiency of the workplace. Id. at *4.  Indeed, the Court found
that the tattoos "are contrary to and harmful to the CPD's
legitimate objective of maintaining a professional and uniform
police force." Id.

Implications For Employers

Although the decision in Medici involves public employment and
First Amendment concerns, the Court's reasoning in dismissing the
class action is highly instructive to both public and private
employers. Employers requiring uniforms or standardized appearance
should formulate specific dress code policies that: (1) consider
whether and to what extent tattoos are offensive or disruptive in
the workplace or to the employer's customers or business, (2)
articulate specific and clear guidelines regarding the display of
tattoos; (3) allow for appropriate supervisory discretion -- and a
standardized process -- to consider tattoo restrictions on a case-
by-case basis; and (4) consistently enforce their policies.  Care
should be taken to engage in a religious accommodation analysis in
situations in which the employee's display of tattoos or other
body markings is related to religious practice.


CHINACACHE INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of
ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd (NASDAQ:CCIH) securities
from April 11, 2015 through August 20, 2015, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
ChinaCache investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the ChinaCache class action, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-705.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. The lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that (1) the platform migration to HPCC
was not successful; (2) the platform migration to HPCC posed the
risk of a negative impact on the Company's financial performance;
(3) as a result of the unsuccessful migration, the Company's
revenue for the second quarter of 2015 would be below
expectations; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
December 8, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-705.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free
at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact Information:
      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Kevin Chan, Esq.
      The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY  10016
      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      lrosen@rosenlegal.com
      pkim@rosenlegal.com
      kchan@rosenlegal.com
      www.rosenlegal.com


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Settlement in Softsoap Labeling Case Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul Barbadoro in New Hampshire granted the joint
motion to certify a settlement class and approve the settlement
agreement reached in the case captioned In re: Colgate-Palmolive
Softsoap Antibacterial Hand Soap Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, Case No. 12-MD-2320-PB (D.N.H.).  The Court denied
without prejudice the assented-to motion for fees and expenses.

In the deal, Colgate agrees to pay $2,000,000 to satisfy the costs
of the Notice Plan, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and
incentive awards payable to the five named plaintiffs.

Consumers of Softsoap Antibacterial hand soap filed this class
action lawsuit against Colgate-Palmolive Company, the manufacturer
of Softsoap Antibacterial. Plaintiffs claim that Colgate
wrongfully induced class members to purchase Softsoap
Antibacterial by making false or misleading marketing claims. The
parties have successfully negotiated a proposed settlement, and
now ask the Court to certify the proposed class and approve the
settlement. Class counsel have also filed an assented-to motion
for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses
incurred in prosecuting and settling this case.

During the relevant period, the active ingredient in Softsoap
Antibacterial was triclosan. In 1994, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) announced that it lacked sufficient data to
determine whether triclosan is safe and effective for use in
consumer products. Although the FDA has not updated its assessment
since that time, it has continued to investigate triclosan. In
addition, studies over the last fifteen years have also raised
doubts about triclosan's safety and efficacy.
In light of those doubts, plaintiffs here allege that Colgate's
marketing, labeling and advertising strategy for Softsoap
Antibacterial was false or misleading. In particular, plaintiffs
claim that statements that Softsoap Antibacterial was "clinically
proven to eliminate 99% of germs your family encounters," "offers
antibacterial protection," "kills 99% of common germs," and
"Goodbye germs-Hello world," misled consumers by suggesting that
the product provided better health benefits than other soaps.

In his Memorandum and Order dated November 16, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/GSOmJsfrom Leagle.com, Judge Barbadoro granted the
parties' joint motion to certify the settlement class. The Court
also granted final approval of the proposed settlement on the
terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

Subject to the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement,
the court entered an injunction against the defendant requiring it
to comply with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. The
court said this injunction is necessary to provide relief to the
Settlement Class. Accordingly, the court orders the following
injunction:

     1. For a period of five years from the effective date of this
settlement, defendant shall not use a claim on Labeling and
Marketing of the Product that is based on "99% efficacy" without
an accompanying disclosure statement that generally describes the
testing methods at a level consistent with those appearing on
Labeling and Marketing of the Product as of the date of this
Settlement Agreement.

     2. For a period of five years from the effective date of this
settlement, defendant shall not use the statement "Goodbye Germs -
- Hello World" on Labeling and Marketing of the Product.

     3. In the event that defendant reintroduces the ingredient
triclosan back into its liquid hand soap products, it will use
triclosan only in a manner that is consistent with final FDA
regulations relating to the use of that ingredient.

The consolidated action, which includes case numbers 12-md-2320,
12-md-2321, 12-md-2323, 12-md-2324, 12-md-2325, and 12-md-2326, is
dismissed (a) with prejudice as to (i) all of named plaintiffs'
monetary and injunctive relief claims and (ii) the Settlement
Class members' non-monetary injunctive relief claims, and (b)
without prejudice to any monetary injunctive relief claims or
damages claims by members of the Settlement Class other than the
named plaintiffs. The Court denied without prejudice the assented-
to motion for fees and expenses.

Lucy J. Karl, Esq. -- lkarl@shaheengordon.com -- of Shaheen &
Gordon serves as counsel for all Plaintiffs

Michele E. Kenney, Esq. -- mkenney@pierceatwood.com -- of Pierce
Atwood LLP serves as counsel for all Defendants


COMPUWARE: Founder's Suit Could Unravel $2.5-Bil. Sale
------------------------------------------------------
Brian J. O'Connor, writing for The Detroit News, reported that
firing Compuware founder Pete Karmanos for publicly blasting that
the firm's management needed "to get their head out of their a--"
already has cost the Detroit-based software and consulting company
$16.5 million. And now it could cost the company even more --
including a complete unwinding of last year's $2.5 billion sale to
Chicago-based private equity investment firm Thoma Bravo LLC.

In a suit filed in Wayne County Circuit Court, Karmanos alleges
that fraud, blackmail threats by New York hedge fund Elliott
Management and conflicts of interest affected the board's decision
to sell out to private equity firm Thoma Bravo for $2.5 billion,
or $10.92 per share a year ago. Karmanos complains that the deal
was unfair and undervalued Compuware, which had rejected a 2012
offer for $11 per share. The suit also includes Karmanos' four
minor children.

The Compuware sale already is the subject of a class-action suit
with a pending settlement, but Karmanos and his children have
opted out of that suit. The settlement offers no money, other than
attorneys fees, and makes disclosures that were revealed before
the sale was completed, said Karmanos' attorney, Sharon Almonrode,
a partner with The Miller Law Firm in Rochester.

"The lawsuit is about the sale of the company, and the fact that
the directors admitted during arbitration that certain members had
been blackmailed by Elliot," Almonrode said. "They didn't report
it to any authorities and they went forward with the merger. All
of that was unbeknownst to Mr. Karmanos at the time."

A Compuware representative said via email that the company doesn't
comment on legal matters.

Elliot Management had acquired shares of Compuware and tried to
engineer an $11 per share takeover bid in 2012. After Karmanos,
72, retired from the board he received a six-year, $600,000 post-
retirement consulting agreement that included an office, stock
options and other perks. Things soured between Karmanos and new
management in May 2012, when Compuware executives canceled two
retirement celebrations for their old boss -- one an all-company
event and the other a widely publicized white-tie gala including
civic leaders.

At an Old Newsboys Goodfellow's breakfast Sept. 20, where Karmanos
was honored as "Goodfellow of the Year," he took CEO Robert Paul
and some board members to task, saying executives were neglecting
their responsibilities to stakeholders in the company beyond
shareholders. "Current management of Compuware needs to get their
head out of their a--, all right, and understand they have more
responsibility than playing some kind of silly game with some
jerks in New York City," Karmanos said.

Compuware terminated the consulting deal. Karmanos sued, charging
breach of contract. An arbitrator awarded Karmanos $16.5 million,
which was upheld in May by Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Daniel
Ryan.

It was during that arbitration hearing, Karmanos' attorneys say,
that details emerged that gave rise to the new suit that charges
fraud and malfeasance in the Compuware sale. Those disclosures
became publicly available after a confidentiality agreement was
lifted in April. After that happened, Karmanos expected attorneys
representing shareholders in the class-action suit awaiting
settlement would pick up on those revelations, but they failed to
investigate, said Kevin O'Shea, the Miller Law attorney who
represented Karmanos in the breach of contract suit.

"The attorneys in the other case didn't do any digging," O'Shea
said. "Mr. Karmanos assumed someone else would pick up the mantle
and run with it. That's what prompted him to consider filing his
own lawsuit."

One person in the class-action settlement has objected to the
settlement, which is being reviewed by Judge Lita Popke in circuit
court. Popke also has been assigned the new fraud suit. Damages in
the new suit could range from a simple payment to a reformation of
the entire sale of Compuware, the attorneys said.

"It's ironic that much of this information was brought out in the
arbitration," O'Shea said. "It never would have come to light if
they hadn't terminated Mr. Karmanos."


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Kirkland Quinoa Salad Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 5, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Other, Other
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10156

Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. is recalling Kirkland Signature brand
Quinoa Salad from the marketplace because of reported illnesses.
Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below.

The following product has been sold from Costco located in
Ancaster, Ontario between October 26 and November 3, 2015.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to a Costco warehouse.

There have been reported illnesses associated with the consumption
of this product.

This recall was triggered by the company. The Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand name   Common name    Size    Code(s) on     UPC
  ----------   -----------    ----    product        ---
                                      ----------
  Kirkland     Quinoa Salad   1.070   Packaged on:   0 00002-
  Signature    (Item/Art.     kg      15/OC/26       73943 4
               0273943)               to 15/NO/03,
                                      inclusive

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/zOOm49


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Loses Set-Top Box Class Action in Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
Truman Lewis, writing for Consumers Affairs, reported that the
cable TV set-top box is increasingly a target of everyone from
streaming video providers to federal regulators, not to mention
agrieved consumers. There are about 97 million premium cable
subscribers in the U.S., so the list of annoyed clients is
potentially quite lengthy.

One group of peeved consumers won a court victory in Oklahoma when
a federal jury awarded them $6.3 million after finding that Cox
Communications had violated federal antitrust laws.

In a class action lawsuit, Richard Healy and other consumers
argued that Cox unfairly forced them to rent its set-top box as a
condition of getting its premium cable TV service. Without the
box, customers couldn't get either Cox's channel guide or its on-
demand video, even if they supplied their own box.

Testimony at the trial indicated that Cox charged $6.99 per month
for the box, which it said cost about $200. At that rate, the
consumers argued, Cox paid for the box in 28 months, leaving it
with more than two and a half years of profit over the expected
five-year lifetime of the box.

A recent congressional study found that consumers are paying more
than $230 million a year to rent set-top boxes and there are
various proposals being floated that would allow consumers to
provide their own box at their own expense.

In its defense, Cox argued that its pricing behavior did not
amount to antitrust, noting that DirecTV and Dish are available to
consumers who don't want to sign up with Cox. It also noted that
TiVO and other companies provide a workable alternative to Cox.

The consumers, however, argued that by it behavior Cox was
strangling competition for set-tp boxes -- rather than for premium
cable service.


CRABBY BILL'S: Servers Sue Over Shared Tips, Lost Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Mitchell, writing for TBO.com, reported that servers and
bartenders at Crabby Bill's restaurant must share their customers'
tips with kitchen employees and buy crab crackers for diners,
according to a federal class-action lawsuit.

Sixteen servers at the popular St. Pete Beach seafood restaurant
have joined in the lawsuit, which maintains the business has
servers and bartenders share tips with employees who should not be
included in the gratuities pool, such as cooks and dishwashers, in
violation of federal and state laws.

Tipped employees are allowed to be paid a lower wage than non-
tipped workers as long as their wages -- after tips are included -
- equal at least the state's minimum wage. The lawsuit, filed in
court, says that because tipped employees had to share those tips
with other employees, money wrongfully was taken from them.

The lawsuit also says servers were required to buy crab crackers
for their customers who want them, a move their attorneys called
bizarre because the establishment is crab-based.

"It's not proper and it's not fair to ask the servers, the hard-
working servers, to pay for the cost of the business," said Ryan
Barack, one of the attorneys who filed the suit.

Because crackers are essential to the operation of the business,
the restaurant should be paying for them, Barack said.

Because of these practices, the servers maintain in their suit,
they were not paid minimum wage for every hour worked.

Requests for comment were referred to Crabby Bill's general
manager, who could not be reached by telephone.

The servers are seeking compensation for lost wages for all tipped
employees who worked at the restaurant in the last five years, the
suit says. The document names Crabby Bill's and manager Garry
Flowers as defendants.

The lawsuit applies only to the Crabby Bill's location in St. Pete
Beach, where some of the servers involved in the case still work.

The lawsuit originally was filed in Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court
but was moved to federal court after it was amended to include
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.


DADE MEDICAL COLLEGE: Sued by Former Workers After Sudden Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bandell, writing for BizJournal.com, reported that a class
action lawsuit was filed in federal court on Nov. 3 on behalf of
former employees of Dade Medical College and the University of
Southernmost Florida after both for-profit schools suddenly shut
down.

Coral Gables attorney Diane P. Perez is representing nine named
plaintiffs and hopes to add the colleges' approximately 400 former
employees to the class action. The lawsuit alleges that the
employees were not given 60 days advance written notice of their
mass termination as required by the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification (WARN) Act.

The former employees want to recover 60 days wages from Dade
Medical College and USMF. Both schools closed on Oct. 30, sending
workers and students home with little guidance. The schools had
campuses in Coral Gables, Miami, Miami Lakes, Homestead,
Hollywood, West Palm Beach and Jacksonville.

Both schools are owned by Ernesto Perez, who on Nov. 3 was charged
with felony campaign finance violations for bundling donations to
politicians through employees. He's working on a plea deal with
prosecutors.

Miami attorney Michael James Corey, who has represented Dade
Medical College in past employment litigation, couldn't be reached
for comment.

Fort Lauderdale employment attorney Brian L. Lerner, who is not
part of the lawsuit, commented that it can be difficult to collect
wages from a company that's insolvent. If the company files for
bankruptcy, the court usually considers 10 percent of the unpaid
wages as secured claims, but money owed to the federal government
would often be paid back first.

Dade Medical College has not filed for bankruptcy.

In terms of defenses, Dade Medical College could try to claim that
it closed due to unforeseen circumstances, but even if that's the
case it should have provided as much advanced notice as possible
to employees once it learned it was in trouble, Lerner said.

It's extremely difficult for employees in a WARN Act case to win
damages against a company's individual owners, Lerner added.


DISTRIBUTION EPICERIE: Recalls Black Olive Pesto Due to Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 4, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Distribution Epicerie C.T.S. Inc.
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10155

  Brand name     Common name  Size   Code(s) on   UPC
  ----------     -----------  ----   product      ---
                                     ----------
  Mediterranean  Black Olive  180 g  All codes    8 005391-
  Classics       Pesto               where milk   211860
  Campagna                           is not
                                     declared on
                                     the label.


EMC: Slapped With Shareholders Class Suit
-----------------------------------------
Kat Hall, writing for The Register, reported that a class action
suit has been launched against EMC by shareholders opposed to the
$67bn (GBP48bn) acquisition of the company by Dell.

The filing was made against EMC in a Massachusetts district court.
No further details of the complaint were available on the court's
filing site.

A suit was brought in a state court in Manhattan, with a
shareholder claiming the deal was the result of a "flawed
process", reported Bloomberg.

An EMC spokeswoman, Katryn McGaughey, and a Dell spokesman, David
Frink, declined to comment to Bloomberg on the suit.

At the time of the deal, EMC chairman and CEO Joe Tucci said: "Our
new company will be exceptionally well-positioned for growth in
the most strategic areas of next generation IT, including digital
transformation, software-defined data centre, converged
infrastructure, hybrid cloud, mobile and security."


EROS INT'L: US Law Firms Launch Investigations
----------------------------------------------
The Times of India reported that U.S. attorneys have started
investigating Eros International Plc, a top Bollywood studio
listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), following
allegations that the company may have issued misleading business
information to the investing public. This could potentially expose
Eros to class action lawsuits.

Three global investor rights law firms Steinmeyer Law, Rosen Law
Firm and Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman issued separate statements
about investigations concerning whether Eros and some of its
officers and/or directors have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The development comes even as Eros shares, listed both in New York
and in Mumbai, continued to slide over the past week. Eros plunged
24% on the NYSE to close at just over $11, down from a high of $39
in August. On Indian bourses, the stock crashed 35% in five days
to close at Rs 278 on Friday. Eros has been battling allegations
of financial misreporting. The company has issued denials and
reassured investors about its strong business fundamentals. A
selloff gathered momentum after Wells Fargo analysts expressed
concerns over mounting trade receivables from UAE, among others.

Last Friday, the investment blog Alpha Exposure published a report
stating that the company's earnings are "significantly
overstating" the economic reality of its business model due to
"aggressive accounting practices". The subsidiary financials of
Eros revealed a lack of free cash flow and the company has
"enriched its controlling family at the expense of shareholders
through a series of related party transactions", the report said.
Citron Research, an online stock commentary website known for
exposures on US and Chinese corporations, backed the blog, sending
the Eros stock down almost 30% intraday in New York on Friday.

Eros did not respond to queries on the moves by attorneys to
investigate the company. However, after the Wells Fargo report,
Eros in a statement issued last week had said, "Our Q1 results
have been strong and nothing has materially changed since then. We
will be announcing what we expect to be strong second quarter
results in the first half of November."


ETSY INC: Securities Class Suit Not Removable Under SLUSA
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Hathorn, Esq. -- jhathorn@cfjblaw.com -- and Ben Seessel,
Esq. -- bseessel@cfjblaw.com -- at Carlton Fields Jorden Burt --
in an article for JD Supra, wrote that the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California recently clarified
the criteria for removal of a securities class action filed in
state court under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sections
77a, et seq. (the "Securities Act").

Under the Securities Act's anti-removal provision, state and
federal courts generally have concurrent jurisdiction over
Securities Act claims, but a Securities Act claim initially filed
in state court cannot be removed to federal court. An exception to
this rule was created with the 1998 enactment of the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), which amended the
Securities Act to make certain types of securities class actions
removable to federal court, and to preclude altogether class
actions based on state law claims involving either (1) an untrue
statement or omission of a material fact in connection with the
purchase or sale of a covered security, or (2) the defendant's use
or employment of any manipulative or deceptive device or
contrivance in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered
security. Courts have differed in their interpretations of the
Securities Act's anti-removal rule as amended by SLUSA.

In this case, a class action was commenced in California state
court against Etsy, Inc., its directors, and corporate entities
that served as underwriters (Etsy) in connection with Etsy's
initial public offering. The complaint alleged violations of the
Securities Act by Etsy. Etsy removed to federal court, and the
plaintiff filed a motion to remand.

The issue presented to the district court was whether the
Securities Act, as amended by SLUSA, prohibits the removal of a
securities fraud class action involving claims only under the
federal Securities Act, and not under state law.

In support of his motion to remand, the plaintiff argued that the
SLUSA amendments to the Securities Act make only class actions
based on state law claims (as opposed to Securities Act claims)
removable, and that state court actions alleging only Securities
Act claims-such as the class action he filed-still may not be
removed.

In opposition to the plaintiff's motion to remand, Etsy argued
that SLUSA stripped state courts of jurisdiction over class
actions arising under the Securities Act, and that the anti-
removal provision therefore does not apply because it only bars
removal of an action originally brought in a state court that has
subject matter jurisdiction in the first instance.

Acknowledging that the disputed provisions of the amended
Securities Act are not a model of clarity, the district court
adopted what it characterized as an "increasing majority" view
among district courts within the Ninth Circuit -- that only
covered class actions based on state law can be removed to federal
court, and only for the purpose of dismissing the precluded state
law claims as required by the statute. The court stated that this
view is also consistent with the Ninth Circuit's interpretation in
its 2009 opinion in Madden v. Cowen & Co.:

To prevent actions precluded by SLUSA from being litigated in
state court, SLUSA authorizes defendants to remove such actions to
federal court, effectively ensuring that federal courts will have
the opportunity to determine whether a state action is precluded.
As the Supreme Court has explained [in Kircher v. Putnam Funds Tr.
(2006)], any suit removable under SLUSA's removal provision, Sec
77p(c), is precluded under SLUSA's preclusion provision, Sec
77p(b), and any suit not precluded is not removable. . . .

[If a federal court finds that an action is not precluded,] it has
no jurisdiction to touch the case on the merits, and the proper
course is to remand to the state court that can deal with it.

Beyond the statute's narrow exception allowing federal courts to
dismiss precluded state law class actions, there is nothing to
suggest that SLUSA created any other basis for removal.  Because
the plaintiff did not even allege any state law claims, the
district court concluded that the removal of the plaintiff's
action was prohibited by the statute, and accordingly granted the
plaintiff's motion to remand.


FACEBOOK INC: Court Dismisses Potential $15B Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a
federal judge dismissed a potential $15 billion class action filed
against Facebook for allegedly secretly tracking the Internet
activity of its users after they log off.

Judge Edward Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, dismissed the claims
against the social network. The judge concluded in his Oct. 23
order that the plaintiffs in the case failed to "adequately
connect" the value of the data collected by Facebook "to a
realistic economic harm or loss."

"The court accepts as true Plaintiffs' ascription of some degree
of intrinsic value to their personal information for this motion.
But what Plaintiffs have failed to do is adequately connect this
value to a realistic economic harm or loss that is attributable to
Facebook's alleged conduct," Davila wrote in his 19-page order
granting Facebook's motion to dismiss.

"In other words, Plaintiffs have not shown, for the purposes of
Article III standing, that they personally lost the opportunity to
sell their information or that the value of their information was
somehow diminished after it was collected by Facebook."

The consolidated, multi-district lawsuit against Facebook, brought
by and on behalf of individuals with active Facebook accounts from
May 27, 2010 through Sept. 26, 2011, sought in excess of $15
billion in damages and injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs Perrin Davis, Cynthia Quinn, Brian Lentz and Matthew
Vickery, each of whom had an active account during the entire
class period, allege Facebook tracked and stored their post-logout
Internet usage using "cookies," which Facebook had embedded in
their computers' browsers.

A "cookie" is a small text file that a server creates and sends to
a browser, which then stores the file in a particular directory on
an individual's computer. A cookie contains a limited amount of
information, which can relate to the browser or to a specific
individual.

The class alleged Facebook's conduct violated the Wiretap Act by
monitoring their online activity while they weren't logged on, and
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Davila, in his order, concluded Facebook's arguments are
"meritorious."

"Unlike other data privacy cases, Plaintiffs have alleged the
existence of a limited market for their browsing histories. That
allegation, however, is still not enough to establish a qualifying
injury in fact," he wrote.

As pled, the consolidated class action complaint only alludes to
injury that is "conjectural or hypothetical," the judge said.

"Since Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Facebook's conduct
resulted in some concrete and particularized harm, they have not
articulated a cognizable basis for standing," Davila wrote.

However, the court, in its decision, gave the plaintiffs until
Nov. 30 to revise their claims, including invasion of privacy and
alleged violations of the Wiretap Act.

A case management conference has been set for January.

A spokesperson for Facebook said in an email that it is "pleased
with the court's ruling."


FARMERS INSURANCE: Female Attorneys Seek Class Status of Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Don Jergler, writing for Insurance Journal, reported that an
attorney representing a woman suing Farmers Insurance for
discriminatory practices filed a motion in mid-October seeking
class action status in a suit she says could potentially encompass
300 female attorneys.

The attorney also added five new women to the suit, bringing the
total to nine former or current Farmers attorneys involved in the
case.

Lori Andrus of Andrus Anderson LLP and Lori Costanzo of the
Costanzo Law Firm are representing the plaintiffs.

Andrus is seeking to notify all female attorneys who worked for
the Los Angeles-based carrier from June 8, 2012, until now of the
option to opt-in to the class action suit.

"If we win that motion we?re going to send notice out to all the
female attorneys across the country to opt-in," Andrus said.

According to Andrus, Farmers has employed more than 800 attorneys
over the last few years, roughly 300 of whom have been women.

"We think it?ll be hundreds of women," she said.

The suit accuses Farmers of unlawfully paying its female attorney-
employees significantly lower wages than male attorneys doing the
same work.

The suit states: "Farmers does not reward its female attorneys
equally compared to their male counterparts performing equal work.
Instead, Farmers systematically pays female attorneys less than
similarly-situated male attorneys."

Not only are male attorneys paid more, but they are also routinely
given higher profile work assignments, more frequent raises and
promotions and are recognized for their accomplishments while
female attorneys are not, according to the suit.

"In general, Farmers advances the careers of its male attorneys
more quickly while treating its female attorneys more like support
staff," the suit states.

A Farmers spokesman reached for a response to the allegations made
in the suit declined to comment.

This is not the first time a carrier has been sued by female
employees. A settlement in 1992 was made in a broad ranging, and
long-fought a sex discrimination case against State Farm Insurance
Co. for a reported $157 million.

The lone plaintiff on the Farmers suit was originally Lynne
Coates, who Andrus said was paid less than male counterparts who
had "decades less" experience that her.

Three women opted-in on the suit in late summer. They are Angela
Storey, who worked at Farmers for eight years, and current
employees Keever Rhodes, who has worked at Farmers for 13 years,
and Sandra Carter, a Farmers' employee for 17 years.

Former employees also added to the suit are: Michele Morgan,
Chiquita Hartman, Serena Neves, Karen Wasson and Stephanie
Torigian.

"Companies that pay women less than male counterparts are
basically getting cheap labor," Andrus said.

Andrus argued that not only have those women been cheated out of
years of wages, but other benefits that are wage-based, such as
yearly bonuses, retirement and Social Security.

"So it really can build up," Andrus said.

The case was filed as a proposed class action in April, and the
filing of the recent motion seeks to have U.S. District Judge Lucy
Koh certify the plaintiffs' Equal Pay Act claims.

Andrus said she plans to call in a labor economist to perform what
she called a multiple regression analysis, which she said will
isolate all compensation factors besides gender -- education,
geographic location, years on job -- to figure out what gap
remains and calculate the damages that will be sought.

"According to our statistics, the only reason is gender," Andrus
said of the alleged pay discrepancy.

A protective order in the case prevents the pay of those involved
from being made public.

According to the suit, paying female attorneys less than male
counterparts has been the practice of Farmers since the 1970s.

The suit cites a previous lawsuit, this one brought by the
Secretary of Labor against Farmers for unequal pay in the mid-
1970s in Marshall v. Farmers Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 75-63-C2,
in the U.S. District Court of Kansas.

That suit found Farmers' salary policy to be discriminatory by
excluding women from promotion, among other things.

According to the April suit, on Aug. 17, 2014, Coates filed a
discrimination complaint with the California Department of Fair
Employment and Housing, and on Aug. 21 the DFEH issued a right to
sue notice. On Sept. 10, 2014, Coates filed a charge of
discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission alleging discrimination and retaliation on the basis of
sex. She received a right to sue notice from the EEOC on April 15.


GEO GROUP: Class Action Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed in New York federal court claims The
GEO Group, Inc. and their background screening provider violated
the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) during criminal
background checks of job applicants, the law firm Outten & Golden
LLP announced.

Filed on behalf of plaintiff Eric Keels and similarly situated
applicants for employment with GEO Group, the class action lawsuit
claims GEO Group and their background screening provider failed to
comply with FCRA notice requirements before taking adverse actions
against job applicants.

The FCRA requires an employer taking an "adverse action" against a
job applicant based on information in a background check report to
first provide a "pre-adverse action" notice to the applicant that
includes a copy of the report and "A Summary of Your Rights Under
the FCRA."

In addition, the complaint claims that the background screening
provider failed to notify job applicants when furnishing GEO Group
with negative background check reports and to follow strict
procedures to ensure the accuracy and completeness of those
background check reports.

Enacted in 1970, the FCRA promotes the accuracy, fairness, and
privacy of consumer information contained in background check
reports, including protecting consumers from the willful and
negligent inclusion of inaccurate information in their reports.
Keels, who had an employment offer with GEO Group rescinded based
on a background check report, said in the announcement that he
hopes to ensure that GEO Group and the screening firm follow the
law "so that people who want to come work for GEO Group have a
fair chance."

According to its website, The GEO Group is the world's leading
provider of correctional, detention, and community reentry
services with 20,500 employees around the globe. A copy of the
class action lawsuit is available at
www.outtengolden.com/content/pdf/geo-group-complaint.pdf.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) reminds readers that
allegations made in FCRA class action lawsuits are not proof that
a business violated any law, rule, or regulation. To learn about
ESR's screening services, please call toll free 888.999.4474 or
visit www.esrcheck.com/sales


GEORGIA: High Court to Tackle Racial Bias in Jury Selecion
----------------------------------------------------------
TribLive.com reported that the original jury pool for Timothy
Foster's 1987 murder trial in Rome, Ga., included 10 blacks among
95 potential jurors. During the selection process, prosecutors
highlighted their names, circled the word "black" on their
questionnaires and added handy notations such as "B#1" and "B#2."

After more than half the pool was excused for specific reasons,
each side was allowed to make a set number of additional strikes -
- as long as it wasn't because of race or gender. On a sheet they
labeled "definite NO's," prosecutors listed the five remaining
black prospects on top, and they ranked them in case "it comes
down to having to pick one of the black jurors."

Foster, who is black, was swiftly convicted of murdering an
elderly white woman. At sentencing, the prosecutor urged the all-
white jury to impose death in order to "deter other people out
there in the projects" -- where 90 percent of the residents were
black.

Foster's conviction and death sentence will go on trial Monday at
the Supreme Court -- and so, too, the process by which judges
consider claims of racial discrimination in jury selection.

The case is important on two levels. If the justices find that
Foster's constitutional rights were violated and instruct that he
be given a new trial, the ruling could affect the way prosecutors,
defense attorneys and trial judges handle jury selection. And
because Foster received a death sentence, it could fuel concerns
voiced by two justices that the death penalty itself may be
unconstitutional -- in this case because of racial bias.

In capital punishment cases, where jury selection can take almost
as long as the trial itself, "the racial diversity of the jury is
everything," says Stephen Bright, Foster's lawyer at the Southern
Center for Human Rights.

Since the high court upheld a controversial form of lethal
injection four months ago, eight executions have gone forward in
five states -- Texas, Missouri, Georgia, Virginia and Florida --
and two more are scheduled this year. Dozens of others have been
delayed, including all those scheduled in Arkansas, Ohio and
Oklahoma -- the state that won the case in June -- because of
continuing doubts about the method of execution.

Foster's case raises another concern about the death penalty:
racial discrimination in its application and, in particular, in
jury selection. Despite the Supreme Court's 1986 ruling in Batson
v. Kentucky that said prosecutors cannot have jurors dismissed
because of their race, civil rights groups contend the practice
still exists.

"I think the court is upset, and that's why they keep taking these
cases, because it does persist," says Christina Swarns, director
of litigation at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. As
a result, she says, "it undermines confidence in the outcomes that
the jury actually produces."

A new study by the anti-death-penalty group Reprieve Australia
showed that prosecutors in Caddo Parish, La., struck would-be
jurors who were black three times as often as others. In 200
verdicts over a 10-year period ending in 2012, juries with fewer
than three blacks did not acquit any defendants. When five or more
blacks participated, the acquittal rate was 19 percent.

Another study in North Carolina in 2012 found blacks were twice as
likely to be struck from juries by prosecutors. And in Houston
County, Ala., from 2005-09, prosecutors removed 80 percent of
blacks qualified for jury duty, producing juries with either one
black or none at all.

Georgia officials accuse Foster's lawyers of acting on "unfounded
speculation." Their Supreme Court brief argues that the
prosecution's notes, which the defense gained through a public
records request, are "perfectly consistent with conscientious,
non-discriminatory prosecutors preparing to rebut a defense
challenge to the array of the jury and a pretrial Batson challenge
to any black prospective juror that may be peremptorily struck."


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Suit Seek Damages Over Zofran Drug
-------------------------------------------------------
Julia Mitchell & Matthew Mitchell, individually and on behalf of
their Son, E.J.M., a minor, and all others similarly-situated v.
GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-01924 (N.D. Ala., October
29, 2015), seek compensatory and punitive damages, equitable
relief, and such other relief deemed just and proper arising from
the injuries to E.J.M. as a result of her prenatal exposures to
the generic bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran,
also known as ondansetron.

The Plaintiffs allege that as a result of GSK's nationwide
fraudulent marketing campaign, Zofran was placed into the hands of
unsuspecting pregnant women and in the 2000s became the number one
most prescribed drug for treating morning sickness in the United
States. Zofran had never been studied in pregnant women, much less
shown to be a safe and effective treatment for pregnancy-related
nausea.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC focuses on discovering, developing, and
delivering medicines, vaccines, and other healthcare products for
customers in the United States. It offers prescription medicines
that treat various diseases, including cancer, HIV/AIDS,
depression, diabetes, high blood pressure, herpes, asthma,
migraine, and heart diseases, as well as stomach and skin
problems, infections, and flu. The company also provides vaccines
for children and adults; and over-the-counter products.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Bobby J. Bell, Jr., Esq.
      HOLLIS, WRIGHT, CLAY & VAIL, P.C.
      2201 Morris Avenue
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 324-3600
      Fax: (205) 324-3636
      E-mail: bob@hollis-wright.com


GONZALEZ & TAPANESE: "Jaliper" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Jaliper and Yadil Toledo, and all others similarly situated
v. Gonzalez & Tapanese Foods Inc. dba La Fe Foods and Juan Carlos
Pena, Case No. 2:15-cv-07771 (D.N.J., October 29, 2015), seeks to
recover earned but unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the grocery operations business in
the State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Alison Genova, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: agenova@vandallp.com


GOOGLE: Sued by Delivery Service Driver Over Status Question
------------------------------------------------------------
David McCabe, writing for The Hill, reported that a driver for
Google?s local delivery service is suing the company over her
status as an independent contractor, bringing the tech giant into
a contentious national debate over labor in the on-demand economy.

The proposed class action lawsuit was filed by driver Anna Coorey
in Suffolk County Superior Court in Massachusetts, Reuters
reported.

In the suit, Coorey alleges that she was misclassified as an
independent contractor, rather than an employee, while driving for
Google Express. Employees get more benefits and protections than
contractors, and Coorey is asking for overtime pay and
reimbursements for expenses.

The legal line between employee and contractor can be a fine one
contingent on the level of control that an employer has over a
worker.

Coorey, who is employed through an agency, reportedly claims in
her suit that she is required to wear a Google Express uniform and
must accept every delivery request while she is working.

Google Express offers delivery from local stores and is the
company's play into the growing on-demand delivery space.

The lawsuit, filed days after a similar one against Amazon, brings
Google into a legal battle nationwide over the status of workers
for on-demand economy services, including rideshare rivals Uber
and Lyft.

Labor activists argue that the companies should provide a stronger
safety net for their employees, possibly by classifying them as
employees or, if lawmakers are able, creating a third class for
workers.

The issue has gained some prominence in Washington, with Sen. Mark
Warner (D-Va.) calling for legislation that builds safety net
functions for workers in the on-demand economy.

The issue is winding itself through the legal system. Uber and
Lyft both face lawsuits in federal court in California, and a
judge has said that many cases against Uber may proceed as a
class-action suit. But the suits against Google and Amazon bring
more established companies directly into the battle over what
workers are owed.


HCA HOLDINGS: To Settle Shareholder Class-Action Suit For $215MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ayla Ellison, writing for Beckers Hospital Review, reported that
HCA Holdings has entered into a preliminary agreement to pay $215
million to settle allegations the hospital giant concealed
negative financial information from investors before its $4.35
billion initial public offering in March 2011.

HCA had a $30 IPO price, and by October 2011, when the shareholder
lawsuit was filed, HCA's share price had fallen below $19.

In their lawsuit, the shareholders claimed HCA concealed
unfavorable trends in Medicare and Medicaid revenue. The
shareholders further alleged HCA accounted improperly for a 2006
reorganization and a 2010 restructuring.

Although HCA opposed the request for class certification in the
case by arguing investors had many opportunities to learn more
about HCA before purchasing their shares, a judge disagreed and
certified the class in September 2014.

HCA also announced in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing
that it reached preliminary agreements to settle three shareholder
derivative cases, each of which is also related to the company's
2011 IPO.


ING USA: 3 Classes Certified in "Abbit" Suit
--------------------------------------------
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel granted in part and denied in
part the plaintiff's motion for class certification, appointment
of representative and appointment of class counsel in the case
captioned ERNEST O. ABBIT, on behalf of himself and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ING USA ANNUITY AND
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13CV2310-GPC-
WVG, (S.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Ernest O. Abbit brings this action, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, alleging that Defendants ING
USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company and ING U.S., Inc.
unlawfully target senior citizens by marketing indexed-annuity
contracts that purport to protect retirement savings while hiding
an undisclosed complex embedded derivative structure. Plaintiff
asserts that the design and execution of the derivatives have
caused him and putative class members' harm.

ING opposed Plaintiff's motion.

In his Order dated November 16, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/FOT1Bbfrom Leagle.com, Judge Curiel certified these
classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) as to the
causes of action approved:

     -- The Multi-State Class. All persons or entities, excluding
defendants and their directors, officers, predecessors,
successors, affiliates, agents, co-conspirator and employees, as
well as the immediate family members of such persons, that, when a
resident of either the state of California, Florida, Illinois,
Pennsylvania or Texas, purchased a Secure Index fixed index
annuity contract from ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company
within the applicable statute of limitations.

     -- The California Class. All persons or entities, excluding
defendants and their directors, officers, predecessors,
successors, affiliates, agents, co-conspirator and employees, as
well as the immediate family members of such persons, that, when a
resident of California, purchased a Secure Index fixed index
annuity contract from ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company
within the applicable statute of limitations.

     -- The California Seniors Subclass. All members of the
California Class that were age 65 or older on the date of
purchase, excluding defendants and their directors, officers,
predecessors, successors, affiliates, agents, co-conspirator and
employees, as well as the immediate family members of such
persons.

The Court designates Plaintiff Ernest O. Abbit as class
representative and appoints the Hutton Law Group and Tatro &
Zamoyski, LLP as class counsel.

Timothy J. Tatro, Esq. -- tim@tatrozamoyski.com -- of Tatro &
Zamoyski, LLP and Andrew W. Hutton, Esq. of Hutton Law Group
serves as counsel for Plaintiff Ernest O. Abbit

Christopher T. Wright, Esq. -- cwright@knlh.com -- and David J
Noonan, Esq. -- dnoonan@knlh.com -- of Kirby Noonan Lance and
Hoge, Clark C. Johnson, Esq. -- cjohnson@stites.com -- Joseph L.
Hamilton, Esq. -- jhamilton@stites.com -- and Oluwafunmito P.
Seton, Esq. -- fseton@stites.com -- of Stites & Harbison, PLLC
serve as counsel for Defendant ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance
Company


JACK IN THE BOX: Former Store Manager Files OT Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maya Rajamani, writing for Law360, reported that a former Jack In
The Box store manager hit the restaurant chain with a putative
class action in California state court, claiming he was deprived
of overtime wages despite regularly working more than 72 hours a
week.

Joseph Rico, who says he worked at a Los Angeles Jack In The Box
between February 2014 and July 2015, filed the suit on behalf of
store managers who he claims were misclassified as exempt
employees under California Labor Code so that the chain could pay
them a fixed amount of money and were often asked to fill in for
nonexempt hourly employees who had already worked 40 hours in a
given week so California-based Jack In The Box could minimize
overtime pay.

"Jack In The Box has a policy and practice of misclassifying store
managers as salaried exempt employees," Rico said in his
complaint. "... Jack In The Box had and continues to have a
corporate aversion to paying its employees overtime wages."

The complaint maintains Jack In The Box told Rico that he would be
earning $45,000 a year and working about 47.5 hours per week on
average, but Rico says he regularly worked more than 72 hours, and
sometimes 80 hours, per week, rarely had time to take breaks and
was not compensated for breaks that were missed or interrupted.

On Mondays, for example, Rico started work at 4 a.m., spending the
early hours doing inventory, and then performing nonexempt tasks
like filling orders, working the grill, deep fryer and drive
through, stocking the restaurant and providing janitorial,
custodial, security and repair services, the suit claims.

He says he did not receive a break from work until at least 2
p.m., and even then the break would only be a few minutes long, if
customer flow allowed for it. On most days, Rico says he worked
until 7 p.m. or later.

On Wednesdays and Thursdays, Rico worked from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. and
from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., respectively, spending most of the day
carrying out the same nonexempt tasks he performed on Mondays.
Fridays and Saturdays saw him working from 9 a.m. until anywhere
from 12:30 a.m. to as late as 3:30 a.m., he claims.

On Tuesdays, meanwhile, Rico says he often worked a shift for an
unavailable nonexempt hourly employee, performing only the
employee's regular nonexempt duties, and on Sundays, he often
replaced a nonexempt hourly employee who had worked 40 hours a
week to minimize overtime, performing nonexempt tasks.

He also maintained that store managers did not receive wage
statements, as required by California Labor Code, that they were
not paid the wages they were due if they were terminated or
resigned, and that they had to pay out of pocket for any
restaurant repairs, but were not reimbursed.

In the complaint, Rico seeks compensation, damages, penalties and
interest under the California Labor Code, as well as penalties for
violation of the Unfair Business Act, California Business and
Professions Code, and compensation and penalties under the
California Private Attorneys General Act. He also seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs under the Labor Code and California Code of Civil Procedure.

In May 2014, Jack In The Box escaped a putative class action in
Oregon seeking minimum wage and overtime pay, after a district
judge sided with the company's argument that named plaintiffs
failed to properly file consent for their Fair Labor Standards Act
claims.

Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, an attorney from Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP who represents Rico, said the case is meant
"to vindicate the rights of store managers and employees who we
allege are improperly classified as exempt from overtime."

"Mr. Rico has bravely stepped forward on behalf of store managers
throughout the state of California, in an effort to force Jack In
The Box to conform its pay policies and practices to the law," she
said.

Jack In The Box did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

Rico is represented by Carolyn Hunt Cottrell and Keenan L. Klein
of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP and John F.
Edgar and Alexander T. Ricke of Edgar Law Firm LLC.

Counsel for Jack In The Box was not available.

The case is Joseph Rico, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. Jack in the Box Inc. and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, case number BC599920, in the Superior Court of the
State of California County of Los Angeles.


JP MORGAN: Judge Dismisses Class Claims by Student Loan Borrowers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Insurance reported that the U.S. judge overseeing private
litigation accusing global banks of manipulating the Libor
interest rate benchmark has dismissed class-action claims by
borrowers who alleged that their student loans were
"unconscionable" because lenders manipulated their rates.

In a 68-page decision, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in
Manhattan said it was not "substantively unreasonable" to
incorporate Libor into the floating-rate portions of the
borrowers' loans, given that even sophisticated borrowers thought
it a sufficiently reliable benchmark to use.

Judge Buchwald also said the lawsuits failed to allege that any
manipulation by JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America Corp.,
the two lenders that were sued, increased the plaintiffs' loan
payments.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests
for comment.

Short for London Interbank Offered Rate, Libor underpins hundreds
of trillions of dollars of transactions, and is used to set rates
on credit cards, student loans and mortgages. Banks use it to
determine the cost of borrowing from one another. The rate is
based on submissions by banks that sit on panels.

Investors and regulators have accused big banks of suppressing
Libor during the financial crisis to boost earnings and make their
finances appear healthier.

Judge Buchwald oversees litigation that began in 2011, and accused
16 banks of conspiring to manipulate Libor.

In March 2013, the judge dismissed what she called a "substantial
portion" of the litigation, including federal antitrust claims
justifying triple damages. The decision was her fifth extensive
ruling addressing various claims.

Elsewhere in the decision, Judge Buchwald dismissed claims by
lenders that complained about receiving artificially low interest
payments on money they lent, and mortgagors who said they were
forced to make artificially high payments.


KING CITY, CA: Tentative Deal Reached on Towing Scheme Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Melendez Salinas, writing for Monterey Herald, reported
that A tentative agreement has been reached in a class-action
lawsuit brought against King City by people claiming to be victims
of a car towing scheme.

Details of the agreement won?t be published until the judge signs
off on them, City Attorney Martin Koczanowicz said.

"Everybody is waiting for that," he said.

Jesus Garcia is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit filed in March
2014 against King City and a third of its police department for an
alleged scheme that targeted low-income, economically
disadvantaged people of Latino descent.

Through the scheme, the suit said, mostly Latino drivers would be
stopped under the pretense of minor traffic transgressions and
their cars towed. They would not be allowed to retrieve them until
30 days had passed, and by then storage fees would be so high that
drivers would just give the cars up, paving the way for the towing
company to sell them for a profit.

The lawsuit accuses King City officials of "indifference," as they
should have had policies in place to review whether the traffic
stops and impounds were excessive for the size of the population
and whether those targeted were disproportionately of Latino
origin.

In addition to naming the city as the main defendant, the lawsuit
names former Police Chief Nick Baldiviez, former Acting Chief
Bruce Miller and former officers Bobby Carrillo, Mario Mottu Sr.
and Jaime Andrade. Brian Miller, owner of a company accused of
actually towing cars, was also included in an investigation
launched by the Monterey County District Attorney?s Office that is
still wrapping up in the courts.

Carrillo, who?s accused of masterminding the scheme, is set to
face trial in January.

In October, Baldiviez and Mottu Sr. received three years probation
and some jail time for their role in the transferring of a police
car through fraudulent means. They were not charged with having a
role in the towing scandal.

Attorneys for Garcia estimate the class consists of at least 200
members whose cars were seized, impounded and sold.

Former King City Councilman Carlos Victoria said he was glad to
hear justice was being done.

"They were targeting the Latino community," he said. "Justice is
coming a long way."


LABORATORIOS LEON: Settles Canadian Suit Over Alysena(TM) 28
------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratorios Leon Farma SA has agreed to settle a class action in
which it is alleged that certain packages of the prescription oral
contraceptive, Alysena(TM) 28, contained an insufficient number of
active tablets such that, when used as directed, Alysena(TM) 28
did not perform its intended contraceptive function. Some class
members allege to have had unintended pregnancies, for which they
claim various losses including pain and suffering relating to
pregnancy, the costs of raising children, and loss of mobility.

The settlement seeks to resolve the claims of women who used
Alysena(TM) 28 that was purchased in Canada between November 19th,
2012 and April 15th, 2013, and the biological fathers of children
born to these women after those dates. Packages of Alysena(TM) 28,
which allegedly may have been defective, were recalled in April of
2013.

The settlement must be approved to be binding, and a hearing will
be held at the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in Edmonton on
December 1st, 2015, to permit class members to voice any
objections to the settlement.


LIVWELL INC: Marijuana Industry Hit with First Ever PD Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mishan Wroe, writing for The National Law Review, reported that
the cannabis industry is taking a hit.  The nation's first
cannabis product liability lawsuit was filed in Colorado and
challenges the cannabis industry's production process.

Flores v. LivWell Inc., was filed by two marijuana users alleging
that the fungicide Eagle 20 was intentionally applied to thousands
of marijuana plants at a Denver facility. Plaintiffs Brandan
Flores and Brandie Larrabee are seeking class-action status
contending that LivWell Inc. (LivWell), one of the largest
cannabis growers in the state of Colorado, sold marijuana sprayed
with Eagle 20 to medical and recreational customers without
adequately warning consumers of the risks associated with Eagle
20. Neither plaintiff alleges they were sickened from ingesting
marijuana they purchased at LivWell.

Eagle 20 is a petroleum-based fungicide used to kill mites and
pests that flock to plants. It also allegedly contains a chemical
called Myclobutanil that, when heated, breaks down into hydrogen
cyanide, a known poison. Eagle 20 is approved for vegetation that
is not inhaled, but has been banned by the Colorado Department of
Agriculture for use on plants like tobacco because of its
propensity to release toxic fumes when it is burned. Federal law
does not specifically allow any pesticide to be used on marijuana.

According to the complaint, Flores and Larrabee would not have
purchased the product if they had been warned that it was sprayed
with Eagle 20 and thus could not be heated or inhaled. They seek
money damages for an unspecified amount that they claim they
overspent to buy the marijuana they say should have been less
expensive because of the pesticide.

Plaintiffs argue that although the plants tested within acceptable
limits for vegetation, they did not test within state limits for
tobacco and other plants which are most likely to be inhaled.

In April, because of concerns about the use of potentially
dangerous pesticides such as Eagle 20, Denver's Department of
Environmental Health placed a hold on thousands of marijuana
plants, including approximately 60,000 plants produced by LivWell.
The hold was ultimately lifted after the plants tested for residue
within the state's acceptable limit for vegetation. Plaintiffs
argue that although the plants tested within acceptable limits for
vegetation, they did not test within state limits for tobacco and
other plants which are most likely to be inhaled.

This case raises several novel questions regarding the duty of
marijuana growers to warn customers about potential harms, and
highlights some of the complications brought on by the growing
cannabis industry and regulations applying across products and
markets. The marijuana business is rapidly expanding and new
products often come onto the market. This action may also be the
first of many asking marijuana growers to upgrade their product
safety standards or risk having a product liability lawsuit on
their hands.


LOTO-QUEBEC: Man Who Lost $13.5MM Lotto Jackpot Files Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CTVNews.ca reported that a Quebec man who once lost a $13.5
million lottery jackpot by seven seconds is now trying to launch a
class-action suit against Loto-Quebec over quick pick lottery
tickets.

Joel Ifergan filed a motion to Quebec Superior Court asking for
authorization to begin a class-action lawsuit against the Crown
corporation. In the documents Ifergan alleges when someone
purchases a ticket with randomly-generated numbers those
combination of numbers are subsequently removed from the database
of numbers available to buy. The documents quote testimony by a
Loto-Quebec executive from Ifergan's previous court battle with
the corporation. Denis Daly said all the purchased random
generated combinations are only put back into the system after
three or four draws when the database is "re-shuffled."
Ifergan alleges in the documents that this mean that millions of
possibly winning combinations could be unavailable for those who
do not select their own numbers and instead buy quick pick tickets
by the end of several draws.

He hopes to be authorized to file a lawsuit on behalf of clients
who purchased quick pick tickets sold by Lotto Max and its
predecessor, Super 7, since 2005, with the possibility of
expanding it to other lotteries.

Ifergan said as far as he knows, this system is not in place
elsewhere in Canada, and it amounts to a disadvantage for Quebec
clients who buy quick pick tickets with randomly assigned numbers,
since the "missing" numbers could still be drawn as winners.
"The way it operates puts us the Quebec consumer at a disadvantage
against not only consumers in the rest of Canada, but other Quebec
consumers who pick their own numbers," Ifergan told The Canadian
Press.

Ifergan's lawyer likens the system to "playing cards, but with a
deck that isn't complete."

In an interview, David Bourgoin said the motion was based on
consumer protection laws, and that the missing numbers constitute
"an important fact" that Loto-Quebec did not disclose to buyers.
"Before they buy a ticket, (Loto-Quebec) should have to inform
people that there's a chance that they have no chance of winning,"
he said.

The allegations contained in the documents have not been proven in
court.

In an email, Loto-Quebec spokesman Patrice Lavoie said the
corporation would not comment on the motion filed to "allow the
legal process to follow its course."

Nevertheless, he said Loto-Quebec had won a previous case along
the same lines.

"Loto-Quebec is confident of its position regarding the issue, as
the Appeals Court and Superior Court have sided with the
Corporation in a previous case based on the same allegations," he
wrote.

The class action, if authorized by the courts, would not be the
first time Ifergan takes on Loto-Quebec in court.

On May 23, 2008, Ifergan bought a lottery ticket which turned out
to have the winning numbers -- but because it popped out of the
terminal seven seconds after the 9 p.m. deadline, it was dated for
the following week.

He argued that a delay in Loto-Quebec's computer system caused a
lag in the issuing of the ticket for that night's 27-million
jackpot, and that he should be entitled to half the prize, which
was ultimately claimed by another person.
Ifergan lost in Quebec Superior Court in 2012 and the Quebec Court
of Appeal in 2014. In January of this year, the Supreme Court of
Canada ruled they wouldn't hear his case.


LOUISVILLE GAS: U.S. Court Allows Class Suit to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Ayesha Rascoe, writing for Reuters, reported that a federal
appellate court has ruled that Kentucky residents are not barred
from bringing a lawsuit alleging negligence, nuisance and trespass
against a utility accused of allowing coal ash and other
pollutants from a power plant to blanket nearby homes.

Kentucky landowners, represented by Seattle, Washington-based
Hagens Berman, filed a class action lawsuit against Louisville Gas
& Electric Company in late 2013 over pollution from the company's
Cane Run power plant in southwestern Louisville, Kentucky.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC announces that a lawsuit has been filed against
Marvell Technology Group Ltd. ("Marvell" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq: MRVL) concerning possible violations of federal
securities laws between November 20, 2014 and September 10, 2015.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares are urged to
contact the Firm in advance of the November 10, 2015, lead
plaintiff motion deadline.

To join this class action lawsuit, please contact Brian Lundin,
Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or via email at
brian@lundinlawpc.com, or visit our website at
www.Lundinlawpc.com.

On September 11, 2015, Marvell announced that it was performing an
internal investigation of certain accounting and internal control
issues. Marvell claimed that the investigation comprises a review
of certain revenue recognition issues in the second quarter of
fiscal 2016. Then, on October 26, 2015, Marvell announced that
Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP ("PwC") had resigned as its outside
auditor. PwC questioned whether the Company's management had set a
"tone for effective control" in its resignation. When the truth
reached the investing public, shares dropped sharply causing
investors harm.

No class has been certified in the action. Until a class is
certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You
may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

Lundin Law PC was created by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles.

Contacts
Lundin Law PC
Brian Lundin, Esq.
Telephone: 888-713-1033
Facsimile: 888-713-1125
brian@lundinlaw.com
www.Lundinlawpc.com


MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE: Taking Advantage of Elderly, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
WSBTV.com reported that a local woman filed the lawsuit against
the Moody Bible Institute of Chicago in federal court in Atlanta.

She filed it on behalf of 89-year-old Hazel Turner, who has been
deemed incapacitated by the court.

"She has dementia. She's had memory issues for quite sometime,"
said Lisa Higdon, Turner's caretaker and court-appointed guardian.

Turner is a longtime supporter of the nonprofit. She donated
frequently to the organization.

Higdon says she started getting suspicious in 2013 when an
institute representative began making frequent visits to Turner's
Brookhaven home.

"I asked him specifically not to meet with her about that (her
will/trust) unless we were present," Higdon said.

A spokesperson for the Bible institute emphasized that it is not
unusual for nonprofits to be involved in "planned giving."

According to the documents signed by Turner, the Moody Bible
Institute of Chicago is the trustee of her estate, a beneficiary
and the executor of her will.

"She said, 'What do you mean?' I said, 'Well you signed your
property over to a trust for Moody,' and she said, 'I would never
do that,' and I said, 'You did,'" Higdon said.

"I was pretty furious that someone would take advantage of an
elderly person in her state of mental capacity after I asked them
specifically not to meet with her about that unless we were
present," Higdon said.

"At every state they take a cut, they enrich themselves along the
way," said Jonathan Hawkins, Higdon's attorney.

Higdon filed a proposed class action lawsuit against the Moody
Bible Institute on behalf Hazel Turner.

"We know they've been doing this in the state of Georgia since at
least 1997," Hawkins said.

A spokesperson for the Moody Bible Institute of Chicago issued a
statement saying:

"Moody Bible Institute is a non-profit, accredited institution of
higher education based in Chicago that also includes radio and
publishing ministries. Since our founding by D. L. Moody 130 years
ago, we have trained thousands of men and women to serve as
missionaries, church leaders, as well as founders and leaders of
non-profits and humanitarian-based organizations around the globe.
Because of the generosity of donors, we are able to provide a
biblically based tuition-paid education to our undergraduate
school students in Chicago. We have been made aware of the lawsuit
recently filed in the Northern District of Georgia. A nearly
identical lawsuit filed by the same law firm was recently
dismissed by the Court earlier this year. Like the previous
lawsuit, there is absolutely no merit to the Plaintiff's case and
we intend to vigorously defend against the unfounded allegations
and are confident we will again prevail."

"The Lord said feed my sheep. He didn't say fleece my sheep and
what this looks like is some people fleecing some elderly adults,"
said John Melvin, a deputy Chief Assistant District Attorney for
Cobb County.

Melvin is an expert in crimes against the elderly.

"I know that Moody Bible Institute does some good but that doesn't
mean that everyone working for them is good, they may have some
rogue agents," Melvin said.


MONTGOMERY COUNTRY, NY: Woman Sues Over Strip Searches
------------------------------------------------------
The Leader Herald reported that a Montgomery County woman has
filed a class action lawsuit in state Supreme Court against the
county, Sheriff Michael Amato and Montgomery County Correctional
Facility administrator Michael Franko, alleging the sheriff's
department is doing strip searches that may violate New York State
law.

The complaint was filed on Oct. 13 on behalf of Kathleen Dowe-
Clark.

Dowe-Clark alleges she was strip searched following her arrest for
allegedly not paying a fine out of Amsterdam City Court.

The filing states that after being transported to the Montgomery
County Correctional Facility following her court appearance on
Oct. 13, 2014, Dowe-Clark was allegedly made to remove all of her
clothing, manipulate her breasts and 'squat and cough' to allow
for a visual inspection of her vagina and anus by correctional
facility personnel.

"This strip search caused Ms. Dowe-Clark significant emotional
distress and humiliation," the complaint states.

The complaint, filed by attorney Elmer Robert Keach III, alleges
that such searches are in violation of the New York State
Constitution unless there is a belief "the arrestee is concealing
a weapon or contraband."

The filing states that class action would run from Oct. 13, 2012
to the "date on which Montgomery County is enjoined from, or
otherwise ceases, enforcing its policy, practice and custom of
conducting blanket strip searches on all detainees admitted to the
Montgomery County Correctional Facility."

Dowe-Clark is seeking compensatory damages for herself and members
of the proposed class, a judgment declaring such a strip search
policy unconstitutional and in violation of New York State Law, an
injunction against such searches and monetary awards for attorney
fees and any court costs.

The complaint seeks a jury trial.


NATURAL AMERICAN: Must Change 'Deceptive' Marketing, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lia Eustachewich, writing for New York Post, reported that Natural
American Spirit should snuff out its "deceptive" marketing claims
that its products are "all-natural" and "additive-free," a class-
action lawsuit is demanding.

The papers filed in Manhattan federal court say "reasonable
consumers" are misled to believe the cigarettes are "less
unhealthy" than other brands -- even though the FDA recently
warned in a letter that there's no scientific support to back up
those claims.

The Natural American Spirit smokes also contain ammonia and up to
20 times more freebase nicotine than other brands because of the
chemical, according to court papers.

The suit also blasts the tobacco company for placing a disclaimer
that reads, "No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer
cigarette," on its package where it could easily be overlooked.
"Defendants' deceptive marketing claims overwhelm their
disclaimers," the suit says.

A similar class-action lawsuit was filed in Florida.

A spokesman for Reynolds American, the parent company of Santa Fe
Natural Tobacco Company, which manufactures American Spirit
cigarettes, didn't return messages seeking comment.


NEOPETS INC: Accused for Violating California Business Law
----------------------------------------------------------
Hoang Tran, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a virtual
pet game service is facing a lawsuit over allegations it violated
California business codes.

John Doe, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, filed
a class-action lawsuit on Oct. 27 in the California Central
District Court against Neopets, Inc. for allegedly violating
California's Automatic Renewal Law and California's Unfair
Competition Law, as well as for failure to obtain consumers'
consent and provide acknowledgement of automatic renewal.

The plaintiff alleges that Neopets, which provides a subscription
for its virtual pet and games products/services, made automatic
renewal or continuous service offers to consumers throughout
California, but failed to present the terms in a clear and
conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to the request for
consent to the offer before the subscription or purchasing
agreement was fulfilled. The plaintiff also alleges that the
defendants charged the plaintiff's credit or debit card, or third-
party account without first obtaining the plaintiff's consent. The
plaintiff argues that the defendant failed to provide an
acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous
service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information
regarding how to cancel.

The plaintiff is suing for damages and full restitution in the
amount of the subscription payments already made. He also wants
injunctive relief, attorney costs and any other rewards deemed
just by the court. The plaintiff is represented by Scott J.
Ferrell, Richard H. Hikida, David W. Reid and Victoria C. Knowles
of the office of Newport Trial Group in Newport Beach, California.


NORDSTROM INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth L. Chernof, David J. Weiner and John D. Lombardo, in an
article for Lexology.com, wrote that on October 9, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
denied Nordstrom's motion to dismiss in a class action alleging
that price tags at the retailer's Nordstrom Rack locations were
misleading in violation of California false advertising laws. The
complaint in Branca v. Nordstrom, Inc. alleged that price tags on
clothing sold at Nordstrom Rack locations contained deceptive
"Compare At" prices, which implied that the clothing items were
more deeply discounted than they actually were. In its motion to
dismiss, Nordstrom argued that the plaintiff lacked standing to
represent the class because the class was comprised of people who
had bought items of clothing from Nordstrom Rack that the
plaintiff had not himself purchased. The district court rejected
this argument, reasoning that "the differences across the products
are of little import to the alleged misrepresentations," which
related primarily to the "consistent format of the tags, i.e., the
juxtaposition of two prices, one higher than the other, the term
'Compare At' and a percentage, labeled '% Savings.'" The district
court also noted that "all of the products are marketed to the
same consumers, Nordstrom Rack shoppers."


ONTARIO: Faces $125MM Claim Over Mistreatment of Teens in Jails
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Dubinski, writing for LFPress.com, reported that those are
among the allegations contained in a $125-million, class-action
lawsuit filed against the province for the alleged mistreatment of
children and teens in Ontario's youth jails.

The lead plaintiff, from Windsor, can't be named because he or she
was a minor when they were held at the Genest Detention Centre for
Youth on Oxford Street East in London.

"We are looking for compensation for the victims but also -- and
arguably, more importantly -- we are looking to make sure that
this practice stops," said Jay Strosberg of Sutts, Strosberg LLP,
one of the law firms working on the lawsuit.

The other law firm is Koskie Minsky LLP.

The class action hasn't been certified yet and contains
allegations that have not been tested in court.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Children and Youth Services
said the province is committed to the safety and well-being of
inmates at youth detention facilities.

The youth justice system has undergone a transformation in the
past decade, spokesperson Peter Spadoni said in an emailed
statement. "Across the province, there is a downward trend in the
use of secure isolation in youth justice facilities."

The suit alleges the plaintiff was put in solitary confinement for
long periods at the Genest Centre and subjected to "improper use
of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments," according to
?lawyers.

"We've spoken to a lot of young people, and these are the most
vulnerable people in society. Just the fact that they're involved
in the youth criminal justice system means they likely have
problems, like mental health problems," Strosberg said.

"The things they told us -- they're not allowed to eat with
others, not allowed to go outside . . . Nothing good can come of
it."

Several international organizations have condemned solitary
confinement of young people.

Ontario's advocate for children and youth has called on the
ministry to stop putting kids in solitary confinement for more
than 24 hours.

"An absolute ban on solitary confinement for more than 24 hours is
consistent with the position of the United Nations Special
Rapporteur on Torture," the children's advocate said in an August
report.

The report found young people were put in solitary confinement
anywhere from one minute to 15 days, depending on the facility.

About half the youth interviewed by the children's advocate said
they were denied access to a lawyer.

Ontario's Child and Family Services Act says solitary confinement
should only be used in very particular crisis situations.

The lawsuit alleges the province breached its own policies,
keeping youth in solitary confinement for longer than necessary,
including keeping those under 16 in ?solitary for longer than
eight hours a day or 24 hours a week.

The class for the lawsuit includes all children incarcerated in
Ontario youth jails subject to solitary confinement between Jan.
1, 2007 and now.


PEET'S COFFEE: "Garrett" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Garrett, and all others similarly situated v. Peets Coffee
& Tea, Inc., and Peet's Operating Company, Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-
15990 (Ill. Cir., October 29, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for alleged violation of the Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Trade Practices Acts of the Various States and District
of Columbia, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Defendant, Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc., is a specialty coffee
roaster and retailer, with its principal place of business located
at 1400 Park Avenue, Emeryville, California. Peet's has at least
17 stores in the State of Illinois. Defendant, Peet's Coffee &
Tea, Inc., is the parent of Defendant, Peet's Operating Company,
Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel J. Voelker, Esq.
      VOELKER LITIGATION GROUP
      311 W. Superior St., Ste 500
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Tel: (312) 870-5430
      Fax: (312) 870-5431
      E-mail: dvoelker@voelkerlitigationgroup.com


PEET'S COFFEE: Faces Suit Over Size of French Press Servings
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam H. Callaghan, writing for eater.com, reported that Peet's
Coffee & Tea, on a recent buying spree with acquisitions of
Intelligensia Coffee and Stumptown Coffee, is being sued by a
customer who alleges its French press servings fall short of
advertised volumes. "The lawsuit filed by Robert Garrett in Cook
County Circuit Court alleges that the amount of total coffee in
the press pots is more than 25 percent less than the advertised
volume," the Chicago Tribune reports.

Peet's Chief Marketing Officer Tyler Ricks told the paper the
company "will absolutely look into this," but explained that the
12- and 32-ounce sizes on the menu refers to the press pot, not
the liquid within. Ricks "noted that some water is absorbed by the
grounds during the steeping process. The pots also require room to
plunge after the coffee is steeped, preventing a user from filling
it with water to the brim."

Peet's responded with the following comment:

Our understanding is that this lawsuit pertains to our press pot
offerings. These offerings represent 1/10 of 1 percent of our caf‚
sales. There is no complaint regarding 99.9% of our business. We
are committed to full transparency and integrity with our
customers and to industry best standards for our product labeling
and in-store signage. We are taking the matter seriously and
looking into it in more depth however, we can't comment further at
this time given the now active litigation.

Doesn't Peet's understand the danger of undercaffeinating its
customers? This exchange echoes a class action lawsuit filed
against Subway in 2013 and recently settled, in which plaintiffs
argued the fast food chain's "Footlong" sandwiches only came to 11
inches instead of 12. The company will now measure its sandwiches
to ensure proper length.


PENNSYLVANIA: Mentally Ill in Jail Denied Treatment
---------------------------------------------------
Christopher Moraff, writing for The Daily Beast, reported that
without enough beds in mental facilities, Pennsylvania is forcing
the 'mentally unfit' to stay locked up. One has become borderline
catatonic waiting for help.

On the morning of April 28, a 52-year-old homeless man named
Darryl Warthen was found beaten to death inside his cell at the
Philadelphia Industrial Correctional Center (PICC). His cellmate,
who had arrived the day before to await trial for aggravated
assault, was charged with his murder.

With their defendant now deceased, prosecutors dropped their
charges of burglary and trespassing against Warthen. And his
murder was promptly written off as one more violent act in a
system plagued by them. Except that Warthen had been declared
mentally unfit to stand trial five times since his 2012 arrest,
and on the day he was murdered he was supposed to be 20 miles away
from PICC receiving state-mandated psychiatric treatment. He had
been waiting for a transfer there since September 2014.

The final listing on his docket sheet, dated six days before his
death, states unequivocally: "Defendant is incompetent but in need
of treatment."

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, hundreds of
inmates in the same predicament continue to languish in deplorable
conditions in jails across the state. In October the ACLU filed a
class action suit on behalf of 11 of them who say that the state
is trampling their civil rights by denying them the psychiatric
treatment they've been mandated.

The plaintiffs -- who are all in pretrial detention in jails
across the state -- have been deemed mentally unfit to stand trial
for their crimes and ordered by a court to undergo "competency
restoration treatment" in a medical facility. But Pennsylvania
doesn't have enough beds for them in its network of state
hospitals so many are forced to wait months or even years for a
transfer.

The ACLU say this violates their Fourteenth Amendment right to due
process, as well as the Americans With Disabilities and
Rehabilitation Acts.

The 66-page complaint paints a bleak picture of mental health care
across Pennsylvania's roughly 70 local jails, where on any given
day approximately 10,000 inmates with psychiatric problems are
being held in conditions tailor-bound to make them even sicker.
The inmates named in the suit are unique in that they have yet to
be found guilty of a crime, but they are too ill to stand trial
and too poor to secure bail.

The lead plaintiff in the case -- a homeless man identified by the
pseudonym J.H. -- is a schizophrenic who has been locked up for
nearly a year for stealing candy from a Dollar Store. He's being
held at the Philadelphia Detention Center, the only one of
Philadelphia's six jails with a dedicated unit for inpatient-level
psychiatric care.

However, treatment there is limited to medication management,
which mental health experts with experience in the system told The
Daily Beast is frequently deployed more to control disruptive
behavior than to treat a set of symptoms. Not surprisingly J.H.
has deteriorated considerably during his confinement. His
attorneys say that over 11 months he has gone from a genial and
cooperative inmate to "visibly agitated, hostile and unwilling or
unable to engage in conversation."

A second plaintiff, a woman in her 20s with a history of severe
mental illness, was declared incompetent in November 2014 and
referred to a state hospital. Over the 12 months she's been
waiting for a bed she has stopped talking to her lawyers and is
now reportedly borderline catatonic. According to the complaint,
she sat through one June interview "sucking her thumb, refusing to
make contact and staring blankly."

Defendants include Theodore Dallas, secretary of the Pennsylvania
Department of Human Services, and the state's two designated
Regional Forensic Psychiatric Units approved to accept jail
inmates. One of these is in Norristown -- just outside
Philadelphia -- and the other, Torrance State Hospital, is nearly
300 miles away in western Pennsylvania.

Dallas previously served as Maryland's secretary of Human
Resources under Martin O'Malley, where he oversaw a review of the
state's foster care system following the deaths of two children
under its supervision. He took over the leadership of DHS in
January as a member of incoming governor Tom Wolf's newly
appointed cabinet.

A spokesperson for DHS said that since that time the department
has been working with the courts and other stakeholders to rectify
the "longstanding issues regarding forensic services." She did not
offer any details on the specifics of those efforts, and would not
comment on the litigation.

The ACLU's legal director for Pennsylvania, Witold Walczak, has
his own take on the agency's progress to date.

"The solutions being advanced by DHS are like pissing in the
ocean; they ain't gonna raise the water level," he told The Daily
Beast. "We're not quite sure how the problem got so out of
control, but out of control it is now."
For what it's worth, Dallas and his staff are being called to the
carpet for a problem they had no hand in creating. As in most
states, Pennsylvania's jails are facing an epidemic of untreated
mental illness.

Some experts blame the epidemic of untreated mental illness in
America's jails on the widespread closure of state mental
hospitals since the 1970s. At the start of 2015, just 1,503
psychiatric patients were under state care -- a decline of 50
percent from 2000.

The commonwealth has closed 11 state hospitals since 1980,
transitioning thousands of patients with severe mental illness
from often bleak institutional settings back into the community.

Even before the lights were turned off in these facilities leading
mental health officials were already questioning the long-term
viability of deinstitutionalization. And most criminal justice
experts now draw a link between hospital closures and prison
growth.

Jeff Deeney, a Philadelphia social worker who worked with dual
diagnosis clients during more than six years at Philadelphia's
Drug Court, says that among other things states failed to
establish adequate community care services for newly released
patients.

But while advocates are willing to acknowledge the negative
consequences of deinstitutionalization, few if any would consider
going back to the old way of doing things.

"I support efforts to move people with severe mental illnesses out
of jails and into more appropriate settings as fast as possible,"
said Deeney. "But institutional settings for people with severe
mental health disorders have a poor track record in terms of
human-rights abuses. I'm not confident a newly erected
institutional system would fare any better."

The state operates six state mental hospitals. Until 2010, three
of them were approved for the treatment of patients in criminal
detention. That year, then-Gov. Ed Rendell ordered the closure of
the RFPU at Warren State Hospital in northwest Pennsylvania and
consolidated it with Torrance. Officials said the closure would
save the state $2.3 million in annual costs.

The hospital's board of trustees and several state lawmakers
objected to the plan, citing prison overcrowding and rising mental
illness in the correctional system.

State Rep. Kathy Rapp -- a Republican whose district includes the
hospital -- accused the Rendell administration of "refusing to
fulfill one of its most essential functions of protecting
individuals who cannot take care of themselves," and warned that
the proposal would only succeed in "shifting costs" from the
mental health system to an already overburdened criminal justice
system.

The RFPU at Warren State housed fewer than 30 inmates when it was
closed, and some additional beds were added to Torrance to account
for the consolidation. Even so, Pennsylvania's two forensic units
have the capacity to treat just 236 patients.

This includes not only inmates awaiting trial, but several dozen
who have been convicted of their crimes. According to Walczak it
also includes inmates who are considered too sick to ever stand
trial but have yet to be transferred to a community-based
treatment setting as the law requires.

According to the ACLU, about 200 jail inmates deemed unfit to
stand trial are waiting for one of these beds to open up.

Pennsylvania is not alone in this regard. On Wednesday advocates
in Colorado filed suit accusing state health officials of
violating a 2012 settlement with the federal government requiring
transfer to inpatient competency treatment within 28 days of a
court order.

But the commonwealth is by far the worst offender, with average
wait times of several months. In Philadelphia -- which has the
longest delays in the country -- inmates regularly wait more than
a year for a bed to open up.

One of these inmates is Rudolph Keitt, whose case I reported on
this year for The Daily Beast.

Keitt was shot by police in May after allegedly driving his
vehicle into four police officers. Witnesses say he was suffering
a seizure at the time, and Keitt reportedly has a history of both
physical and mental illness. Keitt was charged with attempted
murder and is being held on $2 million bail.

His attorney, Brian Mildenberg, says Keitt has been declared unfit
to stand trial at three competency hearings since his arrest. An
order has been issued for his transfer to Norristown State
Hospital, but Mildenberg says he was told it could be up to two
years before a bed opens up.

In the meantime Keitt remains housed with the general population
at Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility in Philadelphia, which
lacks the resources to provide inpatient levels of psychiatric
care.


PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL: Loses Bid to Quash Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Canadian Underwriter reported that a Peterborough, Ontario
hospital facing a breach of privacy class action lawsuit, over
improperly accessed medical records, was recently denied leave to
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada

Court records indicate that Erkenraadje Wensvoort received two
notices from Peterborough Regional Health Centre indicating that
the privacy of her personal health information had been breached.

In a proposed class action lawsuit, it was alleged that the
hospital "failed to adequately monitor its staff and implement
policies and systems to prevent improper access to patient
records," wrote Mr. Justice Robert Sharpe, of the Court of Appeal
for Ontario, in a decision against the hospital released in
February, 2015. That allegation has yet to be proven in court.

However, "the hospital acknowledged that the medical records had
been wrongfully and intentionally breached for no lawful purpose
and apologized to all of the patients who had been affected,"
wrote Mr. Justice Mark Edwards, of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, in a decision released in January, 2014. Edwards
dismissed the hospital's motion to strike the statement of claim
and his decision was upheld on appeal.

The hospital had argued that Ontario's Personal Health Information
Protection Act "is an exhaustive code that ousts the jurisdiction
of the Superior Court to entertain any common law claim for
invasion of privacy rights in relation to patient records."

That argument was rejected on appeal. Last April, the hospital
applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which
on Oct. 29 dismissed the hospital's leave application.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking general, punitive and
aggravated damages.

They are alleging "that between 2011 and 2012, approximately 280
patient records of the Hospital were improperly accessed and in
some cases improperly disseminated to unknown third parties,
without the consent of the patient," Justice Edwards noted in
2014. At the time, the case was indexed as Hopkins vs Kay. At the
time, Jessica Hopkins was a representative plaintiff and Andrea
Kay was an individual defendant. The Supreme Court of Canada cited
the case as Peterborough Regional Health Centre, et al. v. Heike
Hesse and Erkenraadje Wensvoort on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, et al.

In his decision released in January, 2014, Justice Edwards
dismissed the hospital's motion to strike the statement of claim.

To strike the statement of claim would require a decision, from
the Court of Appeal for Ontario, ruling that there is no claim for
breach of privacy and that the claim must rest on the provisions
of PHIPA, Justice Edwards ruled.

But the province's appeal court ruled that PHIPA "expressly
contemplates other proceedings in relation to personal health
information."

The proposed lawsuit is based on the tort of "intrusion upon
seclusion," which the Court of Appeal for Ontario recognized
nearly four year ago in its ruling in Jones vs Tsige.

In January 2012, the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in favour
of Sandra Jones, who was suing Winnie Tsige, a co-worker at the
Bank of Montreal. Court records indicate that Tsige -- who was
involved in a relationship with Jones' former husband and wanted
to confirm whether Jones was receiving child support payments --
accessed and reviewed Jones' bank records on 174 occasions in 2006
through 2009.

Jones lawsuit against Tsige was initially dismissed, in March
2011, by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which ruled at the
time that Ontario has no tort of invasion of privacy. That ruling
was overturned on appeal.

In the class action lawsuit against Peterborough Regional Health
Centre, the issue on appeal was whether the plaintiffs should be
"precluded from bringing a common law claim for intrusion upon
seclusion in the Superior Court because PHIPA creates an
exhaustive code."

The hospital argued that the new tort, of intrusion upon
seclusion, "does not apply to the breach of private health
information in Ontario as this is completely and comprehensibly
governed by PHIPA."

The Ontario Hospital Association intervened in support of the
hospital while the Information and Privacy Commissioner intervened
to support the plaintiffs.

"PHIPA's highly discretionary review procedure is tailored to deal
with systemic issues rather than individual complaints," Justice
Sharpe wrote in his decision against the hospital. "Given the
nature of the elements of the common law action, I do not agree
that allowing individuals to pursue common law claims conflicts
with or would undermine the scheme established by PHIPA, nor am I
satisfied that the review procedure established by PHIPA ensures
that individuals who complain about their privacy in personal
health information will have effective redress. There is no basis
to exclude the jurisdiction of the Superior Court from
entertaining a common law claim for breach of privacy and, given
the absence of an effective dispute resolution procedure, there is
no merit to the suggestion that the court should decline to
exercise its jurisdiction."

The other two judges hearing Peterborough Regional Health Centre's
appeal -- Madam Justice Katherine van Rensburg and Madam Justice
Gladys I. Pardu -- agreed.

PHIPA gives Ontario's privacy commissioner the power to
investigate complaints and issue orders, against any person whose
activities the commissioner has reviewed.

The law "contemplates that any person affected by an order of the
Commissioner can appeal to the Divisional Court," Justice Edwards
noted. "Only once the Commissioner has made an order under PHIPA
that has become final may a person affected by the order commence
a proceeding in the Superior Court of Justice for damages for
'actual harm' that the person has suffered as a result of a
contravention of PHIPA or its regulations."

However, those limits "should be contrasted with a potential claim
for damages based on the common law tort of breach of privacy,"
Justice Edwards added, noting that the Jones vs Tsige ruling
established that "proof of harm to a recognized economic interest
is not an element of the cause of action for a breach of privacy."

A claim "that someone can pursue under PHIPA is quite different
from the claim that can be brought for breach of privacy at common
law," he added.


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Overseers Not Covered Employees, Judge Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter partially affirmed the summary
judgment rulings in the appellate case captioned Mathew Grubel,
Eric Tomlinson, Frances Byers, Carol M. Coccagna, and the class
they represent, Appellants, v. City of Philadelphia and County
Board of Elections, No. 1307 C.D. 2014, (Pa. Cmmw.).

Grubel et al. sued the City in November 2008. In the amended
complaint, they alleged that the City failed to pay the minimum
hourly wage of at least 150% of the federal minimum wage in
violation of Title 17 of the Philadelphia Code ("Contracts and
Procurement"), Section 17-1305 of Chapter 17-1300 ("Philadelphia
21st Century Minimum Wage and Benefits Standard") (Minimum Wage
Ordinance), enacted on May 26, 2005. Appellants sought an award of
back pay in the amount of the difference between the minimum wage
required by the Minimum Wage Ordinance and the compensation they
already received. They also asked the court to certify the action
as a class action.

Grubel et al. are two judges of election and two minority
inspectors of election for the Board of Elections (Board)1 of the
City of Philadelphia (City); and the certified class consisting of
judges of elections, majority inspectors, minority inspectors,
clerks, machine operators, overseers and bilingual interpreters
who have served in the elections since November 8, 2005 or will
serve in the future elections.  In their appeal, they challenge
the orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
granting the motion of the City and the Board for summary
judgment, denying their own motion for summary judgment, and
dismissing their action with prejudice.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated November 30, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/jgkZkhfrom Leagle.com, Judge Leadbetter ruled that
the orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County are
affirmed in part and reversed in part. Summary judgment is
affirmed as to judges of election, inspectors of election, machine
operators, clerks, and overseers. Summary judgment is reversed as
to the claims of bilingual interpreters from November 8, 2005
through May 20, 2013 and this matter is remanded for further
proceedings. Summary judgment in favor of the City is reversed as
to bilingual interpreters participating in elections between
November 2005 and May of 2013 and this matter is remanded for
further proceedings. Otherwise, the judgment of the court of
common pleas is affirmed. The Election Code preempts the Minimum
Wage Ordinance with regard to the compensation of the Election
Officers and, therefore, summary judgment in favor of the City is
affirmed for these class members.

"We conclude that overseers are not covered employees as defined
by the Minimum Wage Ordinance and summary judgment in favor of the
City is affirmed as to the overseers," Judge Leadbetter said.
"Finally, we conclude that although the Election Code does not
preempt the Minimum Wage Ordinance with regard to bilingual
interpreters, judicial estoppel does not bar the grant of waiver
with regard to bilingual interpreters for elections held after May
21, 2013."


PRIVATE LABEL: "DeVries" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------
John O. DeVries, and all others similarly situated v. Private
Label Nutraceuticals, LLC, Avexyl Pharma, Erikson
Pharmaceuticals, Bjarte Rene and Melissa Rene, Case No. 1:15-cv-
03794 (N.D. Ga., October 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a wholesale distribution business
selling nutritional supplements to customers located across the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tyler B. Kaspers, Esq.
      KASPERS & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES, LLC
      75 14th Street, Suite 2130
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Tel: (404) 888-3740
      Fax: (404) 888-3737
      E-mail: tyler@kasperslaw.com


PUBLIC STORAGE: "Martinez-Santiago" Case Wins Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Jerome B. Simandle granted Plaintiff's motion
for class certification in the case captioned JACKELINE MARTINEZ-
SANTIAGO, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PUBLIC STORAGE, Defendant, Civil No. 14-
302 (JBS/AMD), D.N.J.

The action is a putative class action brought under the Truth in
Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA), on behalf of
persons in New Jersey who signed lease agreements with Defendant
Public Storage for a storage unit since at least 2007. The TCCWNA
makes it unlawful for a lessor to offer or enter into a written
consumer contract "which includes any provision that violates any
clearly established legal right of a consumer or responsibility of
a . . . lessor" as established by state or federal law at the time
the contract is signed.

Plaintiff Jackeline Martinez-Santiago filed motion for class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3). The principal issues are whether Plaintiff can satisfy
the requirements of commonality and predominance under Rule 23 by
identifying the plaintiffs whose "clearly established legal
rights" were violated at the time they entered into the Public
Storage contract; and whether the superiority requirement has been
met.

In his Opinion dated November 16, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/evThecfrom Leagle.com, Judge Simandle granted the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court concluded
that the proposed class meets the standard for class certification
under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) and will grant Plaintiff's motion to
certify the class. The accompanying Order will be entered defining
the class, identifying common questions of law and fact,
appointing class counsel, and specifying a deadline for submitting
a motion for class notification.

Andrew P. Bell, Esq. -- info@lockslaw.com -- James A. Barry, Esq.
-- info@lockslaw.com -- and Michael A. Galpern, Esq. --
info@lockslaw.com -- of LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC and Charles N. Riley,
Esq. of RILEY & SHAINE serve as counsel for Plaintiff

Christopher N. Tomlin, Esq. -- TOMLIN@BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- and John
B. Kearney, Esq. -- Kearney@ballardspahr.com -- of BALLARD SPAHR
LLP and John W. Keker, Esq. -- jkeker@kvn.com -- Ashok Ramani,
Esq. -- aramani@kvn.com -- Quyen L. Ta, Esq. -- qta@kvn.com -- and
Reid P. Mullen, Esq. -- rmullen@kvn.com -- of  KEKER & VAN NEST
LLP; James B. Hardin, Esq. and Ward Lott, Esq., of NEWPORT TRIAL
GROUP serve as counsel for Defendant


RHODE ISLAND: Law Barring Sex Offenders Near Schools Has TRO
------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Fecteau, writing for Turnto10.com, reported that a federal
judge has granted a temporary restraining order on a change to a
state law governing where registered sex offenders can live.

The change to the law aims to protect children by increasing the
distance offenders have to live from schools.

The existing law requires all registered sex offenders to live 300
feet from a school. The change would require Level III offenders,
those who are most likely to reoffend, to live at least 1,000 feet
from schools.

"I would have to live in my car," John Priest said. "I can't
afford the rent right now."

Priest is a registered Level III offender who said he lives with
family members in Woonsocket.

Before that, he told NBC 10, he was homeless.

"I didn't want to be homeless ever again and right now I really
can't afford the rent," Priest said. "I've got other things I'm
trying to take care of in my life."

Priest said he was told he would have to move to comply with the
changes.

Now he has a little extra time to figure it out because of the
temporary restraining order granted in federal court.

"We're certainly happy that these individuals aren't going into
the weekend faced with losing their homes," Hillary Davis, policy
associate at the Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union,
said.

The ACLU said the process isn't over.

When the restraining order expires, there will be more hearings
and discussions about the law.

"It just gives a little cushion, a little bit of breathing room
for everybody to come together and determine the law's validity,"
Davis said.

For offenders like Priest, the law could put them back on the
streets.

"If I was going to do something crazy again I have had plenty of
opportunity to, and I don't want to put anybody in harm's way,"
Priest said. "I just think everybody deserves a second chance,
even with a bad crime."

The ACLU said it has five plaintiffs in this lawsuit, but since it
is a class action suit, any Level III offender who was told to
move would be covered.


RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Jail Health Care Lawsuit Settled
------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Horseman, writing for The Press Enterprise, reported that
Riverside County has tentatively settled litigation that
challenged the quality of medical and mental health care for
inmates in the county's five jails.

But how much it will cost taxpayers to improve that care is
unknown, although the expense is likely to add millions of dollars
a year to an already-squeezed county budget.

Officials announced the settlement.  The county Board of
Supervisors agreed to the terms during a closed-session meeting.

The jails are operated by the Sheriff's Department.

"We don't know the exact effect because the costs have not been
determined," Capt. David Teets said. "We don't have a lot of
information right now."

The proposed settlement, which needs court approval, ends
litigation filed in 2013 by the Berkeley-based Prison Law Office
in conjunction with a San Francisco law firm.

The civil rights class-action lawsuit, filed in federal court on
behalf of four county jail inmates, sought a court order to
correct what plaintiffs described as inadequate health care for
the county's roughly 3,900 inmates.

One inmate alleged he had to wait two months to see a doctor.
Another said delays led to scar tissue build-up that prevented the
safe removal of a temporary filter supplying blood to her heart.

A 2012 county grand jury report also criticized jail health care.
A lack of staffing hindered inmates' access to legally entitled
mental health services, the jury found.

Prison Law Office has sued counties throughout California seeking
jail improvements. It was one of the firms that sued the
California prison system regarding crowded conditions.

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a court order that forced
California to reduce its prison population by 33,000. That led to
realignment, which shifted responsibility for certain low-level,
nonviolent offenders from the state to counties.

Realignment sent inmates who previously would have done time in
state prison to county jails. Riverside County's jails were not
designed to handle inmates with multiyear sentences, and the
county was already under a federal court order to ease crowding.

"The aging jail population and incidence of mental illness in
detention facilities have complicated efforts to provide services
in jails statewide," the county's news release read.

The county lost more than $200 million in revenue due to the Great
Recession of 2007-08, and that hurt detention health and other
programs, the news release read.

To comply with the crowding court order, the county has released
thousands of inmates early. A $330 million project will add more
than 1,200 beds to the Indio jail, and officials are seeking up to
$80 million in state funding to renovate the Larry D. Smith
Correctional Facility in Banning and add space for educational
programs.

Lawyers for the county sought to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the
inmates who complained about care did not take prescribed medicine
and failed to attend medical appointments while in custody. The
proposed settlement arose from mediation sessions between the
parties, the county's news release read.

Settlement terms call for increased staffing, telemedicine -- the
remote diagnosis and treatment of patients through communications
technology -- and telepsychiatry to expand jail health care
services. Inmates will have an easier time requesting services,
and inmates with certain disabilities "will be appropriately
accommodated," according to the news release.

Court-appointed experts will monitor the county's compliance with
the settlement, which drew praise from Supervisor Marion Ashley.


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Judge Rejects Bid to Release Detainees
---------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge refused to release pre-trial detainees at San
Francisco's County Jail being held because they cannot afford to
post bail.

The request for a temporary restraining order to end the practice
of bail stemmed from a class action lawsuit claiming that the city
unconstitutionally detains the poor because they cannot afford to
pay an arbitrary bail amount, while allowing wealthier arrestees
to buy their freedom.

Gonzalez Rogers was asked to immediately release without bail a
large number of detainees from pre-trial custody.

"The result of defendants' current policies is that the pretrial
detainees are those who are so poor and destitute that they do not
even know anyone who can come up with the money to free them.
Plaintiffs and other class members are therefore languishing in
jail solely because they and their families do not have enough
money to buy their release," the motion says. "Plaintiffs ask this
court to enjoin defendants, pending a final resolution of this
case on the merits, from keeping them in jail because they cannot
afford to pay cash up front to secure their release."

In denying the motion, Gonzalez Rogers wrote, "While the court
takes no position on the underlying merits of the claims,
plaintiffs have failed to establish at this juncture that a
temporary restraining order is in the public interest and granting
it as requested would constitute a significant departure from the
status quo," U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers wrote in a
three-page order.

The class action is led by two women arrested -- Riana Buffin,19,
and Crystal Patterson, 29. Both are now out of jail as respective
charges of grand theft and assault were dropped, but they each
spent several days behind bars because neither could afford bail.
Buffin's bond was set at $30,000; Patterson's at $150,000.

Attorney Phil Telfeyan with the Washington, D.C.-based Equal
Justice Under the Law told reporters, "Nobody should be detained
because they're too poor to pay an arbitrary amount of money." His
group has successfully brought lawsuits to end the practice of
money bail in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Missouri.

Telfeyan's legal effort is backed by the city public defender and
San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi.

Noting that Buffin and Patterson had already been released,
Gonzalez Rogers said that pending a response from the city and
county of San Francisco, "the equities favor maintaining the
status quo."


SOUFUN HOLDINGS: Dec. 29 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
those who purchased shares of SouFun Holdings Limited ("SouFun" or
the "Company") (NYSE: SFUN), during the period between May 20,
2015 and October 27, 2015 inclusive. (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) SouFun employees routinely created "fake contracts"; (2)
Defendants were aware that SouFun employees routinely created
"fake contracts"; and (3) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.  When the true details
entered the market, the Complaint claims that investors suffered
damages.

No Class has yet been certified in the action. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number.  If you
suffered a loss in SouFun you have until December 29, 2015 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.   Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Eitan Kimelman 212-697-6484
info@bgandg.com


SPECIAL COUNSEL: "Parets" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Parets, and all others similarly-situated v. Special Counsel,
Inc. and Adecco USA, Inc. dba MPS Group, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
01289 (M.D. Fla., October 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are staffing agencies headquartered in
Jacksonville, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter F. Valori, Esq.
      DAMIAN & VALORI LLP
      1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1020
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 371-3960
      Fax: (305) 371-3965
      E-mail: pvalori@dvllp.com


SPECTRUM PHARMA: Grant Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Grant Law Firm, PLLC announces that it has filed a class
action complaint ("Complaint") on behalf of all securities holders
who purchased the securities of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Spectrum" or the "Company") during the period between May 7,
2015 until October 23, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). On
October 23, 2015, the Company announced that the FDA failed to
approve the new drug application ("NDA") for one of the Company's
major potential revenue drivers, Evomela -- a drug directed at
patients with multiple myeloma. The Complaint asserts that during
the Class Period, the Company, through the Chairman of its Board
and Chief Executive Officer, Rajesh C. Shrotriya ("Shrotriya")
made repeated false and misleading statements concerning the
ability of Evomela to drive the Company's revenues, and provided
assuring statements to the public that the FDA would approve its
NDA, allowing the drug to be marketed immediately. When the truth
was disclosed on October 23, 2015, the Company lost approximately
20% of its value and has yet to recover.

The Complaint asserts that Shrotriya and the Company violated
federal securities laws by disseminating materially false and
misleading information and failing to disclose material facts,
causing the artificial inflation Spectrum's stock price during the
Class Period. The Complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of
class members.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Spectrum securities and
would like to discuss the action, and/or the investigation leading
to the filing of the action, please contact Lynda J. Grant at 212-
292-4441 or email her at lgrant@grantfirm.com. Lynda J. Grant has
been representing wronged investors and consumers for over 30
years, and is a New York Metro Superlawyer.

Contacts
TheGrantLawFirm, PLLC
Lynda J. Grant, 212-292-4441
lgrant@grantfirm.com


SPOKEO INC: U.S. Justices Divided Over Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, reported that the U.S.
Supreme Court appeared closely divided as it considered online
people-search service Spokeo Inc's bid to avoid a class action
lawsuit for including incorrect information in its database.

The legal issue before the nine justices was whether a plaintiff
can sue for a technical violation of a federal consumer law even
when there is a question about whether the person has been
directly harmed. Some of the court's conservatives appeared
hostile to the plaintiff's claims but the liberal justices pushed
back against Spokeo.

The case gives the conservative-leaning Supreme Court another shot
at limiting class action litigation as it has done in a series of
decisions including a 2011 victory for Wal Mart Stores Inc.

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote in
close cases, was less outspoken than several of his conservative
colleagues, giving little indication as to how he would vote.

In 2010, plaintiff Thomas Robins filed suit in California on
behalf of himself and other people potentially harmed by incorrect
information about them that Spokeo might disseminate.

The suit was filed under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act,
which requires consumer reporting agencies to provide correct
information. Spokeo, which says it is not a consumer reporting
agency, is seeking to have the lawsuit thrown out.

Robins' lawsuit was filed two years before Spokeo agreed to pay
$800,000 to settle U.S. Federal Trade Commission claims that it
had violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act when attempting to sell
data to other companies.

Robins, who is unemployed, asserted that his Spokeo entry had
damaged his job-seeking prospects because it contained inaccurate
information. The entry, for example, stated Robins has a graduate
degree, which he said is incorrect.

Chief Justice John Roberts was among the conservative members of
the court who appeared sympathetic to Spokeo.

"We have a legion of cases that say you have to have actual
injury" in order to sue, Roberts said.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan contested Spokeo's assumption that
Robins was not harmed. Kagan said Robins' claim "seems like a
concrete injury to me" and that if a company distributed incorrect
information about her, "I would feel harmed."

A ruling is due by the end of June.

Facebook, Google and Yahoo have all faced similar lawsuits over
violations of different federal laws. As many online companies
have millions of users, a case can quickly become a multimillion-
dollar class action.


ST. PAUL'S SCHOOL: Lawyers for Sex Assault Victim May Sue
---------------------------------------------------------
Ted Siefer, writing for Union Leader, reported that following the
sentencing of Owen Labrie, lawyers for his victim are now turning
their attention to St. Paul's School and a culture they say
allowed the sexual assault against her to take place.

Labrie was sentenced to one year in jail, with mandatory
registration as a sex offender and five years probation, on
charges of sexually assaulting a freshman at St. Paul's days
before his graduation. He is expected to appeal the sentence to
the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

"This wouldn't have happened had it not been for the culture of
the school and specifically the ?senior salute,'" attorney Steven
J. Kelly, who is representing the victim's family, said.  "This is
basically a game designed to encourage statutory rape, to have
upper-class students target under-class students."

Labrie had asked the freshman girl for a "senior salute," a
tradition among students at St. Paul's whereby seniors would
invite younger students for encounters that typically had a sexual
dimension. She had accepted the invitation, but accused Labrie of
forcing himself on her in a remote room on campus.

Now that the criminal trial has concluded, Kelly said his firm's
investigation of the school would begin in earnest. No legal
action has been taken against St. Paul's at this point, said
Kelly, who is with Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin and White, a
prominent Maryland-based law firm whose cases include a class-
action concussion lawsuit against the NHL.

St. Paul's Rector Michael Hirschfeld has previously stated that
the senior salute was not a longstanding tradition at the school
and that games of "sexual conquest" were not tolerated.

A lawsuit against the school could bring to the fore what had
loomed large in the background of the trial: the insular and
distinctive culture of St. Paul's, a 159-year-old boarding school
that has served as a training ground for the nation's elite.

Veteran Concord attorney Richard Lehmann said a lawsuit against
St.Paul's would likely be based on the legal concept of "in loco
parentis," which holds that schools and colleges have a
responsibility akin to parents to ensure the safety and well-being
of their charges.

The concept is especially relevant in the case of underage
students at a boarding school, Lehmann said.

"The victim's parents will be looking to see if the school was
aware of the senior salute, if they they took any steps to stop it
from occurring, if their Internet server was being used for this
type of activity," he said. "If they were aware of those things
and didn't take steps to stop it, then there's potential exposure
for the school."

Many of the messages among Labrie, the victim and his friends that
were introduced as evidence in the trial were sent while he was a
resident on the St. Paul's campus. Those messages include Labrie
referencing a contest with a friend to "slay" the most girls;
vulgar and demeaning references to girls; and to his having stolen
keys to the campus building where the encounter with the teen took
place.

Attorneys for the victim's family have uncovered articles in the
St. Paul's student newspaper indicating that the culture of
"scoring" -- having sexual encounters -- was widely known on
campus and openly debated and discussed.

In an editorial, Labrie argued against having strict rules against
"scoring," insisting students should have the freedom to "fail
gloriously" in relationships, as in academics. "Is secret scoring
in dirty Schoolhouse closets the key to happiness? Anyone who has
had a sweet relationship can tell you that it's not," Labrie
wrote.

"Students should (within legal limits) have the relationships they
please. Allow them the freedom to fail gloriously, but instill in
them the responsibility to learn from their mistakes."

The student paper also published a handwritten "scoring
dictionary," defining terms like senior salute.

Kelly, the attorney for the victim's family, said school officials
seemed to be deferential to the students, many of whom come from
families of considerable wealth. "You have adults in charge of
these kids who are afraid to discipline them because of the
perception of the power and influence of their parents," he said.
"These are kids; they may be rich, they may be entitled, but they
still need adults to take charge."

Kelly added that while he believed the term senior salute was
coined relatively recently, the tradition underlying it is "far
broader."

In response to questions about the claims made by the victim's
family and their lawyers, a spokeswoman for St. Paul's referred to
a statement issued by the rector the day of Labrie's sentencing.
"This trial has been deeply painful for all of us in the St.
Paul's community, but most especially for the two people involved.
. . We remain committed to teaching our students our core values -
- that they live honorably, respectfully, and never forget to be
kind."

The victim accused St. Paul's of being indifferent to her plight
in a pre-recorded impact statement played in court.

She said that when she returned to the school in the fall after
the assault, two male seniors made an announcement at a school
function in which they made a joke about the age of consent. "And
everybody laughed. No teacher stood up, no faculty, not even the
head of the school," she said. "That was another thing that showed
a lack of compassion and understanding by St. Paul's at the time."


STAR CAREER: Ordered to Pay $9.2MM for Defrauding Students
----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Caffrey, writing for NJ.com, reported that a for-profit
occupational training school must pay $9.2 million in a class-
action verdict for defrauding students, a Camden County jury
ruled.

The attorneys who represented more than 1,000 current and former
students of Star Career Academy's surgical technology program said
the jury came to the decision on Oct. 29 after a five-week jury
trial in Camden County Superior Court.

The class-action suit was brought against the Academy -- which
operates four New Jersey campuses in Newark, Clifton, Brick and
Egg Harbor townships, as well as four in New York and Pennsylvania
-- argued Star Career Academy violated New Jersey's Consumer Fraud
Act by engaging in unconscionable commercial practices, and
misrepresenting facts about the surgical technology program's
accreditations.

Much of the case centered on a 2011 state law regarding program
accreditations, and whether the school properly notified students
about the law.

Patricia Pierce, an attorney who represented the students during
three years of "grueling" litigation said that the school did not
inform students that while it had institutional accreditations,
its surgical technology program did not have its own program-based
accreditation.

Pierce added that the lack of program-specific accreditation meant
students couldn't test for the industry's most accepted
certification, resulting in the overwhelming majority of students
being unable to find work in the field.

A spokesman for Star Career Academy said in a written statement
that the school previously determined the state law did not impact
its students ability to practice as surgical techs in the state
and stands by its program.

"The company believes that the law and abundant facts in the case
simply do not support any verdict against it," said Jeff
Schoenborn for Star Career Academy, who said the company plans to
"argue for the entire $2.9 million verdict to be vacated on
appeal."

The $2.9 million figure Schoenborn referenced is the base amount
in the verdict, but state statute regarding treble damages triples
that figure. Interest is also included in the overall sum, which
the students' attorneys said comes to $9.2 million. The jury
verdict also orders Star to pay attorneys fees in addition to the
judgement.

Pierce said the case additionally focused on allegations Star did
not provide the volume or variety of externships students needed
to gain certification, and advertised a drastic misrepresentation
of job placement statistics, Pierce said.

The school had reported a job placement rate for the program at 80
percent, Pierce said, but the law firm's research found the
complete opposite -- 87 percent of the school's graduates were not
working in the surgical technology field.

She said many of the students are single parents or recent high
school graduates who took out sizable federal loans to pay for the
program, and when they were unable to find employment or pay them
back, went into default.

"These are people who were living paycheck to paycheck before they
tried to change their lives by going to Star," said Pierce.
"Instead of a career they came out with $20,000 in debt."

Star's spokesman Schoenborn defended Star's education and career
services, which serve 2,000 students in a range of programs
including allied health, culinary arts, cosmetology, hospitality
management, professional education, continuing education and
business, among others.

"The jury's decision on the company's disclosures relating to the
four-year old statute was not a statement on the excellent quality
of the education and career services provided by the school
today," he said.  "Star Career Academy is extremely proud of its
talented faculty, alumni in New Jersey and beyond, and the
dedicated students who continue to work toward graduation and
rewarding careers in the field."


STERLING JEWELERS: Arbitrator's Award Vacated in Part
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LARYSSA JOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
STERLING JEWELERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 08 CIV. 2875 (JSR),
(S.D.N.Y.), District Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted Sterling's motion
to vacate the Arbitrator's class determination award.

Plaintiffs Laryssa Jock et al. sued on behalf of themselves and
all persons similarly situated, alleging sex discrimination in the
promotion and compensation policies and practices of defendant
Sterling Jewelers, Inc.  Plaintiffs moved to refer the matter to
arbitration, pursuant to the "RESOLVE" dispute resolution
agreement signed by Sterling's employees.  The Court granted the
motion. Since then, however, the matter has been the subject of
interminable litigation before the Arbitrator, the present Court,
and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Defendant filed its motion to vacate the Arbitrator's Class
Determination Award on the grounds that the Arbitrator exceeded
her authority by, first, "purporting to bind absent class members
who did not express their consent to be bound" and, second,
"permitting opt-out rights in a mandatory Rule 23(b)(2) class.

In his Opinion and Order dated November 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/prsIvmfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rakoff granted
Sterling's motion to vacate the Arbitrator's class determination
award to the extent that it permits individuals to opt out of a
class certified for the purposes of seeking class-wide injunctive
and declaratory relief. In all other respects, the award is
confirmed.

According to Judge Rakoff, the Court is not unmindful of the high
standard for vacating an arbitration award. But deference to
arbitrators is not without its limits; and the Court declines to
hold that a ruling lacking "barely colorable justification" in
black-letter law or common sense must be upheld purely because it
issued from an arbitrator's pen. The governing law that the
Arbitrator chose to disregard  --  the principle that opt-out
classes may not be certified for the purposes of seeking class-
wide injunctive relief  --  was clearly mandated by the United
States Supreme Court in Wal-Mart v. Dukes. As to the Arbitrator's
appreciation of this principle, the Arbitrator cited Wal-Mart at
length and drew significantly on Wal-Mart's similarities and
distinctions from the present case in making her class
determination decision.  Given the Arbitrator's extensive
familiarity with Wal-Mart, the Court declines to find that the
Arbitrator somehow remained unaware of its statement that Rule
23(b) (2) classes do not permit opt-outs or of the reasoning that
with Rule 23(b) (2) classes, "the relief sought must perforce
affect the entire class at once" --  reasoning that applies to any
attempted certification of an opt-out class seeking class-wide
injunctive relief. Therefore, though the Court's ruling is
sustained by the absence of a "barely colorable justification" for
the Arbitrator's ruling, the Court also finds that the Arbitrator
acted in "manifest disregard of law."

John Douglas Richards, Esq. -- drichards@cohenmilstein.com -- of
Pomerantz LLP -- Joseph M. Sellers, Esq. --
jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- Kalpana Kotagal, Esq. --
kkotagal@cohenmilstein.com and  Shaylyn Cochran, Esq. --
scochran@cohenmilstein.com of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC
-- Sam J. Smith, Esq. -- ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com -- and Loren
B. Donnell, Esq. of Burr & Smith, LLP -- and Thomas Warren, Esq. -
- thomas.warren@sutherland.com of Thomas A. Warren Law Offices,
P.L. serve as counsel for Plaintiff Laryssa Jock

Gerald Leonard Maatman, Jr., Esq. -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- of
Seyfarth Shaw LLP serves as counsel for Defendant Sterling
Jewelers, Inc.


SUNNYSLOPE CEMETERY: Suit Alleges Cemetery Removed Headstones
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick O'Neil, writing for The Press Enterprise, reported that a
lawsuit that alleges managers of Sunnyslope Cemetery in Corona
removed headstones to conceal existing graves and sell plots of
land will be heard in court, records show.

Relatives of the deceased are seeking $5 million in compensation.
Scott Shutzman, their attorney, said he hopes the hearing will
spark settlement discussions.

"We're trying to do things informally to come to a resolution,"
Schutzman said.

From 1892 to the early 1940s, hundreds of people from mostly poor
migrant families were buried in the potter's field along Circle
City Drive about a third of a mile southeast of City Park.

Relatives' attorneys contend that more than 600 people were buried
there, but Sunnyslope Manager Ron Mowry said his log book lists
258, none of which offer exact coordinates. All that remains of
the potter's field is one granite headstone and two white crosses
lying in the dirt east of a pepper tree. In a 1960s photo,
hundreds of grave markers can be seen surrounding the same tree.

The California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau has launched a separate
investigation at Sunnyslope, spokeswoman Michelle McVay said. No
additional details were available, she said. Mowry said a state
inspector visited in the past several weeks.

"We're busy reacting to what are basically untruths about the
cemetery," Mowry said. "I'm quite certain (the state) won't file a
violation. People from the state have contacted us, nothing has
come of it."

It's not the first time the potter's field has been investigated
for alleged grave desecration. In 1994, a geophysical survey of
the area was ordered by state and county officials after several
families said their relatives were buried under land developed in
the 1980s.

The report, prepared by Peterson & Associates and shared with the
families' attorneys, was at least partially inconclusive. A
cemetery board suspended the search prematurely after running out
of funding.

Last year, an area the plaintiffs say once was part of potter's
field was sold to the Islamic Society of Corona-Norco. There are
17 gravesites, but the area will hold up to 400 plots. Schutzman
said the class-action suit also will seek compensation for the
families of those recently buried in the Muslim cemetery.

Schutzman and Corona-based attorney Amador Corona have said it
could take several months before a jury hears the case.


SUPER FINE-1: "Hays Media" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------
Hays Media Resources, LLC, individually, and as a member of Super
Fine-1, LLC, suing in its individual capacity and on behalf of all
members and in the right of Super Fine-1, LLC, and Justin Green,
and all others similarly situated v. Super Fine-1, LLC, Steven
Miller, Jade Schoonerman, "John Does 1-10" and "Jane Does 1-10",
Case No. 653599/2015 (N.Y. Sup., October 29, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, unjust enrichment and fraud.

The Plaintiffs also seek the removal of Steven Miller as a
director, president and co-manager of Super Fine-1 LLC.

The Defendants are engaged in the development and production of
reality television series.

Miller was and is the actual owner and holder of record of 5,210
Common membership units of Super Fine.

Hays was and is the actual owner and holder of record of 4,100
Series A Preferred membership units of Super Fine.

Miller and Hays constitute all of the members of Super Fine.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jeffrey C. Ruderman, Esq.
      CYRULI SHANKS HART & ZIZMOR LLP
      420 Lexington Ave-Ste 2320
      New York, NY 10170
      Tel: (212) 661-6800


SYGENTA: Class Suits Filed by Farmers, Traders Reach 2,000
----------------------------------------------------------
David Pitt, writing for ABC News, reported that about 2,000
farmers, grain handlers and corn exporters have filed lawsuits
against Swiss biotechnology company Syngenta now that a federal
judge has ruled their cases have merit to move forward.

The lawsuits allege Syngenta's introduction of a new genetically
modified corn seed in 2011 interrupted trade with China and harmed
the market for U.S. corn by depressing the commodity's price. That
cost the U.S. corn industry an estimated $1 billion to $3 billion.

On Sept. 11, U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum denied Syngenta's
motion to dismiss the case rejecting the company's argument that
it had no duty to protect the farmers and other agribusinesses
that handle and trade corn. A federal court panel decided in
December to consolidate all of the Syngenta cases in Lungstrum's
court in Kansas City, Kansas.

More than 1,860 cases have been transferred from 22 states,
including 1,300 cases from Minnesota.

Since Lungstrum's decision in early September hundreds more
lawsuits have been filed including more than 200 in South Dakota
and more than 300 in Iowa.

The dispute centers around Syngenta's sale of Agrisure Viptera, a
seed genetically altered to contain a protein that kills corn-
eating bugs such as earworms and cutworms. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture approved it in 2010, and Syngenta first sold it to
farmers in 2011.

China, a growing importer of U.S. corn that refuses to buy
genetically modified crops it hasn't tested, had not approved
Viptera when Syngenta began selling it. In November 2013, China
discovered the Viptera corn trait in several U.S. shipments and
began rejecting U.S. corn imports in February 2014. The lawsuits
say the Chinese rejected more than 131 million bushels.

Syngenta attorney Michael Jones said it's not surprising Lungstrum
allowed the case to proceed at this early stage. After each side
conducts interviews and fact gathering to build their case, there
will be another point at which Syngenta may file a summary
judgment motion asking the judge to dismiss the case.

Lungstrum also will decide whether to certify the case as a class-
action lawsuit allowing many of farmers and agribusinesses to be
represented in a central trial.

"If the judge agrees and this goes forward as a class-action every
corn farmer in the United States that lost money is covered by
that class action. It is an enormous case," said Jayne Conroy, a
New York attorney on the plaintiffs' executive committee
coordinating the cases. "This is by far the largest agricultural
case that has gone forward."

On Oct. 21 Lungstrum decided to first try a small number of
representative bellwether cases to "to determine the nature and
strength of the claims..." Four farmers and two plaintiffs
representing non-farmer agribusinesses will go to trial first in
the test cases the first of which is scheduled for trial in June
2017.


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Stull Stull Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of TerraForm
Global, Inc. ("TerraForm" or the "Company") common stock
(NASDAQ:GLBL).

The lawsuit alleges that TerraForm's Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with TerraForm's initial public
offering ("IPO") on July 31, 2015 failed to disclose material
information to investors, including that by the time of the IPO
the Company's sponsor SunEdison, Inc. was experiencing
unprecedented losses, liquidity and debt issues affecting its
business model and inability to achieve growth plans.

If you purchased TerraForm common stock pursuant or traceable to
the IPO, you may , no later than December 28, 2015, move the Court
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Stull, Stull &
Brody, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel
in the action.  In order to serve as a lead plaintiff you must
meet certain legal requirements.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
this matter, you may contact Jason D'Agnenica, Esq. at Stull,
Stull & Brody by calling 1-800-337-4983, extension 145, or by
email at terraform@ssbny.com.

Stull, Stull & Brody has represented shareholders in securities
class action litigation for over 40 years and has obtained court
approval of substantial settlements on numerous occasions.  Stull,
Stull & Brody has offices in New York and Beverly Hills.
Additional information about the firm is available at our website
at www.ssbny.com


TRANSURBAN: Class Action Suit Can Proceed, Judge Rules
------------------------------------------------------
Adam Tuss, writing for NBC Washington, reported that a class-
action lawsuit against the operator of the Express Lanes in
Virginia over what drivers claim are excessive fines will be able
to proceed, a judge has ruled.

The seven drivers in the suit claim they've been hit by excessive
fees and penalties after missing some relatively small toll
payments. They also say they weren't given fair warning that they
missed the tolls.

"It's just unconscionable that these minuscule fines would reap
Transurban all of these benefits," Kevin Stanfield told News4. His
wife, Anna, is one of the plaintiffs involved in the suit.

Stanfield said he hadn't realized his credit card expired, and as
his wife continued to use the lanes, the missed tolls tied to the
expired card racked up. He said he wasn't notified until it was
too late.

At that point, Transurban was seeking $8,380.70 in fines and fees.
The Stanfields ultimately had to settle by paying thousands of
dollars.

"Oh yeah, they allowed my $29 in missed tolls to be forgiven by me
paying a paltry sum of $2,200," Stanfield said. "They were doing
me a favor. It's just incredible."

The drivers filed the lawsuit against against Transurban, which
operates the Interstate 495 and 95 Express Lanes, and two other
companies, Faneuil Inc. and Law Enforcement Systems, which help
Transurban process violations and collect debts.

A judge has ruled that six claims in their lawsuit can move
forward, although he dismissed two others.

While the judge's ruling is a win for anyone who feels like
they've been slapped with unfair fines along the Express Lanes,
the case isn't over yet, and some drivers are still worried about
the thousands of dollars in fines they owe.

"For the case of our clients and the plaintiffs in the case, they
didn't even know that they had ran a toll until months or even in
some cases, a year later, and that's because the notice program
that Transurban and others impose -- we believe is inadequate
under the law," said attorney Nathaniel Giddings of Hausfeld
Global Litigation Solutions, a law firm representing some of the
drivers.

In a statement, Transurban said, "We are confident the process
will demonstrate that Transurban's enforcement policy ensures
customers are informed, provides significant opportunities for
customers to avoid escalating fees, and is far more lenient than
what is prescribed by Virginia law."

For now, the frustration of drivers like Stanfield remains.
"It would be different if we were guys trying to sneak onto the
hot lanes -- but these are people who made honest mistakes or had
a mechanical malfunction," Stanfield said.

Transurban said it's working to make sure these issues don't
continue to happen.

The company announced a "first-time forgiveness" program last
year, but the plaintiffs claim the new policy fails to resolve the
problem of "excessive, illegal, and unreasonable fees and fines,"
according to the judge's memorandum opinion.

Drivers who feel that they've been unfairly hit by Express Lanes
fees can contact Hausfeld Global Litigation Solutions to learn
about joining the lawsuit.


TRIPLE LEAF TEA: Class Action Settlement Approved
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EUNICE JOHNSON, individually, on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and the general) public, Plaintiff,
v. TRIPLE LEAF TEA INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:14-CV-01570-MMC,
(N.D. Cal.), District Judge Maxine M. Chesney:

     -- approved a class action settlement, class counsel fees
        and expenses, and a class representative incentive
        award; and

     -- permanently enjoined parallel proceedings and dismissed
        the action with prejudice.

Plaintiff Eunice Johnson filed a Complaint against Defendant
Triple Leaf Tea, Inc., alleging violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and breach of express and implied
warranties. Defendant manufactures, markets and sells in the
United States three teas at issue in the lawsuit.  Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant's labeling and marketing of their Products
is false and misleading.

After arm's-length settlement discussions, the Parties entered
into a Settlement Agreement dated May 15, 2015.  Plaintiff filed
motion for final approval of the settlement agreement and motion
for attorneys' fees and incentive award for the class
representative.

In her Final Judgment and Order dated November 16, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/3VIk2wfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chesney affirmed the
class definition:

     "All persons who purchased, on or after April 4, 2010,
Defendant's Dieter's Green Herbal Tea, Ultra Slim Herbal Tea,
and/or Super Slimming Herbal Tea Products, in all sizes and
package iterations, for personal or household use during the Class
Period (April 4, 2010 to October 16, 2015). Excluded from the
Class are Triple Leaf, its employees, parents, subsidiaries,
affiliates, officers and directors, and those who purchased the
Products for resale."

The following two individuals submitted timely requests for
exclusion, and, accordingly, are not members of the Class: Dominic
Edward Walker, Sr., and Arthur Collier-Robinson.

All Class Members allege the same injury: loss of money spent
purchasing the allegedly deceptive-labeled Products. All Class
Members were exposed to the same or substantially similar
contested labeling claims regarding the health benefits of the
Products.

The Parties reached the Settlement only after proceeding with
voluntary investigation and discovery in this action, and
following protracted negotiations before a capable and well-
respected mediator, the Honorable Ronald M. Sabraw of JAMS
Arbitration, Mediation, and ADR Services. For a period of over
several months, the Parties engaged in extensive negotiations,
including joint and individual mediation sessions with Judge
Sabraw, and the Parties' own follow-up negotiations, in order to
reach agreement over the specific terms of the proposed
Settlement.

The Court affirmed its appointment of the Law Offices of Ronald A.
Marron, APLC as Class Counsel. The Court also affirmed its
appointment of Eunice Johnson as Class Representative, finding
that she possesses no interests adverse to the Class and is
adequate to represent the Class.

The Court finds that resolution on a class-wide basis is superior
for purposes of judicial efficiency and to provide a forum for
absent Class Members, who are unlikely to bring individual suits
to recover the sum of approximately $3 per Product.

Defendant shall have 18 months after the date the Settlement is
finally approved to complete the labeling changes referred to in
Section 4.1 of the Settlement Agreement. Defendant may continue to
market and ship product stock with existing labeling for up to 18
months following final approval, as contemplated by the eighteen
month time period it will take to complete the labeling changes as
set forth, and that third-party retailers and distributors may
have on hand product stock in existing labeling for some time
after the Settlement is finally approved.

The Court said Class Counsel is entitled to reasonable attorneys'
fees and litigation expenses incurred in connection with the
action and in reaching this Settlement in the amount of $250,000,
to be paid at the time and in the manner provided in the
Settlement Agreement.

The Court also held that Class Counsel have incurred out-of-pocket
litigation expenses (paid and un-reimbursed, or currently due) at
the time the fee motion was filed (exclusive of costs to brief and
attend final approval) in the amount of $3,276.22, that said
expenses were of a nature typically billed to fee-paying clients,
and that said expenses are recoverable or were reasonable and
necessary to the prosecution of this action in light of the extent
of proceedings both on and off the Court's docket, the complexity
of the legal and factual issues in the case, the amount at stake
in this litigation, and the vigorous efforts of counsel for all
Parties herein. The Court finds these expenses are reasonable in
this case, and shall be included as part of the $250,000 awarded
to Class Counsel, to be paid by Defendant in the time and manner
provided in the Settlement Agreement.

The Court also held that the incentive award shall be $1,500.  The
Court noted that Ms. Johnson was actively involved throughout the
Litigation and contributed significant time and expense in seeing
this action to fruition.

Ronald A. Marron, Esq. -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Alexis
Marie Wood, Esq. -- alexis@consumersadvocates.com -- and Beatrice
Skye Resendes, Esq. -- skye@consumersadvocates.com -- of Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC serve as counsel for Plaintiff
Eunice Johnson

Dion N. Cominos, Esq. -- dcominos@gordonrees.com -- and Ryan B.
Polk, Esq. -- rpolk@gordonrees.com -- of Gordon & Rees LLP serve
as counsel for Defendant Triple Leaf Tea, Inc.


TRIVASCULAR TECH: Brodsky Smith Probing Board of Directors
----------------------------------------------------------
Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that it is
investigating potential claims against the Board of Directors of
TriVascular Technologies, Inc. ("TriVascular" or "the Company")
(Nasdaq- TRIV-News) for possible breaches of fiduciary duty and
other violations of state law in connection with the sale of the
Company to Endologix, Inc. ("Endologix").

Click here to learn more about the investigation http://brodsky-
smith.com/994-triv-trivascular-technologies-inc.html, or call:
877-534-2590. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Under the terms of the transaction TriVascular shareholders will
receive only a combination of cash and stock valued at $9.10 for
each share of TriVascular stock they own. The investigation
concerns whether the Board of TriVascular breached their fiduciary
duties to shareholders and whether Endologix is underpaying for
TriVascular. The transaction may undervalue TriVascular and will
result in a loss for many TriVascular shareholders. For example,
TriVascular stock traded at $17.54 per share on June 24, 2014 and
an analyst has placed a $13.00 per share price target on
TriVascular stock.

If you own shares of TriVascular stock and wish to discuss the
legal ramifications of the investigation, or have any questions,
you may e-mail or call the law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC who
will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your
questions. You may contact Jason L. Brodsky, Esquire or Evan J.
Smith, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510,
Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004, by visiting http://brodsky-smith.com/994-
triv-trivascular-technologies-inc.html, or calling toll  free 877-
LEGAL-90.

Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive
expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in
securities and class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky &
Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the
country to serve as lead counsel in class actions and have
successfully recovered millions of dollars for our clients and
shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
a similar outcome.


USA SIGNS: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Luis Perez, and all others similarly-situated v. USA Signs
Inc., Signalite, Inc. and Jose Antonio Pacheco, Case No. 1:15-cv-
24058 (S.D. Fla., October 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages for unlawful retaliatory termination of
employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate two corporations that specialize in
electrical, dimensional, and architectural signage and maintenance
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
      1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
      Coral Gables, Florida 33134
      Tel: (305) 448-9292
      Fax: (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com


USA TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of
USA Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:USAT) securities during the period
from September 29, 2014 through September 29, 2015 inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for USA
Technologies investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the USA Technologies class action, go to the firm?s
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-731.htmlor call
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information
on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there were
significant deficiencies in both the design and operating
effectiveness of USA Technologies' internal control over financial
reporting; (2) the combined deficiencies represented a material
weakness in internal control; (3) due to these deficiencies, USA
Technologies' procedures failed to identify a large number of
uncollectible small balance accounts; and (4) as a result, USA
Technologies' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times." On September 29, 2015, USA
Technologies revealed it was unable to file its annual report for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015 on Form 10-K with the SEC. On
this news, shares of USA Technologies fell $0.28, or 10.1%, to
close at $2.49 on September 30, 2015.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
December 1, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm?s
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-731.htmlfor more
information. You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan,
Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact Information:

      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Kevin Chan, Esq.
      The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY  10016
      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      lrosen@rosenlegal.com
      pkim@rosenlegal.com
      kchan@rosenlegal.com
      www.rosenlegal.com


VIMPELCOM LTD: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against VimpelCom Ltd. ("VimpelCom" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:VIP)
and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed
under 15-cv-08672 is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased VimpelCom securities between
June 30, 2011 and November 2, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period").
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased VimpelCom securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 4, 2016 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

VimpelCom provides telecommunications services under various brand
names in Italy, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan,
Tajikistan, Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Algeria,
Bangladesh, and Pakistan.  The Company offers voice and data
services through a range of traditional and broadband mobile and
fixed line technologies.  The Company offers mobile
telecommunications services under contract and prepaid plans for
both corporate and consumer segments; value-added and call
completion services; national and international roaming services;
wireless Internet access; mobile financial services; and mobile
bundles. It also provides fixed-line telecommunication services,
such as voice, data, and Internet services to corporations,
operators, and consumers.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) VimpelCom had paid tens of
millions of dollars to a company controlled by Gulnara Karimova
("Karimova"), daughter of the president of Uzbekistan; (ii) the
payments to Karimova were unlawful bribes intended to secure
VimpelCom's access to Uzbekistan's telecommunications market; and
(iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
VimpelCom's business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 12, 2014, VimpelCom announced that it was facing
investigations by both the SEC and Dutch authorities related to
its operations in Uzbekistan.

On March 18, 2014, VimpelCom reported that the Company was the
focus of an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice
related to the Company's operations in Uzbekistan.
Thereafter, on August 13, 2015, post-market, it was reported that
U.S. authorities had asked their European counterparts to seize
roughly $1 billion in assets in a wide-ranging criminal probe of
alleged corruption by VimpelCom and two other companies, Mobile
TeleSystems PJSC ("MTS") and TeliaSonera AB ("TeliaSonera"), for
paying hundreds of millions of dollars to businesses controlled by
Karimova to secure wireless spectrum in Uzbekistan.
On November 3, 2015, pre-market, VimpelCom announced that it had
set aside $900 million for litigation costs in connection with
U.S. and Dutch investigations into the Company's operations in
Uzbekistan.

On this news, VimpelCom's ADRs fell $0.17, or 4.63%, to close at
$3.50 on November 3, 2015.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


WEST VIRGINIA: DHHR Calls for Suit Dismissals
---------------------------------------------
David Beard, writing for The D Post, reported that the state
Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) wants two
plaintiffs removed and two counts dismissed from a federal class-
action lawsuit filed against it regarding its money-saving
decision to reduce services in a Medicaid waiver program for the
intellectually and developmentally disabled.

Mountain State Justice, a nonprofit law firm specializing in
litigation on behalf of low-income residents, filed the suit in
July, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia. It names five individuals with disabilities, all but one
represented by their guardians, as plaintiffs, and wraps in all
other program clients as class members.

DHHR and Secretary Karen Bowling in her official capacity are
named as defendants.

Mountain State filed an amended complaint in late September and
DHHR made its case for its requests in mid-October. A scheduling
order in the case is tentatively set for late January.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Radke" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------
Erin Radke, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG, Case No. 0:15-cv-03968 (D.
Minn., October 29, 2015), seeks damages against the Defendants for
breach of contract, fraud, breach of expressed and implied
warranties, statutory damages, and any other equitable remedies,
resulting from Defendants' illegal activities.

Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted
the Affected Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names
throughout all of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Grounds, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth St., Ste 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 436-1800
      Fax: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Suro" Suit Seeks Damages for Deception
---------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Suro, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-13832
(E.D. Mich., October 29, 2015), seeks damages, injunctive relief
and equitable relief against the Defendants for allegedly engaging
in mass deception that misled regulators and consumers, and harmed
consumers as well as the environment.

Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted
the Affected Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names
throughout all of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Boni, Esq.
      BONI & ZACK LLC
      15 St. Asaphs Road
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Tel: (610) 822-0200
      Fax: (610) 822-0206
      E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com


WIZARDS OF THE COAST: "Yale" Suit Seeks to Recover Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Yale, and all others similarly-situated v. Wizards of the
Coast, LLC and Does 1-100 inclusive, Case No. 115CV287452 (Cal.
Super., October 29, 2015), seeks compensation for unpaid minimum
and overtime wages, missed meal and rest breaks, failure to timely
pay wages, failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements,
failure to maintain accurate payroll records, unreimbursed
business expenses, and interest and penalties thereon; and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the California Labor
Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants sell games and game-related products within the
State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Malk, Esq.
      MICHAEL MALK, ESQ. APC
      1180 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 302
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Tel: (310) 203-0016
      Fax: (310) 499-5210
      E-mail: mm@malklawfirm.com

          - and -

      David Borgen, Esq.
      GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
      300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 763-9800
      Fax: (510) 835-1417
      E-mail: dborgen@gbdhlegal.com


* Skadden Arps Atty Says Public Citizen Report Misses Point
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anna Aguillard, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that attorney
John Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- the leader of Skadden
Arp's mass torts group, said that a recent report issued by Public
Citizen criticizing his use of the term "no-injury" when
describing class-action litigation misses the point of the
legislation he testified to promote.

The report issued by Public Citizen on Oct. 27 specifically
analyzes the testimony made by Beisner on behalf of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce before a U.S. House committee regarding the
Fairness in Class-Action Litigation Act of 2015, which is
currently pending before the House.

While advocating for legislation to prevent overbroad class
actions, Beisner referenced a number of cases that he argued
involved "no injury" to members of the class.

The report analyzed cases referenced in Beisner's testimony.
According to Public Citizen, the research indicates that the
plaintiff of each referenced case did experience real injuries.

"These injuries included the need to repair or replace products to
avoid serious injury, the economic injury of paying for a
defective product that is not worth the premium price charged for
it, the harm of receiving a worthless product that is not what it
was held out to be, and the harm of paying extra for qualities a
product is said to have, but does not in fact have," the report's
authors wrote.

However, Beisner said that the report is misguided in its attack
on his testimony and the legislation itself. His use of the term
"no injury" refers to members of a class who did not experience
the same problem that the class representative did.

"The report was written regarding a piece of legislation that
really doesn't do what the report assumes it does. This whole
thing is very much a red herring," Beisner said.

According to Beisner, the aim of this legislation is not to limit
who can file class-action suits, as the report indicates.

"My testimony was about class actions in which the named plaintiff
-- that is, the class representative -- alleges that he or she has
a problem with a product or a service . . . and they sue on behalf
of everybody who bought the product or service," Beisner said.

"The problem is that in many of these cases, the majority of the
people in the class haven't had that problem."

The report maintains that the concept of a "no-injury" lawsuit is
"a myth."

"All of these injuries are real, and they are exactly the same
kinds of injuries that the law has traditionally allowed people to
go to court to redress, not only in consumer cases, but also in
other areas of the law," the authors claim.

"The invention of the 'no injury' moniker doesn't make the real
economic damages inflicted on consumers disappear," Public Citizen
President Robert Weissman said in a release.

But Beisner asserts that the report addresses an argument that he
never made.

"We are talking about the people who were not injured," he said.
"If you walked into court and said, 'I bought this widget,' and
you hadn't had a problem with it, then . . . you would be laughed
out of court."

Additionally, Public Citizen states that the "no-injury" theory
could potentially impair the effectiveness of the class-action
lawsuit in general.

However, again Beisner said the report is misunderstanding what
the legislation is attempting to prohibit.

"This bill doesn't prevent anybody from filing any class action.
It just says that the court shouldn't certify a case that includes
people who haven't had the same sort of injury that the class
representative has had. That's all it says," Beisner said.

"Where all of this stuff about 'no-injury' class actions came
from, I don't know. If you want to file on behalf of someone who
didn't have a problem, and get them to file on behalf of everyone
who didn't have a problem, you could do that."

Public Citizen represents consumer interests in litigation,
advocacy, research, and provides consumer education on issues
ranging from product safety to climate change.

The Fairness in Class-Action Litigation Act of 2015 has yet to be
passed in the House or Senate. The U.S. Chamber Institute for
Legal Reform owns Legal Newsline.


* UK Companies Alarmed at Order to Publish Gender Pay Gap
---------------------------------------------------------
Sarah O'Connor, writing for The Financial Times, reported that
government decision to force employers to disclose the pay
difference between male and female staff is sending shivers
through the boardrooms of corporate Britain, with some fearful of
big lawsuits from female employees.

Some companies are pre-emptively doing pay audits to see what
their numbers will look like when they have to publish them, while
others are "throwing up their hands in horror and saying surely
this isn't going to happen," said Mark Mansell, employment partner
at Allen & Overy. A survey of 400 HR managers by Eversheds found
that a quarter of them were worried about "equal pay litigation
risks" in light of the policy.

Companies and public sector bodies with more than 250 employees
will have to publish from next year the difference between the
average pay and bonuses of their male and female staff, although
the government has yet to nail down the details and the exact
timetable.

The policy is part of the Conservatives' push to tackle gender
inequality in the workforce, alongside a new target that a third
of all board seats at Britain's biggest companies should be held
by women by 2020.

A number of other European countries require employers to publish
gender pay data. In Austria, companies with more than 150
employees have to publish gender pay gap information every other
year, broken down by occupation group and pay grade.

In Sweden, companies with more than 24 employees have to publish
an action plan for equal pay every three years, including
information on gender pay gaps within grades. Germany's women's
affairs minister has proposed a similar policy this year, but has
met with stiff opposition.

Employers have several fears about publishing pay data broken down
by gender. First, they worry that if they only publish one raw
figure for the difference in average pay, the gaps will look
embarrassingly large because most companies have fewer women than
men in higher-paid management positions. "We're going to look
awful," remarked the head of one law firm, "but only because we
don't have any female partners."

Yet employers realise that if they publish a more detailed
breakdown of their gender pay data by job type or grade, that is
unlikely to look good either because it will expose how few women
they have in senior roles.

National pay data bear this out: women make up 47 per cent of the
workforce, but only 34 per cent of managers, directors and senior
officials. While the pay gap has closed for men and women in their
20s and 30s, it is still large for older people and for the best
paid employees.

Indeed, the gender pay gap for higher earners has held steady at
about 20 per cent for the past two decades, while it has narrowed
sharply for people lower down the income distribution.

Some companies also fear that the data could flag up instances
where they seem to pay women less than men in the same types of
roles. This could inspire "no-win-no-fee" law firms to launch
class-action style lawsuits on behalf of female staff, since it
has been illegal since 1970 to pay men and women differently for
work "of equal value".

They see Birmingham city council as the ultimate cautionary tale.
This year the council was forced to sell the NEC exhibition
complex to help pay a œ1bn bill for equal pay claims brought
successfully by law firm Leigh Day on behalf of thousands of
female employees.

Data on the pay of half a million employees held by consultancy
firm Hay Group suggests that bonuses could be one problem area:
women in some executive roles in its database received between 10
and 15 per cent less in bonuses than their male counterparts.

Similarly, an investigation by the Equality and Human Rights
Commission into 50 financial services firms found evidence of
gender pay gaps within the same job grade in 95 per cent of cases.
"The prevalence of in-grade pay inequality suggests that the pay
gap may not simply be a consequence of vertical occupational
segregation but also reflects a failure to ensure equal pay for
equal work," the report concluded.

Martin Warren, head of Eversheds' employment practice, said some
companies were doing audits now to find out if they had any
problems of this sort, but they were going about it very carefully
with their lawyers so as not to create records or documents that
could be used against them in court.

"If for example, you had a very unstructured review of pay, and
you had junior managers saying on email 'I think there's a big
problem here blah blah blah', and then you had litigation in a
couple of years' time, all that stuff would be discoverable," he
said.

Mr Mansell said the process was ultimately in employers' best
interests, even if it was making some of them squirm. "Where there
are differentials, they're very rarely if ever the result of
someone consciously setting out to reward one group better than
another, they're things that have probably grown up over time," he
said.

"Being forced to look at that, and to decide objectively whether
you're doing the right thing, ultimately is good -- good for
society and good for business as well."



                            *********

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  * * *