CAR_Public/160113.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, January 13, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 8


                            Headlines


826 OCEAN DRIVE: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
ADVANTAGE OPCO: "Figueroa" Suit Seeks OT Recovery, Damages
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Bank" Suit Moved from Calif. to Wash. D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Cleveland" Suit Moved from Calif. to D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Bess" Suit Goes to Washington D.C.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Park" Suit Transferred to Washington D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Verduzco" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Lay" Suit Moved from Chicago to D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Markun" Suit Moved from E.D.N.Y. to D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Everitt" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Williams" Suit Moved from Cal. to Wash. D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Tran" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "King" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Nathanson" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Giordano" Suit Transferred to Wash. D.C.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Connelly" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Berday" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
AMERICAN CRUISE LINES: "McCormick" Action Seeks OT Pay
AMERICAN GROUP: "Jones" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
AMERICAN IN-HOME CARE: "Fein" Action Seeks OT Recovery

ANIMAL AIR SERVICE: "Romero" Suit Seeks OT Recovery
ANIMAL AIR SERVICE: "Canizares" Suit Seeks OT Recovery
APPELSMITH: 9th Circ. Orders Review of Prohibition-Era Ad Ban
APPLE INC: Court Declines Class in Suit Over AppleCare Policies
AUTOZONE INC: "Drake Price" Suit Moved to N.D. Calif.

AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Beaver County Retirees Sue Over Fund Fiasco
AVESTA HOMES: "Velez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
BERNARD L. MADOFF: Settlement Proposed in Feeder Fund Case
BR GROUP: "Rahman" Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Pay
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces Class Suit Over Quality Control Issues

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Misled Shareholders Over Food Safety, Suit Says
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Rosen Law Firm Sues Over Food Safety Issue
COIN ACCEPTORS: "Honeycutt" Action Seeks OT Recovery
COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Smith" Suit Moved to N.D. Alabama
CONTACT MANAGEMENT: "Curtis" Action to Recover Unpaid Wages

CONWAY CITY, AR: To Appeal Judge's Ruling Certifying Class Action
COOK SALES: "Warren" Action Seeks OT Recovery
CUMBERLAND FARMS: "Bucceri" Action to Recover Unpaid Wages
CUTTWOOD LLC: "Cox" Suit Hits E-Cigarette Mislabeling
DEL FRISCO'S: "Homer" Action Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages

DELTA AIR LINES: "Frank" Suit Moved from E.D.N.Y. to Wash. D.C.
DELTA AIR LINES: "Bell" Suit Transferred to Washington D.C.
DELTA AIR LINES: "Palmer" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
DELTA AIR LINES: "Hardimon" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
DELTA AIR LINES: "Deninno" Suit Transferred to D.C. Court

DELTA AIR LINES: "Ates" Suit Goes to Wash. D.C. from E.D. La.
DICK SMITH: Shareholders Face Uncertainty in Suit Over Downfall
DIRECTV HOLDINGS: Faces Two Pauls Action Over NFL Sunday Ticket
ECS REFINING: "Easley" Suit Seeks Payment of OT, Minimum Wages
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: "Wilson" Suit Hits Shadowy Investment

EL NUEVO GROUP: "Valoy" Action Seeks OT Recovery
EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: "Davis" Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
FCA US LLC: "Wimley" Action Hits Keyless Ignition
FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND: "Lang" Suit Hits Mistaken Identity
FITBIT INC: Faces Suit Over Alleged Inaccurate Heart Rate Tracker

FITBIT INC: Lawyers Question Binding Arbitration Policies
GEICO CORP: "Carreno" Action Hits Phone Tapping
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Texarkana Alleges Liquid Alum Price Fixing
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Harnik" Action Over Headway Merger
J&J US TRADING: "Zheng" Suit Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay

JRN INC: "Jones" Action Seeks OT Pay Recovery
KIA MOTORS: "Chesler" Action Hits Keyless Ignition
LOANCARE LLC: Faces "James" Suit Over Force-Placed Insurance
MID-FLORIDA CREDIT UNION: "Fry" Action Hits Check Overdraft
MINNESOTA: Public Safety Dept Faces "Stainbrook" Unpaid OT Suit

NORDIC INC: "Bodnar" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: "Hobbs" Suit Moved to D.C.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: "Mcgarry" Suit Moved to D.C.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: "Cox" Suit Moved to D.C.
PALM SPRINGS GRILL: "Wiles" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Tips

PEP BOYS: "Edwards" Action Seeks to Bar Bridgestone Acquisition
POLAR AIR: To Pay Customers $100MM After Settling Antitrust Suit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Wolfe" Suit Hits Unfair Collection Effort
REALOGY GROUP: "Strader" Suit Hits Shadowy Settlement Deals
STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT: "Ketner" Action Hits Check Overdraft

STRIDE TOOL: "Blackshaw" Suit Seeks Recovery of OT Pay
SUNRUN INC: "Slovin" Action Hits Telemarketing Scam
TAKATA CORP: Wants Economic Loss Claims in Air Bag Suits Junked
TAKATA CORP: "Hodge" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
TIMBERRIDGE BUILDERS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Gordy" Action Says

TOMMIE COPPER: "Herst" Suit Alleges Product Fraud
TOP TOMATO GROUP: "Martinez" Action to Recover OT Wages
TOYOTA GROUP: "Draeger" Action Hits Keyless Ignition
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: "Napolitano" Action Hits Phone Scam
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: May Face Suit Over Very High New Year's Rates

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Bid for Multidistrict Litigation
UNITED COLLECTION: Judge Snubs Class Deal Favoring One Plaintiff
UNITED SHIP SERVICE: "Hernandez" Action Seeks Unpaid OT
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: "Oddo" Suit Hits Defective Valves
VIZIO INC: "Weiss" Suit Hits Illegal Data Gathering

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Bozman-Moss" Suit Moved to N.D. California
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Goldman" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Hurricane" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
WALDEN UNIVERSITY: "York" Action Hits Data Breach
WASH INDUSTRIES: "Sadou" Suit Seeks OT Recovery

WATAWA INC: Faces "He" Action in E.D.N.Y. Over Unpaid OT
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Faces Complaints That Mobile App Doesn't Work
WIRELESS VISION: "Gray" Action Seeks OT Pay Recovery

* Asbestos, Class Action Bill Faces Steep Senate Hurdle
* White House Threatens Veto of 'Class Action Fairness' Bill



                            *********



826 OCEAN DRIVE: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Michel Rodriguez, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. 826 Ocean Drive, LLC and Stefano Frittella,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-24336-JAL (S.D.Fla.,
Miami Division, November 23, 2015), seeks to recover minimum and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages and the costs and
reasonably attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor
Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.

Rodriguez claims to have worked a minimum of 46 hours in every
workweek but Defendants paid him for less than 40 hours.

826 Ocean Drive, LLC, a Florida corporation, is a restaurant
located at 826 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach 33139. Defendant performed
business under the name of "Pelican Caf‚."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd.
      Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33156
      Tel: (305) 446-1500
      Fax: (305) 446-1502
      Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


ADVANTAGE OPCO: "Figueroa" Suit Seeks OT Recovery, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Figueroa, Sandra Perez and Tahir Waseem, on their own
behalf and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Advantage
Opco, LLC, d/b/a Advantage Rent a Car, Defendant., Case No. 0:15-
cv-62479-WPD (S.D. Fla. Ft. Lauderdale Division, November 24,
2015), seeks liquidated damages, overtime pay recovery and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201-209.

Plaintiffs' primary duties were waiting on customers at the
vehicle rental counter, driving vehicles from one location to
another and general customer service. They claim to have worked
over 40 hours per week in several instances during their
employment without compensation.

Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company with principal
place of business in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Tel: (561) 447-8888
      Fax: (561) 447-8831
      E-Mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
              aquiles@shavitzlaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Bank" Suit Moved from Calif. to Wash. D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bank v. American Airlines, Inc et
al., Case No., 3:15-cv-03699, was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The
Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01904-CKK
to the proceeding.

Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets in
the United States. Plaintiffs seek actual damages, treble damages,
injunctive relief, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees
pursuant to Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act and Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs also alleged
violations of California's Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition
Law.

Delta Air Lines is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more than
5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries.

American Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its principal
places of business located in Fort Worth, Texas. American is the
largest airline in the world, operating nearly 6,700 flights per
day to 339 locations in 54 countries.

Southwest Airlines is a Texas corporation with its principal place
of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates more than
3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United States and six
additional countries.

United Airlines is Delaware corporations with its principal places
of business located in Chicago, Illinois. United offers service to
more destinations than any other airline in the world, operating
more than 5,300 flights per day to 369 locations across six
continents.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
          Terry Gross, Esq.
          Monique Alonso, Esq.
          GROSS BELSKY ALONSO, LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544 0200
          Facsimile: (415) 544 0201
          E-mail: adam@gba-law.com
                  terry@gba-law.com
                  monique@gba-law.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Cleveland" Suit Moved from Calif. to D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cleveland et al v. American
Airlines, Inc. et al., Case No., 3:15-cv-03497, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01906-CKK to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired for
unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

Delta Air Lines is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more than
5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries.

American Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its principal
places of business located in Fort Worth, Texas. American is the
largest airline in the world, operating nearly 6,700 flights per
day to 339 locations in 54 countries.

Southwest Airlines is a Texas corporation with its principal place
of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates more than
3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United States and six
additional countries.

United Airlines is Delaware corporations with its principal places
of business located in Chicago, Illinois. United offers service to
more destinations than any other airline in the world, operating
more than 5,300 flights per day to 369 locations across six
continents.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT P.C.
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798 4292
          Facsimile: (602) 274 1199
          E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew J. Jacobs, Esq.
          Michael L. Charlson, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS, LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 500W
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 639 6613
          Facsimile: (202) 879 8813
          E-mail: mjacobs@velaw.com
                  mcharlson@velaw.com

               - and -

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Bess" Suit Goes to Washington D.C.
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bess v. American Airlines, Inc. et
al., Case No., 3:15-cv-03881, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).
The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01903-
CKK to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to fix,
raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for air passenger
transportation services within the United States in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Delta Air Lines is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more than
5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries. American
Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its principal places of
business located in Fort Worth, Texas. American is the largest
airline in the world, operating nearly 6,700 flights per day to
339 locations in 54 countries. Southwest Airlines is a Texas
corporation with its principal place of business located in
Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates more than 3,600 flights per day
to 94 locations in the United States and six additional countries.
The United Airlines is Delaware corporations with its principal
places of business located in Chicago, Illinois. United offers
service to more destinations than any other airline in the world,
operating more than 5,300 flights per day to 369 locations across
six continents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq.
          Kathleen Styles Rogers, Esq.
          Chad A. Saunders, Esq.
          THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 546 6800
          Facsimile: (415) 546 6801
          E-mail: kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com
                 krogers@kraloweclaw.com
                 csaunders@kraloweclaw.com

               - and -

          Jennie Anderson, Esq.
          ANDRUS ANDERSON, LLP
          155 Montgomery Street, 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 986 1400
          Facsimile: (415) 986 1474
          Email: jennie@andrusanderson.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Park" Suit Transferred to Washington D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Park v. American Airlines, Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03467, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).
The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01907-
CKK to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly violated U.S.
antitrust laws by developing, entering into and enforcing illegal
agreements to engage in "capacity discipline". The defendants
reduced the supply of seats in order to artificially inflate,
raise, maintain and stabilize the price of domestic airfare in the
United States.

Delta Air Lines is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more than
5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries.

American Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its principal
places of business located in Fort Worth, Texas. American is the
largest airline in the world, operating nearly 6,700 flights per
day to 339 locations in 54 countries.

Southwest Airlines is a Texas corporation with its principal place
of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates more than
3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United States and six
additional countries.

United Airlines is Delaware corporations with its principal places
of business located in Chicago, Illinois. United offers service to
more destinations than any other airline in the world, operating
more than 5,300 flights per day to 369 locations across six
continents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack W. Lee, Esq.
          Derek G. Howard, Esq.
          Aron K. Liang, Esq.
          Sean Tamura-Sato, Esq.
          MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP
          360 Post Street, 8th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 788 9000
          Facsimile: (415) 398 3887
          E-mail: jlee@minamitamaki.com
                  dhoward@minamitamaki.com
                  aliang@minamitamaki.com
                  seant@minamitamaki.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Verduzco" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Verduzco v. American Airlines,
Inc. et al, Case No., 3:15-cv-03374, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).
The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01911-
CKK to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly fix, raise,
maintain, and/or stabilize prices for air passenger transportation
services within the US in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.

Delta Air Lines is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more than
5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries.

American Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its principal
places of business located in Fort Worth, Texas. American is the
largest airline in the world, operating nearly 6,700 flights per
day to 339 locations in 54 countries.

Southwest Airlines is a Texas corporation with its principal place
of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates more than
3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United States and six
additional countries.

United Airlines is Delaware corporations with its principal places
of business located in Chicago, Illinois. United offers service to
more destinations than any other airline in the world, operating
more than 5,300 flights per day to 369 locations across six
continents.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Guido Saveri, Esq.
          R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 217 6810
          Facsimile: (415) 217 6813
          E-mail: guido@saveri.com
                  rick@saveri.com

               - and -

          Randy R. Renick, Esq.
          HADSELL STORMER & RENICK, LLP
          250 E. 1st Street, Suite 1201
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 785 6999
          Toll Free: (844) 200.3863
          Facsimile: (213) 221 7246
          E-mail: rrr@hsrlegalfund.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John F. Cove, Jr.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 874-1000
          Facsimile: (510) 874 1460
          E-mail: jcove@bfllp.com

               - and -

          Alden Lewis Atkins, Esq.
          Matthew J. Jacobs, Esq.
          Michael L. Charlson, Esq.
          Mortimer H. Hartwell, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS, LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Suite 500W
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 639 6613
          Facsimile: (202) 879 8813
          E-mail: aatkins@velaw.com
                  mjacobs@velaw.com
                  mcharlson@velaw.com
                  mhartwell@velaw.com

               - and -

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Lay" Suit Moved from Chicago to D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lay v. American Airlines Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07441, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The
Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01886-CKK
to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly violated
antitrust law provisions.

American Airlines Group is an American publicly traded airline
holding company headquartered in Fort Worth. American Airlines
provides scheduled airline services. It offers scheduled jet
services primarily to Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles,
Miami, and New York City.

Delta Air Lines is a major American airline, with its headquarters
and largest hub at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International
Airport in Atlanta, Georgia.

Southwest Airlines is a major U.S. airline and the world's largest
low-cost carrier, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

United Continental Holdings is a publicly traded airline holding
company headquartered in the Willis Tower in Chicago, and owns and
operates United Airlines. United Airlines based in Chicago,
Illinois, offers passenger and cargo air transportation services.
As of October 28, 2015, the company operated approximately 700
mainline aircraft.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          550 Main Avenue, Suite 600
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 247 0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522 0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Markun" Suit Moved from E.D.N.Y. to D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Markun v. American Airlines, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04284, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of District of Columbia
(Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:15-cv-01864-CKK to the proceeding.

The civil antitrust lawsuit arose from the Airline Defendants'
alleged conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of
airline tickets.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia. American Airlines is a major American
airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. Southwest Airlines is
a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Airlines, commonly referred
to as United, is a major American airline, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. The Defendants are operators of major airlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah Shube, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF NOAH SHUBE
          401 Broadway, STE 2115
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 274 8638

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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



AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Everitt" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Everitt et al v. American
Airlines, Inc. et al, Case No. 3:15-cv-02299, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).
The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01854-
CKK to the proceeding.

The civil antitrust lawsuit arose from the Airline Defendants'
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of airline
tickets in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia. American Airlines is a major American
airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. Southwest Airlines is
a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Airlines, commonly referred
to as United, is a major American airline, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. The Defendants are operators of major airlines.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Carolyn M. Hazard, Esq.
          Paul Denis, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          1900 K Street NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 261-3430
          Facsimile: (202) 261-3333

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Williams" Suit Moved from Cal. to Wash. D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Williams v. American Airlines,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-04223, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington,
DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
01900-CKK to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly conspired for
the purpose of fixing prices, allocating markets and territories,
and committing other anticompetitive practices designed to
unlawfully fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices for Domestic
Airfare in the US.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia. American Airlines is a major American
airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. Southwest Airlines is
a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Airlines, commonly referred
to as United, is a major American airline, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. The Defendants are operators of major airlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence G. Papale, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE G. PAPALE
          1308 Main Street, Suite 117
          Saint Helena, CA 94574
          Telephone: (707) 963-1704
          E-mail: lgpspale@papalelaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Alioto, Esq.
          Theresa D. Moore, Esq.
          Jamie L. Miller, Esq.
          ALIOTO LAW FIRM
          225 Bush Street, 16th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 434-8900
          E-mail: jmalioto@aliotolaw.com
                  tmoore@aliotolaw.com

               - and -

          Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq.
          James Terrell, Esq.
          McCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, P.C.
          The Highland Building
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939 3006
          Facsimile: (205) 939 0399


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Tran" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Tran v. American Airlines, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03412, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).
The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01909-
CKK to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly fixes,
raises, maintains, and/or stabilizes prices for air passenger
transportation services within the US in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia. American Airlines is a major American
airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. Southwest Airlines is
a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Airlines, commonly referred
to as United, is a major American airline, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. The Defendants are operators of major airlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON, LLP
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
          E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew J. Jacobs, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS, LLP
          525 University Avenue, Suite 410
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 687-8214
          Facsimile: (650) 618-2666
          E-mail: mjacobs@velaw.com

               - and -

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "King" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled King v. American Airlines, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03296, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Northern California, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).
The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01914-
CKK to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly fix, raise,
maintain, and/or stabilize prices for air passenger transportation
services within the US in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia. American Airlines is a major American
airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. Southwest Airlines is
a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Airlines, commonly referred
to as United, is a major American airline, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. The Defendants are operators of major airlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq.
          THE MEHDI FIRM, PC
          One Market, Spear Tower, Suite 3600
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 293-8039
          Facsimile: (415) 293-8001
          Email: azram@themehdifirm.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Hilary K. Scherrer, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
                 bsweeney@hausfeld.com
                 clebsock@hausfeld.com
                 mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
                 hscherrer@hausfeld.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John F. Cove, Jr., Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 874-1000
          Facsimile: (510) 874 1460
          E-mail: jcove@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Alden Lewis Atkins, Esq.
          Matthew J. Jacobs, Esq.
          Michael L. Charlson, Esq.
          Mortimer H. Hartwell, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Suite 500W
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 639-6613
          Facsimile: (202) 879-8813
          E-mail: aatkins@velaw.com
                  mjacobs@velaw.com
                  mcharlson@velaw.com
                  mhartwell@velaw.com

               - and -

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Nathanson" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Nathanson v. American Airlines,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04101, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The
Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01866-CKK
to the proceeding.

The civil antitrust lawsuit arose from the Airline Defendants'
alleged conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of
airline tickets in the US.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia. American Airlines is a major American
airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. Southwest Airlines is
a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Airlines, commonly referred
to as United, is a major American airline, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. The Defendants are operators of major airlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Frank, Esq.
          Marvin L. Frank, Esq.
          Bridget V. Hamill, Esq.
          ASHER HAWKINS
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 705
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1853
          Facsimile: (212) 682-1892
          E-mail: info@frankandbianco.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Giordano" Suit Transferred to Wash. D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Giordano V. American Airlines,
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02310, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Northern Texas, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The
Columbus District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01853-CKK
to the proceeding.

The civil antitrust lawsuit arose from the Airline Defendants'
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of airline
tickets in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia. American Airlines is a major American
airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. Southwest Airlines is
a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Airlines, commonly referred
to as United, is a major American airline, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. The Defendants are operators of major airlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
         Andrew W. Ferich, Esq,
         CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP
         361 West Lancaster Avenue
         Haverford, PA 19041
         Telephone: (610) 642-8500
         E-mail: BFJ@Chimicles.com
                 AWF@Chimicles.com

               - and -

         Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
         Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
         CADDELL & CHAPMAN
         1331 Lamar St., Suite 1070
         Houston TX 77010
         Telephone: (713) 751-0400
         Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
         E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
                 cbc@caddellchapman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Connelly" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Connelly et al, v. American
Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04559, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
(Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:15-cv-01921-CKK to the proceeding.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia. American Airlines is a major American
airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. Southwest Airlines is
a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Airlines, commonly referred
to as United, is a major American airline, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. The Defendants are operators of major airlines.

The Defendants are represented by:

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Berday" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Berday v. American Airlines, Inc.
et al., Case No. CAL-15-25268, was removed from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Colombia
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01882-CKK to the
proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly conspired to
fix, raise, maintain or stabilize air passenger transportation
services within the US.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia. American Airlines is a major American
airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. Southwest Airlines is
a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Airlines, commonly referred
to as United, is a major American airline, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. The Defendants are operators of major airlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD LLP
          One Indiana Square
          Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael Lacovara, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US, LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 277-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 277-4001
          E-mail: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com


AMERICAN CRUISE LINES: "McCormick" Action Seeks OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Nicole McCormick, Jesus Estrada and Justice Kimmons, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
American Cruise Lines, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-01721 (D.
Conn., November 23, 2015), seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime compensation pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes
Section 31-58 et seq., liquidated and/or double damages pursuant
to the Connecticut General Statutes Section 31-72.

Plaintiffs were employed as stewards by the Defendants.

American Cruise Lines, Inc. is a corporation created and existing
under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Connecticut. It
maintains its headquarters and principal place of business at 741
Boston Post Road, Suite 200, Guilford, CT 06437. It owns, operates
and controls a ship cruise line consisting of seven ships, which
cruise along the Eastern Seaboard, Western Seaboard (including
Alaska) and rivers of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce E. Newman, Esq.
      BROWN PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP
      747 Stafford Avenue
      Bristol, CT 0601
      Tel: (860) 583-520
      Fax: (860)589-5780
      Email: bnewman@bpslawyers.com

           - and -

      Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
      Shelly A. Leonard, Esq.
      BLAU, LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC
      23 Green Street, Suite 303
      Huntington, NY 11743
      Tel: (631) 458-1010
      Email: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com
             sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com


AMERICAN GROUP: "Jones" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jones et al v. American Airlines
Group Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04015, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
(Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:15-cv-01855-CKK to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the antitrust lawsuit arose from the
Airline Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or
stabilize prices of airline tickets in the US.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia. American Airlines is a major American
airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. Southwest Airlines is
a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Airlines, commonly referred
to as United, is a major American airline, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. The Defendants are operators of major airlines.
United Continental Holdings (UCH) formerly UAL Corporation, is a
publicly traded airline holding company headquartered in the
Willis Tower in Chicago. UCH owns and operates United Airlines,
Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kirriherly A. Justice, Esq.
          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
          Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
          KESSLER, TOPAZ, MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 270-1467
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: kjustice@ktmc.com
                  jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  tziegler@ktmc.com
                  namjed@ktmc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


AMERICAN IN-HOME CARE: "Fein" Action Seeks OT Recovery
------------------------------------------------------
Janet Fie, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American
In-Home Care, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:15-cv-62479-WPD (M.D.
Fla. Ocala Division, October 24, 2015), seeks damages for the
amount of unpaid overtime wage compensation and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b).

Fie has been employed as an in-home care provider by the Defendant
and claims to have rendered work in excess of 40 hours per week
without compensation.

American In-Home Care, LLC is engaged in in-home health-care and
is registered in the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      N. James Turner, Esq.
      37 N. Orange Avenue
      Suite 500
      Orlando, Florida 32801
      Tel: (888) 877-5103
      Email: njtlaw@gmail.com


ANIMAL AIR SERVICE: "Romero" Suit Seeks OT Recovery
---------------------------------------------------
Julio Romero and other similarly-situated individuals, v. Animal
Air Service, Inc. and Luis Enrique Valdivieso, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-24334-CMA (S.D. Fla. Miami Division)
seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages and the
costs and reasonably attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair
Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.

Romero claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week on or
after November 16, 2012 without being compensated. He worked as a
driver, groomer and cleaner and also setup all kind of crates,
stalls, and pens to be used in the transportation of animals.

Animal Air Service, Inc. is a Florida Corporation which has its
place of business in Dade County and is into animal transport and
handling company providing services at Miami International
Airport. It is owned by Luis Enrique Valdivieso.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      Florida Bar No.: 0024031
      3100 South Dixie Highway Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Tel: (305) 446-1500
      Fax: (305) 446-1502
      Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com



ANIMAL AIR SERVICE: "Canizares" Suit Seeks OT Recovery
------------------------------------------------------
Jesus A. Canizares, and other similarly-situated individuals, v.
Animal Air Service, Inc. and Luis Enrique Valdivieso,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-24333-JEM (S.D. Fla.
Miami Division) seeks actual damages for unpaid compensation in
excess of 40 hours weekly with interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs of suit in accordance with 29 U.S.C. 201-219 of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was a lead man, driver, groomer and cleaner.

Animal Air Service, Inc. is a Florida Corporation which has its
place of business in Dade County and is into animal transport and
handling company providing services at Miami International
Airport. It is owned by Luis Enrique Valdivieso.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Tel: (305) 446-1500
      Fax: (305) 446-1502
      Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


APPELSMITH: 9th Circ. Orders Review of Prohibition-Era Ad Ban
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that in a win
for corporate speech, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit on Thursday took a step toward possibly overturning
California's ban on paid alcoholic beverage advertisements in
retail stores.

A unanimous panel concluded the rule that bars manufacturers and
wholesalers from paying for in-store marketing must be re-examined
based on a handful of U.S. Supreme Court decisions requiring
heightened judicial scrutiny of commercial speech.

"The Supreme Court has since made clear that the First Amendment
does not allow the government to silence truthful speech simply
for fear that adults who hear it would be too persuaded," Judge
Consuelo Callahan wrote for the majority in Retail Digital Network
v. Appelsmith, 13-56069.

The law belongs to a string of "tied-house" statutes passed in the
Prohibition era to promote temperance, prevent monopolies, and
keep alcohol distributors from gaining too much control over the
bars where their products are served. The Ninth Circuit upheld the
ban in 1986.

Ruling 30 years later, Callahan questioned its continued value.
"We cannot say on the record before us that the state's
Prohibition-era concern about advertising payments leading to
vertical and horizontal integration, and thus leading to other
social ills, remains an actual problem in need of solving,"
Callahan wrote, joined by Chief Judge Sidney Thomas and U.S.
District Judge Edward Korman, sitting by designation from the
Eastern District of New York.

Retail Digital Network sued the director of the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board in 2011, seeking to overturn the alcohol advertising
ban. The company installs liquid crystal displays in retail
stores, and then contracts with third parties who advertise on the
screens. RDN argued it has been shut out of the alcoholic beverage
market because manufacturers are afraid of running afoul of
California law.

U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall of the Central District of
California granted summary judgment in favor of the state. The
district judge had looked to the 1986 case, Actmedia v. Stroh,
which held that the law survived intermediate scrutiny under the
First Amendment because it directly furthered the state's interest
to promote temperance and prevent monopolies.

In 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Sorrell v. IMS Health
raised the bar, Callahan wrote, requiring that courts apply
"heightened scrutiny" to cases involving First Amendment
restrictions on commercial speech.

Sorrell and Actmedia are "clearly irreconcilable," Callahan wrote,
and in this case, Sorrell's guidance must be followed.
The panel remanded the case and encouraged the district court to
be skeptical about the ban's utility.

"The record before us does not demonstrate that a prohibition on
paid point-of-sale advertising materially advances the goal of
temperance," Callahan wrote.

She pointed to a study discussed in the Actmedia case, which
suggested that paid advertising succeeds only in persuading
customers to purchase a particular brand of alcohol, not to drink
more.

A spokesman for the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board said the
board was still reviewing the decision Thursday and wouldn't
comment. Deputy Attorney General Gabrielle Brumbach argued for the
board.

Beverly Hills attorney Olivier Taillieu, who argued for Retail
Digital Network, said his team is looking forward to developing a
full record on remand. He hopes that if his client prevails,
"tied-house" statutes -- given the name because they combat
practices that tie retailers to the alcohol industry -- will fall
across the U.S. The attorney acknowledged that the state now has
the opportunity to make a case that the paid advertising ban is
necessary to protect a compelling state interest, and that it is
reasonably narrow.

"I think we're years from seeing the end of this," Taillieu said.
"But I think it's a step in the right direction."


APPLE INC: Court Declines Class in Suit Over AppleCare Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Tanous at The Mac Observer reports that a federal judge denied
the formation of a class-action lawsuit against Apple over the
company's iPhone replacement and AppleCare policies, describing
the lawyer who filed the suit as "manifestly incompetent" for her
poor legal arguments and mishandling of court procedures.

As noted by Ars Technica's Joe Mullin, the case, English v. Apple,
was originally filed in 2013 after attorney Renee Kennedy went to
her local Apple Store to replace a broken iPhone.  Ms. Kennedy
purchased AppleCare+ and received a replacement device, but soon
after noticed issues with the iPhone's camera.  She also then
became aware of the fact that Apple sometimes uses refurbished
phones when replacing customer devices, and was upset that Apple
employees allegedly hid that fact from her when she purchased
AppleCare.

After "repeatedly" contacting Apple with regard to her replacement
iPhone's camera, Ms. Kennedy returned to the store and demanded
that Apple provide a new phone in an Apple-branded box, a request
the store refused. She then instructed both her paralegal,
Jennifer Galindo, and a former employee, Patricia Adkins, to go to
the Apple Store and purchase AppleCare+ for their iPhones.  Ms.
Galindo, acting under instructions from Ms. Kennedy, also secretly
recorded her interactions with employees at the store.  The court
noted that both plaintiffs paid for their AppleCare purchases with
"monetary gifts" from Ms.  Kennedy.

With her associates now "harmed" thanks to their instructed
purchases of AppleCare, Ms. Kennedy filed suit against Apple on
November 4, 2013, naming Ms. Galindo, Ms. Adkins, and, in a last-
minute effort to try and keep things legitimate, Fabrienne
English, an unrelated woman who Ms. Kennedy met while shopping
three days prior.

Ms. English had also purchased AppleCare+ for her iPhone but had a
second issue on top of Apple's use of refurbished phones as
replacements.  She claims that she purchased the protection plan
at the time she sought her first replacement for accidental
damage, but was allegedly assured by Apple employees that this
initial replacement wouldn't count against AppleCare's limit of
two subsidized "incidents" during the coverage period.  Ms.
English later required another replacement, which occurred without
issue, and then another in February 2014.  At this third service
appointment her request for a replacement was denied, with the
Apple employee citing her very first replacement as counting
towards the limit, in contradiction to what she claims Apple
initially told her.

Ms. Kennedy initially filed suit in Texas, but Apple was able to
successfully get the litigation moved to federal court in the
Northern District of California.  The improper relationship
between Ms. Kennedy, Ms. Galindo, and Ms. Adkins resulted in the
latter two dropping out, leaving Ms. English as the sole
plaintiff.  Nevertheless, Ms. Kennedy chose to proceed, and sought
class-action status for her suit based on multiple arguments, all
of which the judge denied.

First, the suit argued that Apple misled consumers about whether
purchasing AppleCare+ at the time of a replacement for accidental
damage would use up one of the two subsidized replacements allowed
during the coverage period.  Apple agreed that its policy is to
not count the initial replacement against the purchaser's two-
incident limit, and admitted that the denial of Ms. English's
replacement request in February 2014, if true, did not conform to
the company's policy.  Such an incident, however, absent evidence
of broader mistakes affecting more customers, makes Ms. English
merely a "class of one," and can't be used as the basis of a
class-action lawsuit.

Second, the suit argued that Apple employees "fraudulently omit"
the fact that a customer might receive a refurbished iPhone when
replacing their device under AppleCare, and took issue with the
way that Apple hides the history of replacement devices by storing
them in "plain, white, unbranded" boxes.

Apple does indeed use a mix of new and refurbished devices for
both in- and out-of-warranty replacements, with the company
describing the condition of refurbished devices used for this
purpose as "like-new."  This issue alone may be worth a deeper
look, but Ms. Kennedy's lawsuit won't be the method of doing so.
The reason?  Apple was able to track down the records for Ms.
English's replacement request and found that she had actually
received new phones, not refurbished ones, making her unable to
represent a class on this issue.

In rejecting the suit's request for class-action status, U.S.
District Judge William Orrick harshly criticized Ms. Kennedy, who
specializes in divorce and family law, both for the basis of the
suit and her conduct handling the procedural issues of the case.

"Class counsel's prior relationship with Adkins and Galindo and
her involvement in their purchase of AC+ continue to taint this
case.  The record strongly indicates that Adkins and Galindo
purchased their AC+ plans at class counsel's direction for the
purpose of initiating this lawsuit.

Class counsel's total lack of experience with class action
litigation, and her pervasive failure to comply with basic federal
and local rules and with my standing orders throughout the course
of this litigation, further undermine English's request for class
certification."

With things unraveling, Ms. Kennedy sought to distance herself
from the issue by bringing in representation from an unrelated law
firm.  Judge Orrick, however, was not persuaded:

"As with class counsel's involvement in the inception of this
case, her inexperience and poor performance to date are not
adequately addressed by the recent appearance of KCR as co-
counsel.  Moreover, this case has always been and continues to be
class counsel's; she is its source and its driver, and neither the
dubious manner in which this litigation commenced nor the
manifestly incompetent manner in which it has been conducted are
cured at this juncture by yet another new co-counsel."

While the court's ruling in favor of Apple on the class-action
issue is resolved, the lawsuit has not been dismissed entirely, as
Ms. English can still make most of her claims as an individual
plaintiff.  Without the lucrative possibility of a class-action
settlement, however, it is unlikely that Ms. Kennedy and her new
co-counsel will be able to recoup the costs of the litigation,
even if they eventually prevail.

The case's future should be determined soon, however, as Judge
Orrick has scheduled a conference on February 9 for the parties to
decide how to proceed.

The case is Fabrienne English v. Apple Inc., et al., Case No. 14-
cv-01619-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.


AUTOZONE INC: "Drake Price" Suit Moved to N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Drake Price v. AutoZone, Inc. et
al, Case No. 2:15-cv-07662, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District Court of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:15-cv-04946-CRB to the proceeding.

Autozone is Nevada/Delaware Corporation and is the second-largest
retailer of aftermarket automotive parts and accessories in the
United States. AutoZoners is a Nevada Limited Liability Company.
AutoZone West LLC is formerly known as Autozone West, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina Marie Nordsten, Esq.
          D. Alan Harris, Esq.
          David Covington Garrett, Esq.
          Priya Mohan, Esq.
          HARRIS AND RUBLE
          655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: cnordsten@harrisandruble.com
                  aharris@harrisandruble.com
                  DGarett@harrisandruble.com
                  pmohan@harrisandruble.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amy C Hirsh, Esq.
          Michael A. Hoffman III, Esq.
          ARENA HOFFMAN LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3520
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1414
          Email: ahirsh@arenahoffman.com
                 mhoffman@arenahoffman.com


AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Beaver County Retirees Sue Over Fund Fiasco
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Avalanche
Biotechnologies, Inc., Thomas W. Chalberg, Jr., Linda C. Bain,
Mark S. Blumenkranz, John P. McLaughlin, Steven D Schwartz, Paul
D. Wachter, Venrock Management VI, LLC, VHCP Management, LLC,
Jefferies LLC, Cowen and Company LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., William
Blair & Company, LLC and Does 1-25, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. CIV536488 (E.D. Cal., December 7, 2015), seeks compensatory
damages, counsel fees, equitable and injunctive relief violation
of Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 29
U.S.C. Sec. 1132 and Violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

Avalanche is a Menlo Park-based clinical stage biotech company
focusing on developing gene therapies to treat age-related macular
degeneration. They allegedly failed to disclose clinical results
that, when disclosed, confirmed inconsistencies in their test
results thereby debunking their claims of treatment. Share prices
dropped as a result of this.

The Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund purchased Avalanche
common stock.

Thomas W. Chalberg, Jr. is a co-founder of Avalanche, and was a
member of its Board of Directors, President and its Chief
Executive Officer.

Linda C. Bain was the Chief Financial Officer of Avalanche.

Mark S. Blumenkranz, John P. McLaughlin, Steven D Schwartz and
Paul D. Wachter were member of the Board of Directors.

Venrock Management VI, LLC, VHCP Management, LLC, Jefferies LLC
and Cowen and Company LLC are juridical investors of Avalanche.

Piper Jaffray & Co. and William Blair & Company, LLC were
underwriters of the public offering of Avalanche.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel: (415) 288-4545
      Fax: (4150 288-4534

         - and -

      James I. Jaconette, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423


AVESTA HOMES: "Velez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------
Jose Velez, Ronnier Marona and Pedro Rodriguez, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Avesta
Homes LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:15-cv-02713-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla.,
Tampa Division, November 20, 2015), seeks unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages and attorney's fees in accordance with the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.

Plaintiffs worked as maintenance technicians for the Defendant and
claim to have worked in excess of 40 hours per work week without
compensation.

Avesta Homes is a Florida-based housing developer engaged in mid-
market developments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Tel: (305) 446-1500
      Fax: (305) 446-1502
      Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


BERNARD L. MADOFF: Settlement Proposed in Feeder Fund Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Christine Simmons, writing for New York Law Journal, reported that
PricewaterhouseCoopers affiliates have agreed to pay $55 million
to resolve claims brought by investors who suffered losses in the
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC Ponzi scheme. The
parties disclosed the agreement in court papers Wednesday.

According to the proposal, which is subject to approval by
Southern District Judge Victor Marrero, PricewaterhouseCoopers
affiliates in Canada and the Netherlands would pay investors in
so-called Madoff feeder funds that were audited by PwC and managed
by Fairfield Greenwich Group.

The plaintiffs include nearly 3,000 investors, including
individuals and institutions such as pension funds and insurance
companies. Nearly all of plaintiffs' assets were purportedly
invested by Bernard Madoff, who pleaded guilty to fraud and other
charges in 2009 and is serving a 150-year sentence.

The defendants, accused of failing to properly audit the funds,
deny allegations of wrongdoing or liability.

If approved, the settlement would end seven years of litigation.
Investors have recovered at least $235 million through multiple
settlements,which includes the $55 million proposed deal and prior
settlements with Fairfield Greenwich and hedge fund administrator
Citco Group. Plaintiffs counsel said total recovery might exceed a
quarter billion dollars.

The plaintiffs were represented by Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Wolf
Popper, and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson.

"We believe that with this PwC settlement, we will have achieved
the largest recovery on claims made by investors in Madoff feeder
funds," said Boies Schiller partner David Barrett, who handled the
case with partner Stuart Singer.

Plaintiffs counsel is expected to submit a fee application, which
could request up to 30 percent of the settlement, consistent with
a prior arrangement.

Attorneys who represented PricewaterhouseCoopers affiliates at
Hughes Hubbard & Reed and Kirkland & Ellis did not return calls
for comment.


BR GROUP: "Rahman" Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Pay
---------------------------------------------
Mohammed Rahman, on behalf of himself and on behalf of other
similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. B.R. Guest Holdings,
LLC, B.R. Guest, LLC, SPH Restaurant Enterprises, INC. a.k.a. BR
GUEST, INC., and 1567 BWAY Restaurant Associates LLC d/b/a Blue
Fin, Case No. 1:15-cv-09291 (S.D.N.Y., November 24, 2015), seeks
liquidated damages, unpaid minimum wage and attorneys' fees and
costs in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

Mohammed Rahman has been employed by Defendants as a Barista at
Blue Fin. Defendants have allegedly failed to pay him prevailing
minimum wage for all hours worked and retaining and unlawfully
distributing gratuities.

B.R. Guest Holdings, LLC is a Delaware Corporation registered in
New York located at 111 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10011.

B.R. Guest, LLC is a Delaware Corporation registered in New York
located at 206 Spring Street, New York, New York 10012.

SPH Restaurant Enterprises, Inc. a.k.a. BR Guest, Inc. is a New
York Corporation registered under both the names "SPH Restaurant
Enterprises, Inc." and "BR Guest, Inc." located at 200 Park Avenue
South, New York, New York 10003.

1567 BWay Restaurant Associates LLC d/b/a "Blue Fin" is a New York
Corporation located at 315 Park Avenue South, 13th Floor, New
York, New York 10010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Tel: (212) 257-6800
      Fax: (212) 257-6845
      Email: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
             trahman@wigdorlaw.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces Class Suit Over Quality Control Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. ("Chipotle" or the "Company")
(NYSE:CMG) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
and docketed under 16-cv-00141, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased Chipotle securities
between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016 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 Chipotle securities during
the Class Period, you have until March 8, 2016 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://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.

Chipotle, together with its subsidiaries, develops and operates
fast-casual and fresh Mexican food restaurants.

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) Chipotle's quality controls
were not in compliance with applicable consumer and workplace
safety regulations; (ii) Chipotle's quality controls were
inadequate to safeguard consumer and employee health; and (iii) as
a result of the foregoing, Chipotle's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

During the week of August 18, 2015, approximately 100 patrons and
employees of a Chipotle restaurant in Simi Valley, California
became ill.  On September 4, 2015, the Ventura County
Environmental Health Division announced that the illnesses were a
norovirus outbreak.  Health inspectors said that the restaurant in
question contained dirty and inoperative equipment, equipment
directly linked to the sewer, and other sanitary and health
violations.

Between August 19 and September 3, 2015, approximately 64 people
fell ill after dining at Chipotle restaurants in Minnesota.  On
September 17, 2015, the Minnesota Department of Health announced
that the illnesses were salmonella linked to tomatoes consumed at
22 Chipotle locations.  The affected restaurants changed tomato
suppliers but did not close.

On or around November 1, 2015, Chipotle closed all of its
restaurants in Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington, following
reports of approximately 20 cases of E. coli by Chipotle patrons.

As a result of this news, Chipotle stock fell $16.23, or
approximately 2.5%, to close at $624.00 on November 2, 2015.
Starting on or around December 2, 2015, more than 140 Boston
College students fell ill after dining at a Chipotle restaurant in
Brighton, Massachusetts.  On December 9, 2015, health officials
confirmed that the students had contracted norovirus.

As a result of this news, between December 1 and December 9, 2015,
Chipotle stock fell $32.73, or roughly 5.6%, to close at $548.01
on December 9, 2015.

On January 6, 2016, pre-market, Chipotle announced that the
company was served in December 2015 with a federal grand jury
subpoena as part of a criminal investigation tied to the previous
summer's norovirus outbreak at the Company's restaurant in Simi
Valley.  The investigation is being conducted by the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Central District of California in
conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").

On this news, Chipotle stock fell $22.36, or 4.98%, to close at
$426.67 on January 6, 2016.

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.

The Firm may be contacted at:

          Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Misled Shareholders Over Food Safety, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Denver Business Journal reports that beleaguered Chipotle Mexican
Grill Inc., faced with foodborne-illness outbreaks that have
sickened dozens of customers in several states, is the target of a
lawsuit filed in federal court on behalf of investors.

The class-action civil lawsuit against Denver-based Chipotle
(NYSE: CMG) -- first reported by the Reuters news service -- was
filed in U.S. District Court in New York.  The suit alleges that
the chain misled a shareholder named Susie Ong and others about
its food-safety practices.

The suit -- Susie Ong v. Chipotle, et al. -- claims that investors
were not informed that Chipotle's "quality controls were
inadequate to safeguard consumer and employee health," leading to
outbreaks that have helped push down its share price 44 percent
since Oct. 13 -- about the time when reports first emerged of an
E. coli outbreak linked to some of its Northwest restaurants.
Illnesses associated with eating at Chipotle restaurants were
later reported in several other states.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Rosen Law Firm Sues Over Food Safety Issue
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (CMG) securities from February 4,
2015 through January 5, 2016 all dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Chipotle
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Chipotle class action, go to the Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-809.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq., or Kevin Chan, Esq., toll-free at 866-767-3653 or e-mail
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Chipotle's quality controls
were not in compliance with applicable consumer and workplace
safety regulations; (2) Chipotle's quality controls were
inadequate to safeguard consumer and employee health; and (3) as a
result, Chipotle's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.  When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
March 8, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  If
you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-809.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.

The Firm may be contacted at:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com


COIN ACCEPTORS: "Honeycutt" Action Seeks OT Recovery
----------------------------------------------------
Donna Honeycutt, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
6:15-cv-03523-MDH (W.D. Mo., Southern Division, December 8, 2015),
seeks an injunction, injunctive relief, award of unpaid wages,
unpaid overtime premiums due, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Missouri Common Law and Wage Laws, R.S.
Mo. Sec. 290.500, et seq.

Plaintiff worked on the skinners, sanding and inner Door
production lines in the Defendant's Mountain View, Missouri
facility. She claims that she was not paid overtime compensation
for all hours worked, including hours exceeding 40 each workweek.

Coin Acceptors, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of
the state of Iowa and authorized to do business in Missouri. It is
a manufacturer of vending machines under the name Mountain View
Fabricating.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth A. Wagoner, Esq.
      BRILL & WAGONER, P.C.
      204 West Main Street
      West Plains, MO 65775
      Tel: (816) 512-5000
      Email: kwagoner@brillwagoner.com

           - and -

      Barrett S. Moore, Esq.
      BLAIR & STROUD
      P.O. Box 2135
      Batesville, AK 72503
      Tel: (870) 793-8350
      Email: bsm@blastlaw.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Smith" Suit Moved to N.D. Alabama
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Smith v. Community Health Systems
(CHS), Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00403, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
(Southern). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:15-cv-01883-KOB to the proceeding.

Community Health Systems is a Fortune 500 company based in
Franklin, Tennessee. It is one of the largest providers of general
hospital healthcare services in the US in terms of number of acute
care facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          PEIRCE LAW OFFICES
          2500 Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-7229
          Facsimile: (412) 281-4229

               - and -

          Jason A. Medure, Esq.
          LUXENBERG, GARBETT, KELLY & GEORGE, P.C.
          315 North Mercer Street
          New Castle, PA 16101
          Telephone: (724) 658-8535
          Facsimile: (724) 658-8013


CONTACT MANAGEMENT: "Curtis" Action to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Curtis and Robert Lowell, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Contract Management
Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00487-JAW (D. Me.,
November 25, 2015), seeks damages in the amount of allegedly
illegal deductions, unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay, treble
damages and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. 216(b) and the Maine Employment Practices Act, 26
M.R.S.A. Sec. 629.

Plaintiffs worked as delivery or shuttle drivers for the Defendant
and allege not being paid for all time worked, travel and wait
time, reimbursed for mileage or vehicle costs, had their pay
reduced for payroll processing, prescription insurance, rental
and/or purchase of scanners and SIM cards required by the
Defendant and rendered more than 40 hours a week without
compensation.

Contract Management Services, LLC is limited liability company
organized under the laws of Arizona with its principal place of
business in Arizona doing business as "Business as Usual." They
transport medical prescriptions and orders from their client in
Westbrook, Maine facility to health care facilities throughout
Maine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq.
      Phillip E. Johnson, Esq.
      JOHNSON, WEBBERT & YOUNG, LLP
      160 Capitol Street, P.O. Box 79
      Augusta, Maine 04332-0079
      Tel: (207) 623-5110
      Email: jyoung@johnsonwebbert.com
             pjohnson@johnsonwebbert.com


CONWAY CITY, AR: To Appeal Judge's Ruling Certifying Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Hicks, writing for Log Cabin Democrat, reports that Conway
City plans to appeal a Faulkner County circuit judge's decision to
uphold the Conway police and fire departments' request for class-
action status.

The lawsuit accused the city of breaching its contract for salary
improvements and sought illegal exaction.

In December, Division Two Circuit Judge Troy B. Braswell, Jr.,
dismissed the plaintiffs' illegal exaction claim but ruled in
favor for police and fire employees that were employed with the
city between Dec. 1, 2001, and Dec. 31, 2012, to move forward in a
class-action suit against the city.

The accusations stem from a Conway City Council-approved quarter-
cent sales tax that was to be used "exclusively to the salaries of
the employees of the City of Conway," according to the ballot
resolution that was passed by Conway voters in August 2001.

Employees allege they did not receive money they were promised.

City Attorney Chuck Clawson said the court's dismissal of the
illegal exaction claim sent a clear message to Conway residents
that "there was no basis for the claim."

"It is important for the citizens of Conway to know that their tax
dollars are being collected, allocated and spent properly," he
said.  "The current administration and city council pride
themselves on transparency.  Public trust is their top priority."

Attorneys Thomas Thrash and Russell Wood represent Richard Shumate
of the Conway Police Department and Damon Reed of the Conway Fire
Department who pushed the lawsuit against the city.

The city is represented by Michael Moseley,Thomas Kieklak and
Justin Eichmann.

Eichmann said the oral contracts the employees had with the city
did not constitute grounds for class-action certification because
each individual could have a different understanding on the
matter.

"Our strong belief is that this does not lend itself class-action
certification because every employee could have a different
understanding of these oral contracts," he said.

The city decided to make its appeal sooner than addressing the
issue later on because the claims against the city allege improper
spending of public funds, Eichmann said.

Pay improvements were to be made to city employees through a step
grid process, according to arguments.

The appeal notice that was filed in Faulkner County Circuit Court
on January 4 states that the city can appeal a class-action ruling
from the circuit court with the Arkansas Supreme Court via
Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.

The city has 90 days from January 4's appeal notice to make its
appeal unless granted an extension.

Wood said the appeal held no merit and would only delay police and
fire employees from receiving pay.

"One thing that we have learned from this litigation is that Mayor
Tab Townsell does not have any respect for the police and fire
employees of Conway," he said.

"Ultimately, all the delay and extra litigation caused by
[Townsell] will only cost the taxpayers of Conway more money than
was necessary. We are confident that the circuit court's order
will be upheld."

Clawson said the city decided to make the appeal because "we felt
it would be best to exercise our right to appeal to ensure this
case progresses properly."

He said there was no basis for the claim and that the city spent
sales tax funds for employee salaries and benefits.

Townsell said the city has treated all its employees fairly and
equitably, noting the city has directed 70 percent if its general
fund the expenses to the police and fire departments.

"The original claims in this case could have cost the city
millions of dollars, bankrupting [the] city government's ability
to deliver public services to citizens," Townsell said.  "Those
claims were tossed out. The opposing counsel's claims about me
personally are baseless.  This case was not about my actions as
mayor.  This case is about the official policy of the city as
adopted by the city council."


COOK SALES: "Warren" Action Seeks OT Recovery
---------------------------------------------
Allison Warren, Chester Dampier, Sherri Mullinax and Evelyn Clem,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Cook Sales, INC. and Cook Portable Warehouses OF
Mississippi, LLC, d/b/a Cook Portable Warehouses, Defendant, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00603 (S.D. Ala., November 24, 2015), seeks to recover
overtime wages and damages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 207).

Warren, Dampier, Mullinax and Clem were employed by Cook as sales
representatives in their different business locations. They claim
to have rendered work in excess of 40 hours per week without
compensation.

Defendants are in the business of manufacturing portable
warehouses and are organized and existing under the laws of The
State of Illinois and are headquartered in Anna, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert F. Childs, Jr., Esq.
      WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
      The Kress Building
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 314-0500
      Email: rchilds@wigginschilds.com

         - and -

      Robert C. Epperson, Esq.
      P.O. Box 477
      Foley, AL 36536
      Tel: (251) 943-8870
      Email: repperson@rcelaw.com


CUMBERLAND FARMS: "Bucceri" Action to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Bucceri, Janet Charak, Lisa Sanders and Peter Stafford on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-13955 (D.
Mass., November 25, 2015), seeks statutory and treble damages for
unpaid wages and compensation due and liquidated damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 216(b).

Plaintiffs worked as Store Managers for Defendant' stores and
claims to have not paid any overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 each workweek.

Cumberland Farms, Inc. is based in Framingham, Massachusetts. It
operates over 600 retail stores and gas stations throughout
various regions of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hillary Schwab, Esq.
      FAIR WORK, P.C.
      192 South Street, Suite 450
      Boston, MA 02111
      Tel: (617) 607-3261
      Email: hillary@fairworklaw.com

         - and -

      Sam J. Smith, Esq.
      Tamra Givens, Esq.
      BURR & SMITH, LLP
      111 2nd Avenue N.E., Suite 1100
      St. Petersburg, FL 33701
      Tel: (813) 253-2010
      Email: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com
             tgivens@burrandsmithlaw.com

         - and -

      Gregg Shavitz, Esq.
      Susan H. Stern, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Tel: (561) 447-8888
      Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
             sstern@shavitzlaw.com

         - and -

      Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (800) 616-4000
      Fax: (561) 447-8831
      Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com


CUTTWOOD LLC: "Cox" Suit Hits E-Cigarette Mislabeling
-----------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Cox, individually and for all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Cuttwood LLC, Molecule Labs, Jared Unger, Michael
Guasch, Art Chambers, William Ruiz, and Does 1-10, Defendant, Case
No. 8:15-cv-01961-GW-JCG (C.D. Cal., Southern Division, November
23, 2015), seeks disgorgement of income derived, exemplary and
punitive damages, breach of express warranty in violation of
California Business and Professional Code 17200, et seq.

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of misrepresenting the health
issues of their e-cigarette liquids through deceptive advertising
and marketing. The products allegedly contain hazardous diacetyl
and acetyl propionyl which is known to cause certain serious lung
conditions, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema.

Cuttwood is a California limited liability company based at 17750
Crusader Ave., Cerritos, CA 90703.

Molecule Labs is a California Corporation based at 780 Clark Ave.,
Pittsburg, CA 94565.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Brian D. Chase, Esq.
       BISNAR & CHASE, LLP
       1301 Dove Street
       Newport Beach, CA 92660
       Tel: (949) 752-2999
       Fax: (949) 752-2777

            - and -

       Jose Garay, Esq.
       JOSE GARAY APLC
       1301 Dove Street
       9861 Irvine Center Drive
       Irvine, CA 92618
       Tel: (949) 280-3400
       Fax: (949) 713-0432
       Email: jgaray@garaylaw.com


DEL FRISCO'S: "Homer" Action Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Homer, Jason Rodrigues, Nicholas Gifford and Adam Puteri,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Del Frisco's of Boston, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:15-cv-13958 (D. Mass.), seeks restitution for minimum wage,
statutory trebling of all damages, attorney's fees and costs in
violation of the Massachusetts General Law Chapter 149, 152A and
the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiffs claim to have received $2.63/hour, net of an applied
"tip credit" against the wages, rendering it less than the
mandated minimum wage of Massachusetts. They worked as servers for
the Defendant.

Del Frisco's of Boston, LLC owns and operates Del Frisco's, a
restaurant located at 250 Northern Avenue in Boston,
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hillary Schwab, Esq.
      Brant Casavant, Esq.
      FAIR WORK, P.C.
      192 South Street, Suite 450
      Boston, MA 02111
      Tel: (617) 607-3261
      Email: hillary@fairworklaw.com
             brant@fairworklaw.com

         - and -

      Maura Greene, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MAURA GREENE, LLC
      One International Place, 8th Floor
      Boston, MA 02210
      Tel: (617) 936-1580
      Email: maura@mauragreenelaw.com


DELTA AIR LINES: "Frank" Suit Moved from E.D.N.Y. to Wash. D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Frank v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. et
al., Case No., 1:15-cv-04909, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The
Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01922-CKK
to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly violated
antitrust law provisions and the Sherman-Clayton Act.

Delta Air Lines is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more than
5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries.

American Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its principal
places of business located in Fort Worth, Texas. American is the
largest airline in the world, operating nearly 6,700 flights per
day to 339 locations in 54 countries.

Southwest Airlines is a Texas corporation with its principal place
of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates more than
3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United States and six
additional countries.

United Airlines is Delaware corporations with its principal places
of business located in Chicago, Illinois. United offers service to
more destinations than any other airline in the world, operating
more than 5,300 flights per day to 369 locations across six
continents.


DELTA AIR LINES: "Bell" Suit Transferred to Washington D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bell v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04245, was removed from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01865-CKK to the
proceeding.

According to the anti-trust lawsuit, the Defendants conspired for
unlawful price-fixing agreement.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia. American Airlines is a major American
airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. Southwest Airlines is
a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Airlines, commonly referred
to as United, is a major American airline, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. The Defendants are operators of major airlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brendan E. Little, Esq
          Moshe S. Maimon, Esq.
          LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP
          800 Third Ave., 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 605-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 605-6290
          Email: blittle@levylaw.com
                 mmaimon@levylaw.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Thornton., Esq.
          Jotham C. Kinder, Esq.
          THORNTON LAW FIRM, LLP
          100 Summer Street 30th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: 888-491-9726
          Facsimile: 617-720-2445
          Email: mthornton@tenlaw.com
                 jkinder@tenlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael Lacovara, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US, LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 277-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 277 4001
          E-mail: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com

               - and -

          Sloane Ackerman, Esq.
          Benjamin Bradshaw, Esq.
          Katrina M. Robson, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 728-5864
          Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
          E-mail: sackerman@omm.com
                  bbradshaw@omm.com
                  krobson@omm.com


DELTA AIR LINES: "Palmer" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Palmer v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04047, was removed from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01761-CKK to the
proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to restrict
output, thus fixes, raises, maintains or stabilizes prices of
passenger airline tickets through colluding to limit seat capacity
and signaling other airlines on how quickly they would add new
flights, routes and extra seats in order to limit the capacity of
passenger airline travel in the US.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia. American Airlines is a major American
airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. Southwest Airlines is
a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Airlines, commonly referred
to as United, is a major American airline, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. The Defendants are operators of major airlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


DELTA AIR LINES: "Hardimon" Suit Moved to Washington D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hardimon V. Delta Airlines, Inc.
et al., , Case No. 2:15-cv-03881, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania, to
the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Columbia
(Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:15-cv-01856-CKK o the proceeding.

The civil antitrust lawsuit arose from the Airline Defendants'
conspiracy in raising airline transportation services in the US.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia. American Airlines is a major American
airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. Southwest Airlines is
a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Airlines, commonly referred
to as United, is a major American airline, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. The Defendants are operators of major airlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON & ASSOCIATE, LLC
          3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: (215) 867-2200
          Facsimile: (215) 685-0676
          E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com

               - and -

          Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
          Paul J, Scarlato, Esq.
          Brian D. Penny, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, PC
          101 E. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 204
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 342 0700
          Facsimile: (484) 580-8747
          E-mail: goldman@lawgsp.com
                  scarlato@lawgsp.com
                  penny@lawgsp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


DELTA AIR LINES: "Deninno" Suit Transferred to D.C. Court
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Deninno v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04910, was transferred from U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District Court of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the District Court of Columbia (Washington,
DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
01923-CKK to the proceeding.

The Defendants allegedly conspired in raising prices for air
passenger transportation in the US.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia. American Airlines is a major American
airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. Southwest Airlines is
a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Airlines, commonly referred
to as United, is a major American airline, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. The Defendants are operators of major airlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
         John A. Blyth, Esq.
         HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE, LLP
         185 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor
         New York, NY, 10016
         Telephone: (516) 228-5100
         Facsimile: (516) 228-5106
         E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
                 jb@hachroselaw.com

DELTA AIR LINES: "Ates" Suit Goes to Wash. D.C. from E.D. La.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ates v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03228, was removed from U.S. District Court
for the District of Eastern Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).  The Columbia
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01881-CKK to the
proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly conspired to
restrict output, thus fixes, raises, maintains or stabilizes
prices of passenger air tickets.

Delta Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Atlanta, Georgia. American Airlines is a major American
airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. Southwest Airlines is
a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Airlines, commonly referred
to as United, is a major American airline, headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. The Defendants are operators of major airlines.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Howard Shapiro, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          6500 Poydras Street, Suite 1800
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 310-4085
          Facsimile: (504) 310-2022
          E-mail: howshapiro@proskauer.com


DICK SMITH: Shareholders Face Uncertainty in Suit Over Downfall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Herald Sun, Jane Harper reports that disgruntled Dick
Smith shareholders could face months of uncertainty over the
likelihood of a class action linked to the downfall of the
electronic retailer.

Legal experts say neither Dick Smith's share price plunge nor its
tumble into receivership are enough on their own to trigger legal
action.

Any class action would need to demonstrate Dick Smith directors
failed to disclose market sensitive information or made misleading
statements to investors about the health of the group.

There would also have to be a reasonable prospect of recovering
enough cash to make a class action worthwhile -- potentially a
major stumbling block.

"It costs millions to run a class action, so it's got to be worth
it in terms of what shareholders will get back," said one legal
expert, who asked not to be named.

"There's no point running a case just to rack up lawyers' fees."

Dick Smith shocked shareholders and customers on January 5 by
announcing its lenders had called in receivers just two years
after a $520 million listing on the Australian Securities
Exchange.

Investors who had bought into the float at $2.20 a share were
already counting the cost after two profit warnings late 2014
wiped 80 per cent off the value of their shares.

The shares last changed hands for just 35.5c before they were
placed in a trading halt on January 4, then suspended from trade
the next day.

Customers were also left irate after receivers Ferrier Hodgson
announced Dick Smith gift cards would not be honoured and lay-by
deposits could not be refunded.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers said no decision had yet been made on
whether a class action could or would be pursued against the
retailer.

"We're of course aware of what is happening at Dick Smith and will
monitor that situation, but at this stage it is too early to give
a definitive indication either way," class actions spokesman
Cameron Scott said.

Litigation maverick Mark Elliott, who is behind a string of class
actions brought against Australian businesses, could not be
reached for comment.

Dick Smith chief Nick Abboud warned in October the group's net
profit for the year to next June was likely to be $5 million to $8
million lower than previously expected.

Just a month later, the group was unable to reconfirm the forecast
and announced it would write down $60 million worth of inventory.
Australian Shareholders' Association spokesman Allan Goldin said
the rapid decline in the business raised questions about the
effectiveness of the leadership.

"I assume the directors did not realise they had this serious
issue until November, so my question is why they didn't know
before?" Mr Golding said.

"These directors are paid a lot of money to run a company and they
should know things like that."


DIRECTV HOLDINGS: Faces Two Pauls Action Over NFL Sunday Ticket
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two Pauls, Inc., individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Football League, Inc.,
NFL Enterprises LLC, DirecTV LLC, and DirecTV Holdings LLC,
Defendants., Case No. 2:15-cv-09180 (C.D. Cal., November 25,
2015), seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant
to pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Sections 4
and 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 15 and 26).

Two Pauls, Inc. is a commercial business establishment doing
business as Brother Paul's located at 3300 Ridge Pike, Norristown,
PA.  Plaintiff purchased DirectTV's NFL Sunday Ticket.

The Defendant is alleged with unreasonable restraint of trade vis-
a-vis DirecTV's exclusive arrangement to broadcast all Out-of-
Market Games and charging premiums excessively by DirecTV for Out-
of-Market Games as a result of this unreasonable restraint of
trade.

DirecTV Holdings LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and
has its principal place of business at 2260 East Imperial Highway,
El Segundo, California 90245. It is the U.S. operating arm of
DirecTV, Inc.

DirecTV, LLC is a California limited liability with its principal
place of business at 2260 East Imperial Highway, El Segundo,
California 90245.

NFL was an unincorporated association of 32 American professional
football teams in the United States, each of which was separately
owned and operated, acted in its own economic self-interest and
competed in most respects with the other NFL Teams.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Caleb Marker, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 500
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Tel: (877) 500-8780
      Fax: (877) 500-8781
      Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

         - and -

      Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
      Jason R. Lee, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      1100 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 341-0400
      Fax: (612) 341-0844
      Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
             jason.lee@zimmreed.com

         - and -

      Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
      Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
      Brian D. Penny, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
      Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
      161 Washington Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Tel: (484) 342-0700
      Email: goldman@lawgsp.com
             scarlato@lawgsp.com
             penny@lawgsp.com

         - and -

      Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
      EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
      Newtown, PA 18940
      Tel: (215) 867-2200
      Fax: (267) 685-0676
      Email: medelson@edelson-law.com


ECS REFINING: "Easley" Suit Seeks Payment of OT, Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Easley; individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. ECS Refining,
LLC, an unknown business entity, and Does 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC602988 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County,
December 7, 2015), seeks recovery of unpaid wages and overtime,
restitution for Defendants' failure to provide meal and rest
periods pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Sec.
17200 and the California Labor Code, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1021.5.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendants and claims not being paid
being the mandatory overtime premium in excess of 40 hours per
work week and was deprived of meal and/or rest periods without
compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 265-1020
      Fax: (818) 265-1021


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: "Wilson" Suit Hits Shadowy Investment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Wilson and all other individuals similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Edison International, Inc., Theodore F. Craver Jr.
and Robert Boada, Case No. 1:15-cv-05657 (C.D. Cal., July 20,
2015), seeks damages, enjoining defendants from any further
violations of their fiduciary obligations, recovery of investments
in proportion to the accounts' losses attributable to the decline
in the price of its common stock, rescission and/or money damages
including pre-judgment interest, equitable restitution and other
appropriate equitable monetary relief in violation of the Section
502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C.
1132.

Plaintiff invested in the Edison International Stock Fund. The
stocks were allegedly artificially inflated, thus resulting in
losses after failing to cover up material operational matters
regarding the company's situation.

Edison, through its subsidiaries, generates and distributes
electrical power and invests in energy services and technologies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
      Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq.
      Edward H. Glenn Jr., Esq.
      ZAMANSKY LLC
      50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 742-1414
      Fax: (212) 742-1177

         - and -

      Michael L. Kirby, Esq.
      Ryan S. Kirby, Esq.
      KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE LLP
      350 Tenth Avenue, Suite 1300
      San Diego, CA 92101-8700
      Tel: (619) 231-8666
      Fax: (619) 231-9593


EL NUEVO GROUP: "Valoy" Action Seeks OT Recovery
------------------------------------------------
Juan Valoy, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, Plaintiff, v. El Nuevo Valle #2 Restaurant Corp.,
El Nuevo Valle Restaurant & Lechonera Corp., John Doe Corp. d/b/a
El Nuevo Valle, Delvy Castro and Manuel Castro Case No.: 15-CV-
9187 (S.D.N.Y, November 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wage, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread of hours
premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201.

Plaintiff Juan Valoy was employed by Defendants to work as a
delivery person for Defendants' "El Nuevo Valle#2" restaurant
located at 855 East 180th Street, Bronx, New York 10460.

Defendants is a domestic business corporation organized under the
laws of the State of New York, with a principle place of business
and an address for service of process located at 855 East 180th
Street, Bronx, New York 10460. They jointly operate a chain of
three restaurants under the common trade name "El Nuevo Valle" as
a single integrated enterprise with Delvy and Manuel Castro as
owners and senior executive officers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: "Davis" Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jamal Davis et al. v. Experian
Holdings Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02371, was transferred from U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Southern Division - Santa Ana). The Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-01748-PA-KES to the proceeding.

Experian Holdings operates as a subsidiary of Experian Finance
PLC.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Brittany DeJong, Esq.
          Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN AND HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
                  dejong@whafh.com
                  livesay@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com


FCA US LLC: "Wimley" Action Hits Keyless Ignition
-------------------------------------------------
Bernice Wimley, Oscar De Leon, Kevin Sisti, Jr. and Mark
Pastarnack, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant., Case No. 5:15-cv-02434
(C.D. Cal., Eastern Division, November 25, 2015), seeks
compensatory, exemplary and statutory damages, disgorgement of
income received from the sale or lease of its vehicles,
restitution to Plaintiffs and Class Members, attorneys' fees and
costs and injunction barring Defendant from selling allegedly
defective vehicles in violation Of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, Deceit and Common Law Fraud,
False Advertising Law, Unjust Enrichment, Unfair Trade Practices
Act, Fraudulent Concealment, Massachusetts Consumer Protection
Act, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability and violations
of New York General Business Law Sec. 349.

The complaint arises from the keyless ignition of the vehicles
made by the Defendants. Plaintiff allege that the process of
turning on and off the engine via the keyless feature creates more
confusion among drivers than the conventional key insertion, thus,
most often than not, leaving the vehicles with the engine still
running, spewing exhaust inside their garage.

FCA US LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation whose
principal place of business is 1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills,
MI 48326. It designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and sells
Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge and RAM brand automobiles in California and
multiple other locations in the United States and worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee M. Gordon, Esq.
      Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (213) 330-7150
      Email: lee@hbsslaw.com
             elaine@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Martis Alex, Esq.
      Daniel R. Leathers, Esq.
      Brian R. Morrison, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 907-0700
      Fax: (212) 818-0477
      Email: malex@labaton.com
             dleathers@labaton.com
             bmorrison@labaton.com

         - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Tel: (206) 623-7292
      Fax: (206) 623-0594
      Email: steve@hbsslaw.com


FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND: "Lang" Suit Hits Mistaken Identity
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Lang on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. First Advantage Background Services Corp., Case No.
1:15-cv-02436-JG (N.D. Ohio, November 25, 2015), seeks statutory
and punitive damages pursuant to Federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681, et seq.

First Advantage allegedly provided inaccurate background checks to
Plaintiff's potential employers in connection with his employment
search, which included convictions for crimes which Plaintiff was
neither charged with nor convicted of.

First Advantage is a credit reporting agency based in Atlanta,
Georgia that collects consumer information and sells background
checks to employers investigating job applicants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
      Joshua R. Cohen, Esq.
      Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
      COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
      The Hoyt Block Building, Suite 400
      700 West St. Clair Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216) 781-7956
      Tel: (216) 781-8061
      Email: jbristol@crklaw.com
             jcohen@crklaw.com
             jfuchs@crklaw.com

         - and -

      Christian Schreiber, Esq.
      CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
      42 Miller Ave.
      Mill Valley, CA 94941
      Tel: (415) 381-5599
      Fax: (415) 381-5572
      Email: christian@chavezgertler.com


FITBIT INC: Faces Suit Over Alleged Inaccurate Heart Rate Tracker
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacksonville.com, Florida Times-Union, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Fitbit.

The lawsuit, filed January 5, claims heart rate tracking in the
Charge HR and Surge models are significantly inaccurate, according
to Times-Union video news partner Inform.

Inform reports the lawsuit claims the fitness trackers don't
actually count every heartbeat.

One plaintiff was denied a refund for inaccurate heart rate
tracking.  The lawsuit seeks damages of payments to consumers for
their "economic injuries," according to Inform.

Fitbit denies the case has merit and states its devices are not
intended for medical or scientific use.

But the lawsuit counters that Fitbit marketing implies otherwise,
noting its marketing slogans include "Every Beat Counts" and "Know
Your Heart."  The lawsuit also cites what Fitbit calls its LED-
based technology: "PurePulse."

The case is Kate McLellan, Teresa Black, and David Urban,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Fitbit, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00036, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Kevin R. Budner, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
                  kbudner@lchb.com

               - and -

          Robert Klonoff, Esq.
          ROBERT H. KLONOFF, LLC
          2425 SW 76th Ave.
          Portland, OR 97225
          Telephone: (503) 291-1570
          E-mail: klonoff@usa.net


FITBIT INC: Lawyers Question Binding Arbitration Policies
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Gershman at The Wall Street Journal reports that the
plaintiffs' lawyers accusing Fitbit Inc. of deceptive marketing
are challenging the company's binding arbitration policies.

A lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco claims that the
fitness-tracking pioneer is trying to insulate itself from class
actions with sweeping and unenforceable arbitration clauses in its
terms of service.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, alleges that the
company is lying to customers about the accuracy of its heart-rate
monitoring wristbands.

The lawsuit doesn't just target the company's products.  It also
focuses on provisions in Fitbit's consumer agreement that suggest
that anyone who visits the company's website surrenders legal
rights.

According to lawyers at San Francisco law firm Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, which brought the case:

   While Fitbit purports to bind all purchasers of its products
   to an arbitration agreement and class action ban, its method
   of doing so fails as a matter of law and, in itself,
   constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice.

   Remarkably, Fitbit purports to bind anyone who even visits its
   Web site to its arbitration agreement, whether they purchase
   or register any product at all.  Indeed, if the reader of this
   Complaint visits the link provided in the footnote below, she
   or he is now deemed by Fitbit to have agreed to arbitration
   and a class action ban.

Fitbit says the claims in the lawsuit are false.

"We do not believe this case has merit," the company said in a
statement.  "Fitbit stands behind our heart rate technology and
strongly disagrees with the statements made in the complaint and
plans to vigorously defend the lawsuit."

Update: A Fitbit spokeswoman emailed Law Blog an additional
statement regarding the company's arbitration policy:

   Fitbit's arbitration provision complies with the applicable
   legal requirements and is balanced, valid, and enforceable.
   Fitbit's provision is virtually identical to those of other
   consumer products companies.  Arbitration benefits consumers
   because it allows for a speedy resolution to any disputes and
   allows them to choose to arbitrate their claims near their
   home.  In addition, Fitbit will pay the costs of arbitration
   in most situations.  Importantly, all of Fitbit's customers
   are given the choice to opt out of arbitration.  We are
   confident that a court will agree with us that the provision
   is enforceable in this case.

The case is Kate McLellan, Teresa Black, and David Urban,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Fitbit, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00036, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.


GEICO CORP: "Carreno" Action Hits Phone Tapping
-----------------------------------------------
Monique Carreno, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Geico Corporation, a Maryland
Corporation, Defendants., Case No. 2:15-cv-09143 (C.D.Cal.,
Western Division, November 24, 2015), seeks compensatory damages,
injunctive relief and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the
California's Invasion of Privacy Act.

Defendant allegedly employs recording equipment in order to record
Plaintiff's telephone conversation without the latter's knowledge
or consent.

Geico is an insurance company based in Maryland with its principal
place of business located at 5260 Western Avenue, Chevy Chase,
Maryland, 20815.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sina Rezvanpour, Esq.
      Sara Rezvanpour, Esq.
      RKR LEGAL, APC
      18740 Oxnard St., Suite 313A
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Tel: (866) 502-0787
      Fax: (866) 502-5065
      Email: sr@rkrlegal.com
             sara@rkrlegal.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Texarkana Alleges Liquid Alum Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Texarkana, Arkansas and The City Of Texarkana, Texas
d/b/a Texarkana Water Utilities, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Frank A. Reichl, General
Chemical Performance Products LLC, General Chemical Corporation,
Gentek, Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade
Logistics, Inc., Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation, Chemtrade
Chemicals US LLC, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-08294-SRC-
CLW (D.N.J., November 25, 2015), seeks damages in violation of
Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 4 of the
Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 15(a).

Defendants allegedly conspired to eliminate competition in the
liquid aluminum sulfate market by engaging in price-fixing, bid-
rigging and allocating customers among co-conspirators. Plaintiffs
directly purchased Liquid Alum from at least one Defendant use
liquid aluminum sulfate in connection with Texarkana Water
Utilities operations.

Frank A. Reichl was the former Vice President of Sales of General
Chemical Corp.

General Chemical Performance Products LLC was a Delaware limited
liability company with its principal place of business in
Parsippany, New Jersey.

General Chemical Corporation was a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey.

GenTek Inc. was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Parsippany, New Jersey. GenTek manufactured and
supplied water treatment chemicals throughout the United States.
It owned and controlled Defendants General Chemical Performance
Products LLC and General Chemical Corporation.

Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund is a limited purpose trust under
the laws of the Province of Ontario and is headquartered in
Toronto, Canada. It manufactures and markets industrial chemicals
and other coagulants used in water treatment in Canada, the United
States and Europe.

Chemtrade Logistics Inc. is a subsidiary of Chemtrade
Logistics Income Fund incorporated under the laws of the Province
of Ontario.

Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation is a Delaware corporation and is a
subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company and is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Tel: (973) 994-1700
      Email: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
             LTaylor@carellabyrne.com

         - and -

      Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
      Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
      Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
      Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Tel: (610) 667-7706
      Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
             kjustice@ktmc.com
             namjed@ktmc.com
             mtroutner@ktmc.com

         - and -

      Matt Keil, Esq.
      John C. Goodson, Esq.
      KEIL & GOODSON P.A.
      406 Walnut Street
      Texarkana, AK 71854
      Tel: (870) 772-4113


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Harnik" Action Over Headway Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen M. Harnik, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hutchinson Technology
Incorporated, Richard J. Penn, Wayne M. Fortun, Martha Goldberg
Aronson, Russell Huffer, Frank P. Russomanno, Philip E. Soran and
Thomas R. VerHage, Defendants, Case No. 0:15-cv-04321-SRN-JJK (D.
Minn., December, 2015), seeks damages, injunctive relief and
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees as well as preliminary and
permanent enjoinment in violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendants allegedly issued a materially incomplete and misleading
preliminary proxy statement in connection with Hutchinson's
proposed merger with Hydra Merger Sub, Inc. to become a wholly
owned subsidiary of Headway Technologies, Inc., both of which are
beneficially owned by TDK Corporation.

Harnik owns Hutchinson common stock.

Hutchinson Technology Inc. is located in Hutchinson, Minnesota and
manufactures and supplies suspension assemblies for hard disk
drives.

Wayne M. Fortun, Martha Goldberg Aronson, Russell Huffer, Frank P.
Russomanno, Philip E. Soran and Thomas R. VerHage served on the
Board of Directors of Hutchinson.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
      James W. Anderson, Esq.
      HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
      310 Clifton Avenue
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Tel: (612) 338-4605
      Fax: (612) 338-4692
      Email: rsteiner@heinsmills.com
             janderson@heinsmills.com

       - and -

      Carl L. Stine, Esq.
      Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 759-4600
      Fax: (212) 486-2093
      Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com
             fqian@wolfpopper.com


J&J US TRADING: "Zheng" Suit Seeks Overtime, Minimum Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Jufeng Zheng and Xia Chen a/k/a Jessica Chen on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. J&J US
Trading Inc., Jun Feng Guo, Sammy Liao and Zu Duo Li a/k/a George
Li, Defendants, Case No. 7:15-cv-09635-VB (S.D.N.Y., December 9,
2015), seeks unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages due under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, compensatory,
liquidated and punitive damages and spread of hours premium
pursuant to New York Labor Law as well as attorneys fees.

J&J US Trading Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York with a principal address
at 286 Katonah Avenue, Katonah, NY 10536 and operates a restaurant
under the name Tengda Bistro. Jun Feng Guo, Sammy Liao and Zu Duo
Li are co-owners of the restaurant.

Plaintiffs worked as waiters for the Defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324
      Fax: (718) 762-1342
      Email: johntroy@pllc.com


JRN INC: "Jones" Action Seeks OT Pay Recovery
---------------------------------------------
Cheryl Jones, Laquanda Jackson, Veronica Deloney, Samuel Jordan,
Angela Horace, Beternia Baker, Kimiya Carter and Marilyn Nelson,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current
and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. JRN, Inc., John R. Neal,
David G. Neal and Tyrone K. Neal, individually, Defendants., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00108 (M.D. Tenn., Columbia Division, November 24,
2015), seeks compensation for unpaid overtime and minimum wages,
liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees under the under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.

JRN, Inc. is a Tennessee Corporation with its principal executive
office located at 209 West 7th Street, Columbia, Tennessee 38401.
It is one of the largest KFC and Taco Bell franchisees operating
in several states across the U.S.

John R. Neal, David G. Neal and Tyrone K. Neal hold top positions
in the company.

Plaintiffs are currently or have previously been employed by JRN
as Assistant Managers in any of their Taco bell or KFC stores. JRN
failed to record the work time of Plaintiffs in its uniform
electronic time keeping system for tracking and reporting hours
worked at each of its KFC and KFC/Taco Bell restaurants, failed to
keep complete and accurate time sheets and payroll records of
Plaintiffs prior to January 1, 2014 and failed to pay Plaintiffs
overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week in several instances.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
      Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-1745
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             jholt@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com
             pjackson@jsyc.com


KIA MOTORS: "Chesler" Action Hits Keyless Ignition
--------------------------------------------------
Daniel Chesler, Matthew Kang, Christine and Nicholas Messina and
Janine Lovuolo, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc. and Kia
Motors America, Inc., Defendants., Case No. 8:15-cv-01988 (C.D.
Cal., Southern Division, November 25, 2015), seeks compensatory,
exemplary and statutory damages, disgorgement of income received
from the sale or lease of its vehicles, restitution to Plaintiffs
and Class Members, attorneys' fees and costs and injunction
barring Defendant from selling allegedly defective vehicles in
violation Of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair
Competition Law, Deceit and Common Law Fraud, False Advertising
Law, Unjust Enrichment, Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fraudulent
Concealment (based on Connecticut Law), Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability.

Plaintiff allege that the process of turning on and off the engine
via the keyless feature creates more confusion among drivers than
the conventional key insertion, thus, most often than not, leaving
the vehicles with the engine still running, spewing exhaust inside
their garage.

Hyundai Motor America, Inc. is a California corporation whose
principal place of business is 10550 Talbert Avenue, Fountain
Valley, CA 92708.

Kia Motors America, Inc. is a California corporation whose
principal place of business is 111 Peters Canyon Road, Irvine, CA
92606.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee M. Gordon, Esq.
      Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (213) 330-7150
      Email: lee@hbsslaw.com
             elaine@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Martis Alex, Esq.
      Daniel R. Leathers, Esq.
      Brian R. Morrison, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 907-0700
      Fax: (212) 818-0477
      Email: malex@labaton.com
             dleathers@labaton.com
             bmorrison@labaton.com

         - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Tel: (206) 623-7292
      Fax: (206) 623-0594
      Email: steve@hbsslaw.com


LOANCARE LLC: Faces "James" Suit Over Force-Placed Insurance
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberley James, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Loancare, LLC f/k/a FNF
Servicing, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00512-RGD-LRL (E.D. Va., Norfolk
Division, November 25, 2015), seek actual, treble, punitive
damages and interest in breach of the terms of the mortgage
contracts, in violation of the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, Florida Statutes Sections 501.201 et seq. and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.
1961-68, equitable relief, including restitution and an injunction
requiring Defendant to reverse charges for property insurance
coverage and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff has a residential mortgage loan/line of credit serviced
by Defendant and was charged a "force placed" insurance on her
property.

LoanCare, LLC is a Virginia limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Virginia Beach, Virginia. It was
formally known as FNF Servicing, Inc. It was a residential
mortgage servicer, managing home loan payments and transactions
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Hamilton Geiger, Esq.
      SANDS ANDERSON PC
      1111 East Main Street, Suite 2400
      P.O. Box 1998
      Richmond, VA 23218-1998
      Tel: (804) 648-1636
      Fax: (804)783-7291
      Email: jgeiger@sandsanderson.com

         - and -

      Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
      Thomas G. O'Brien, Esq.
      SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
      32 East 57th St., 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 421-6492
      Fax: (212) 421-6553
      Email: stephen@sfclasslaw.com
             thomas@sfclasslaw.com


MID-FLORIDA CREDIT UNION: "Fry" Action Hits Check Overdraft
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Fry, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mid-Florida Credit Union, Case No. 8:15-
cv-02743-RAL-TGW (M.D. Fla., Tampa Division, November 24, 2015),
seeks compensatory damages on all applicable claims,
disgorge, restore and return interest paid and attorneys' fees
under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Florida Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the common fund doctrine and the
customer account agreement.

Plaintiff claims that the Defendant charged overdraft fees for
transactions for which there was money in the former's checking
account to cover its transactions, thereby breaching the express
terms of its consumer contract. Plaintiff also alleges that it
provided inaccurate and misleading overdraft information to its
customers.

Mid-Florida Credit Union is a Florida-based credit union that
provides banking services to over 214,000 members through 40
branches in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John I. Yanchunis, Esq.
      Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
      Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 223-5505
      Fax: (813) 222-2434
      Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
             mvalladares@forthepeople.com
             pbarthle@fortherpeople.com

         - and -

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      McCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      Tel: (909) 557-1250
      Fax: (909) 557-1275
      Email: rdm@mccunewright.com

         - and -

      Taras Kick, Esq.
      THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
      201 Wilshire Boulevard
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Tel: (310) 395-2988
      Fax: (310) 395-2088
      Email: taras@kicklawfirm.com


MINNESOTA: Public Safety Dept Faces "Stainbrook" Unpaid OT Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quint Stainbrook, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Minnesota Department of Public Safety,
Defendant, Defendant, Case No. 0:15-cv-04198-DWF-LIB (D. Minn.,
November 23, 2015), seeks injunctive relief enjoining Defendant
from further violation of 29 U.S.C. 216 of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, damages in the form of overtime compensation
claimed, liquidated damages and attorney's fees and costs.

Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a State Patrol
Lieutenant since June 2002 and claims to regularly work in excess
of 40 hours per week in a given workweek.

Minnesota Department of Public Safety controls the Minnesota State
Patrol. The main office for the Minnesota Department of Public
Safety is located in the City of St. Paul, County of Ramsey, State
of Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg M. Corwin, Esq.
      Grant S. Gibeau, Esq.
      GREGG CORWIN & ASSOCIATE P.C.
      1660 South Highway 100, Suite 508E
      St. Louis Park, MN 55416
      Tel: (952) 544-7774
      Fax: (952) 544-7151
      Email: gcorwin@gcorwin.com


NORDIC INC: "Bodnar" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Troy Bodnar, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nordic Consulting Partners, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00927-JTM (W.D. Miss, November 24,
2015), seeks to claim unpaid back wages, liquidated damages and
penalties and attorneys' fees in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 203d and the Missouri Revised Statutes
290.505.

Bodnar was employed by Nordic as a consultant at Saint Luke's
Hospital of Kansas City, Missouri. He claims to have performed
work in excess of 40 hours per week without receiving
compensation.

Nordic is a domestic corporation incorporated in Wisconsin with
principal office at 740 Regent Street #400, Madison, Wisconsin,
53715. It provides electronic health record consulting services to
healthcare organizations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
      WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Tel: (816) 876-2600
      Fax: (816) 221-8763
      Email: info@WilliamsDirks.com

           - and -

      William E. Parsons, Esq.
      David C. Zoeller, Esq.
      Caitlin M. Madden, Esq.
      Colin B. Good, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      Post Office Box 2155
      Madison, WI 53701-2155
      Tel: (608) 257-0040
      Fax: (608) 256-0236
      Email: wparsons@hq-law.com
             dzoeller@hq-law.com
             cmadden@hq-law.com
             cgood@hq-law.com


OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: "Hobbs" Suit Moved to D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hobbs v. United States Office Of
Personnel Management et al., Case No., 2:15-cv-00302, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
(Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:15-cv-01927-ABJ to the proceeding.

The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is an
independent agency of the United States government that manages
the civil service of the federal government.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew Evan Carmichael, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 833
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 514 3346
          Facsimile: (202) 616 8470
          E-mail" andrew.e.carmichael@usdoj.gov


OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: "Mcgarry" Suit Moved to D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mcgarry v. United States Office
Personnel Management et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01705, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
(Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:15-cv-01928-ABJ to the proceeding.

The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is an
independent agency of the United States government that manages
the civil service of the federal government. KeyPoint Government
Solutions is a leading provider of specialized investigative
services to a broad range of U.S. Federal Government organizations
spanning the civilian, defense and intelligence sectors. The
United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a cabinet
department of the United States federal government, created in
response to the September 11 attacks, and with the primary
responsibilities of protecting the territory of the United States
and protectorates from and responding to terrorist attacks, man-
made accidents, and natural disasters.

The Defendant is represented by:

          John Kenneth Theis, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 883
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 305 7632
          Facsimile: (202) 616 8460
          E-mail: john.k.theis@usdoj.gov


OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: "Cox" Suit Moved to D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cox v. United States Office Of
Personnel Management et al., Case No., 1:15-cv-02986, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01930-ABJ to the proceeding.

The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is an
independent agency of the United States government that manages
the civil service of the federal government.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Andrew Bain, Esq.
          CHITWOOD & HARLEY
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 873 3900

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235 1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239 2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew A. Josephson, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 883
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 514 9237
          Facsimile: (202) 616 8470
          E-mail: Matthew.A.Josephson@usdoj.gov


PALM SPRINGS GRILL: "Wiles" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Tips
---------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Wiles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated, Plaintiff, v. Palm Spring Grill, LLC d/b/a Wild West
Gentleman's Club, Robert Ciceroni and Carran Schneider, Case No.
9:15-cv-81597-KAM (S.D. Fla., West Palm Beach Division, November
20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, misappropriated tips,
minimum and overtime compensation, liquidated damages and costs
and reasonably attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2201 and 2209 et seq.

Wiles is a dancer at the Wild West Gentleman's Club and claims to
have worked in excess of 40 hours without compensation and was not
given their tips due.

Palm Spring Grill, LLC owns and operates Wild West Gentleman's
Club, an adult entertainment establishment located in 3174 Lake
Worth Road, Palm Springs, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Kenner, Esq.
      THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP
      175 SW 7th St. Suite 2410
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: (305) 384-7370
      Fax: (305) 446-7371
      Email: adam@kennercummings.com


PEP BOYS: "Edwards" Action Seeks to Bar Bridgestone Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Matthew Goldfarb, Robert H. Hotz, Jack
Liebau, Jr., Bruce M. Lisman, James A. Mitarotonda, Robert
Rosenblatt, Jane Scaccetti, Robert L. Nardelli, Scott Sider, John
T. Sweetwood, Andrea M. Weiss and The Pep Boys - Manny, Moe &
Jack, Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, Bridgestone Americas,
Inc. and TAJ Acquisition Co., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-
06304-WB (E.D. Pa., November 24, 2015), rescissory damages, an
enjoinment of the merger agreement and equitable relief in
violation of Section 14(e) 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Pep Boys Board of Directors plan to sell the Company to
Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, a subsidiary of Bridgestone
Americas, Inc. and TAJ Acquisition Co. at an allegedly unfair
price, through an unfair process and through a materially
misleading recommendation statement.

Edwards is a shareholder of Pep Boys.

Pep Boys is an automotive aftermarket chain based at 3111 W.
Allegheny Ave. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It derives its revenues
from its retail business and servicing.

Goldfarb, Hotz, Liebau, Lisman, Mitarotonda, Nardelli, Rosenblatt,
Scaccetti, Sider, Sweetwood and Weiss are members of the Board of
Directors of Pep Boys.

Bridgestone Retail is a Delaware limited liability company and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Bridgestone Americas, Inc. Its
principal executive office is located at 333 E. Lake Street,
Bloomingdale, Illinois 60108.

Bridgestone Americas, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its
principal executive office located at 535 Marriott Drive,
Nashville, Tennessee.

TAJ Acquisition is a Pennsylvania corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Bridgestone Retail created for the purpose of the
acquisition of Pep Boys.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY AND SMITH, LLC
      Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Tel: (610) 667-6200
      Fax: (610) 667-9029
      Email: clients@brodsky-smith.com

            - and -

      Julia Sun, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 363-7500
      Fax: (212) 363-7171


POLAR AIR: To Pay Customers $100MM After Settling Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Knowler, Senior Asia Editor for The JOC Group, Inc., reports
that Polar Air Cargo will pay customers $100 million after
settling an on-going antitrust class action lawsuit that has drawn
in most of the world's major carriers and so far generated more
than $1.1 billion in settlements.

In the second-largest settlement since the case was brought before
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in
February 2006, the group Polar Air Cargo, Polar Air Cargo
Worldwide, and Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, agreed to pay the
huge sum to direct purchasers of air cargo shipping services in
installments over the next three years.

Nearly half of the original defendants in the civil action brought
by law firms pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to fix the price of
shipping goods by air to and from the U.S. from January 2000
through September 2006.  The plaintiffs alleged that the cartel
increased global shipping prices.

In a statement after the settlement was reached, Brent Landau, a
partner at Hausfeld that is one of the law firms handling the
case, said his team was proud to have obtained such significant
compensation "for victims of this worldwide cartel."

William Flynn, president and CEO of Atlas Air Worldwide, said he
wanted to put what he called a "legacy matter" behind the carrier
and focus on strategic growth initiatives.  A statement from the
carrier said the settlement agreement resolved all claims against
Polar Air Cargo and its companies by participating members in the
class action.  The carrier continues to deny any wrongdoing or
liability, and typical in these type of settlement agreements,
there was no admission of any wrongdoing or liability.

The case continues against the three remaining airline defendants:
Air China, Air India, and Air New Zealand.  If the amounts that
have been reached against 25 of the world's top airlines are any
indication, the carriers had better be putting money aside to pay
the bill.

The largest fine was paid by Korean Air at $115 million, with
Polar Air second.  Taiwan's EVA Air was hit with a $99 million
fine and its compatriot China Airlines paid $90 million to
purchasers of its air cargo services.  Air France/Martinair was
hit for $87 million, Lufthansa for $85 million and Cathay Pacific
$65 million.

Hausfeld said the U.S. district court granted certification of a
class of direct purchasers of air cargo shipping services, and the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declined to hear an
interlocutory appeal of that ruling.  The district court also
denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment and granted
summary judgment motions filed by the plaintiffs. A trial is set
for September 2016.

Also in New York, DHL has agreed to pay $53 million to settle a
price-fixing class action suit by shippers that was filed in 2008
and alleged that numerous freight forwarders were involved in
conspiracies to fix prices in violation of the Sherman Act between
2001 and 2007.

Those settling so far have been ABX, EGL, Expeditors, Kuehne +
Nagel, Morrison, Nishi-Nippon, DB Schenker, UAC, UTi, Vantec, SDV,
Panalpina, Geodis, DSV, Jet Speed, Toll Group, Agility, UPS,
Dachser and DHL's Japan operations.  The forwarders agreed to pay
a total of $197 million.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Wolfe" Suit Hits Unfair Collection Effort
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case
No. 1:15-cv-03573 (D. Md., November 24, 2015), seeks to recover
actual and statutory damages in violation of the violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692.

The Defendant was assigned to collect the Plaintiff's personal
debt. In doing so, the former made multiple calls to her office,
thus allegedly causing her undue stress.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is a Virginia limited liability
company and a collection agency operating from 120 Corporate
Blvd., Norfolk, Virginia 23502.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert N. Grossbart, Esq.
      GROSSBART, PORTNEY AND ROSENBERG, P.A.
      1 North Charles Street, Suite 1214
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Tel: (410) 837-0590
      Fax: (410) 837-0085
      Email: Robert@grossbartlaw.com


REALOGY GROUP: "Strader" Suit Hits Shadowy Settlement Deals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Timothy L. Strader Sr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PHH Corporation, Realogy
Holdings Corp., PHH Mortgage Corporation, PHH Home Loans LLC, RMR
Financial, LLC, NE Moves Mortgage LLC, PHH Broker Partner
Corporation, Realogy Group LLC, Realogy Intermediate Holdings,
LLC, Title Resource Group LLC, West Coast Escrow Company, TRG
Services Escrow, Inc., NRT LLC, Realogy Services Group LLC,
Realogy Services Venture Partner LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:15-
cv-01973-FMO-AFM (C.D. Cal., November 24, 2015), seeks treble
damages and attorneys' fees in violation of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, et seq.

The Defendant gave and accepted benefits in exchange for the
referral of settlement services in aid of executing mortgage
loans.

Defendant RMR Financial, LLC is a California limited liability
company with its headquarters in Mount Laurel, New Jersey.

NE Moves Mortgage LLC is a Massachusetts limited liability company
with its headquarters in Waltham, Massachusetts.

PHH Home Loans LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its headquarters in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. PHH Home Loans holds
a 100% ownership interest in RMR and NE Moves.

PHH Broker Partner Corporation is a Maryland corporation with its
headquarters in Hunt Valley, Maryland. PHH Partner has a 50.1%
membership interest in PHH Home Loans.

PHH Mortgage Corporation is a New Jersey corporation with its
headquarters in Mount Laurel, New Jersey.

PHH Corporation is a New Jersey corporation with its headquarters
in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. PHH Corp. is the parent corporation
and holds a 100% ownership interest in PHH Partner and PHH
Mortgage.

Realogy Services Venture Partner LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company with its headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey.
Realogy Partner has a 49.9% membership interest in PHH Home Loans.

Realogy Services Group LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
with its headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey.

Title Resource Group LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
with its headquarters in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. It does
business under Equity Title, US Title, Sunbelt Title, Texas
American Title Company, Market Street Settlement Group, Mid-
Atlantic Settlement and Burnet Title.

West Coast Escrow Company is a California limited liability
company with headquarters in Madison, New Jersey. West Coast
Escrow is a wholly owned subsidiary of TRG.

TRG Services Escrow, Inc. is a Delaware a corporation, with its
headquarters in Madison, New Jersey. TRG Services is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Title Resource Group LLC.

NRT LLC is a Delaware limited liability company founded in 1997,
with its headquarters in Madison, New Jersey. NRT does business
under Coldwell Banker, Sotheby's International Realty, Citi
Habitats, The Corcoran Group and ZipRealty.

Defendant Realogy Group LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company formed in 2006, with its headquarters in Madison, New
Jersey. Realogy Group is the parent corporation and holds a 100%
interest in Realogy Partner, Realogy Services, TRG and NRT.

Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its headquarters in Madison, New Jersey. Realogy
Intermediate is the parent corporation and holds a 100% interest
in Realogy Group.

Realogy Holdings LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its headquarters in Madison, New Jersey.

Realogy Holdings is the parent corporation and holds a 100%
interest in Realogy Intermediate.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan A. Greenberg, Esq.
      Wayne R. Gross, Esq.
      Michael I. Katz, Esq.
      Evan C. Borges, Esq.
      Michael P. McMahon, Esq.
      GREENBERG GROSS LLP
      650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1750
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Tel: (949) 383-2800
      Fax: (949) 383-3801
      Email: agreenberg@ggtriallaw.com
             wgross@ggtriallaw.com
             mkatz@ggtriallaw.com
             eborges@ggtriallaw.com
             mmcmahon@ggtriallaw.com

         - and -

      Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
      Kevin F. Calcagnie, Esq.
      Daniel S. Robinson, Esq.
      ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS, INC.
      19 Corporate Plaza Drive
      Newport Beach, California 92660
      Tel: (949) 720-1288
      Fax: (949) 720-1292


STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT: "Ketner" Action Hits Check Overdraft
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ketner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. State Employees Credit Union Of Maryland,
Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-05657, Case No. 1:15-cv-
03594-CCB (D. Md. Fla., November 24, 2015), seeks compensatory
damages on all applicable claims, disgorge, restore and return
interest paid and attorneys' fees under the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act and the Code of Federal Regulations 1005 et seq.

Plaintiff claims that the Defendant charged overdraft fees for
transactions for which there was sufficient funds in the former's
checking account to cover its transactions.

State Employees Credit Union Of Maryland, Inc. is a corporation
under the laws of the State of Maryland, with its principal place
of business located at 971 Corporate Boulevard, Linthicum, MD
21090.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
      Lindsey M. Craig, Esq.
      Adam P. Janet, Esq.
      JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
      1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
      Baltimore, MD 21208
      Tel: (410) 653-3200
      Fax: (410) 653-6903
      Email: RJenner@MyAdvocates.com
             LCraig@MyAdvocates.com
             AJanet@MyAdvocates.com

         - and -

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      McCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      Tel: (909) 557-1250
      Fax: (909) 557-1275
      Email: rdm@mccunewright.com

         - and -

      Taras Kick, Esq.
      THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
      201 Wilshire Boulevard
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Tel: (310) 395-2988
      Fax: (310) 395-2088
      Email: taras@kicklawfirm.com


STRIDE TOOL: "Blackshaw" Suit Seeks Recovery of OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------
William Blackshaw and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Stride Tool Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-02390 (N.D. Ohio,
Eastern Division, November 23, 2015), seeks liquidated damages,
unpaid overtime compensation and reasonable attorney's fees
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et
seq. and the Ohio Revised Code Sections 4111.03 and 4111.10.

Defendant allegedly failed to pay overtime wages for all hours
worked over a regular 40 hour workweek. Blackshaw worked as a
machine operator and assemblyman in skin packing.

Stride Tool Inc. is a designer and manufacturer of specialty hand
tools for the professional and DIY market. It holds principal
office at 30333 Emerald Valley Pkwy, Glenwillow, OH, 44139.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephan I. Voudris, Esq.
      VOUDRIS LAW LLC
      8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8
      Chagrin Falls, OH 44023
      Tel: 440-543-0670
      Fax: 440-543-0721
      Email: svoudris@voudrislaw.com


SUNRUN INC: "Slovin" Action Hits Telemarketing Scam
---------------------------------------------------
Lynn Slovin, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sunrun, Inc., Clean
Energy Experts, LLC and Does 1-5, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:15-cv-05340-JSC (N.D. Cal. November 20, 2015), seeks equitable
and injunctive relief, including injunctions enjoining further
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C.
Sec. 227) and attorneys' fees.

Defendants use a predictive dialer to make telephone calls to
cellular telephone numbers, often without the prior express
consent of the persons using those cellular telephone numbers in
order to promote its products and services.

Sunrun Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 595 Market Street, 29th Floor, San Francisco,
California 94105. It develops, owns, manages and sells residential
solar energy systems in Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania
and South Carolina.

Clean Energy Experts, LLC ("Clean Energy") is a California limited
liability corporation with its principal place of business located
at 595 Market Street, 29th Floor,
San Francisco, California. It operates the solaramerica.com and
solaramerica.org websites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Parisi, Esq.
      Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
      PARISI & HAVENS LLP
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Tel: (818) 990-1299
      Fax: (818) 501-7852
      Email: dparisi@parisihavens.com
             shavens@parisihavens.com

           - and -

      Yitzchak H. Lieberman, Esq.
      PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW
      7400 Hollywood Blvd, #505
      Los Angeles, CA 90046
      Tel: (917) 657-6857
      Fax: (877) 501-3346
      Email: ylieberman@parasmoliebermanlaw.com


TAKATA CORP: Wants Economic Loss Claims in Air Bag Suits Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reported that the
Takata Corp. air bag scandal is unprecedented in size -- more than
19 million vehicles have been recalled in the U.S. to fix air bags
at risk of rupturing.

But attorneys seeking recovery for car owners who claim the mass
recall caused them a financial hit argue a successful economic
loss claim is not unprecedented. They say drivers across the
nation overpaid for their cars and saw resale values drop when the
recalls began.

U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno in Miami has a lot of case law
to review as he mulls whether to dismiss some of the car owners'
claims against Takata and several automakers, decisions that could
be released any day.

Manufacturers named in the multidistrict litigation include BMW,
Ford, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Subaru and Toyota. The economic loss
claims are being heard separately from personal injury claims.

In December, Moreno denied motions to dismiss claims that Takata
Corp. and Honda Motor Co. conspired to hide air bag defects. He
also found it was too early to strike nationwide claims just
because of questions about state law issues.

Now the judge is considering defense arguments that drivers whose
air bags haven't shown a defect should not be allowed to pursue
claims for economic damages.

"Courts recognize that allowing recovery by uninjured buyers would
be speculative, unfair and bad economics," Mazda attorneys wrote
in a sentiment echoed by each defendant.

The manufacturers argue Moreno should rely on a 2002 opinion in
the Ford Explorer tire defect case styled In Re:
Bridgestone/Firestone. In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, Judge Frank Easterbrook said 3 million vehicle
owners whose tires never failed should not be able to recover
money for alleged diminished resale values.

"If tort law fully compensates those who are physically injured,
then any recoveries by those whose products function properly
means excess compensation," Easterbrook wrote.

That opinion was cited in a decision by Florida's Third District
Court of Appeal reversing the certification of a plaintiffs class
claiming economic losses over premature brake wear, in part
because the class included drivers whose brakes had never failed.

Manufacturers in the Takata case argue that decision shows the law
is well-settled for Florida plaintiffs.

But the plaintiffs say the "manifestation of the defect" argument
mischaracterizes the economic loss claims.

Car owners aren't arguing their economic harm stems from the
future risk of air bags exploding, but that they already suffered
because of manufacturers' deceptive conduct, plaintiffs argue.

That economic harm stems from overpaying for their cars, seeing a
decrease in resale value and incurring other expenses related to
the defect, such as taking a day off work to get the air bag
replaced, the plaintiffs claim.

That makes the case different from a no-injury products liability
case, a distinction laid out by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit in Coghlan v. Wellcraft Marine, they argue. In that
case, the plaintiffs alleged a recreational fishing boat they
bought was defective and didn't live up to the manufacturer's
representations.

"Here, the damages sought by the Coghlans are not rooted in the
alleged defect of the product as such but in the fact that they
did not receive the benefit of their bargain," the court found in
2001.

Wait For Explosion?

Drivers with Takata air bags that never exploded received the
benefit of their bargain, which bars any economic loss claim,
defense attorneys argued at an October hearing on the motions to
dismiss.

Moreno pressed an attorney for Mazda on this point during the
hearing.

"The courts are saying, 'Wait until it explodes, and then you can
have cases?'" the judge asked Cari Dawson of Alston & Bird in
Atlanta. "Is that the defense position?"

But he also questioned plaintiffs co-lead counsel Peter Prieto of
Podhurst Orseck in Miami: Wouldn't the Coghlan overpayment theory
require the plaintiffs to prove each consumer thought about the
air bag while purchasing the car?

Prieto said the real question was whether a rational consumer
would pay as much for a vehicle with a defective air bag.

Moreno also heard motions to dismiss the nationwide claims that in
December he declined to strike. Those include unjust enrichment,
fraudulent concealment and statutory consumer protection
allegations.

The plaintiffs are hoping for a trial in April 2017. Personal
injury claims are likely to go to trial before then.

Takata air bag explosions have been blamed in nine deaths and
about 100 injuries in the U.S., including a 13-year-old boy who
was confirmed Sunday to have died because of a defective air bag.

Firms representing the plaintiffs in the economic loss action are
Baron & Budd; Boies, Schiller & Flexner; Carella, Byrne, Cecchi,
Olstein, Brody & Agnello; Colson Hicks Eidson; Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein; Podhurst Orseck; and Power Rogers & Smith.
Defense firms are Alston & Bird; Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price &
Axelrod; Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney; Dechert; DLA Piper; Dykema
Gossett; Herzfeld & Rubin; Hogan Lovells; Kenny Nachwalter; Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith; Lewis Tein; Sedgwick; Seipp Flick &
Hosley; and Sidley Austin.


TAKATA CORP: "Hodge" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dawne Hodge v. Takata Corporation
et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01427, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The
Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-24046-FAM
to the proceeding.

Takata Corporation is an automotive parts company based in Japan.
The company has production facilities on four continents. Honda
Motor is a Japanese public multinational corporation primarily
known as a manufacturer of automobiles, motorcycles and power
equipment. Honda has been the world's largest motorcycle
manufacturer since 1959. American Honda Motor manufactures and
sells Honda automobiles. The company offers cars, trucks, sport
utility vehicles, automobile parts and accessories, engines,
generators, lawn mowers, tillers, trimmers, motorcycles, multi-
purpose utility vehicles, outboard motors, pumps, scooters, and
snow blowers through authorized Honda dealers, and is based in
Torrance, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy J. Donahue, Esq.
          TIMOTHY J. DONAHUE LAW OFFICES
          374 South Glassell Street
          Orange, CA 92866
          Telephone: (949) 261-6088
          E-mail: tdonahue@attorneydonahue.com


TIMBERRIDGE BUILDERS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Gordy" Action Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm Gordy, Hector Ruiz, Esparza, Fredrick Teague and Harold
Sutton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Timberridge Builders, Inc., and Greg Hill,
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01477 (M.D. Tenn., December 9, 2015),
seeks recovery of overtime pay, interest, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiffs worked as general labors, among others, painting,
demolition of hotel rooms, trash removal, caulking, taking
measurements, cutting headboards, and inventory shipment handling.
They claim to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per work week
without overtime premium compensation.

Timberridge Builders, Inc. is a hotel construction and renovations
and is owned by Greg Hill.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan A. Street, Esq.
      G. Brandon Hall, Esq.
      THE HIGGINS FIRM, PLLC
      525 4th Avenue South
      Nashville, TN 37210
      Tel: (615) 353-0930


TOMMIE COPPER: "Herst" Suit Alleges Product Fraud
-------------------------------------------------
David Herst, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Tommie Copper Inc., Defendant, Case No.
9:15-cv-81611-KAM (S.D. Fla., West Palm Beach Division, November
24, 2015), seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages,
equitable monetary relief, including restitution and  reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses arising from purchasing the
Defendant's copper-infused compression fabric.

Herst alleges unfair competition and unlawful, unfair and
fraudulent business practices in the representation of the
efficacy of the Defendant' copper-infused compression fabric on
pain relief, accelerations in recovery and improvements in
muscular power, strength, endurance and injury management.

Defendant is a Delaware corporation with principal place of
business in Westchester County, New York. It markets and sells
copper-infused compression fabric throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William C. Wright, Esq.
      THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
      301 Clematis Street, Suite 3000
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Tel: (561) 514-0904
      Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com

         - and -

      Grey Tesh, Esq.
      W. GREY TESH, P.A.
      515 N. Flagler Dr., Ste. P-300
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Tel: (561) 686-6886
      Email: gt@greytesh.com


TOP TOMATO GROUP: "Martinez" Action to Recover OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Martinez and Onesimo Prado, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs, v. Amboy Food
Distributors Corp. d/b/a Top Tomato, Victory Produce, LLC d/b/a
Top Tomato, A&S Broadway Produce, Inc. d/b/a Top Tomato, Top
Tomato Super Store LLC, d/b/a Top Tomato, Top Tomato Plaza, LLC
d/b/a Top Tomato, Freehold Farmers Market LLC d/b/a Top Tomato,
Top Tomato Super Store INC. d/b/a Top Tomato, Top Tomato Gourmet
Market & Pharmacy Inc. d/b/a Top Tomato, Anthony Sciandra,
Salvatore Sciandra Sr., Peter Sciandra and Steven Sciandra,
Defendants, Case No. CV156769 (E.D.N.Y., November 25, 2015), seeks
recovery of unpaid overtime wages due under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, recovery of unpaid
spread of hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated and/or
punitive damages and reasonable attorneys' fees.

Martinez and Prado worked at Top Tomato - Victory Blvd. in the
produce section as stock clerk and store clerk respectively.
Defendants allegedly failed to pay them for hours worked in excess
of 40 per week.

Amboy Food Distribution Corp. is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York located at 4045
Amboy Road, Staten Island, NY 10308.

Victory Produce, LLC is a domestic business corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York with principle place of
business located at 3579 Victory Blvd., Staten Island, New York
10314.

A&S Broadway Produce, Inc. is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York with principal
place of business located at 420S Broadway, Yonkers, New York
10701.

Top Tomato Plaza, LLC is a limited liability corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York located at 3555 Victory
Boulevard, Staten Island, New York 10314 with principal place of
business located at 240 Page Ave, Staten Island, New York 10307.

Top Tomato Super Store LLC is a limited liability corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York located at 4045
Amboy Road, Staten Island, New York 10308 with principal place of
business located at 1071 Bay Street, Staten Island, New York
10305.

Freehold Farmers Market LLC is a limited liability corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey with principle
place of business located at 200 Mounts Corner Drive, Freehold,
New Jersey 07728.

Top Tomato Super Store Inc. is a business corporation organized
Under the laws of the State of New Jersey with a principle place
of business located at 515 Brick Blvd., Brick, New Jersey 08723.

Top Tomato Gourmet Market & Pharmacy Inc. is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey with a
principle place of business located at 2371 Route 36N, Atlantic
Highlands, New Jersey, 07716.

Salvatore Sciandra Sr., father of Anthony Sciandra, Steven
Sciandra and Peter Sciandra, is the founder of the Top Tomato
Supermarket brand. His aforementioned sons act as co-owners and
have administrative authority over day-to-day operation of the
business.

Defendants operate a chain of supermarkets nationwide using the
common trade name "Top Tomato."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181
      Email: info@leelitigation.com


TOYOTA GROUP: "Draeger" Action Hits Keyless Ignition
----------------------------------------------------
Richard Draeger, Stanley And Janet Neill, Neil Stevens, Patricia
Flannery, Helen Ciangiulli, Judith Harr Shane, And Steven Green,
on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-
09204 (C.D. Cal., November 25, 2015), seeks compensatory,
exemplary and statutory damages, disgorgement of income received
from the sale or lease of its vehicles, restitution to Plaintiffs
and Class Members, attorneys' fees and costs and injunction
barring Defendant from selling allegedly defective vehicles in
violation Of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair
Competition Law, Deceit and Common Law Fraud, False Advertising
Law, Unjust Enrichment, Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fraudulent
Concealment (based on Connecticut Law), New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Breach of Implied
Warranty of Merchantability.

Plaintiff allege that the process of turning on and off the engine
via the keyless feature creates more confusion among drivers than
the conventional key insertion, thus, most often than not, leaving
the vehicles with the engine still running, spewing exhaust inside
their garage.

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is a Delaware corporation whose
principal place of business is 19001 South Western Avenue,
Department WC11, Torrance, CA 90501. It manufactures sells and
services vehicles under the Toyota and Lexus brands.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee M. Gordon, Esq.
      Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (213) 330-7150
      Email: lee@hbsslaw.com
             elaine@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Martis Alex, Esq.
      Daniel R. Leathers, Esq.
      Brian R. Morrison, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 907-0700
      Fax: (212) 818-0477
      Email: malex@labaton.com
             dleathers@labaton.com
             bmorrison@labaton.com

         - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Tel: (206) 623-7292
      Fax: (206) 623-0594
      Email: steve@hbsslaw.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: "Napolitano" Action Hits Phone Scam
-------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Napolitano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Transworld Systems, Inc. and
John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-08287-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., November
24, 2015), seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief and
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses in violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227 et seq. and the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Plaintiff has allegedly received over fifty calls from the
Defendant to her cell phone number from an auto-dialer, thereby
reducing her allotted call time.

Transworld Systems, Inc., debt collector, is a Pennsylvania
Corporation with its principal place of business at 507 Prudential
Road, Horsham, PA 19044.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: May Face Suit Over Very High New Year's Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lia Levesque, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
Quebec legal clinic has served formal notice to Uber demanding the
company reimburse consumers who paid higher than normal ride
prices on New Year's Eve.

The president of Juripop legal clinic said he sent the notice on
January 7 and is ready to pursue a class action lawsuit if Uber
refuses to give Quebec customers their money back.

At a January 8 news conference, Marc-Antoine Cloutier described
Uber's practice of drastically hiking prices for rides during peak
hours as "misleading, disproportionate and abusive."

A potential plaintiff, Catherine Papillon, said she was charged
$97.18 for a 10 km ride that normally costs her $10.

She said although she saw the number 8.9 written in her Uber
application, she didn't understand it meant she would pay 8.9
times the normal rate.  She said her driver estimated the fare
would be $36.

Cloutier said about 20 clients have already come forward,
including Papillon.

Juripop director Julien-David Pelletier said the clinic's lawyers
will invoke Quebec's consumer protection laws and the province's
Civil Code if the case is brought before the courts.

He said a client's contract with Uber is a "contract of adhesion"
which means the terms are not negotiable.

He added that the general principle behind the law is that a
person cannot consent to a contract that is abusive.

"(Asking) people to pay many times the price they should be asked,
in general, is an abusive clause and the consumer is right to ask
for an annulity (sic) or reduction of their obligations and the
price they have to pay," he said.

Angry customers across Canada and the United States have taken to
social media to complain after paying several times the normal
rate for rides on Dec. 31 due to surge pricing.

Cloutier said he heard of a customer paying $500 for a ride from
Montreal to Laval, and of another paying $700 to ride a few
kilometres.

A spokesman for Uber said the company's rates increase with an
algorithm during peak periods to encourage more drivers to make
themselves available and to reduce waiting times for customers.

Jean-Christophe de Le Rue said customers are clearly told when
prices rise and are asked to confirm and approve the new rates.
They can also opt to be notified when prices go down.

"We have used several methods to inform our users ahead of New
Year's Eve to ensure they were aware and could make an enlightened
decision," he said.

He said Uber drove tens of thousands of Montrealers home on
December 31 and only a small number complained about the rates.

He said most customers paid 2.2 times the normal rate due to
increased demand, and that wait times averaged 4.3 minutes.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Bid for Multidistrict Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that new roadblock could lie ahead in Uber's legal fight with its
own drivers following a move by a New York plaintiffs attorney to
coordinate a dozen lawsuits, including a high-profile class action
in California challenging its employee classifications.

Most of the suits allege that Uber Technologies Inc. has
misclassified drivers as independent contractors rather than
employees who are entitled to unpaid wages, tips and reimbursement
for gas and other expenses. Uber, based in San Francisco, offers a
transportation service through a mobile application that connects
drivers with customers.

A multidistrict litigation would coordinate all the cases before a
single judge for pretrial purposes but, more immediately, could
halt proceedings in individual cases where Uber has moved to
dismiss the litigation, primarily citing arbitration agreements
that drivers signed.

Hunter Shkolnik of New York's Napoli Shkolnik, who has filed
nearly half the suits, moved on Dec. 1 to coordinate all the cases
into a multidistrict litigation proceeding. The U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has scheduled the matter for its
Jan. 28 hearing in Fort Myers, Florida.

"We felt it was appropriate for those drivers in other states to
have the same protections that they're moving forward in
California on," Shkolnik said. He said he wouldn't be surprised if
more cases got filed in every state Uber is operating.

"We're just getting contacted by drivers like crazy," he said.
"There are a lot of very upset drivers."

Uber spokeswoman Jessica Santillo declined to comment but referred
to the company's Dec. 29 motion before the MDL panel that opposed
coordination in part because "the tests for determining contractor
status vary by state, with critical distinctions."

Uber also parceled out the California case, stating it was "far
too procedurally advanced to be consolidated or coordinated."

The plaintiffs lawyer behind that California action, Shannon Liss-
Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan in Boston, filed a Dec. 16
motion opposing coordinating her case, which is scheduled to go to
trial on June 20.

"After devoting countless hours and hundreds of pages of legal
opinions to this case, it would be a grave mistake to transfer
this case to another court at this late hour," she wrote. Liss-
Riordan did not respond to a request for comment.

A few of the cases allege that Uber rejected certain job
applicants based on background checks that violate the U.S. Fair
Credit Reporting Act. Attorney Bruce Greenberg, a member of
Newark's Lite DePalma Greenberg, who filed one those cases,
opposed an MDL on Wednesday on ground that the claims are too
different from the misclassification cases.

But Shkolnik disagreed that those claims couldn't be part of an
MDL. Shkolnik, who initially sought coordination before U.S.
District Judge Orlando Garcia in the Western District of Texas,
who is overseeing one case, later added the Northern District of
California as a potential venue. He said he agreed with Liss-
Riordan that U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, who is overseeing
several cases against Uber, including hers, has made significant
rulings, such as finding Uber's arbitration agreements to be
unenforceable and certifying a class of drivers. (Liss-Riordan
filed a new case in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of
drivers who were potentially left out of the class.)

"It was a very cogent argument that he has done so much work on
the case," he said. "It would be offensive for me not to say he
would be a very good alternative."


UNITED COLLECTION: Judge Snubs Class Deal Favoring One Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Keshner, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
magistrate judge scuttled a class action settlement against a debt
collector, faulting an arrangement that paid no class members
except the named plaintiff and instead made a payment to a
consumer advocacy group.

Eastern District Magistrate Judge Gary Brown denied final approval
in Graff v. United Collection Bureau, 12-cv-2402, questioning the
nearly $40,000 cy pres payment to the National Consumer Law
Center.

Coupled with other deficiencies in the approximately $465,000 pact
-- such as a "sweeping increase" in class size and a broad
liability release -- Brown said "the limitation of the settlement
to a cy pres payment representing no measurable benefit to class
members renders the settlement fundamentally unfair, unreasonable
and inadequate."

Brown noted his Jan. 6 denial was made without prejudice.

The suit challenged United Collection Bureau's debt collection
efforts.  According to the complaint, the company left messages
for the named plaintiff, Thomas Graff, but breached the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by not identifying itself as a debt
collector seeking to recover a sum due.

The suit noted earlier litigation against United Collection Bureau
on the same practice, Gravina v. United Collection Bureau, 09-cv-
04816.  Gravina ended with a payment of more than $120,000 to no
class members except the named plaintiffs and cy pres payments
totalling about $26,500 to the Make-A-Wish Foundation and the
Western Center on Law & Poverty.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, the cy pres doctrine in class
action litigation distributes "unclaimed portions of a judgment or
settlement fund to a charity that will advance the interests of
the class."

In the current case, Graff and United Collection Bureau consented
to Brown's jurisdiction, and he granted preliminary approval of
the class settlement in 2014.

The pact would have awarded $2,500 to Graff and about $40,000 to
the National Consumer Law Center, which would amount to roughly 7
cents for each of the 568,023 potential class members.

The pact also would have awarded $175,000 in legal fees and up to
$250,000 in administration and notice costs.

Leading up to the May 2015 fairness hearing, one objecting class
member, Bradley Good, challenged the settlement.

Good, through his attorneys, said the appropriateness of a cy pres
award depended on a case's circumstances.  Here, he said, "where
the recovery is de minimis only because of the excessively broad
class definition constructed by the parties, a no-cash, all cy
pres settlement yields a result that is neither fair nor adequate
to the class in exchange for the rights surrendered."

In his decision, Brown noted there were "several factors weighing
in favor of the settlement."  For example, the judge said the
class reaction appeared positive; only 66 opted out and one person
objected.

Still, Brown noted Good's arguments that the release from
liability could mean that potential damages for claims under other
laws, such as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, would not be
available.

The plaintiffs' attorneys, Andrew Thomasson, of Thomasson Law in
Jersey City, and Abraham Kleinman of Kleinman LLC in Uniondale,
said the releases were routine and proper.

Brown said the problem was the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act's limit of settlement to 1 percent of the gross revenue of the
defendant.  He said such a limit was not present in other
applicable laws, like the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

"Can the liability limitations of the [Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act] be used as both a shield and a sword?  While
plaintiffs contend that a release of this nature is common
practice, there is little precedent to support granting a broad
release in these circumstances," he said.

Brown also said that when the action started, it was done on
behalf of a New York class but later expanded to cover a
nationwide class.  He said one of the consequences was
"dramatically decreas[ing] the value assigned to each class action
plaintiff while broadly increasing the protection afforded to
defendant."

As a result, he only granted final certification to the New York
class.

Turning to the issue of the cy pres payment, Brown acknowledged
the doctrine had a "well-developed history," especially for the
resolution of excess or unclaimed funds.

What was less clear, he said, was the power of courts to approve
the type of accord in front of him where, apart from the named
plaintiff, class member payments were "entirely supplanted by
payment to a cy pres recipient."

The judge said there was "some support" in the dicta of one 2007
decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
but he could not find one Second Circuit case authorizing the cy
pres award as the "exclusive remedy for the class."

He said some courts have approved exclusive cy pres award in class
actions, but others have not, noting a Seventh Circuit rejection
of a largely cy pres class action settlement.

The 2004 circuit decision said cy pres awards in the class action
context were meant to stop defendants from "walking away from the
litigation scot-free" because funds could not otherwise be
distributed.  Still, the circuit said there was "no indirect
benefit to the class from the defendant's giving the money to
someone else."

Brown said "where, as here, the defendant is attempting to
repeatedly settle class action litigation by crafting cy pres
remedies providing virtually no relief to class members, these
concerns are heightened."

Ariana Lindermayer, a senior staff attorney in MFY Legal Services'
consumer rights project, was one of the attorneys representing the
objector.

Lindermayer applauded the decision, saying it "really reflected
the important gate keeping role courts play in reviewing class
actions."  Here, she said, there was "extremely broad relief," but
class members got "nothing practically in exchange for it."

Scott Michelman and Allison Zieve of Public Citizen Litigation
Group, and Cary Flitter of Flitter Lorenz in Pennsylvania also
represented Good.

David Anthony, a partner at Troutman Sanders' Richmond office,
represented United Collection Bureau.  He declined to comment on
the pending litigation.

Neither Thomasson nor Kleinman could be reached for comment.


UNITED SHIP SERVICE: "Hernandez" Action Seeks Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------
Arnaldo Hernandez Hernandez and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. United Ship Service Corp., Defendant, Case No. Case
1:15-cv-24383-KMW (S.D. Fla., November 25, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C.
201-216.

Plaintiff claims to have worked an average of 84 hours a week for
Defendant but was never paid the extra half time rate over 40
hours per work week. He worked as an electrician and welder.

United Ship Service Corp. a Florida corporation is based in 2220
South West 57th Ave., West Park, FL 33023. It is engaged in
maritime fleet-wide service, repair, preventative maintenance or
supply.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: "Oddo" Suit Hits Defective Valves
------------------------------------------------------
Steve Oddo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. United Technologies Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-13955 (D. Mass., November 25, 2015),
seeks injunctive relief, actual, general, special, incidental,
statutory, treble or multiple, punitive and consequential damages,
restitution and counsel fees in violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2301 et seq., California Unfair
Competition Law Sections 17200, et seq., California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act under the California Civil Code Sections 1750,
et seq., Song-Beverly Act, Breach of Implied Warranty of
Merchantability, California Civil Code Sec. 1790, et seq.
including negligent misrepresentation, unjust Enrichment,
fraudulent concealment, false and misleading advertising under the
California Business & Professional Code Section 17500 and Breach
of Express Warranty under the California Commercial Code Sec.
2313.

Plaintiff claims to have purchased a defective thermal expansion
valves used in heating ventilation and air conditioning systems.
The valves allegedly contain a chemical rust inhibitor that reacts
with the refrigerant and/or lubricating oil causing coagulation
resulting in complete system failures.

United Technologies Corporation is located at One Carrier Place,
Farmington, Connecticut. It manufactures climate control equipment
as well as other products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valerie L. Chang, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      11755 Wilshire Blvd. 15th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Tel: (323) 510-4060
      Fax: (866) 300-7367
      Email: vchang@sfmslw.com

         - and -

      James C. Shah, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      35 East State Street
      Media, PA 19063
      Tel: (610) 891-9880
      Fax: (866) 300-7367
      Email: jshah@sfmslaw.com

         - and -

      Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
      Christina Donato Saler, Esq.
      Stephanie E. Saunders, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Tel: (610) 642-8500
      Fax: (610) 649-3633
      Email: tnm@chimicles.com
             cds@chimicles.com
             ses@chimicles.com


VIZIO INC: "Weiss" Suit Hits Illegal Data Gathering
---------------------------------------------------
Barry S. Weiss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Vizio Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:15-cv-
01984-AB-AFM (C.D. Cal., Southern Division, November 25, 2015),
seeks actual, general, special, incidental, statutory and
consequential damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on
such monetary relief, appropriate injunctive and/or declaratory
relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in violation of
the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 2710, California
Business and Professional Code 17200, 17500, et seq. and breach of
the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

Plaintiff bought a 42 inch Vizio E420i-B0 Smart television. It is
connected to the Internet and has been allegedly collecting and
selling viewing data without consent.

Vizio, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of California with its headquarters and
principal place of business located at 39 Tesla, Irvine,
California 92618.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon Borderud, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JON BORDERUD
      2028 Cliff Drive
      Santa Barbara, CA 93103
      Tel: (310) 621-7004
      Email: borderudlaw@cox.net

         - and -

      Charles J. Laduca, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Tel: (202) 789-3960
      Fax: (202) 789-1813
      Email: charlesl@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      William Anderson, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street, NE
      Washington, DC 20002
      Tel: (202) 789-3960
      Fax: (202) 789-1813
      Email: wanderson@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Bozman-Moss" Suit Moved to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bozman-Moss et al. v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., Case No. CV-1503515, was removed from
Marin County Superior Court of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California(San Francisco). The
California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-05021-
JSC to the proceeding.

Volkswagen Group designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles in
the United States and internationally. The Volkswagen Group is
headquartered in Herndon, Virginia.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick W. Emery
          Brendan Matthew Kunkle
          ABBEY, WEITZENBERG, WARREN & EMERY PC
          100 Stony Point Rd., Ste. 200
          P.O. Box 1566
          Santa Rosa, CA 95402
          Telephone: (707) 542-5050
          Facsimile: (707) 542-2589
          E-mail: pemery@abbeylaw.com
                  bkunkle@abbeylaw.com

                - and -

          Matthew R. Lilligren
          100 Stony Point Road, Ste 200
          Santa Rosa, CA 95401
          Telephone: (707) 542-5050
          Facsimile: (707) 542-2589
          E-mail: mlilligren@abbeylaw.com

                - and -

          Richard M. Frank
          Professor of Environmental Practice
          School of Law, University of California
          Davis, CA 95616
          Telephone: (530) 752-7422
          Facsimile: (530) 752-4704

The Defendant is represented by:

          John Nadolenco, Esq.
          Neil M. Soltman, Esq.
          Matthew H. Marmolejo, Esq.
          Andrew Z. Edelstein, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Telephone: (213) 229-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
          E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
                  nsoltman@mayerbrown.com
                  mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com
                  aedelstein@mayerbrown.com

                - and -

          Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq.
          Michael B. Gallub, Esq.
          Mark A. Weissman, Esq.
          HERZFELD & RUBIN, P.C.
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 471-8500
          Facsimile: (212) 344-3333
          E-mail: JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
                  MGallub@herzfeld-rubin.com
                  MWeissman@herzfeld-rubin.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Goldman" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Goldman, Michael Lessard Abigail Nesbitt, for themselves
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, V.
Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, and Audi AG,
Case 1:15-cv-01574-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., November 20, 2015), seeks to
temporarily and permanently enjoin Volkswagen from selling/leasing
out vehicles with the defeat device, injunctive relief in the form
of a recall or free replacement, costs, restitution, damages and
disgorgement as well as attorneys' fees in violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act for Breach of Implied Warranty of
Merchantability, Virginia Consumer Protection Act, Magnuson-Moss
Act, California Business and Professions Code, California Business
and Professions Code, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

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

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

Volkswagen of America, Inc., is a corporation which is
incorporated in the state of New Jersey, with its principal place
of business located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon,
Virginia, and is an operating unit of Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
      Susan M. Rotkis, Esq.
      CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd. lA
      Newport News, VA 23601
      Tel: (757) 930-3660
      Fax: (757) 930-3662
      Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com
             srotkis@clalegal.coni

         - and -

      Matthew J. Erausquin, Esq.
      Casey S. Nash, Esq.
      CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES,
      P.C.1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 600
      Alexandria, VA 22314, USA
      Tel: (703) 273-7770
      Fax: (888) 892-3512
      Email: matt@clalegal.com
             casey@clalegal.com

         - and -

      Craig Wildfang, Esq.
      Tara Sutton, Esq.
      Christopher Madel, Esq.
      Randall Tietjen, Esq.
      Munir Meghjee, Esq.
      Stacey Slaughter, Esq.
      Kaitlyn Johnson, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 349-8500
      Email: KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com
             TSutton@RobinsKaplan.com
             CMadel@RobinsKaplan.com
             RTietjen@RobinsKaplan.com
             MMeghjee@RobinsKaplan.com
             SSlaughter@RobinsKaplan.com
             KJJohnson@RobinsKaplan.com

         - and -

      Roman Silberfeld, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 552-0130
      Email: RSilberfeld@RobinsKaplan.com

         - and -

      Hollis Salzman, Esq.
      Kellie Lerner, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      601 Lexington Ave, Suite 3400
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 980-7400
      Email: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
             KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Hurricane" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hurricane Hauling & Demolition, Inc., individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft,
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Audi AG, Defendants, Case 3:15-
cv-05337 (N.D. Cal., November 20, 2015), seeks compensatory and
punitive damages in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Business and Professions
Code 17200 and 17500, Common Law Fraud, Breach of Implied and
Express Warranty.

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

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

Volkswagen of America, Inc., is a corporation which is
incorporated in the state of New Jersey, with its principal place
of business located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon,
Virginia, and is an operating unit of Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mary E. Alexander, Esq.
      Jennifer L. Fiore, Esq.
      Sophia M. Aslami, Esq.
      MARY ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1303
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel: (415) 433-4440
      Fax: (415) 433-5440


WALDEN UNIVERSITY: "York" Action Hits Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Amos York, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Walden University LLC, Laureate
International Universities, Heartland Campus Solutions ECSI, Case
No. 4:15-cv-03430 (S.D. Tex., Houston Division, November 23,
2015), seeks exemplary damages, equitable and injunctive relief,
including judicial and governmental supervision of Defendants'
data systems as well as an audit of Defendants' electronic data
security systems, actual, compensatory and consequential damages,
restitution and disgorgement, payment for credit monitoring and
reasonable attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff alleges a data security breach that resulted in the
exposure and misuse of private, confidential personal information.

Amos York has been enrolled as a student at Walden since August
2014 and secured financial aid that was administered by ECSI in
order to pay tuition and expenses.

Defendant Walden University LLC is a Virginia corporation with its
principle place of business located at 100 S. Washington Ave.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.

Laureate International Universities is a Maryland corporation with
its principle place of business located at 650 S. Exeter Street,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202.

Heartland Campus Solutions ECSI is a Pennsylvania corporation with
principle place of business located at 181 Montour Run Road,
Coraopolis, PA 15108.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel C. Simon, Esq.
      FERNELIUS ALVAREZ SIMON PLLC
      1221 McKinney, Suite 3200
      Houston, Texas 77010-3095
      Tel: 713-654-1200
      Fax: 713-654-4039
      Email: jsimon@fa-lawfirm.com


WASH INDUSTRIES: "Sadou" Suit Seeks OT Recovery
-----------------------------------------------
Halidou Sadou and other similarly-situated individuals, v. Wash
Industries Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-06249-SD (E.D. Pa., November 20,
2015) seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages
and the costs and reasonably attorney's fees under the provisions
of Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et
seq. and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act 43 P.S. 333.113 et seq.
and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law 43 P.S. 260.1
et seq.

Sadou claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week on or
after November 16, 2012 without being compensated. He worked as a
washer for the Defendant.

Wash Industries Inc. is a corporation duly registered in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with registered address at 45
Longview Lane, Newtown PA 19073.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Murphy, Esq.
      Michael Groh, Esq.
      Erika Kane, Esq.
      8 Penn Center, Suite 1803
      1628 JFK Blvd.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (267) 273-1504
      Email: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


WATAWA INC: Faces "He" Action in E.D.N.Y. Over Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------
Chong Ming He, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Watawa Inc., Guo Qing Zhang,
Qiao Yun Chen, John Does and Jane Does # 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 1:15-cv-07020 (E.D.N.Y., December 9, 2015), seeks injunction
against the Defendants, wages, overtime and spread-of-hours
compensation due under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law and liquidated and/or punitive damages.

Plaintiffs worked as sushi chef for the Defendants. He claims to
have rendered in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime
premium compensation.

Watawa Inc. is a New York corporation with a principal place of
business at 33-10 Ditmars Blvd, Astoria and operates under the
name Watawa Sushi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
     136-18 39th Ave.
     Suite 1003 Flushing
     New York 11354
     Tel: (718) 35318588
     jhang@hanglaw.com


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Faces Complaints That Mobile App Doesn't Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Ross of the New York Daily News reports that Weight
Watchers might have Oprah to market its mission, but it gets no
points for its new online app, according to a new class action
lawsuit filed in Manhattan.

In papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, attorney Samuel Rosen
says Weight Watchers promised that its mobile app "has it all (and
does it all) so you can lead a healthier, more active life" by
providing motivation, advice, and food and weight tracking.

Instead, he says, it served up a form of cyber agita.

Rosen quotes users who complained online, for example, that "the
site doesn't work and nobody responds.  The things that I saved
have disappeared."

In December, the suit says, Weight Watcher brass apologized
publicly and promised repairs.

However, Rosen complains, Weight Watchers offered no refunds to
those who signed up.  Citing Weight Watchers' own SEC filings,
Rosen estimates that as many as 1.5 million subscribers to the Web
site could be in the class, which is represented by Raymond M.
Roberts, Esq.

Rosen declined to disclose who Roberts is, saying he doesn't want
to talk to the press, but he says Roberts like other subscribers
paid an initial fee of $49.95 for a three-month membership and
then $19.95 per month thereafter.

Weight Watchers issued a statement that conceded it had problems
with "certain aspects of our technology" but "we worked quickly to
address them" and will "vigorously defend any suggestion that we
have not honored our legal obligations."


WIRELESS VISION: "Gray" Action Seeks OT Pay Recovery
----------------------------------------------------
Darmaris Gray, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wireless Vision, LLC, a Michigan limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-04264-AT (N.D. Ga.,
December 7, 2015), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and service payment under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Wireless Vision, LLC is a Michigan limited liability company with
principal place of business in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.

Gray worked as assistant manager for the Defendant and claims to
have worked in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin D. Miller, Esq.
      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
      Post Office Box 57007
      Atlanta, Georgia 3033-1007
      Tel: (404) 965-8811
           (404) 496-7295
      Fax: (404) 496-7405
      Email: CLeach@forthepeople.com

         - and -

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Camar Jones, Esq.
      Susan H. Stern, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Tel: (561) 447-8888
      Fax: (561) 447-8831
      Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
             cjones@shavitzlaw.com
             sstern@shavitzlaw.com


* Asbestos, Class Action Bill Faces Steep Senate Hurdle
-------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, Perry Cooper and Stephanie Cumings, writing for
Bloomberg News, report that a bill to limit class actions and
restrict illegitimate asbestos bankruptcy trust claims is
predicted to sail through the House but is unlikely to muster
sufficient votes in the Senate, sources tell Bloomberg BNA.

The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act (H.R. 1927), which
includes the Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act (formerly
H.R. 526), is scheduled for a floor vote Jan. 7 or 8.

Then it's on to the Senate, where the bill is expected to stall.

But even if the legislation never passes, it could prove to be an
interesting test case for the impact of a Republican-controlled
Senate on the balance of power between tort reform advocates and
those who trumpet increased access to the courts.

Tough Road Ahead in Senate

"It does not seem likely that the FACT Act will pass the Senate,"
Rachel Reynolds with Sedgwick Law LLP told Bloomberg BNA in a Jan.
4 e-mail. Reynolds defends companies against product liability,
environmental and toxic torts claims.

"There is a strong lobby against the legislation that asserts that
the bill is designed to unfairly deny injured individuals
compensation to which they are due," she said.

"Legal reform bills usually draw strong opposition from trial
lawyer allies in the Senate so the FACT Act would most likely face
challenges, including a filibuster, if it reaches the Senate
floor," Mark Behrens, Esq. -- mbehrens@shb.com -- with Shook Hardy
& Bacon LLP told Bloomberg BNA in a Dec. 22 e-mail.

Behrens co-chairs the firm's public policy group and is a tort
reform advocate.

"Asbestos plaintiff lawyers are especially politically active,
well-funded, and influential within the American Association for
Justice, the trial bar's lobbying organization," he said.

But even if the bill fails to pass the Senate or get presidential
approval, it may serve other ends.

"Committee hearings and floor debate provide important
opportunities to shine public light on plaintiff lawyer
suppression of evidence in asbestos cases," Behrens said.

But those opposed to the bills weren't so quick to see a silver
lining.

Joanne Doroshow, executive director of the Center for Justice &
Democracy, told Bloomberg BNA in a Jan. 6 e-mailed statement that
the bills "have nothing in common except for their overall purpose
to block victims access to the courts and eliminate legal
accountability for corporations engaged in wrongdoing."

"One bill would wipe out federal class actions. The second would
block asbestos victims from accessing the courts while violating
their privacy," she said. CJ&D is a public interest group
promoting access to the courts.

'No-Injury' Bill

Under the class action bill, courts would be required to conduct
"a rigorous analysis of the evidence" to determine that "each
proposed class member suffered the same type and scope of injury"
as the named class representative before certifying a class under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1).

The House Judiciary Committee approved the bill in June (16 CLASS
718, 6/26/15).

The measure targets class actions in which, defendants say, not
all class members are injured. One such example is the moldy
washing machine product liability litigation, where not everyone's
defective washers grew mold (14 CLASS 1055, 9/13/13). Other
examples involve cases for statutory damages where, defendants
say, no "concrete" injury has been suffered.

"FICALA will restore consistency among the federal courts'
treatment of overbroad class actions and in the process promote
fairness in the litigation of class actions and the U.S. economy,"
the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform said in a statement e-
mailed Jan. 4.

But the bill "could be very detrimental for workers and consumers"
if the "same type and scope" language is interpreted narrowly,
Alexandra D. Lahav, a professor specializing in class actions and
aggregate litigation at the University of Connecticut School of
Law, told Bloomberg BNA in a Dec. 29 e-mail. Lahav testified
against the bill at an April House subcommittee hearing.

"In the end the effect will depend on how judges choose to
interpret it," she said. If the courts interpret it as a
"reminder" that the claims of the class representative must be
typical of the class claims, "it will not have much of an effect,
except perhaps to slightly narrow the typicality requirement."

The class bill could impact pending consumer class actions against
Volkswagen over the use of emissions cheating software in the
company's diesel engine vehicle fleet (16 CLASS 1358, 12/11/15),
plaintiffs' attorney Jonathan D. Selbin, of Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein LLP in New York, told Bloomberg BNA in a Jan. 6 e-
mail.

The bill's supporters "want to protect companies like VW from
being held accountable for its emissions fraud. As VW shows,
sometimes big companies lie and cheat, and all the class action
bill would do is make it harder for consumers to hold them
accountable," he said.

FACT Act

The FACT Act would amend Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code to
require each asbestos bankruptcy trust to file a report with the
bankruptcy court every quarter that "describes each demand the
trust received from, including the name and exposure history of, a
claimant and the basis for any payment from the trust made to such
claimant."

The trust would also be required to provide upon request
information regarding payments or requests for payments to any
party in an action for asbestos liability.

The House passed the FACT Act in 2013 and 2014, but both times it
stalled in the Senate, which was then controlled by the Democrats.

While the Republicans have since taken control of the upper
chamber, passage there remains an uphill battle. Still, one
advocate expressed hope for success.

"Predicting the future is always a challenge, but we're hopeful,"
Harold Kim, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber Institute
for Legal Reform, told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 4.

"We're happy the FACT Act is getting a vote. We're certainly
optimistic. There's no reason not to be. They're introducing it
early in the year, and the Senate is different than a few years
ago," Kim said.

Garlock Case

Advocates of the FACT Act, including the Chamber's Institute for
Legal Reform, cite In re Garlock Sealing Techs. LLC, 504 B.R. 71
(Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2014), as an example of fraud and abuse in the
asbestos bankruptcy trust system.

The Garlock court rejected the claimants' $1.3 billion liability
estimate in favor of Garlock's $125 million figure.

The Garlock court found the plaintiffs withheld exposure evidence,
which "had the effect of unfairly inflating the recoveries against
Garlock from 2000 through 2010."

In a statement e-mailed Jan. 4, the Institute for Legal Reform
said the FACT Act's disclosure requirement will "discourage
fraudulent, abusive and inconsistent claims."

But Julia Duncan, director of federal programs at the American
Association for Justice, criticized the bill as a "corporate
giveaway."

"This bill would harm not just asbestos victims, but also people
who have been cheated, ripped off or discriminated against by
widespread illegal corporate practices. Our hope is that the
Senate views this absurd proposal for what it is-nothing more than
a corporate giveaway," she told Bloomberg BNA in a Jan. 6 e-mail.


* White House Threatens Veto of 'Class Action Fairness' Bill
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that the White House
threatened to veto a bill tightening standards for class
certification in lawsuits and requiring asbestos bankruptcy trusts
to make claimants' details public, saying it would wrongly block
access to courts and hurt the privacy of asbestos victims.

The Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos
Claim Transparency Act, H.R. 1927, imposes unnecessary
restrictions on class actions, which are intended to allow
individuals to "vindicate their rights" as a group more
efficiently and effectively than individual suits, according to
the policy statement.


                            *********

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 2016. 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  * * *