CAR_Public/160114.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, January 14, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 9


                            Headlines


3M CO: Suits Over Surgical Warming Blanket Coordinated in Minn.
A&O PLUMBING: "Neyra" Action Seeks Payment of OT Premium
AMAZON.COM: Misclassifies Prime Drivers, Phoenix Class Suit Says
ANTHEM INC: Sued in Indianapolis Over Retirement Plan Losses
BANK OF AMERICA: Loses Bid to Dismiss RICO Class Action

BILL COSBY: Faces Sexual Assault Charges, Jan. 14 Hearing Set
BLUSTAR DIRECTIONAL: Faces "Leiker" Action Over Unpaid OT
CEPHALON: Trial to Begin Feb. 2 in King Drug Case
CHINA GREEN: $2.5MM Shareholder Case Settlement Okayed
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces Criminal Probe Over Norovirus Outbreak

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sales Plunge Following Series of Food Scares
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Shareholders Sue Over Norovirus Outbreak
CHRYSLER LLC: 9th Cir. Rules in Bid to Unseal Documents
CITY NATIONAL BANK: Sued Over $125 Million Ponzi Scheme
CLEAN DOCTORS OF NY: Doesn't Pay OT Wages, "Romero" Action Claims

CONSOLIDATED WINGS: "Stokes" Suit Seeks OT Recovery
COOK COUNTY, IL: Taxpayer Sues Over Missing $400MM
DIAMOND RESORTS: Trial Set for April 29 in "Ferraro" Class Action
DRAFTKINGS & FANDUEL: N.Y. A.G. Seeks Restitution of Funds
EAST BAY: Faces "Smiler" Suit Over Water Delivery "Charges"

ENDO INT'L: Inflated Prices of Generics, Philadelphia Suit Says
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Vitamin Suit for $39 Million
ETHICON: Jury Awards $7MM in Punitive Damages in Pelvic Mesh Case
ETHICON INC: Bets on Pelvic Mesh Trials
FACEBOOK INC: Court Allows Investors' IPO Suit to Proceed

FARMER GREEN'S MARKET: Doesn't Pay OT Wages, "Portillo" Suit Says
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Judge Certifies Class in Title Insurance Suit
FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT: Faces "Rosario" Action Over Unpaid OT
FLOWERS FOODS: Faces Suit Alleging Misclassification of Drivers
FLUFF N' FOLD LAUNDRY: "Romero" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay

FRONTIER TORQUE: Faces "Yuen" Action Over Unpaid OT
GALLEGOS: Faces Suit by Tenants Over "Defects" in Dwelling Units
GENERAL MOTORS: 'Bellwether' Trial to Provide Litigation Template
GENERAL MOTORS: April 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition-Switch Trial in N.Y. Begins

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Can't Enforce $35MM Flonase Settlement Agreement
GOOGLE INC: Authors Guild Continues Fight to Supreme Court
GREEN HILLS: Faces "Miller" Suit for Alleged Labor Law Violation
HAWKINS INC: Roschester City Alleges Violation of Sherman Act
HILLSHIRE BRANDS: Racist Graffiti Spurs $4-Mil. Settlement

IDENTIV INC: Faces "Ruggiero" Suit Over Share Price Drop
JAPAN: Filipino Wartime Sex Slaves Call for Compensation
KINGDOM TRUST: Runs $66 Mil. Ponzi Scheme, Investors Claim
LANZA ESTATE: Sandy Hook Shooting Victims' Lawsuits Settled
LGE COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION: "Tims" Action Hits Overdraft Fees

LIVE BROADBAND: Misclassifies Technicians, Texas Suit Claims
LUMOS LABS: Lumosity to Pay $2MM to Settle FTC False Ad Charges
MAPLEBEAR INC: Faces Suit Alleging Misclassification of Employees
MARRIOTT INT'L: "Jimenez" Action Seeks Minimum, OT Recovery
MCCAUGHEY CONSUMER: Recalls Psoriasin Liquid Solutions

NAZARETH CLASSIC: "Palominos" Suit Alleges Denial of Rest Periods
NEW YORK, NY: Destroyed Evidence in Quota Class Suit, Judge Says
NEW YORK: Group of Terminally Ill Patients Appeal Case Dismissal
NY LIFE INSURANCE: "Wittman" Action Alleges ERISA Violations
PANASONIC CORP: Non-Calif. Law Claims Tossed in Capacitor Suit

PARAGON CONTRACTORS: Accused of Child Labor by Federal Lawyers
PARKER PLASTICS: "Voils" Action Seeks OT Recovery
PHILIP MORRIS: Jury Awards $35 Million to Smoker's Widower
PHILIP MORRIS: Pa. High Court Denies Appeal of Settlement Changes
PITTMAN CONSULTANTS: "Mosley" Action Seeks OT Recovery

PROFESSIONAL RODEO: Cowboys May Compete in Events, Judge Says
PS CONTRACTING: Sued by Workers at NYCHA Public Works Projects
PURDUE PHARMA: To Pay $24MM Over Misleading OxyContin Marketing
QUINN EMANUEL: Attorney Loses Overtime Class Action Bid
RAMESES INC: "Pritchard" Action Seeks OT, Minimum Wage Recovery

RMR SERVICE: Faces "Ross" Suit Alleging Violation of MFLSA, FLSA
RUSH WELLSITE: "Whitworth" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Recovery
SANOFI AMERICAN: Weil Wins Dismissal of Securities Class Action
SKADDEN ARPS: Settles Contract Attorneys' OT Collective Action
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Residents Want Facility Shut Down

SPD SWISS PRECISION: "Olvera" Suit Hits Defective Pregnancy Test
STK WESTWOOD: Faces "Doe" Suit Over Violations of Cal. Labor Code
SUNEDISON INC: "Moodie" Suit Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop
SUPERCOM LTD: Faces "Wexler" Action Over Share Price Drop
TAKATA CORP: Judge Calls for Venue Transfer in Air Bag Case

TARANTINO PROPERTIES: "Scola" Action Seeks OT Recovery
TEXAS: Commission Approved $254,000 in Legal Fees
TIME WARNER CABLE: "Villa" Suit Hits Telemarketing Calls
TIRE DISCOUNTERS: "Lindsey" Action Seeks OT Recovery
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over "Winter Warm Up Promotion"

UBER TECH: N.D. Cal. Judge Won't Stay Proceedings in TCPA Suit
UBER TECH: Excluded Drivers Sue in San Francisco State Court
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Revamps Drivers' Arbitration Agreements
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Wants Drivers' Case Tried Without Jury
UNION COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT: Principal Sues Over Hidden Camera

UNITED COLLECTION: Court Rejects Class Deal Favoring One Plaintiff
UTZ QUALITY: Faces "Cummings" Suit Over Wage Law Violation
VIBRAM USA: 1st Cir. Affirms Settlement in Product Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: US Files Suit Over Emissions-Cheating Software
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Retains Feinberg to Administer Emissions Claims

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Plaintiffs Must Suggest Settlement Master
VPNE PARKING: Faces "Deandrade" Suit Over Illegal Wage Deductions
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces "Seviola" Suit Over Defective Fridge
YAHOO INC: Judge Tosses Shareholder Derivative Suit
YUKOS OIL: May 30 Claims Filing Deadline Set

ZIRX CONSUMER SERVICES: "Pascual" Suit Seeks OT Recovery

* Experian Announces Data Breach Predictions for 2016
* FDA Reclassifies Transvaginal Mesh as High-Risk Devices
* Mass Tort Litigation Dominated Philadelphia Court in 2015
* S.D. Florida Court to Hear Five MDL Cases This Year



                            *********



3M CO: Suits Over Surgical Warming Blanket Coordinated in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that about 70 lawsuits filed over a widely used surgical warming
blanket that plaintiffs lawyers say spreads infections have been
coordinated in Minnesota.

A federal judicial panel on Dec. 18 coordinated cases brought over
the Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming system made by 3M Co. into a
multidistrict litigation proceeding before U.S. District Judge
Joan Ericksen.  The Bair Hugger blows hot air through a blanket in
order to maintain a patient's normal body temperature during
surgery.  The suits allege that the Bair Hugger disrupts the air
ventilation in the operation room, leading to infections,
particularly in hip and knee surgeries, which have led to
amputations and multiple surgeries.  They claim that 3M, based in
St. Paul, has been aware of the contamination problem since 2009.
Genevieve Zimmerman -- gzimmerman@meshbesher.com -- a partner at
Minneapolis-based Meshbesher & Spence, who filed a motion on Aug.
21 to coordinate the Bair Hugger litigation into an MDL, said
scientific literature "in reputable places" has found that the
Bair Hugger device has resulted in a "disproportionate rate of
deep joint infection."

"While a slight risk of infection might be expected, a substantial
increase in the rate of infection because of the use of this
device is not something any of these patients would have consented
to or agreed to if they knew there was an alternative," she said.

More than a dozen additional cases have been filed in Minnesota's
Ramsey County District Court, where Judge William Leary has
coordinated the litigation and set the first scheduling conference
for Dec. 22.

3M Co. initially opposed coordination of the litigation.  In an
unusual argument, the company accused plaintiffs lawyers of
piggybacking claims promulgated as part of a "smear campaign" from
an influential competitor: Dr. Scott Augustine, who invented the
device two decades ago.

"In contrast to the typical medical device mass tort litigation
initiated by outside events -- such as FDA action or the discovery
of new risks published in independent, peer-reviewed studies --
these cases present the unprecedented circumstance of product
liability litigation concocted by lawyers and based on the false
and misleading claims of the inventor of the device and now
competitor," wrote 3M lawyer Lori Cohen, chairwoman of the
pharmaceutical, medical device and health care litigation practice
group at Greenberg Traurig, in a Sept. 14 court filing before the
MDL panel.

In 2010, 3M acquired Augustine's company for $810 million.
Augustine now sells a competing product that doesn't use forced
air.

In November, acknowledging a substantial uptick in new filings, 3M
acquiesced to coordinating most of the litigation in Minnesota,
but it refuted any ties that the Bair Hugger has to increased
risks of infections.  3M has said the Bair Hugger is essential to
preventing hypothermia during surgeries, and multiple scientific
studies have found it reduces infections.

"In fact, in over 25 years and more than 200 million patients
warmed successfully by 3M's patient warming products, there's not
a single confirmed incident of infection caused by the Bair Hugger
system," said 3M spokeswoman Donna Fleming Runyon.  "We're
vigorously defending these Bair Hugger Warming system lawsuits
because there is no merit to the claims that the Bair Hugger
product causes surgical site infections."

Although two cases have been pending since 2013 and 2014, the vast
majority have been filed in the past four months.  Plaintiffs
lawyers have said in court filings that there could be hundreds of
cases.

Ms. Zimmerman acknowledged that some patients with hip and knee
implant surgeries have reported infections but insisted that the
Bair Hugger litigation is separate.  She also denied that
Augustine has any connection to the litigation.

"I suspect he has a complicated relationship with 3M, but that
doesn't mean he's wrong about what's happening with the Bair
Hugger litigation," she said.


A&O PLUMBING: "Neyra" Action Seeks Payment of OT Premium
--------------------------------------------------------
Angel Neyra, Plaintiff, v. A&O Plumbing Corp., Defendant, Case No.
1:15-cv-24496-JAL (S.D. Fla., December 7, 2015), seeks recovery of
overtime pay, interest, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as unpaid
wages pursuant to Sec. 448.08 of the Florida Statutes.

Plaintiff worked as a plumber for the Defendants and claims not
paid being the mandatory overtime premium in excess of 40 hours
per work week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan S. Minick, Esq.
      JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A.
      1850 SW 8th Street, Suite 307
      Miami, FL 33135
      Tel: (786) 441-8909
      Fax: (786) 523-0610
      E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com


AMAZON.COM: Misclassifies Prime Drivers, Phoenix Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
Amazon.com dictates nearly every aspect of its Amazon Prime
delivery drivers' work day but misclassifies them as independent
contractors to duck overtime and labor laws, drivers say in a
federal class action in Phoenix.

Daniel Curry and three other named plaintiffs sued Amazon.com and
Courier Logistics Services on Jan. 5 under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Amazon contracts with Courier Logistics Services to employ
hundreds of drivers in Phoenix, Curry et al. say. They say they
typically worked five to 10 hours of overtime per week, without
appropriate pay.

Here are some of the requirements of their jobs, according to the
complaint:

They had to deliver packages within two hours for Amazon Prime
members who placed orders on the Amazon Prime Now app, or within
one hour if the customer paid an additional fee.

"Delivery drivers reported to and worked exclusively out of an
Amazon warehouse."

"Delivery drivers are required to wear shirts and hats bearing the
Amazon Prime Now logo and Amazon and Courier Logistics provide
delivery drivers with a smart phone pre-loaded with the Prime Now
mobile application."

Drivers are assigned to "fixed shifts during Amazon's Prime Now
service hours."

They are "required to report to the Amazon warehouse 15 minutes
before their scheduled start time," but are not paid for those 15
minutes.

They must check in with the dispatcher at the beginning of each
day, and check out at the end.

"Amazon decides which packages will be assigned to delivery
drivers and makes their work assignments."

"Delivery drivers cannot reject work assignments."

The drivers make the deliveries in their own personal vehicles.

Curry et al. say that both Amazon.com and Courier Logistics
Services acted as their employers and each company had the
authority to set their wages, hire and fire them, and control
their working conditions.

Drivers were paid $16 per hour and were classified as independent
contractors.  They say the app allows customers to tip drivers,
who "are prohibited from accepting cash tips," but the drivers
never received the full amount of tips customers left for them.

They estimate there are more than 300 current and past employees
of Amazon.com and Courier Logistics Services who may qualify as
class members.

Trey Dayes, their lead attorney, declined to comment.

Amazon.com did not respond to a request for comment.

The drivers seek class certification, lost wages, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs


ANTHEM INC: Sued in Indianapolis Over Retirement Plan Losses
------------------------------------------------------------
David Wells, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
mismanagement of Anthem's 401(k) retirement plan lost millions to
unnecessary fees and bad investments, members claim in a federal
class action in Indianapolis.

Shortly after changing its name from WellPoint in December 2014,
Anthem's 401(k) plan represented one of the largest in the
country, with $5.1 billion in assets and 59,000 participants, the
complaint states.

Three Indiana-based beneficiaries of the plan claim in the Dec. 29
class action that Anthem and its board of directors fumbled their
bargaining position to allow "unreasonable expenses," which
participants must shoulder, for the plan's administration.

Anthem also selected high-cost and poor-performing investments,
plaintiffs Mary Bell, Janice Grider and Cindy Prokish say.

The lawsuit alleges that some investments included fees upwards of
three times higher than the cheaper options. Citing data from the
U.S. Department of Labor, just one percentage point of higher fees
can negatively impact a 401(k) plan by 28 percent over the course
of 35 years, the plaintiffs say.

Though lower-fee investments had been available for years, it
wasn't until 2013 that Anthem restructured its plans to offer the
less-fee intensive options, according to the complaint.

Had Anthem chosen cheaper investments between December 2009 and
July 2013, "plan participants would not have lost over $18 million
of their retirement savings through unnecessary expenses," the
complaint states.

As for failing to make smart and prudent investments, the class
claims that Anthem simply failed to explore the clear advantages,
such as safety and higher returns, available through other
investments.

The complaint specifically targets an investment called the
"Vanguard Prime Money Market Fund," which it claims was a riskier
and lower-yielding option compared with some alternatives that
could have been included within the 401(k) plan.  In fact, by
placing that investment in a better option, "plan participants
would not have lost over $65 million in their retirement savings,
and continue to suffer additional losses to the present, as a
result of the fund being retained in the plan," the complaint
states.

In addition to the alleged improper fees and investments, the
lawsuit also seeks damages for Anthem's failure to monitor the
amount another company charged it to manage plan records.

Bell and the other beneficiaries say Anthem paid investment group
Vanguard for recordkeeping services, using two models of payment
prior to September 2013.  One model was a simple fee paid for each
participant; the other was called an "asset-based revenue-sharing
plan," which paid Vanguard fees based on the total size of the
investment.  Because the total investment grew from $3.3 billion
to $5.1 billion during the timeframe, Vanguard collected growing
fees for the same work, the complaint states.

The class also suggests that the flat-rate fee was over twice as
high as should be reasonably expected. Anthem has more recently
switched to a flat $42 per-person payment to Vanguard, but the
class says even that is too high, as an estimated payment of
around $30 would be reasonable.

In addition to damages for Anthem's failure to properly monitor
these payments, the class wants a reimbursement of all alleged
plan losses. It is represented by:

     Jerome Schlichter, Esq.
     SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP
     100 S 4th St #900
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Tel: 314-621-6115


BANK OF AMERICA: Loses Bid to Dismiss RICO Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has denied Bank of America Corp.'s request to
dismiss a RICO class action filed against it by home mortgage
borrowers.

The plaintiffs in Weiss v. Bank of America alleged that Bank of
America directed mortgage borrowers to private mortgage insurance
providers in exchange for a kickback of the private mortgage
insurance payment, funneled through their affiliated reinsurer,
Bank of America Reinsurance Corp., according to the opinion filed
by U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon of the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

In its motion for dismissal, Bank of America argued that the
plaintiffs' claims were time-barred because the four-year statute
of limitations in the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act had run when they closed their mortgages in 2006
and 2007.  The plaintiffs filed their claims in 2015.
Additionally, Bank of America claimed the plaintiffs failed to
show that the statute could be tolled.

The plaintiffs argued they did not learn of the alleged scheme
until 2012, but Bank of America countered they should have known
after receiving and signing their mortgage documents.

According to Judge Bissoon, Bank of America claimed the loan
documents, which the plaintiffs received in 2006 and 2007,
contained a "risk sharing mortgage insurance disclosure,"
explaining that their lender may, directly or through an
affiliated "reinsurance company," enter into other risk-sharing
contracts with the private mortgage insurance company insuring
their loans.

That, Bank of America argued, should have put the plaintiffs on
notice.  According to Judge Bissoon, Bank of America further
argued there were news articles on the subject that were publicly
available as well as other lawsuits alleging identical schemes and
governmental investigations into those schemes -- all resources
available to the plaintiffs.

Judge Bissoon said Bank of America had met its burden in
establishing that there was information available to alert the
plaintiffs to the possibility of omissions or misleading
statements.  The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to show
that they heeded the information with due diligence, but still
were injured.

The plaintiffs pointed to the 2015 U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit decision in In re Community Bank of Northern
Virginia Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation, abbreviated by the
court as Community Bank III.

"The Community Bank III court held that, while 'reasonable
diligence is a fact-specific inquiry,' it is also the case that
'when a wrongful scheme is perpetrated through the use of common
documentation, such as the documents employed to memorialize each
putative class member's mortgage loan, full participation in the
loan process alone is sufficient to establish the due diligence
element' of an equitable-tolling argument," Judge Bissoon said.

Judge Bissoon added that the court was aware of the Third
Circuit's holding that tolling inquiries are largely fact-
specific, and she ruled that in this case, the plaintiffs
established a plausible claim that they exercised their due
diligence.

"Plaintiffs have pleaded full participation in the loan process;
nothing more is required at the pleadings stage," Judge Bissoon
said.

Bank of America also attacked the plaintiffs' standing to bring
RICO claims -- ultimately resulting in the judge siding with the
plaintiffs -- and additionally claimed the plaintiffs failed to
plead a RICO violation.

The defendants claimed the plaintiffs did not establish the
elements of an "enterprise" or "any predicate acts of
racketeering."

However, Judge Bissoon disagreed.  "Here, plaintiffs allege more
than bilateral agreements between lenders and private mortgage
insurers.  Rather, plaintiffs allege the existence of a continuous
unit, depicted graphically in the complaint," she said.


BILL COSBY: Faces Sexual Assault Charges, Jan. 14 Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lizzy McLellan, writing for Law.com, reports that comedian
Bill Cosby has been charged with aggravated indecent assault, a
felony, by the Montgomery County district attorney.

The charge was filed on Dec. 30, first assistant district attorney
Kevin R. Steele announced at a press conference in Norristown.  He
said the charge stems from a sexual assault that took place at Mr.
Cosby's home in early 2004.

Mr. Cosby was arraigned on Dec. 30 in Elkins Park before
Magisterial District Judge Elizabeth McHugh.  His bail was set at
$1 million, and Cosby posted $100,000 before being released.

A preliminary hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 14.

Mr. Cosby's lawyer, Brian J. McMonagle of McMonagle, Perri, McHugh
& Mischak, did not return a call for comment on Dec. 30.

Mr. Steele said the statute of limitations on aggravated indecent
assault is 12 years, allowing the prosecution to go forward.  He
said Mr. Cosby created a relationship with the victim, Andrea
Constand, through her employment at Temple University.

According to Mr. Steele, Mr. Cosby had previously made two sexual
advances toward Constand before the assault, which she rejected.
During the 2004 encounter, Steele said, Cosby urged Constand to
take pills and provided her with wine.

Mr. Steele said the charges were filed as a result of new
information coming to light in July, when U.S. District Judge
Eduardo C. Robreno of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
unsealed a number of court documents related to the civil case
Constand filed against Mr. Cosby.  Those documents included
portions of the deposition Cosby gave, in which he admitted to
obtaining prescription depressants in order to have sex with a
woman.  Mr. Constand and Cosby reached a confidential settlement
in 2006.

The unsealed filings provided information about allegations by
other victims under similar circumstances, Mr. Steele said.  When
that took place, he said, "reopening this case was not a
question."

Mr. Steele said the DA's office is also examining evidence related
to other alleged victims.

Allegations

According to an affidavit of probable cause included with the
complaint against Mr. Cosby, the assault took place sometime in
January or February 2004.  Shortly afterward, Ms. Constand moved
to Canada with her mother, Gianna Constand.  In January 2005, the
affidavit said, Ms. Constand told her mother about the assault.

When Gianna Constand called Mr. Cosby and asked what he did to her
daughter, the complaint said, he apologized and offered to cover
the cost of therapy.  According to the affidavit, during that
call, Mr. Cosby did not identify the drug he gave Andrea Constand,
but he admitted to fondling her breasts, digitally penetrating her
vagina and placing her hand on his penis.

On a later call with Gianna Constand, the affidavit said,
Mr. Cosby asked if Andrea Constand was still interested in
broadcasting, and expressed an interest in helping her financially
with her educational goals.

The affidavit said Cosby's representative provided a statement in
which he confirmed that Cosby asked him to contact Gianna Constand
and arrange for her and her daughter to meet Mr. Cosby in Florida.
The representative said he had previously made similar
arrangements with other women on Mr. Cosby's behalf.

When police interviewed Mr. Cosby in 2005, he said he gave
Andrea Constand over-the-counter Benadryl, the complaint said, and
described the incident as a consensual sexual encounter.

When asked if he had sexual intercourse with Mr. Constand, the
affidavit said, Mr. Cosby answered, "'never asleep or awake.'"

The affidavit said it is undisputed that Mr. Cosby gave pills to
Mr. Constand and that he fondled and digitally penetrated her.
But, it said, Mr. Cosby told Mr. Constand the pills were "herbal,"
told her mother it was a prescription and told the police it was
over-the-counter Benadryl.

"Only Cosby knows whether the pills were indeed, Benadryl, as he
alleged, or a prescription or illicit drug with even greater
potential to render someone incapacitated," the affidavit said.
"Cosby's deliberate efforts to conceal the nature of the pills he
supplied to his unsuspecting victim are inconsistent with innocent
behavior and demonstrate his consciousness of guilt."

Mr. Constand's allegations were first reviewed by former
Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr. in 2005,
the complaint noted, but Mr. Castor announced there would be no
criminal charges in February of that year.  Mr. Constand sued
Mr. Castor earlier in 2015, alleging that he defamed her by
telling media that her statement to police differed from her civil
claims.

In an emailed statement, Ms Constand's attorney, Dolores Troiani,
expressed appreciation to the Montgomery County District
Attorney's Office, county detectives and the Cheltenham Police
Department.

"We have the utmost confidence in Mr. Steele, Ms. [assistant
district attorney Kristen] Feden and their team, who have
impressed us with their professionalism," Ms. Troiani said.

Patrick J. O'Connor of Cozen O'Connor, who represented Cosby in
Constand v. Cosby, did not return a call for comment on Dec. 30.

Civil Suits

Mr. Cosby is facing several civil lawsuits by his accusers.  Many
of the suits allege that Cosby defamed his accusers by denying
their claims through his media representatives.

Renita Hill, a Pittsburgh woman, filed suit against Mr. Cosby in
the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas in October, alleging
that Cosby repeatedly drugged Ms. Hill and sexually assaulted her
starting when she was 16 years old.  She asserted claims of
defamation, defamation per se, false light and intentional
infliction of emotional distress for statements Mr. Cosby and his
attorneys made saying that her allegations against him were
absurd.  Her case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Ms. Hill's attorney, George M. Kontos, said the charges against
Cosby are "encouraging." The criminal investigation may reveal
information that is helpful to his client in her civil litigation,
he said, although he noted that the cases are different.

"Our case is a defamation case, it's not a criminal matter,"
Mr. Kontos said.  "To the extent that it's proven or determined by
a criminal tribunal that those assaults took place, it would
bolster our civil claim."

Mr. Kontos noted that it's conceivable that Ms. Hill or other
women with similar claims would be called as witnesses.

A group of seven women, Tamara Green, Therese Serignese, Linda
Traitz, Barbara Bowman, Joan Tarshis, Louisa Moritz and Angela
Leslie, is suing Mr. Cosby in Massachusetts federal court, also
alleging defamation.  Before Mr. Robreno unsealed parts of the
Constand docket, this group had served a subpoena on Ms.
Constand's attorney seeking documents related to them.

Fashion model and television personality Janice Dickinson brought
a defamation case against Mr. Cosby in May, also in Los Angeles
County.

In November, Kristina Ruehli filed a federal suit in
Massachusetts, also alleging defamation, and that Mr. Cosby
drugged and sexually assaulted her in 1965.  Actress Kathy McKee,
who appeared on "The Bill Cosby Show" in 1971, alleged that Mr.
Cosby raped her in 1974.  She filed her defamation suit pro se.

Just before Ms. Green, who was later joined by the other six
women, sued Mr. Cosby, Judy Huth filed a complaint in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court alleging childhood sexual abuse in
1974. Model Chloe Goins filed a suit in October, alleging Mr.
Cosby drugged and assaulted her in 2008 when she was 18 years old.

Gloria Allred is representing Ms. Huth, as well as 28 other Cosby
accusers who have not filed civil suits.  In a statement on
Dec. 30, she noted that the standard of proof for a criminal
proceeding is higher than that for a civil case.  She added that
her clients will be willing to testify if the prosecutors find it
relevant and admissible.

            Ex-DA Disputes Plaintiff's Defamation Claim

Lizzy McLellan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
in an answer to a defamation complaint, former Montgomery County
District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr. has said his statements
about a Bill Cosby accuser were true, including statements that
her allegations to police differed from her civil claims, and
therefore do not form a basis for the lawsuit.

Mr. Castor, who was district attorney from 2000 to 2008, has filed
his answer to Andrea Constand's complaint, which alleged
defamation and false-light invasion of privacy.  Ms. Constand
accused Cosby of sexual assault in 2005, and filed a civil suit
against the comedian after Castor declined to bring criminal
charges.  Ms. Constand and Cosby reached a confidential settlement
in 2006.

Mr. Castor was a candidate for district attorney in the most
recent election, but his bid to return to the position was
unsuccessful.  His attorney is Robert C. Pugh of Kane, Pugh,
Knoell, Troy & Kramer in Norristown.

In his answer, Mr. Castor said he is not a proper party to the
action because Ms. Constand alleges he made his statements to
further his campaign.  If so, Mr. Castor's answer said, the
statements were made by Friends of Bruce Castor Inc., and Castor
himself should not have been named as a party.

The answer said Mr. Castor did not attempt to thwart a 2015
investigation into Cosby, as was alleged in Ms. Constand's
complaint.  It said Castor only made statements of facts that were
present in court records, so he did not invade Ms. Constand's
privacy.

According to the civil complaint filed by Ms. Constand's lawyers,
Dolores M. Troiani and Bebe H. Kivitz, Castor allegedly conveyed
and implied that Ms. Constand was inconsistent in her accusations
of Cosby and exaggerated her claims.  The complaint requests
judgment in excess of $150,000 for each of the two counts, plus
attorney fees, interest, costs, punitive damages and other relief.
It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

Ms. Constand's complaint said Mr. Castor announced in February
2005 that he had declined to prosecute Mr. Cosby, and failed to
notify Constand prior to doing so.  But recently, the complaint
said, Castor used Ms. Constand's allegations in his political
campaign.  Ms. Constand alleged Mr. Castor's statements "portrayed
plaintiff as having filed a lawsuit which was false and
exaggerated," and caused her emotional distress and an invasion
into her private life.

With regard to news stories based on his statements to the media,
Mr. Castor said the articles are writings that speak for
themselves and "all allegations related to such document are
denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial."

One story referenced in the complaint was The Associated Press
article in which Castor is quoted saying the District Attorney's
Office "'"might have been able to make a case,"'" out of
Ms. Constand's statement to police if it had been the same as her
civil allegations.  Ms. Constand's complaint alleged that just
before he spoke to AP, Castor learned Cosby's criminal case was
reopened because the alleged crime is a felony, allowing a longer
statute of limitations.

In his answer, Mr. Castor denied that he ever learned the District
Attorney's Office had reopened the case.

When Ms. Constand filed the complaint, Castor questioned the
timing.  He alleged the Constand complaint was designed to affect
the outcome of the local election, which took place about a week
after the lawsuit was filed.

Mr. Castor also said in October that he did not bring the Cosby
case into his political campaign, and had only responded to
allegations by his opponent, current first assistant district
attorney Kevin R. Steele.  Mr. Steele won the election for
district attorney.

Ms. Troiani and Ms. Kivitz did not return calls seeking comment.


BLUSTAR DIRECTIONAL: Faces "Leiker" Action Over Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Leiker, and all others similarly situated under 29 USC
216(B), Plaintiff, v. Bluestar Directional, LLC and Gregory R.
Nazzal, Defendants., Case No. 4:15-cv-03571 (S.D. Tex., December
8, 2015), seeks unpaid back wages due, liquidated damages equal in
amount to the unpaid compensation, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Sec. 16(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff operates measurement-while-drilling equipment and tools
and claims not paid being the mandatory overtime premium in excess
of 40 hours per work week.

Bluestar Directional, LLC is a Texas LLC with registered address
at 3918 Laurel Rock, Drive, Kingswood, Texas 77345. It is involved
in oilfield services in Texas and Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      J. Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 749-1400
      Fax: (214) 749-1010
      Website: www.overtimelawyer.com

          - and -

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Tel: (214) 706-0834
      Fax: (469) 339-0204
      Website: www.siegellawgroup.biz


CEPHALON: Trial to Begin Feb. 2 in King Drug Case
-------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has refused to stay the upcoming trial in a
reverse-payment settlement antitrust case while the remaining
defendants await the Third Circuit's review of a class
certification ruling.

Trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 2, 2016, in the case King Drug
Co. of Florence v. Cephalon, a long-running suit by several
different classes of plaintiffs who argued the reverse-payment
settlements Cephalon entered with four generic pharmaceutical
companies to delay the entry of a generic version of Provigil to
market was anti-competitive and caused them to pay more for the
drug.

The suit and related litigation over the Provigil settlements have
resulted in a number of settlements of its own, including some of
the parties to this suit previously settling for $512 million and
the Federal Trade Commission settling similar claims against
Cephalon for a record $1.2 billion.  And the judge overseeing the
case, U.S. District Judge Mitchell Goldberg of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, has denied class certification to
certain plaintiff groups.

Defendants Mylan Pharmaceuticals and Ranbaxy Laboratories, two of
the generic pharmaceutical companies that entered into the
Provigil settlements, are the only defendants remaining in King,
which was filed in 2006.

Judge Goldberg wasn't in complete disagreement with Mylan and
Ranbaxy's arguments for a stay.

The pharmaceutical companies argued the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit's acceptance of their interlocutory appeal shows
a likelihood of their success on the merits of that appeal.  They
cited statistics that the Third Circuit rejects more than 80
percent of such appeals and that, of those that are accepted, the
majority result in reversals of the lower court's ruling.

Judge Goldberg said he stands by his decision certifying the class
of direct purchasers, but said he agrees the case presents a novel
issue of law as it relates to his application of the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision in Comcast v. Behrend.

The plaintiffs argued, however, that the direct purchaser class is
not the only group suing Mylan and Ranbaxy.  Even if the court
reverses the class certification, they argued, the pharmaceutical
companies would still have to go to trial against the individual
plaintiffs and pharmaceutical company Apotex.  Judge Goldberg
agreed this weighed against Mylan and Ranbaxy's argument that they
would waste resources going to trial when there was a chance the
class could be decertified.  Judge Goldberg also noted the trial
is on the issue of liability, not damages, further weighing
against the defendants' concerns of irreparable harm.

Judge Goldberg also rejected the defendants' arguments that a stay
would harm all parties because the proper plaintiffs would be
unknown during trial.  The judge recounted the nearly decade-long
litigation, multiple delays and the time and resources the
plaintiffs have expended in preparing for the trial.  He said a
stay would likely push the case back to 2017 given the Third
Circuit hasn't yet issued a briefing schedule.  Judge Goldberg
said the harm to the plaintiffs if a stay was issued outweighs the
harm to the defendants if he doesn't issue the stay.

"This case is simply too complicated, with too many competing
interests to satisfy each parties' views regarding trial structure
and scheduling," Judge Goldberg said.  "After nine years,
plaintiffs are entitled to their day in court."

C. Fairley Spillman -- fspillman@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C., represented Mylan.
Attorneys at Venable LLP in Washington represented Ranbaxy.  Calls
to both firms were not immediately returned.  Attorneys at Garwin
Gerstein & Fisher in New York represented the plaintiffs and were
unavailable for comment.


CHINA GREEN: $2.5MM Shareholder Case Settlement Okayed
------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that a
federal judge in Reno, Nev. ordered fertilizer company China Green
Agriculture -- the first Chinese company to be traded on the New
York Stock Exchange -- to pay $2.5 million to settle a shareholder
class action.

China Green was listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 2009,
under the CGA symbol. Shares closed at $1.27 on Jan. 8.

Lead plaintiff Frederic Elliott sued CGA in October 2010, claiming
its directors lied to investors about the company's profitability,
its ability to maintain an annual gross profit margin of 55
percent to 60 percent, and other financial matters, which inflated
the stock price.

China Green in 2014 agreed to settle the class action for $2.5
million.

On Jan. 7, U.S. District Judge Larry Hicks ordered China Green to
deduct $40,712.32 in preparation fees for Epiq Class Action &
Claims Solutions, plus taxes, from the $2.5 million settlement
fund and proceed with the disbursement.

Epiq has been identifying and notifying qualifying class members
to prepare for the disbursement.

Settlement amounts will be at least $10; class members whose
shares of the settlement are less than $10 receive nothing, aside
from a letter from Epiq explaining why they weren't paid.

Class members acquired common stock of China Green Agriculture
between May 12, 2009 and Jan. 4, 2011.

After deducting fees and taxes and eliminating claimants who
qualify for less than $10, Epiq will calculate the distribution
amounts for the remaining class members and mail checks that are
good for 90 days.

Six months later, Epiq will recalculate and redistribute any
remaining funds to those class members who qualify for at least
$10 upon a second distribution and who cashed their checks from
the first disbursement. If a third distribution is necessary, that
would occur at least six months after the second, and any funds
remaining after that would go to a designated nonprofit
organization.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces Criminal Probe Over Norovirus Outbreak
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Chipotle has been served with a
federal subpoena as part of a criminal investigation tied to a
norovirus outbreak at one of its restaurants in California.

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's Office of Criminal Investigations,
the company said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Jan. 6.

The subpoena, received last month, requires the company to produce
a broad range of documents tied to a restaurant in Simi Valley,
California, that was the source of a norovirus outbreak this past
August, it said.

A Chipotle spokesman, Chris Arnold, said in an email the company
does not discuss pending litigation, but that it intends to
cooperate fully with the investigation.

Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. has been reeling since an E. coli
outbreak linked to its restaurants in late October and November,
which was followed by a separate norovirus outbreak at a
restaurant in Boston in December.  The cases have received far
more national media attention than the norovirus outbreak in
California.

Chipotle said sales plunged 30 percent in December.  The company
expects sales to fall 14.6 percent at established locations for
the full fourth quarter, marking the first decline since the
company went public in 2006.

To rehabilitate its image, the company has taken out full-page ads
apologizing to customers in dozens of newspapers around the
country.  It has also vowed changes to step up food safety at its
restaurants.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sales Plunge Following Series of Food Scares
--------------------------------------------------------------
Candice Choi, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Chipotle reported a sales plunge of 30 percent for December after
a series of food scares at its restaurants and disclosed that a
federal criminal investigation tied to the sickening of customers
has begun.

The company said in a regulatory filing that it was asked to
produce a broad range of documents tied to a norovirus outbreak
this summer at its restaurant in Simi Valley, California, but
declined to provide further details.

It said the investigation does not involve a more recent E. coli
outbreak tied to its restaurants that sickened people in nine
states, or a separate norovirus outbreak in Boston.

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's Office of Criminal Investigations,
according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on Jan. 6.

A representative for the U.S. Attorney's office declined to
comment.  Representatives for the FDA did not respond to a request
for comment.

The emergence of a criminal investigation after a norovirus
outbreak is unusual, said Bill Marler, a food safety lawyer
representing Chipotle customers who were sickened in Simi Valley.

Outbreaks at restaurants are typically caused by an infected
employee.

Mr. Marler couldn't think of a reason for a federal investigation,
other than employment violations.

The disclosure of the investigation comes as Chipotle Mexican
Grill Inc. reels from E. coli outbreaks in late October and
November, which were followed by the sickened customers at a
restaurant in Boston in December.  Those cases received far more
national media attention than the California incident, and the
company's sales have since plunged.

Sales fell 14.6 percent in the fourth quarter, marking the first
decline for the company since it went public in 2006.

Last month, Chipotle also said it could no longer reasonably
predict sales trends given the food scares and retracted its
forecast for 2016.

In its regulatory filing on Jan. 6, the company said it could not
determine or predict the amount of any "fines, penalties or
further liabilities" it might face in connection with the federal
investigation.

A Chipotle spokesman, Chris Arnold, said in an email the company
does not discuss pending litigation, but that it intends to
cooperate fully with the investigation.

Doug Beach, a manager of the food program at Ventura County's
Environmental Health Division, said the U.S. Attorney's office
requested records from the his office regarding the Chipotle case
about a month ago.

"That was a first for us," Mr. Beach said in a phone interview.

Mr. Beach said Chipotle had been cooperative with the county's
investigation, which uncovered issues such as unclean equipment
and employees without the necessary food handling permits.

He also noted that Chipotle started getting complaints about
illnesses on Aug. 18, and shut down its restaurant the following
Friday.  Yet the company did not alert the county of the matter
until Jan. 2 -- after it had already reopened the restaurant, Mr.
Beach said.

To rehabilitate its image, Chipotle has taken out full-page ads
apologizing to customers in dozens of newspapers around the
country.  It also vowed changes to step up food safety at its
restaurants, in part by tweaking its cooking methods and
increasing testing of meat and produce.

Co-CEO Steve Ells has said the company will likely never know what
ingredient was to blame for the E. coli cases.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Shareholders Sue Over Norovirus Outbreak
----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
Chipotle faces a federal shareholder class action lawsuit in
Manhattan after authorities linked the burrito giant to four
separate health scares around the country last year.

The fast-food chain announced the first outbreak in August 2015
after 100 employees and customers in one of its California
restaurants were infected with the norovirus.

On Sept. 4, 2015, Ventura County health inspectors blamed the
outbreak on dirty and inoperative equipment at a Chipotle location
in Simi Valley, Calif.  Weeks after that first incident, 64 people
fell ill in Minnesota from tomatoes at Chipotle restaurants that
had been tainted with salmonella. Additionally, in November 2015
the company closed all its restaurants in the Portland, Ore., and
Seattle areas after customers reported 20 cases of E. coli.  The
latest health scare occurred just last month when more than 140
Boston College students fell ill from norovirus after eating at a
Chipotle.

Though negligence lawsuits over these outbreaks have been piling
up for the past five months, the lawsuit lead plaintiff Susie Ong
filed Friday marks the first securities case against the Mexican
restaurant chain over the illnesses.

Ong says Chipotle's stock has dropped nearly 45 percent since
August 2015.

In addition to claiming that Chipotle had inadequate quality
controls to prevent four separate outbreaks of salmonella and
norovirus, Ong says the company misled investors about the extent
of those outbreaks.

Ong's suit also names co-CEOs Steven Ellis and Montgomery Moran as
defendants, as well as CFO John Hartung.

Though Chipotle stock was trading at about $745 per share on Aug.
18, 2015, the number fell to roughly $548 on Dec. 9, 2015,
according to the 19-page complaint.

Ong says Chipotle did not adequately test its quality-control
programs after the initial health scares.

After the Minnesota salmonella outbreak in November, the company
issued a press release stating it would sanitize all its
restaurants and test all produce and fresh meat. However, the
following month the Boston norovirus outbreak occurred.

Enhancements to Chipotle's food-safety programs that it announced
on Dec. 4 included partnering with Seattle-based IEH Laboratories
and Consulting Group to bolster food safety. As part of the new
program, the company initiated end-of-shelf-life testing for
ingredients to ensure food quality.

Ong's lawsuit came two days after Chipotle announced that it faces
a federal investigation regarding the Simi Valley norovirus
outbreak. The company also announced a decline in sales over the
last quarter of about 30 percent.

Since its opening in 1993, Chipotle now has nearly 2,000
restaurants under its belt. Its slogan is "putting the food back
in fast food."

A spokesman for Chipotle declined to comment, citing a company
about ongoing litigation.


CHRYSLER LLC: 9th Cir. Rules in Bid to Unseal Documents
-------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Services,
reported that Chrysler must provide compelling reasons why
documents related to a putative class action over purported
vehicle defects should be kept under seal, a divided Ninth Circuit
ruled Jan. 11.

In a federal complaint filed in 2013, lead plaintiff Peter Velasco
claims the 2008 Chrysler 300 and 2011-2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee,
Dodge Durango and Dodge Grand Caravan have defective Integrated
Power Modules that cause the vehicles not to start and the engines
to stall while driving.

Velasco and his fellow class members moved for injunction relief
in 2014, asking that Chrysler be required to notify them of the
known risks associated with its vehicles. Both sides attached
confidential discovery documents filed to support and oppose the
injunction, which was eventually denied by the district court.

The Center for Auto Safety -- a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying
group -- intervened in the case and filed a motion to unseal the
documents, arguing that only "compelling reasons" could keep the
documents under seal.

On Jan. 11, two of the three members of a Ninth Circuit panel
agreed with the Center for Auto Safety and overturned U.S.
District Judge Dean Pregerson's ruling that Chrysler only needed
to show "good cause" to keep the documents under seal.

Under normal circumstances, a party seeking to seal a judicial
record must provide compelling reasons for the confidentiality.
The Ninth Circuit, however, has carved out an exception for sealed
materials attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the merits
of a case.  When documents are attached to such "non-dispositive"
motions, the party seeking to seal is only required to show "good
cause" for the confidentiality.  Writing for the panel majority,
U.S. Circuit Judge John Owens, said Pregerson misinterpreted case
law to limit the "compelling reasons" test to only those
situations in which the motion is literally dispositive and brings
about a final determination.

These include motions to dismiss, for summary judgment, and for
judgment on the pleadings.

Under this literal interpretation, the public would not be
presumed to have regular access to much of the litigation that
occurs in federal court since most of it falls outside of the
narrow category of "dispositive," Owens wrote.

"Although the apparent simplicity of the district court's binary
approach is appealing, we do not read our case law to support such
a limited reading of public access. Most litigation in a case is
not literally 'dispositive,' but nevertheless involves important
issues and information to which our case law demands the public
should have access," Owens said.

Rather, precedent presumes that the compelling reasons standard
should apply to most judicial records, which ensures the public's
understanding of the judicial process and of significant public
events, according to Owens.

Plenty of technically nondispositive motions -- including the
preliminary injunction in this case -- require the court to
address the merits of the case, often include the presentation of
substantial evidence, and sometimes may even determine the outcome
of a case, Owens said.

In this case, "(i)f plaintiffs had succeeded in their motion for
preliminary injunction, they would have won a portion of the
injunctive relief they requested in the underlying complaint, and
that portion of their claim would have been resolved," Owens
wrote.

Therefore, because the motion should have been considered
dispositive, Chrysler must demonstrate compelling reasons, rather
than good cause, to keep the documents under seal, Owens said.

In a dissenting opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said that
the majority "invents a new rule, namely that a party cannot keep
records under seal if they are attached to any motion that is
'more than tangentially related to the merits of the case,' unless
the party can meet the 'stringent standard' of showing that
compelling reasons support secrecy."

There is nothing ambiguous about the circuit's bright line rule
that calls for the presumption of the public's right of access to
be rebutted when a party attaches a sealed document to a
nondispositive motion.

The majority's theory "that we are not bound by the literal
meaning of the words in our opinions would, of course, deprive our
precedent of any binding force. Such a theory erodes the concept
that law can be applied as written, whether by the legislature or
judges, and 'undermines the basic principle that language provides
a meaningful constraint on public and private conduct,'" Ikuta
wrote.

With the majority's ruling, "it is clear that no future litigant
can rely on a protective order and will have to chart its course
through discovery cautiously and belligerently, to the detriment
of the legal system," Ikuta added.


CITY NATIONAL BANK: Sued Over $125 Million Ponzi Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
City National Bank helped two SoCal septuagenarians pull off a
$125 million ATM investment Ponzi scheme, the men's victims claim
in a class action in Los Angeles.

In a 24-page complaint filed Jan. 8, lead plaintiffs Robert Nairn,
Carol Van Horst, Barbara Ortwein and Piruz Khorvash claim the bank
knew about the scam from the get-go but turned a blind eye to the
obvious signs of fraud.

Joel Barry Gillis, 75, and his partner, Edward Wishner, 77, both
of Woodland Hills, ran a Ponzi scheme through their Calabasas-
based company Nationwide Automated Systems. For almost 15 years,
they "sold" supposed ATM machines for $12,000 to $19,800 apiece by
telling investors they would receive 50 cents per transaction and
20 percent annual returns.

The men raked in $125 million from thousands of victims, who never
received an ATM. "Instead, the investor money was used to pay
other existing investors the guaranteed 20 percent return," the
complaint states.

Both pleaded guilty last January to conspiracy, two counts of mail
fraud and one count of wire fraud in what prosecutors called "one
of the largest Ponzi schemes ever seen in Southern California."
Gillis was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison in November
while Wishner got nine.

Now the victims are saying that City National Bank had a hand in
perpetuating the scam and must be held accountable "for the
devastating harm it helped cause."

As the primary bank used by Gillis and Wishner to deposit investor
money and conduct wire transfers, City National "had before it the
very nuts and bolts of the Ponzi scheme and could not perform even
cursory due diligence without bumping up against evidence of the
fraud. Not only was defendant City National Bank instrumental in
lulling investors into a false sense of security by helping to
ensure that virtually none of the fictitious profit checks
bounced, but it also routinely served as a reference for
Nationwide Automated Systems in its recruitment of potential
investors," the complaint states.

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks are required to establish
programs to detect signs of money laundering and other forms of
fraud, report any suspicious activity, and keep meticulous records
for tax and possibly criminal investigations.

Furthermore, ATM leasebacks and investments scams have been
recognized as one of the most popular forms of Ponzi schemes since
at least 2001. In 2005, the government required banks to establish
procedures to detect this type of fraud, according to the
complaint.

Though City National started monitoring Nationwide Automated's
account activity in 2005 and therefore knew it was issuing sham
profit checks and paying older investors with new investor funds,
it refused to shut down the company's account or report its
suspicious activities, the plaintiffs say.

In fact, it was so "enmeshed" in the Ponzi scheme that bank
representatives spoke to several potential investors on Nationwide
Automated's behalf, according to the complaint.

Attorney Steve Nunez told Courthouse News that City National just
learned about the complaint and has no comment at this time.
The victim seek class certification, $125 million in compensatory
damages, and punitive damages for aiding and abetting fraud,
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting
an endless chain scheme and violations of the state business and
professions code.

They are represented by:

     Peter Ward, Esq.
     Ward & Hagen LLP
     440 Stevens Ave # 350
     Solana Beach, CA 92075
     Tel: 858-847-0505
     E-mail: pcw@wardhagen.com

who did not immediately return emailed requests for comment sent
Jan. 11, afternoon.


CLEAN DOCTORS OF NY: Doesn't Pay OT Wages, "Romero" Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Romero, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, Plaintiff, v. The Clean Doctors Of New York, Ltd. and
JASON NOGIN, Defendants, Case No.: CV15-6950 (E.D.N.Y, December 7,
2015), seeks recovery of unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the New York
Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 206(a)
and 206(b).

Plaintiff worked as a maintenance professional for the Defendants'
maintenance and cleaning business and claims to have regularly
worked 54 hours per week for 6 days per week from 10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m. and was paid on a fixed salary basis of $800 bi-weekly
regardless of actual hours worked with no indication that the
fixed salary was intended to cover any overtime hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week and was not paid overtime premium. He
also allegedly did not receive any wage statements from
Defendants. The latter also paid Plaintiff regularly rates below
the prevailing minimum wage in violation of the New York Labor
Laws.

The Clean Doctors Of New York, Ltd. is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of New York, with a principal
place of business located at 3442 Poplar Street, Oceanside, New
York 11572 with Jason Nogin as owner and senior executive officer.

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


CONSOLIDATED WINGS: "Stokes" Suit Seeks OT Recovery
---------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Stokes, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Consolidated Wings
Investment, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-01932-RLY-DKL (S.D.
Ind., December 7, 2015), seeks recovery of unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server and alleges the
Defendant for illegally withholding tips.

Consolidated Wings Investment, LLC is a Delaware corporation and
operates restaurants under the name Buffalo Wild Wings at 6129
Crawfordsville Road, Speedway, Indiana 46224.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

      Jamie G. Sypulski, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE JAMIE GOLDEN SYPULSKI
      150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 332-6202
      Email: jsypulski@sbcglobal.net


COOK COUNTY, IL: Taxpayer Sues Over Missing $400MM
--------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported
that Cook County can't account for $380 million to $638 million in
fees collected from litigants from 2001 to 2014, taxpayers claim
in a lawsuit in Chicago demanding that the state's attorney
conduct an audit.

Harlan Berk and his company Harlan J. Berk Ltd. filed a federal
complaint on Jan. 8 against Cook County and its state's attorney,
Anita Alvarez. Berk is a numismatist: his company appraises, buys
and sells ancient coins.

"Plaintiffs' claims arise from the discovery, confirmed by
defendants, that, from 2001 through 2014, more than $400 million
in public funds belonging to Cook County, Illinois pursuant to
duly enacted legislation has been misapplied and continues to be
misapplied," the complaint begins.

The money was collected as court costs from litigants in Cook
County Court, but was not reported as receipts in reports issued
by the clerk of the court, according to the complaint.

They include civil case filing fees, fees connected with other
parties' appearances, and court costs imposed in criminal and
traffic cases.

Calculations concerning the five funds covered in the court's
annual reports "reveal a shortfall of between $380 million and
nearly $638 million from 2001 through 2014," Berk says.

An additional $55 million to $90 million allegedly is missing from
receipts for costs related to the Children's Waiting Room, Drug
Court, Mental Health Court, Peer Jury Program, and Electronic
Citations funds.

An Evanston doctor filed a class action in 2014 in state court
based on the same claims, but an Illinois appeals court ruled that
he had no standing to challenge how the Cook County Clerk
processes court fees.

Berk seeks to differentiate his suit by founding it on a due
process claim filed in Federal Court. He claims he has standing
because taxpayers have been deprived of a significant amount of
tax money without due process, money that should have gone to
maintain the court system.

"Plaintiffs, as taxpayers, have suffered a deprivation of their
property without due process of law because the only remedy
available under state law to redress the loss of funds while under
the dominion of the Clerk of the Court is being denied
arbitrarily, at best, by the sitting State's Attorney, who, in
obeisance to her client, will not take action to prevent or
recover money that the State's Attorney knows was paid into the
Clerk's office but was never reported in the financial reports
that the Clerk is required by state law to provide and will not
take action to require the County to conduct the audits also
required by state law to protect the public fisc," the complaint
states.

Berk seeks a court order demanding that Cook County conduct audits
of the clerk's reports, and take appropriate action to recoup the
missing -- or stolen -- money.

He is represented by Joseph Tighe with Alan J. Mandel Ltd. in
Skokie.


DIAMOND RESORTS: Trial Set for April 29 in "Ferraro" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
a state court judge in San Diego, on Jan. 6 entertained arguments
whether a class action against a timeshare company that elderly
clients say swindled them into paying more for vacation rentals
they had little access to should be dismissed.

Defendant Diamond Resorts International laid out its case as to
why claims brought by lead plaintiff Sharon Ferraro -- that the
company violated the Vacation Ownership and Timeshare Act of 2004
and committed financial elder abuse -- should be dismissed before
San Diego Superior Court Judge Richard Strauss.

Ferraro says she originally purchased a timeshare from Pacific
Monarch Resorts and paid $19,000.

Diamond later acquired Monarch and a sales representative
contacted Ferraro to come to a meeting to purchase additional
points to use toward her vacation rental. Ferraro went to a sales
pitch meeting in Palm Springs in 2013, where she was told if she
did not upgrade her timeshare eventually there would be few to no
resorts for her to choose from.

Ferraro says she was also told during the sales pitch her
quarterly maintenance fees would go down. But despite paying to
upgrade her timeshare, Ferraro claims her timeshare has become
worthless and the maintenance fees have actually increased monthly
to a level she can't afford to pay.

The other plaintiffs in the case claim to have experienced similar
jumps in fees they paid on top of paying for additional points or
upgrades to their timeshare packages.

Diamond Resorts argued that Ferraro and the other plaintiffs could
not possibly participate in one trial because there were 19
different timeshare transactions across 15 years and four states -
- all sold to the plaintiffs by different salespeople.

Each plaintiff interacted with a salesperson, contract person and
manager who oversaw the transaction, with zero overlap in
witnesses identified by Ferraro and the other plaintiffs, Diamond
argued, and asked Strauss to sever the suit for separate trials.

Keeping track of the different people involved and different state
laws could potentially confuse a jury, Diamond said.

"Imagine the jury's eyes glazing over as they try to understand
laws from different states and try to apply it," Diamond's
attorney Craig Marcus said. "An outright dismissal is the
appropriate remedy."

Diamond said the plaintiffs claim a single scheme across three
vacation rental sellers -- Sunterra Corporation, Monarch and
Diamond -- took place. The company denied this, noting the sellers
were independent companies. Diamond later acquired the other two
vacation rental companies from whom many of the plaintiffs had
originally purchased their vacation packages.

Ferraro argued while the purchases may have been facilitated by
different salespeople at different companies, the contracts
entered into by the plaintiffs were the same and their
whistleblowers could attest to the deliberate ways Diamond
swindled the timeshare owners out of money.

"There is a scheme that exists within Diamond to defraud people,"
Ferraro's attorney Veronica Aguilar said.

Strauss told the parties if later down the road there's a reason
to settle claims brought by individual plaintiffs, they would
discuss it when the time came.

A trial date has been set for April 29.

Other defendants include Diamond Resorts Financial Services,
Diamond Resorts Hawaii Collection Development, Diamond Resorts
International Club, Diamond Resorts International Marketing,
Diamond Resorts Management, Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection
Members Association, Diamond Resorts US Collection Development,
ILX Acquisition, and Premiere Vacation Collection Owners
Association.


DRAFTKINGS & FANDUEL: N.Y. A.G. Seeks Restitution of Funds
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported
that, as a million people gathered to watch the ball descend at
Times Square, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman went to
court in Manhattan to drop the other shoe on fantasy-sport
companies FanDuel and DraftKings.

It has been nearly two months since Schneiderman's office sent a
scathing cease-and-desist letter warning the companies to stop
operating in the state.  Since that time, FanDuel and DraftKings
have faced dozens of class actions around the country, amid
reports that insiders rig the game through sophisticated
algorithms running confidential information.

Against the defense that the websites offer a game of skill,
Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Manuel Mendez granted Schneiderman's
request for an injunction banning them in New York as illegal
betting operations.  The decision has been stayed pending an
appeal, but Schneiderman's office hasn't cashed out yet. On New
Year's Eve, the attorney general filed an amended complaint
seeking the restitution of "all funds" the companies made through
their "fraudulent, deceptive, and illegal acts" in New York.

Schneiderman touted his office's recent victory in a statement
announcing its new action.

"This filing, which follows a preliminary determination by the
State Supreme Court that DraftKings and FanDuel have been running
illegal sports betting operations, seeks appropriate fines and
restitution from the companies," he said. "It should be no
surprise that the amounts involved are substantial, given the
skyrocketing size of these illegal gambling operations."

The 33-page amended complaint seeks a $5,000 civil penalty for
each case.

According to CBS News, the companies estimated that they made more
than $200 million from at least 600,000 customers in the Empire
State.

Though FanDuel suspended its operation in New York when the court
denied it a restraining order in November, the website has been
back up since the stay of the court's injunction. A full appellate
panel must still decide whether the stay is necessary.

"As we have previously iterated, FanDuel remains committed to
offering our fantasy contests to the Yankees, Mets, Jets, Giants,
Bills, Knicks, Nets, Rangers, Islanders and Sabres fans that
comprise the great state of New York and love fantasy sports -- be
it season-long or daily," the company said in a statement. "As one
of New York's fastest growing startup companies, we are thoroughly
disappointed in the attorney general's ongoing actions and will
fight this meritless amended suit until fantasy sports are
safeguarded for all sports fans."

David Boies, an attorney for DraftKings at Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, said the new complaint shows that Schneiderman "still
does not understand fantasy sports."

"Like the NYAG original complaint, it is based on the fundamental
misunderstanding of fantasy sports competitions," Boies said in a
statement.

Schneiderman's error stems from the assumption that fantasy sports
bank on "chance" rather than skill.

"Everyone who plays fantasy sports knows they are games of skill,"
Boies wrote. "It is the opportunity to match your knowledge and
skill against the knowledge and skill of your friends and other
fantasy enthusiasts that makes [DraftKings] contests so exciting
and challenging."

With a trial court judge rejecting that argument, Boies believes
that the state's chance theory still has been "disproven" by the
company's evidence.

In its Dec. 22 brief opposing the stay, the attorney general's
office estimated in court paper that ban on the companies would
deprive them of "only single-digit percentages" of their
nationwide business.

"Whatever 'skill' is involved in predicting athletic performance
is simply skill at gambling - not the type of skill that removes
an activity from the realm of gambling altogether," Schneiderman's
office said.

FanDuel is expected to file its appeal to New York's Appellate
Division, First Department.


EAST BAY: Faces "Smiler" Suit Over Water Delivery "Charges"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Smiler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. East Bay Municipal Utility District and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. RG15794927 (Cal. Super., County of Alameda,
November 30, 2015), alleges that the district's continued
imposition and collection of water delivery "charges" or "fees" is
in violation of California law.

East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), colloquially referred
to as "East Bay Mud", provides water and sewage treatment services
for an area of approximately 331 square miles in the eastern side
of the San Francisco Bay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter J. Koenig, Esq.
     Beau R. Burbidge, Esq.
     WALKER, HAMILTON & KOENIG LLP
     50 Francisco Street, Ste. 460
     San Francisco, CA 94133
     Phone: (415) 986-3339
     Fax: (415) 986-1618


ENDO INT'L: Inflated Prices of Generics, Philadelphia Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Ryan, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that as
early as 1991, 19 drug companies and their subsidiaries conspired
to artificially inflate prices of generic prescription drugs,
sometimes by more than 8,000 percent, a class of consumers claims
in Philadelphia court.

Among those called out in the 105-page complaint for their alleged
malfeasance are seven drug companies based in Pennsylvania or New
Jersey that the class claims simultaneously raised the average
wholesale price, or AWP, of a generic antibiotic from $20 to
$1,849 a bottle in six months -- an 8,281 percent increase.

At about the same time, the class says, Endo International, Sun
Pharmaceutical Industries and Par Pharmaceutical Companies teamed
up with Teva Pharmaceutical and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories to pump
up the price of a migraine pill from $31 to $234, a 736 percent
increase.

A drug's AWP is part of a reimbursement formula third party payers
use, meaning any increase in AWP corresponds with an increase in
what Plumber's Local 690 and other class members pay for that
drug, the complaint, which was filed Dec. 31, says.

The plumbers' union cites three main sources of this pricing
information in the complaint: Red Book, First Data Bank and
Medispan. Drug companies report their drugs' AWPs to these
organizations , which do not independently review the data the
companies report, according to the complaint.

In cases like the antibiotic and migraine pills, the companies
worked together to report AWPs that "bore little relationship" to
the actual average wholesale price doctors and pharmacies buy
their drugs at, the class claims.

Instead of market forces bringing down the prices of the generic
drugs, the companies just set their AWP at 10 percent below that
of branded drugs, the complaint says.

"A system that bases its reimbursement rates for drugs on the
published AWP is thus dependent on the honesty of drug
manufacturers, including the defendants," the complaint says.
"The defendants knew they could directly control and fabricate the
AWP for their drugs at any time by forwarding to the publishers a
false AWP. The defendants also knew that actual transactional
price data -- the amounts charged to medical providers and others
for their drugs -- was not publically available, and they kept
this information (on which AWPs should have been calculated)
highly confidential and secret."

The class claims the price increases affect all types of patients,
from those on Medicare or Medicaid to those with union-provided
private insurance plans to people without any insurance who have
to pay cash for the drugs they need.

While the exponential price increases pinch the groups that have
to reimburse the cost of prescription drugs or those who have to
buy them out-of-pocket, they help fill the coffers of drug
companies and health care professionals who write prescriptions,
the class claims.

Doctors buy drugs from wholesalers or manufacturers before
reselling them to patients, and a doctor who prescribes a certain
drug to a patient with some form of health insurance then bills
the plan using the listed AWP, according to the complaint.

In situations where the listed AWP is artificially high, the
doctor therefore pockets any difference between the price he or
she paid for the drug and the reimbursement amount, the class
claims in the 98-page complaint.

"These price increases by multiple defendants in the same amounts,
for the same drugs, over the same narrow time period, represent
the sort of parallel pricing actions that do not typically occur
in a competitive market where commodity products, like generic
prescription drugs, are sold," the plumbers claim in the
complaint. "Instead, they are believed, and therefore averred to
be the product of coordination and/or concerted action on the
parts of defendants."

The same can be said for pharmacies, which use the listed AWPs to
set their drug prices, either through the amount they charge a
prescription drug plan or how much people must pay outside of a
health plan, according to the complaint.

"It's not the average, it's not the wholesale, it's not the
price," said Donald Haviland, a Pennsylvania attorney representing
the class about what his firm's investigation of the case
revealed.

Beyond this price fixing, the class also claims the companies
incentivized doctors and pharmacies to buy their drugs by ensuring
the difference between the AWP and the actual cost of the drug was
large, therefore guaranteeing a large profit for the customers
through a practice known as spread promotion, according to the
complaint.

The companies also gave out free goods other incentives to
convince doctors and pharmacies to buy their drugs, according to
the complaint.

"The Defendants' failure to properly disclose their wrongful
conduct, especially the AWP inflation and spread promotion acts
and practices alleged herein, was and is willful, intentional,
wanton, malicious and outrageous," the class claims in the
complaint.

In 2014, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Independent currently
making a bid for the White House as a Democrat, launched an
investigation into the skyrocketing prices of generic drugs.

Sanders invited the CEOs of Lannett, Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries and Marathon Pharmaceuticals to testify at the hearings
but none agreed to appear, the complaint sayd.

The class names as defendants Actavis Group, Apotex Corp., Dr.
Reddy's Laboratories, Endo International, Forest Laboratories,
Heritage Pharmaceuticals, K-V Pharmaceutical Company, Lannett
Company, Marathon Pharmaceuticals, Par Pharmaceutical Companies,
Ranbaxy Laboratories, Sandoz, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries, Watson Pharmaceuticals, West-Ward
Pharmaceutical Corp. and Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA.

It claims these drug companies, many of which are based in
Pennsylvania or New Jersey, violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law and engaged in fraud and
civil conspiracy.

The class consists of "all purchasers in Pennsylvania of generic
drugs whose AWPs were inflated and who paid for all or a portion
of those drugs based upon such inflated AWP as a pricing
standard," according to the complaint.

Haviland speculated the damages stemming from the case could run
into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Endo International declined to comment on the ongoing litigation.

None of the other companies returned email or phone messages
requesting comment on the suit.


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Vitamin Suit for $39 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
West Palm Beach attorney obtained a $39 million settlement with a
pharmaceutical company whose chewable vitamins allegedly contained
less than half the promised amount of fluoride.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and seven subsidiaries agreed on Dec. 17
to pay the federal government and 26 state Medicaid programs,
including Florida's, to settle a whistleblower suit filed by
dentist Stephan Porter of West Palm Beach.

Dr. Porter discovered the deficiency in the Qualitest fluoride
supplements by conducting a chemical analysis of the vitamins
while working for a competitor.

"The most important thing to Dr. Porter was to remove the
defective product from circulation, which this lawsuit
accomplished," said Dr. Porter's attorney, Ryon McCabe of McCabe
Rabin in West Palm Beach.

"Dr. Porter is pleased with the result but continues to be
concerned that children who received insufficient fluoride as a
result of this product will suffer unnecessary dental cavities and
related problems in the future," he said.

Dr. Porter filed the qui tam case in the Southern District of
New York in March 2013 under the False Claims Act, alleging Endo
caused pharmacies to submit false claims to federal health care
programs.

The Pennsylvania-based company pulled the children's vitamins five
months later after the whistleblower lawsuit called the problem to
the attention of the U.S. government.

"Once the company knew they were under investigation for this,
they pulled it off the shelf," Mr. McCabe said.

The federal government spent the next several months examining
company records and interviewing witnesses about the fluoride
supplements, which were prescribed to children who live in
communities without fluoridated drinking water to prevent tooth
decay.

The investigation determined children who took Qualitest once a
day received only about 44 percent of the daily fluoride intake
recommended by the American Dental Association and the American
Academy of Pediatrics.

Endo accepted responsibility for that finding as part of the
settlement agreement.  The company also admitted it knew Medicaid
was paying claims for the Qualitest vitamins.

Dr. Porter will receive $4.7 million of settlement money from the
federal government, $2.8 million from the states plus 21 percent
of the accrued interest for his role as a whistleblower.

The next step is to recover funds for any consumers who paid for
the Qualitest vitamins out of pocket rather than through Medicaid.
McCabe filed a separate consumer class action against Endo in the
Southern District of New York to pursue those claims.

Although he will not be a member of the class, Mr. McCabe said the
issue is "near and dear" to him.

"My own kids took this," he said of the Qualitest vitamins sold
from 2007 to 2013.

Mr. McCabe said the whistleblower case was satisfying to work on
because of the consumer impact.

"There was real harm being done to parents and children and
doctors," he said.  Mr. McCabe pursued the case with Assistant
U.S. Attorney Li Yu of the Southern District of New York and
Jay Speers, counsel to the National Association of Medicaid Fraud
Control Units.

Endo was represented by Jonathan Stern --
Jonathan.Stern@aporter.com -- and David Fauvre --
David.Fauvre@aporter.com -- of Arnold & Porter in Washington.  A
company spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment by
deadline.


ETHICON: Jury Awards $7MM in Punitive Damages in Pelvic Mesh Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
Philadelphia jury has hit Johnson & Johnson with a $7 million
punitive damages verdict over conduct in the design and marketing
of its pelvic mesh implant device.

The punitive damages award in Hammons v. Ethicon on Dec. 22 came
one day after the same jury awarded plaintiff Patricia Hammons
$5.5 million in compensatory damages.  Ms. Hammons had alleged the
product was negligently designed, and J&J subsidiary Ethicon
failed to properly warn health professionals about the risks of
the Gynecare Prolift device.

Ms. Hammons' attorney, Shanin Specter --
Shanin.Specter@KlineSpecter.com -- of Kline & Specter, called the
award "a great victory."

"The jury worked very hard on the case throughout," he said.  "I
hope this sends a message to Johnson & Johnson that they need to
exercise care in the development and marketing of their products."
A spokesman for Ethicon said the company plans to appeal the
verdict.

"We believe the evidence showed Ethicon's Prolift pelvic organ
prolapse repair kit was properly designed, Ethicon acted
appropriately and responsibly in the research, development and
marketing of the product, and Prolift was not the cause of the
plaintiff's continuing medical problems.  We have always made
patient safety a top priority and will continue to do so,"
spokesman Matthew Johnson said in an emailed statement.  "Studies
demonstrated that Prolift was efficacious and had a low rate of
post-operative complications when used with appropriate patient
selection and proper surgical technique."

The Hammons case was the first out of Philadelphia's pelvic-mesh
mass tort program to hit trial. Judge Mark I. Bernstein presided
over the case.

According to Stanley Thompson, director of the Complex Litigation
Center, there are 181 pending cases in the pelvic-mesh mass tort,
with the last case being filed in October.

In 2009, the Prolift device had been implanted into Hammons, an
Indiana resident who worked as a stocker for Wal-Mart, to address
a prolapsed bladder.

Her counsel had argued, among other things, that the density of
the mesh caused scar tissue to build up and contract, which
eventually led to erosion of Hammons' bladder and "excruciating"
pain during sex.

After the device failed, she had to have numerous surgeries, but
will not be able to completely remove portions of the mesh that
eventually adhered to the bladder, according to Specter.

During the compensatory phase, Ethicon's attorney, Susan M.
Robinson of Thomas Combs & Spann, said development of the device
was led by doctors, not Ethicon, and the risks of using pelvic
mesh were well known throughout the medical community.

According to Robinson, despite the later complications, the mesh
worked and properly supported Hammons' bladder.

Ms. Robinson also noted that, along with Ms. Hammons' bladder, her
uterus was also prolapsed, and, after she underwent a hysterectomy
in 2009, her small bowel also began to prolapse into her vaginal
canal.  She argued that this can also lead to pain during sex.

After the jury of seven women and five men awarded Ms. Hammons
$5.5 million in compensatory damages on Dec. 21, the case went
directly into the punitive damages phase.  The jury had voted
during its deliberations in the compensatory phase that the case
should also include the consideration of punitive damages.

Mr. Specter kept his opening statement in the punitive phase to
J&J's net worth, which is more than $69.7 billion.

J&J then called accountant Mark Schneider to testify about the
finances of Ethicon and J&J. Among other things, Schneider said
that Ethicon made only $4.2 million from selling the Prolift
product between 2005 and 2012, when the device was taken off the
market.

On cross-examination, Specter questioned the claimed amount of
profits from the device, and told jurors that the company had at
least $44.1 billion in liquid assets that could easily be
converted to cash.

During his subsequent closing argument in the punitive phase,
Specter told jurors the company needed to be sent a message that
its conduct after learning of the safety risks of the product was
wrong.

According to Specter, the company had been told the device had
problems before and after it went to market, but the product was
sold for another seven years.  He said the company knew the mesh
was causing pain during sex in about 20 percent of the women using
the device.

"That same 20 percent number, they knew it from the beginning. . .
. It was all designed simply to sell as many of these things as
they could," Mr. Specter said.  "You have to be heard from."

In his closing argument during the punitive phase, Tarek Ismail of
Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum, who also represented
Ethicon, told the jurors that, even less than 90 minutes after the
initial verdict came down, top company officials had already heard
their message.

He also noted that the headquarters for J&J is close to
Philadelphia.

"It stings to be told by members of our community that we didn't
meet their expectations," he said.

Mr. Ismail additionally noted that the Prolift product has been
off the market since 2012, and said the company acted
appropriately in the wake of learning of the risks of the product.

"That corrective action has already been taken," Mr. Ismail said.
"That decision was made over three years ago."

Mr. Specter tried the case with Kline & Specter attorney Kila
Baldwin and Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman attorney Adam M. Slater.


ETHICON INC: Bets on Pelvic Mesh Trials
---------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that after four years of litigation, most of the manufacturers of
pelvic mesh devices have begun to settle thousands of cases in an
effort to shrink the largest mass tort in the country.

All, that is, except for Johnson & Johnson.

Unlike other defendants, Johnson & Johnson's Ethicon Inc. for the
most part has resisted efforts to settle litigation over the
devices, taking its chances in court. And so far, the record isn't
great: Ethicon has lost five of seven bellwether trials in the
past two years. At least six more trials are coming up this year
against Ethicon -- by far more than any other pelvic mesh
defendant. The first two are in Philadelphia on Jan. 25 and Feb.
22.

Lawyers involved in mesh litigation are monitoring the outcomes of
those -- trials to assess whether Ethicon, which has more lawsuits
than any other defendant, could be convinced to start settling its
cases.

Most of the trials are in state courts. But U.S. District Judge
Joseph Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia, who has
been pressuring all the defendants to settle the federal lawsuits
over pelvic mesh devices, has scheduled the first consolidated
trial against Ethicon. That trial, set for April 11, involves 37
cases against the company.

"Ethicon is and has been probably the most stalwart in terms of
their public statements that they intend to defend these cases,"
said Fred Thompson, Esq. -- fthompson@motleyrice.com -- of Motley
Rice, co-lead plaintiffs counsel in the federal pelvic mesh
litigation before Goodwin. "What you see with Judge Goodwin is
he's raising the temperature of the water on everybody to see
whether the frog will jump out before we all boil to death."
Pelvic mesh devices are implanted in women to treat urinary
incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Many women have sued,
alleging that the devices eroded inside their bodies, leading to
pain during sex, and subsequent surgeries.

Ethicon isn't the only mesh manufacturer that has gone to trial. A
lawsuit filed against both C.R. Bard Inc. and Boston Scientific
Corp. went to trial last month in Missouri's 16th Judicial Circuit
Court in Jackson County. Bard, which lost the first pelvic mesh
verdict in 2012 when a jury in California state court awarded $5.5
million, also goes to trial on Feb. 22 in Florida's Volusia County
Circuit Court.

Boston Scientific has lost some of the largest verdicts to come
out of the pelvic mesh litigation: $18.5 million and $26.7 million
in separate consolidated trials in 2014, plus a $73.4 million
verdict, followed by a $100 million award last year.

But Goodwin has been forcing the defendants to the settlement
table, and many of the other mesh manufacturers, including Bard
and Boston Scientific, have reached out to prominent plaintiffs
law firms to resolve chunks of their cases. "They've shown the
judge enough progress that he's not putting immediate trial
pressure on any of those folks," Thompson said.

Ethicon has been a different story. In addition to setting
bellwether trial dates, Goodwin has scheduled tight discovery
deadlines to move hundreds more Ethicon cases through the courts.
"He's in essence ratcheting up the pressure on both sides to
either settle these cases or prepare them for trial," Thompson
said.

Of the 70,000 pelvic mesh lawsuits pending across the country,
Ethicon has the most on its plate, with more than 23,000 lawsuits
pending against it in federal court alone. But the company,
represented by Butler Snow and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom, has taken a more aggressive approach than its counterparts,
at one point accusing plaintiffs attorneys of drumming up
"baseless lawsuits" through advertisements and cold calls.

"It's their business model," said Sheila Bossier, Esq. --
sbossier@freeseandgoss.com -- a partner in the Jackson,
Mississippi, office of Freese & Goss. "They've chosen to litigate
and try to get the settlement dollars down."

Spokesman Matthew Johnson wrote in an email that Johnson & Johnson
and Ethicon were "continuing to vigorously defend ourselves in
ongoing litigation. We empathize with all women suffering from
pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, conditions
that can be serious and debilitating, and we are always concerned
when a patient experiences adverse medical events. The use of
implantable mesh is often the preferred option to treat certain
female pelvic conditions, including pelvic organ prolapse and
stress urinary incontinence, and is backed by years of clinical
research."

The first two trials against Ethicon are in Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas, where a jury awarded $12.5 million, including $7
million in punitive damages on Dec. 22. One involves a woman who
had an Ethicon device implanted in her in 2005 but underwent two
more surgeries to remove it. The other involves a woman who had
multiple surgeries over the device in 2008. Unlike most of the
bellwethers, the consolidated trial before Goodwin in West
Virginia will focus solely on claims for design defect -- the
"core of the dispute," Thompson said. Another individual case
before Goodwin is scheduled for a June 6 trial.

Whether Ethicon evens out its scorecard of verdicts remains to be
seen. After Freese & Goss won a $5.7 million verdict on March 5,
Ethicon came back with a defense verdict on Oct. 5 against
Bossier's firm. Then, in November, Ethicon convinced a Texas
appeals court to reverse a $1.2 million verdict the firm won in
2014.

Freese & Goss has two more trials scheduled this year against
Ethicon in Texas state courts, the first on April 25. Bossier said
she's optimistic that the momentum could swing against Ethicon,
especially after the FDA announced this month that it had
tightened restrictions on transvaginal mesh devices.

"It does seem like the momentum is heading that way, and I think
that's everybody's hope -- that we won't go through another year
and continue this game of badminton," she said.


FACEBOOK INC: Court Allows Investors' IPO Suit to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for Law.com, reports that the Delaware
Court of Chancery has allowed to proceed a dispute between two
groups of investors who pooled their resources for the sole
purpose of buying Facebook shares before the social media
company's IPO, but who ended up with two very different results.

Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster largely denied a motion to
dismiss the breach of contract action in ESG Capital Partners II
v. Passport Special Opportunities Master Fund, allowing the
"disfavored" partners, as the court called them, to sue those
"favored" investors who were paid out more on their investments.

The dispute stems from the financial malfeasance by the man who
formed ESG Capital Partners II, Timothy Burns, who, according to
the opinion, was convicted for his role in diverting the
partnership's cash and shares.

Burns formed ESG and solicited investors for the sole purpose of
buying Facebook shares in advance of the company's May 2012
initial public offering.  The partnership agreement divided the
equity stake into units and investors became limited partners by
purchasing units.  The investors were then to be paid out
respective to their percentage interest as defined by the number
of units they purchased divided by the total number of units
outstanding, Vice Chancellor Laster said.

In March 2012, ESG paid about $14 million to buy 452,515 Facebook
shares.  One of the defendants, Passport Special Opportunities
Master Fund, had paid ESG $3.3 million for 100,000 units, Vice
Chancellor Laster said.  After the IPO, Vice Chancellor Laster
said, Burns diverted cash and shares. Before it was detected, he
transferred 376,465 shares to the investors, but gave the
"favored" investors one Facebook share for every unit they held,
while the "disfavored" investors received less than one share per
unit, or, in some instances, no shares at all.

"Rather than all of the partners suffering proportionately, the
disfavored [limited partners] alone bore the costs of Burns'
wrongdoing," Vice Chancellor Laster said.

That wrongdoing came to light in December 2012 when some of the
investors uncovered what Burns had done. They demanded he and ESG
withdraw or resign.  Ultimately, the partnership elected ESG
Successor II, an entity unaffiliated with Burns, as the new
general partner.  In March 2015, ESG Successor sent letters to the
favored partners demanding that they return their shares or pay
the partnership the current market value of the shares.  The
letter stated ESG Successor would then redistribute the shares or
cash to all partners based on their percentage interests.  The
favored partners did not return their shares or pay anything to
the partnership, Vice Chancellor Laster said.

On May 20, the disfavored partners, ESG Successor and the
partnership sued the favored partners and Passport Capital, the
investment manager for favored partner Passport Special
Opportunities Master Fund. Burns is not a party to this suit.  The
suit claims a breach of the partnership agreement, conversion,
unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment that the transfers
violated the agreement and attorney fees and costs under the
partnership agreement's loser-pays provision.

Vice Chancellor Laster threw out the declaratory judgment count as
duplicative of the breach of contract claim.  He also dismissed
Passport Capital given it did not receive any preferential
transfer.  Vice Chancellor Laster allowed all of the others claims
to proceed.

"The complaint adequately pleads that the distribution provisions
were breached and that the disfavored [limited partners] suffered
harm," Vice Chancellor Laster said.  "Contrary to the terms of the
partnership agreement, the favored [limited partners] received
preferential transfers at the expense of the disfavored [limited
partners]."

Vice Chancellor Laster called the favored partners' defense to the
breach of contract claim "frivolous."  The favored investors had
argued that they each received payouts equal to the number of
units they held and, therefore, no breach of contract could have
occurred.

Vice Chancellor Laster said the favored partners wrongly argue
they had an ownership interest in the Facebook shares.  Vice
Chancellor Laster said those shares were the partnership's
property and the investors had an interest in the partnership. In
this case, it was a percentage interest, not a per-unit interest.

"In this case, Burns' defalcations reduced the number of Facebook
shares below a one-for-one correspondence with the number of
units," Vice Chancellor Laster said, noting later, "When the
favored [limited partners] received one Facebook share for each
unit they held, they received more than what their percentage
interest in a distribution would have generated."

Vice Chancellor Laster said the defendants raised similar
arguments in trying to defeat the plaintiffs' claims for
conversion and unjust enrichment.  He similarly rejected those
defenses in denying their motion to dismiss.

Attorneys at Ashby & Geddes in Wilmington and Kaye Scholer in New
York represented the plaintiffs.

"Vice Chancellor Laster's careful and well-reasoned decision paves
the way for ESG to vindicate the rights of the limited partners
who have yet to receive a distribution and have suffered two
substantial blows in connection with their investment -- first at
the hand of Mr. Burns, the former general partner in ESG; and,
thereafter, at the hands of Passport and the other defendants who
have failed to return their Facebook shares for distribution to
all limited partners in accordance with the provisions of the
limited partnership agreement," Kaye Scholer partners Madlyn
Primoff -- madlyn.primoff@kayescholer.com -- and Benjamin Mintz
said in a statement.

Abrams & Bayliss in Wilmington and Sidley Austin in Chicago
represented Passport Special Opportunities Master Fund and
Passport Capital.  A. Thompson Bayliss of Abrams & Bayliss did not
return a call seeking comment.

Lawyers from Duane Morris in Wilmington and New York represented
defendant Pearl Capital Partners.  Richard Riley --
RWRiley@duanemorris.com -- of Duane Morris did not return a call
seeking comment.

Attorneys at Bailey & Glasser in Wilmington and the Law Office of
James M. Wines in Alexandria, Virginia, represented defendants
Phelim Dolan and Lauren Zalaznick.  David A. Felice of Bailey &
Glasser declined to comment, noting his clients' small role in the
matter.

Joanna J. Cline -- clinej@pepperlaw.com -- and James H.S. Levine
of Pepper Hamilton in Wilmington represented the other individual
defendants along with Brazos Global Investors.  Ms. Cline was not
available for comment.


FARMER GREEN'S MARKET: Doesn't Pay OT Wages, "Portillo" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Cruz Portillo, individually and as class representative of
all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Farmer Green's
Market WPB, LLC and Maurice Campioni, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 9:15-cv-81651-DMM (S.D. Fla., December 7, 2015), seeks
recovery of overtime pay, interest, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs as well as enjoinment pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201.

Plaintiff worked as a was employed as a store clerk for the
Defendants and claims that he was not paid the mandatory overtime
premium in excess of 40 hours per work week.

Farmer Green's Market WPB, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company selling produce and grocery at 1937-J North Military
Trail, West Palm Beach, Florida with Maurice Campioni as
owner/manager.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher C. Copeland, Esq.
      CHRISTOPHER C COPELAND, P.A.
      824 W. Indiantown Road
      Jupiter, FL 33458
      Tel: (561) 691-9048
      Fax: (866) 259-0719
      Email: Chris@CopelandPA.com


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Judge Certifies Class in Title Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lizzy McLellan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
an Allegheny County judge has certified a class of plaintiffs who
allege their title insurance companies engaged in a scheme in
which they failed to charge discounted rates as required by a
state-approved manual.

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Senior Judge R. Stanton
Wettick Jr. rejected arguments by the insurance companies that the
plaintiffs must show justifiable reliance, and that it would be
too difficult to obtain the necessary records for all 800,000
class members.

"Plaintiffs' pursuit of this theory supports a class action
because the questions of law and fact with respect to litigating
plaintiffs' theory are common to each member of the class," Judge
Wettick wrote.  "I do not find merit to the title insurance
companies' contention that plaintiffs can only recover by showing
that the defendants' title agents engaged in deceptive conduct."

The plaintiffs in Patterson v. FidelityNational Title Insurance
and DeCooman v. Lawyers TitleInsurance allege that Fidelity
National Title Insurance Co. and Fidelity National Insurance Co.
of New York, as well as Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., failed to
charge discounted rates for title insurance as required by
Sections 5.3 and 5.6 of the Title Insurance Rating Bureau of
Pennsylvania Manual.

Judge Wettick said he would agree with the defendants if recovery
requires proof that the agents engaged in deceptive conduct.  But
the plaintiffs do not seek recovery from the agents, he said, as
they sued the title insurance companies based on the companies'
conduct.

According to the opinion, the plaintiffs acknowledged that the
insurance companies charging the basic rate instead of the reissue
or refinance rate does not necessarily establish fraud or
deception by itself.

"Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that evidence will support
a finding that the title insurance companies knowingly
participated in a scheme under which they would receive the full
basic rates when reissue rates should have been charged," Judge
Wettick wrote.  "The title insurance companies knew or should have
known that there was no uniformity as to when the title agents
charged the reissue rate."

The record showed that certain agents would only provide a
discounted rate if a broker instructed them to do so, the opinion
said, but the title insurance companies did not provide guidance
to their agents on rates.  However, Judge Wettick noted that the
merits of the plaintiffs' argument were not before him.

Judge Wettick relied primarily on his June 2013 opinion in Toth v.
Northwest Savings Bank.  In that case, the plaintiff alleged that
the bank maximized overdraft fees by waiting until the end of the
day to determine if the customer's funds were sufficient to cover
transactions, and by reordering the transactions so they were
listed from greatest to least, allowing for more instances of
overdrafting and more charges.  Judge Wettick rejected Northwest
Savings Bank's contention that proof of actual losses from
fraudulent or deceptive conduct was insufficient.

"A requirement to show individual, justifiable reliance, if
applied to the present case, would mean that plaintiffs and the
other purported class members may not recover without showing that
they would not have proceeded with the closing if they had learned
that they were being overcharged," Judge Wettick wrote.

According to the opinion, Fidelity and Lawyers Title argued the
plaintiffs must allege justifiable reliance.  They pointed to
several Pennsylvania cases in which testimony establishing
reliance was needed to show that the plaintiffs actually suffered
an ascertainable loss as a result of fraudulent or deceptive
conduct.  But in the instant case, Judge Wettick said, the
plaintiffs' ascertainable losses are the overcharges imposed
because of the defendants' scheme, so a finding of reliance is not
needed.

Judge Wettick acknowledged that no Pennsylvania appellate court
has discussed whether testimony on reliance is required when
ascertainable loss can be established without it.  He also
acknowledged that he considered several cases upon which the
defendants relied that were decided after Toth.

"However, there is no reason why case law would require such
testimony where an ascertainable loss has been established," Judge
Wettick said.

According to the opinion, the defendants also argued that a class
action would not provide a fair and efficient method because of
the size of the class and difficulties involved, as title agents
would have to review every transaction.  The defendants said files
are kept by 1,200 title agents, so based on an eight-hour work day
it would take a single person 64 years to review the 800,000
closing files of the class members.

Judge Wettick did not accept this argument.  He said there is no
explanation as to why the records of title insurance companies
"were kept in a manner such that retrieval is so burdensome."
Because the insurance companies created the recordkeeping method,
he said, those methods should not be grounds for denying class
certification.

In addition, Judge Wettick said that if a common source of
liability is identified, varying amounts of damages is not a
reason to defeat a class certification.

Pittsburgh attorney Adrian N. Roe is representing the plaintiffs.
"We were pleased with the court's ruling and look forward to the
trial," Mr. Roe said.

Geoffrey A. Kahn -- kahn@ballardspahr.com -- and Burt M. Rublin
-- rublin@ballardspahr.com -- of Ballard Spahr, attorneys for the
defendants, did not return calls seeking comment on
Dec. 21.


FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT: Faces "Rosario" Action Over Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maribel Rosario, Luz Tintinagoz, Judy Rehrig, Walid Nadrams, Barry
Demko, Maria Lopez, Jesica Marin, Delinda Santiago, Carlos
Cordero, Juana Cordero, Joseph Barner, Isaac Maldonado, Tanika
Johnson, Juana Espinal, Polly Bieber, Dorothea Wolbach, Alvin
Oltevo, Miledis Rosario DeCestino, Brenda Vera, Maria Sanchez,
Maria Soler, Grisette Quiones, Ana Parez, Virginia Maldonado,
Estella Faust, Barbara Repasch, Rode Espinal, Carlene Haas, Nicole
Fenstarmaker, Rosa Figueroa, Donna Betz, Belinda Diaz, Mike Cech,
Jacqueline Canales, Jeffrey Delbrey, Llanely Hernandez, Batania
Pinentel, Ariselle Pineda, Candy Zavala, Debbie Hausrath, Telma
Sorto, Maria Theu, Yuclerca Lausell, Giana Lopez, Mayra Munoz,
Tina Reppertq, Michael DeHaven, Sherrie Anabui, Eric Montoya,
Melissa Fermin, Ana Sanchez, Brendaliz Aponte, Urbana Lalamn,
Lucie Strohl, Limary Ortiz, Wayne Chenevert, Jessica Marinez, Dana
Cappel, Darlene Perry, Diane Kelchner, Justina Keelan, Nicole
Tucker, Gloria Knappenberger, Jennifer Wilson, Carolyn Kilian, Mae
Kline, Klyde Twiss, Veronica Margiotto, Margaret Tichy, Katholine
McEldridge, Jesus Elias, Joffre Ojeda, Foten Awid, Kenneth Swayer,
Wanda Munoz, Sandra Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. First Student
Management LLC, and First Student Inc., Defendants, Case No.:
5:15-cv-06478-LS (E.D.Pa., December 7, 2015), seeks actual
damages, back pay, liquidated damages, attorney' fees and costs
and all other equitable remedies under the Fair Labor Standards
Act 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b).

Plaintiffs were employed by First Student as bus drivers and
driver assistants, in the intrastate transportation of students to
local municipal schools and providing students intrastate
transportation to extracurricular activities.

The Defendants allegedly do not compensate the Plaintiffs for
prep-time period prior to actual bus trip as well as the post
inspection activities they conduct after the buses are parked.

First Student Management LLC is a corporation located at 1812
South 12th Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania and is a subsidiary of
First Student Inc., a foreign corporation located at 705 Central
Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio. Defendants operate out of approximately
37 separate bus yards in the state of Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick T. Cronin, Esq.
      CRONIN AND BERKOWITZ
      10000 Lincoln Drive East, Suite 202
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Tel: (856) 350-6200
      Email: ptcesq@gmail.com

           - and -

      Gerard J. Geiger, Esq.
      NEWMAN, WILLIAMS, MISHKIN, CORVELEYN,
        WOLFE & FARERI, P.C.
      712 Monroe Street
      P.O. Box 511
      Stroudsburg, PA 18360-0511
      Tel: (570) 421-9090


FLOWERS FOODS: Faces Suit Alleging Misclassification of Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Jo Rosinbaum and Robert William Morgan, Jr., individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. Flowers
Foods, Inc. and Franklin Baking Co., LLC, Case 3:15-cv-00581
(W.D.N.C., December 1, 2015), seeks to obtain declaratory,
injunctive and monetary relief resulting from Defendants' alleged
misclassification of their North Carolina bakery distributor
drivers as "independent contractors" under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and North
Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Defendants Flowers Foods, Inc. and Franklin Baking Co., LLC, and
their subsidiaries and affiliates are in the wholesale bakery
business and rely on Distributors to deliver to and stock baked
goods to grocery stores, mass retailers, and fast food chains.'

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ann Groninger, Esq.
     COPELEY JOHNSON GRONINGER PLLC
     225 East Worthington Avenue
     Charlotte, NC 28203
     Phone: 704-200-2009
     Fax: (888) 412-0421

        - and -

     Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
     BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK &WANTA LLP
     Patricia A. Bloodgood
     100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 252-3570
     Fax: (612) 252-3571

        - and -

     Susan E. Ellingstad, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P
     Rachel A. Kitze Collins
     100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 339-6900
     Fax: (612) 339-0981


FLUFF N' FOLD LAUNDRY: "Romero" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Romero and Claudia Gonzales, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fluff N' Fold Laundry
Services LLC and Min Lin, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-09535
(S.D.N.Y, December 7, 2015), seeks damages in the amount of unpaid
minimum and overtime wages as well as improper wage deductions or
credits in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Laws.

Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as washers, folders and
customer service attendants. They claim to be paid sub-minimum
wage rates and also have rendered in excess of 40 hours per week
which was allegedly not compensated as overtime premium.

Fluff N' Fold Laundry Services LLC operates a laundromat located
in 440E 75th St., New York, NY 10021 owned by Min Lin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd St. Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620
      Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


FRONTIER TORQUE: Faces "Yuen" Action Over Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------
Joe Yuen, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Frontier Torque Turn, Inc. Defendant, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00493 (S.D. Tex., Corpus Christi Division, December 8,
2015), seeks unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest in violation of Sec.
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff worked as a supervisor for the Defendants and claims not
paid being the mandatory overtime premium in excess of 40 hours
per work week.

Frontier Torque Turn, Inc. is based in Corpus Christi, Texas and
provides oilfield services to drilling and production sites
throughout the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com
             aanderson@phippsandersondeacon.com


GALLEGOS: Faces Suit by Tenants Over "Defects" in Dwelling Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Irejo, Marla Gallegos and Maria Gallegos acting as
guardian ad litern for Aron Treso v. Rafael Gallegos, Guadalupe
Gallegos and Does 1-30, Case RG15794928 (Cal. Super., Country of
Alameda, November 30, 2015), alleges that the Plaintiffs suffered
emotional distress, physical injury, over-payment of rent and out-
of-pocket expenses as a result of habitability defects in dwelling
units rented by Plaintiffs

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Broderick H. Brown, Esq.
     BRODERICK H. BROWN LAW FIRM
     2831 Telegram Ave.
     Oakland, CA 94609
     Phone: (510) 452-6300
     Fax: (866) 417-9197

        - and -

     Clements Gonzales, Esq.
     505 14th Street Suite 900
     Oakland, CA 94612


GENERAL MOTORS: 'Bellwether' Trial to Provide Litigation Template
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
there will be a lot on the line for General Motors when lawyers
for plaintiff Robert Scheuer try to prove the car crash that sent
him to surgery was caused by a defective ignition switch that
prevented air bags from deploying.

Southern District Judge Jesse Furman will preside over jury
selection in the Scheuer case, the first of six bellwether trials
in which plaintiffs lawyers are attempting to prove the automobile
giant was late to recall cars with defective switches and engaged
in a massive cover-up to avoid liability.

Scheuer suffered serious back injuries on May 28, 2014, when his
2003 Saturn Ion was struck by another car in Bristow, Oklahoma,
forced off the road and into some trees.

Scheuer and some 1,600 other claimants allege the problem was a
defect that caused the ignition switch to go from the "run" to the
"accessory" or "off" position, causing their vehicles to lose
power, speed control and braking, and, in Scheuer's case and
others, prevent air bags from deploying.

GM had sent out recall notices warning that multiple keys or other
items on a key ring might cause the ignition to switch positions.
Scheuer said he received two of those notices and followed
instructions to remove all items from his key ring, save his
ignition key for the Saturn.

GM, represented by Kirkland & Ellis partners Richard Godfrey, Esq.
-- richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- and Andrew Bloomer, Esq. --
andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com -- is confident it can defeat efforts
of each of the six plaintiffs to prove the ignition switch
rotated, that the timing of the rotation prevented the airbag from
deploying and that their injuries were caused by the failure of
the airbags to deploy.

"In the Scheuer case, GM will show the ignition switch did not
rotate and the airbags were not designed to deploy in this
accident," GM spokesman James Cain said in a statement.

In papers filed with the court, Godfrey and Bloomer state that
"The unrebutted scientific evidence shows that a Saturn Ion
operated with only an ignition key is substantially less
susceptible to inadvertent rotation, and cannot inertially rotate
at all, than an ignition switch with a key having multiple items
attached to its ring."

They also objected pretrial to the fact that Scheuer's car has not
been preserved and asked for sanctions, but Furman said the case
could go forward.

GM is accused of knowing about the faulty switches for years
before it belatedly issued a recall notice in February 2014.
Thirty million recalls were issued amid a storm of outrage and a
congressional inquiry.

The company, sometimes referred to as "New GM" in court papers
following its emergence from bankruptcy, paid $900 million as part
of a deferred prosecution agreement with the Southern District
U.S. Attorney's Office. The company has also paid out close to
$600 million of a fund it established to compensate claimants.
Scheuer's claim on the fund, however, was denied by the company.

Furman has been riding herd on the multi-district case, In re
General Motors Ignition Switch Litigation, 14-MD-2543. Some 1,385
of the cases have settled for roughly $275 million and about 339
remain. A total of 217 are wrongful death and personal injury
suits, with the remainder seeking damages claiming the recall
reduced the resale value of their cars.

Lead plaintiffs attorney Robert Hilliard, Esq. --
bobh@hmglawfirm.com -- of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus
Christi, accompanied by attorneys with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
in Seattle, Washington and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in
San Francisco, California, also reached a $300 million class
action settlement on behalf of General Motors shareholders who
said the bad publicity over the recalls hurt their stock.

The plaintiffs attorneys, in their third amended consolidated
complaint filed in December, condemned "New GM's unprecedented
abrogation of basic standards of safety, truthfulness, and
accountability to the detriment of tens of millions of consumers
and the public at large."

Setting a Template

The six bellwether cases are designed to set the template for
settlement on the remaining cases. The second trial, set to begin
in March, is the only one of the six involving a death. Scheuer is
making four claims for damages against General Motors, all under
Oklahoma law, for Oklahoma Manufacturer's Product Liability,
fraud, and negligence as well as a claim for violation of the
Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act.

Following the recalls, General Motors retained Anton Valukas,
chairman of Jenner & Block, who issued a report on the ignition
switches -- excerpts of which are expected to be a key part of the
Scheuer and plaintiff trials, the last of which is due to start in
November.

The case will also feature dueling expert testimony, a May 16,
2014 consent order the company signed with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration and the company's deferred
prosecution agreement in the Southern District. The last two
documents will be presented to the jury with redactions. The trial
is expected to last four to five weeks.

Furman has been shaping the parameters of the case in a flurry of
pretrial opinions, including a decision in late December in which
he ruled that Hilliard had presented at least a prima facie case
for the admission of 15 Other Similar Incidents (OSIs) of alleged
ignition switch failure (NYLJ, Dec. 30).

But Furman also deferred ruling on the actual admissibility of the
15 OSIs, and he expressed doubt about whether some witnesses would
be allowed to testify, and concern over allowing "potentially
inflammatory and emotionally charged testimony."

On Dec. 29, Furman ruled on the absence of Scheuer's car. General
Motors had moved for sanctions against Scheuer based on spoliation
of the evidence.

But Furman denied the motion and said "New GM is precluded from
introducing evidence or argument suggesting plaintiff destroyed
his car (or allowed it to be destroyed) or that the car, if
preserved, would have yielded favorable evidence to New GM."

On Jan. 4, the judge circulated a proposed jury questionnaire that
asks what make of vehicle prospective jurors drive, whether they
drive a GM car, and whether they or their family own GM stock,
including at the time GM filed for bankruptcy in 2009.

The questions also include whether prospective jurors have ever
been in an accident, whether air bags were deployed and whether,
and how badly, they were injured. The jury pool received the
questionnaire.


GENERAL MOTORS: April 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP regarding the New York State Teachers'
Retirement System v. General Motors, et al. securities class
action.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

NEW YORK STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,

v.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, DANIEL F. AKERSON, NICHOLAS S. CYPRUS,
CHRISTOPHER P. LIDDELL, DANIEL AMMANN, CHARLES K. STEVENS, III,
MARY T. BARRA, THOMAS S. TIMKO, and GAY KENT,  Defendants.

Civil Case No.  4:14-cv-11191

Honorable Linda V. Parker

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT
FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of General Motors Company ("GM") from
November 17, 2010 through July 24, 2014, inclusive (the
"Settlement Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the
"Settlement Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE
SETTLMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION
LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN
THE SETTLEMENT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, that the parties in
the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") have reached a
proposed settlement for $300,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"),
that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Action has been certified for
settlement purposes only as a class action on behalf of the
Settlement Class.  Certain persons and entities are, however,
excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in
the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action,
Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II)
Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice"), which more completely describes the Settlement and your
rights thereunder.  If you have not yet received the Notice and
Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting
the Claims Administrator at New York State Teachers' Retirement
System v. General Motors Company, c/o Garden City Group, LLC, P.O.
Box 10262, Dublin, OH 43017-5762, 1-866-459-1720.  Copies of the
Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from
www.GMSecuritiesLitigation.com

A hearing will be held on April 20, 2016 at 11:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Linda V. Parker at the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Federal Building and U.S.
Courthouse, Courtroom 108, 600 Church Street, Flint, MI 48502, to
determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
November 11, 2015 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii)
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair
and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be
approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than April 27, 2016.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than March 23, 2016,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in
the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds
of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than March 23, 2016, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, GM, or its
counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead
Counsel.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

New York State Teachers' Retirement System v. General Motors
Company
c/o Garden City Group, LLC
P.O. Box 10262
Dublin, OH 43017-5762
(866) 459-1720
www.GMSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
(800) 380-8496
blbg@blbglaw.com

By Order of the Court


GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition-Switch Trial in N.Y. Begins
----------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
civil trial was set to start this month in New York City will test
the legal boundaries of hundreds of claims remaining against
General Motors Co. stemming from faulty ignition switches.

The case involves an Oklahoma man who blames a defective ignition
switch for preventing his air bags from deploying during a crash.
It's the first trial to result from hundreds of lawsuits filed
against GM after the auto giant revealed in 2014 that faulty
ignition switches in Chevy Cobalts and other small cars
necessitated an unprecedented recall.  The switches can slip out
of the "on" position, causing the cars to stall, knocking out
power steering and turning off air bags.

GM knew about the faulty switches for more than a decade but did
not recall them until February 2014.  The company paid nearly $600
million to settle 399 claims made to a fund it established.  Those
claims covered 124 deaths and 275 injuries, though GM's fund
rejected more than 90 percent of the 4,343 claims it received,
according to figures the company released in December.

In recent weeks, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman, the
presiding judge, has made rulings that may prevent the automaker
from taking the easy road toward settling or forcing dismissal of
scores of lawsuits.

The judge has refused the company's request to exclude evidence
and arguments related to punitive damages, saying GM's delay in
recalling admittedly defective vehicles was "arguably dangerous
conduct as it involved a hidden defect that caused a risk of
serious injury or death."

The judge also ruled that the "New GM," as it is repeatedly
referred to in court papers, cannot dismiss the claims of
Robert S. Scheuer -- the plaintiff in the trial set to start
Jan. 11 -- merely because he failed to keep his 2003 Saturn Ion
after his front air bags failed to deploy when he was forced off
an Oklahoma highway by another car and smashed head-on into two
trees in Bristow.

Mr. Scheuer, of Tulsa, was injured in the May 28, 2014, crash and
retained lawyer Bob Hilliard, co-lead counsel for hundreds of
federal cases consolidated in New York City.

"For years and years, GM -- including to some of my clients --
would say: 'Look, this accident is your fault. Take $75,000 even
though your family is dead,'" he said in a telephone interview
from his Texas office.

Mr. Hilliard said the litigants watching the case closely include
"many traumatized folks who got pushed around by GM while the
cover-up was active."

General Motors has told U.S. regulators in a recent quarterly
report that it still faces 217 wrongful death and injury lawsuits
in the U.S. and Canada, along with 122 lawsuits alleging that the
recalls reduced values of owners' cars.

GM spokesman Jim Cain said the Scheuer trial, likely to last about
a month, is the first of six bellwether trials that will occur
over the next year.  He said the outcome of the Scheuer trial
would "help form the basis for settlement of similar claims."

"It's our belief that the air bags weren't designed to deploy in
the accident that he had," Mr. Cain said.

In September, GM announced it had reached a $575 million deal with
Hilliard to settle 1,385 death and injury cases and to resolve a
2014 class-action lawsuit filed by shareholders claiming GM's
actions reduced the value of their stock.

The announcement came as the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan
revealed GM had settled a criminal investigation, agreeing to pay
$900 million to the government to avoid prosecution on wire fraud
charges.

The company has initiated companywide safety reforms and in 2014
issued a record 84 recalls covering more than 30 million vehicles,
including 27 million in the U.S.

                           *     *     *

Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
evidence of similar incidents involving ignition defects and air
bag deployment failures in General Motors vehicles may be
introduced at the company's trial in January, a federal judge has
ruled.

Southern District Judge Jesse Furman said the plaintiff, in the
first bellwether product liability trial on alleged ignition
defects that cause vehicles to lose power, "established a prima
face case for admission of at least some OSI" or "other similar
incident" evidence.

However, Furman cautioned that, during pre-trial, he would
seriously vet evidence of 15 OSIs being offered by lawyers for
plaintiff Robert Scheuer.

The trial is set to begin Jan. 11.

Judge Furman's ruling on Dec. 28 came in In re General Motors LLC
Ignition Switch Litigation, 14-MD-2543, multi-district litigation
being pursued by hundreds of plaintiffs against General Motors.
Seeking more details from the plaintiff, the judge deferred ruling
on specific evidence of 15 other similar incidents that
Mr. Scheuer, who was injured when his 2003 Saturn Ion crashed in
Oklahoma in 2014, wants to introduce at the trial.

But Judge Furman held that, "as a general matter" the "15 other
incidents at issue are 'substantially similar' to be admitted,
certainly to prove notice, but also to prove causation."

The judge said a significant factor on admissibility in the
product liability context is whether the OSIs being offered, the
earliest of which go back to 2003, involve the same defect.

"The 15 incidents identified by plaintiff all involved the same
allegedly defective ignition switch as the one at issue here; all
involved airbag non-deployment despite substantial frontal-impact
collisions, as here; and nearly all involved off-road conditions,
as here," he said.

Judge Furman said the company, now calling itself New GM after
bankruptcy, "itself effectively treated the incidents as
substantially similar" until it was faced with having them
admitted at trial.

"Nearly all of the 15 other incidents were included in New GM's
various admissions to crashes caused by the ignitions switch
defect-including submissions made to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, the statement of facts to which New GM
agreed as part of the deferred prosecution agreement with the
Department of Justice, and the Valukas Report," he said, referring
to the report prepared on the ignition scandal by Jenner & Block
chairman Anton Valukas.

General Motors hired Jenner & Block to investigate the defect and
delays in recalling the vehicles after New GM announced the first
recall over faulty switches in 2014.

General Motors has since paid some $275 million to settle
approximately 1,300 of the cases, according to an attorney for
Scheuer; more than 300 cases remain before Judge Furman.  The
Scheuer trial is the first of six bellwether cases scheduled
before the judge.

Judge Furman noted that New GM raised no objections over the
consolidation of the cases, all of which allege a defect makes a
vehicle's ignition switch go from "run" to the "accessory" or
"off" position, causing the vehicle to lose power, speed control
and braking, and preventing the air bags from deploying.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Can't Enforce $35MM Flonase Settlement Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
GlaxoSmithKline cannot enforce a $35 million settlement agreement
in the Flonase antitrust litigation on the state of Louisiana even
though the state's claims against GSK fall within the settlement's
terms.

U.S. District Judge Anita B. Brody of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania said she had no jurisdiction over GSK's motion to
enforce the settlement on the state because Louisiana did not
waive its 11th Amendment sovereign immunity from being sued in
federal court.

Judge Brody's ruling hinged on the notice Louisiana received of
the $35 million settlement that received final approval in June
2013.  Specifically, Judge Brody had to determine whether
notifications of settlements to states under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 constituted sufficient notice to allow the
state to opt out of the settlement.

GSK settled claims raised by indirect purchasers of Flonase that
the drugmaker delayed introduction of cheaper, generic versions of
the drug by allegedly filing sham citizen petitions with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.  In December 2014, more than a year
after the settlement, Louisiana's attorney general raised similar
claims against GSK in a Louisiana state-court action.  While that
case is pending, GSK asked Judge Brody to enforce the settlement
on Louisiana and the state filed a motion to dismiss on
jurisdictional grounds.

GSK argued Louisiana failed to opt out of the settlement despite
being notified of it, and therefore is bound by its terms.
Louisiana, on the other hand, argued that binding states to a
settlement as absent class members violates their sovereign
immunity.  It alternatively argued that it wasn't properly
notified of the class settlement.  Judge Brody agreed with
Louisiana's second argument, not reaching the question of whether
binding states as absent class members violates their 11th
Amendment rights.

Under CAFA, defendants must inform state officials of any
settlement that impacts citizens of their states.  GSK informed
Louisiana of the Flonase settlement through a CAFA notice.  All
states that purchased Flonase under a government employee health
plan were included in the definition of the class in the Flonase
settlement, Judge Brody said.  But Louisiana did not receive a
notice from class counsel of the settlement or the chance to opt
out.

"Assuming that Louisiana was properly included as an absent class
member, the notice received by the state was insufficient to meet
the 'stringent' test for determining whether it 'voluntarily' and
'unequivocally' agreed to have its claims resolved through the
settlement agreement," Judge Brody said.

The purpose of the CAFA notice, Brody said, is to give states a
role in ensuring their citizens are fairly compensated in class
action settlements.  GSK argued the CAFA notice included the
settlement agreement and settlement notices, and therefore, the
state should have been made aware that it was part of the
settlement class.  Judge Brody said it was possible for Louisiana
to have realized as much from reading the documents attached to
the CAFA notice.

"But given the purpose of the CAFA notice, it is just as likely
that Louisiana would have considered these documents with a view
of protecting the interests of its citizens," Judge Brody said.
"In short, it is not clear that upon receipt of the CAFA notice,
Louisiana would have been aware that the state itself was a class
member and that, if it did not opt out, it would be bound by the
settlement agreement."

Judge Brody said that lack of clarity was "fatal" to GSK's
argument that Louisiana's failure to opt out equates to consent to
the federal court's jurisdiction.

"The test for finding a waiver of sovereign immunity is stringent,
and ambiguities are resolved in favor of the sovereign," Judge
Brody said.

Attorneys at Ballard Spahr represented GSK and were not
immediately available for comment.  Bart D. Cohen --
bcohen@nussbaumpc.com -- of Nussbaum Law Group in Villanova
represented Louisiana.

"We are obviously very pleased with the result and even more so
that Judge Brody wrote such a thoughtful opinion about such an
important issue," Mr. Cohen said.


GOOGLE INC: Authors Guild Continues Fight to Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The Authors Guild et al. filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec.
31, 2015, a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

According to the filing, Google made full digital copies of
millions of books it obtained from libraries' shelves without the
authors' consent.  As payment, Google gave the libraries digital
copies of the books. Google makes the books' full text searchable
on its revenue-generating search engine, and displays verbatim
excerpts in response to users' searches. The questions presented
are:

     1. Whether, in order to be "transformative" under the fair-
        use exception to copyright, the use of the copyrighted
        work must produce "new expression, meaning, or message,"
        as this Court stated in Campbell and as the Third, Sixth,
        and Eleventh Circuits have held, or whether the verbatim
        copying of works for a different, non-expressive purpose
        can be a transformative fair use, as the Second, Fourth,
        and Ninth Circuits have held.

     2. Whether the Second Circuit's approach to fair use
        improperly makes "transformative purpose" the decisive
        factor, replacing the statutory four-factor test, as the
        Seventh Circuit has charged.

     3. Whether the Second Circuit erred in concluding that a
        commercial business may evade liability for verbatim
        copying by arguing that the recipients of those copies
        will use them for lawful and beneficial purposes, a
        rationale that has been flatly rejected by the Sixth
        Circuit.

     4. Whether a membership association of authors may assert
        copyright infringement claims on behalf of its members.

The Supreme Court case is, THE AUTHORS GUILD, ET AL., Petitioners,
v. GOOGLE, INC., Respondent, No. ___ (U.S.).

                           *     *     *

Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
a recent court victories affirming that Google Books qualifies as
fair use "threatens to undermine protection of copyrighted works
in the digital age to an extraordinary extent," the Authors Guild
told the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a petition filed on New Year's Eve, the guild's attorney Paul
Smith of the Washington-based firm Jenner & Block is hoping to
stretch the litigation into its 11th year.

"The copyright laws are intended to promote new expression, not
just the consumption of creative works," he wrote in a 36-page
petition.

Within a year of Google Books' launch in late 2004, the guild
filed a class action in Federal Court hoping the snuff the Silicon
Valley giant's plans to digitize 15 million volumes within a
decade. Google Books has since smoked past that goal with nearly
25 million manuscripts on the Internet, and it won multiple
rulings affirming its business model.

At the trial court level, then-District Judge Denny Chin praised
its "significant public benefits" in 2013.

"It advances the progress of the arts and sciences, while
maintaining respectful consideration for the rights of authors and
other creative individuals, and without adversely impacting the
rights of copyright holders," he wrote. "It has become an
invaluable research tool that permits students, teachers,
librarians, and others to more efficiently identify and locate
books. It has given scholars the ability, for the first time, to
conduct full-text searches of tens of millions of books."

Chin later accepted a nomination to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals, where three of his colleagues affirmed his decision late
last year.

"Google's making of a digital copy to provide a search function is
a transformative use, which augments public knowledge by making
available information about plaintiffs' books without providing
the public with a substantial substitute for matter protected by
the plaintiffs' copyright interests in the original works or
derivatives of them," Judge Pierre Leval wrote for the court on
Oct. 16.

Urging the nation's highest court to reverse these decisions, the
guild focused on Google's profit motive.

"Whatever can be said about the scope of the fair-use doctrine,
surely it cannot be that using copyrighted works without
authorization as a form of currency to maximize corporate profits
is a fair use," the petition states.

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Authors Guild is represented by:

     Edward H. Rosenthal, Esq.
     Jeremy S. Goldman, Esq.
     FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ, P.C.
     488 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 980-0120
     E-mail: erosenthal@fkks.com
             jgoldman@fkks.com

          - and -

     Paul M. Smith, Esq., Counsel of Record
     Lindsay C. Harrison, Esq.
     Mark P. Gaber, Esq.
     JENNER & BLOCK LLP
     1099 New York Ave. NW, Suite 900
     Washington, DC 20001
     Tel: (202) 639-6000
     E-mail: psmith@jenner.com
             lharrison@jenner.com
             mgaber@jenner.com


GREEN HILLS: Faces "Miller" Suit for Alleged Labor Law Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Miller, Esther Dailey, Anna Marie Caserma, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. Green Hills Memorial
Park; and DOES' 1 TO' 100, Inclusive, (Cal. Super, Country of Los
Angeles) November 30, 2015), is a civil wage and hour class action
seeking equitable and injunctive relief, economic and statutory
damages, prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and
other appropriate relief for violations of the Labor Code, and the
Business & Professionals Code.

Defendants jointly own, manage and/or operate a mortuary and
cemetery in Los Angeles County, California, and do business as the
"GREEN HILLS MEMORIAL PARK."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

        - and -

     Dan B. Yakobian, Esq.
     DBY LAW
     3250 Wilshire Boulevard, Floor 13
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (213) 316-8844
     Fax: (213) 618-4466


HAWKINS INC: Roschester City Alleges Violation of Sherman Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
City of Rochester, Minnesota, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Hawkins, Inc., Frank A. Reichl,
General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance
Products, LLC, Gentek, Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund,
Chemtrade Logistics, Inc., GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc., C&S
Chemicals, Inc., USALCO, LLC, Thatcher Group, Inc., Kemira
Chemicals, Inc., and John Does 1-50, Case 0:15-cv-04266-JRT-SER
(D.Minn., December 1, 2015), seeks to recover damages due to
Defendants' and their co-conspirators' alleged violation of the
Sherman Act, by conspiring to increase prices and otherwise
restrain competition in the market for Alum.

Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of Alum used by
municipalities to treat potable water, wastewater and by pulp and
paper manufacturers as part of their manufacturing processes, and
in lake treatment to reduce phosphorous levels contributing to
degraded water quality.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     W. Joseph Bruckner., Esq.
     Charles N. Nauen, Esq.
     Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
     Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
     Brian D. Clark, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P
     100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 339-6900
     Fax: (612) 339-0981
     E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
             cnnauen@locklaw.com
             hmsilton@locklaw.com
             erodette@locklaw.com
             bdclark@locklaw.com

        - and -

     Daniel E. Gustafson., Esq.
     Daniel C. Hedlund., Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     120 South 6th Street #2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 333-8844
     Fax: (612) 339-6622
     E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
             dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com


HILLSHIRE BRANDS: Racist Graffiti Spurs $4-Mil. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
John Council, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that with plenty
of racist graffiti as evidence and the backing of a federal
agency, 75 African-American workers at a Texas Sara Lee factory
recently forced a $4 million employment discrimination settlement
against Hillshire Brands, a subsidiary of Tyson Foods.

But other factors, including allegations that management
intentionally steered its black employees into unsafe jobs at a
Sara Lee bakery that closed in 2011, also helped convince the
defendant to accept a hefty settlement rather than face an Eastern
District of Texas jury, according to an attorney involved in the
case.

After the workers filed a federal lawsuit against the defendant
last year, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
determined that Hillshire Brands, who had bought the Sara Lee
factory, had violated the workers' civil rights.  The EEOC later
joined the plaintiffs by filing its own hostile workplace lawsuit
against the company in July.

The workers alleged that employee bathrooms at the bakery were
covered in racial graffiti, including liberal use of the N-word
and drawings of black men hanging from nooses.  They also alleged
that management failed to remove the offensive remarks.

"Obviously, all of those things are horrible aspects of a hostile
work environment case," said Jay Ellwanger, a partner in Austin's
DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy who represents the workers.  "What
I think was unique in the case was the environmental aspect of the
hostile work environment claims.  What the EEOC found was that the
company altered the terms and conditions for African-Americans to
work in areas of the plant that was known to be contaminated by
asbestos and other toxins."

Another important factor in forcing the settlement was the fact
the Sara Lee plant was eventually sold and shut down before it was
acquired by Hillshire Brands, Mr. Ellwanger said.

"This is not like a company that was standing up for its
management.  They folded up shop and left town three years ago.
If it were to go to trial, they wouldn't really have a current
employee at the current location to stand up and tell their side
of the story," Mr. Ellwanger said.  "I think those were all
factors that lead to the resolution of the case."

The parties entered into a consent decree that settled the
litigation on Dec. 18 and a U.S. magistrate judge signed an order
dismissing the cases on Dec. 21.

Tyson spokesman Worth Sparkman said the company doesn't agree with
the allegations in the complaints, but it opposes unlawful
discrimination in the workplace and believes that it made sense to
resolve the litigation.

"Hillshire denies the characterizations made about plaintiffs'
hostile work environment claims.  Many of the plaintiffs admitted
to not having ever heard a racial slur or experienced any racially
inappropriate conduct throughout their long tenure with the
company," Mr. Sparkman said.  "Many of the plaintiffs testified to
alleged conduct that predated 2010, and some of the complaints
even predated Sara Lee's purchase of the plant in 2008.  Only
after the plant was closed in 2011 did the plaintiffs file a
complaint."

Mr. Sparkman added that "none of the plaintiffs' claims regarding
harmful materials in the work environment were supported by any
medical or other scientific evidence."

Steve Fox -- sfox@polsinelli.com -- a shareholder in the Dallas
office of Polsinelli who defends companies in employment
discrimination cases and was not involved in the litigation, said
Hillshire Brands made the wise choice by settling with the
plaintiffs.

"One, the bad acts were readily observable. And second, the cards
were stacked against the company," said Mr. Fox, who notes that
the EEOC finds reasonable cause in less than 5 percent of the
complaints it examines.  "While a loss wasn't a certainty, it was
highly likely," he said.

And while $4 million was a big settlement amount, Hillshire Brands
faced much more exposure from a jury, Mr. Fox said.

"In addition to back wages of front pay, the [likelihood] that the
jury would have awarded punitive damages is extremely high,"
Mr. Fox said.


IDENTIV INC: Faces "Ruggiero" Suit Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
Ana Ruggiero, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, plaintiff, v. Identiv, Inc., Jason Hart, Brian
Nelson, James Ousley, Steven Humphreys, Steven Finney, Gary Kremen
and Daniel Wenzel, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-05583 (N.D. Cal.,
December 7, 2015), seeks to recover damages in violation of the
federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

Identiv is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware. It is a global security technology company
that provides trust solutions in the connected world. It Company
has allegedly and repeatedly made material misrepresentations and
omitted material information concerning, among other things, the
Company's revenue recognition practices, key accounting metrics,
and its internal controls. Identiv common stock sank from $2.95 to
$2.49 per share on December 1, 2015 after news that its
independent accounting firm refused to conform to the Company's
accountants.

Plaintiff lost from purchases and sales of the Company's
securities.

Hart is the President of the Company, and he also serves on the
Board of Directors. Nelson was the Company Chief Financial Officer
from December 2013 to November 2015. Ousley is the Chairman of the
Board of the Company, and he has served as director since July
2014. He also currently serves as chairman of the Audit Committee.
Humphreys is the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and he
also serves as a Director. Finney is the Interim Chief Financial
Officer of the Company. Kremen and Wenzel serve as directors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

      Na'il Benjamin, Esq.
      BENJAMIN LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
      101 California St., Ste. 2710
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 633-8833
      Fax: (415) 349-3334
      Email: nbenjamin@BenjaminLawGroup.com


JAPAN: Filipino Wartime Sex Slaves Call for Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that elderly Filipino women raped by
Japanese troops during World War II are calling for compensation
from Japan after Tokyo pledged $8.3 million for South Korean women
forced into Japanese military-run brothels during the war.

Their lawyers said on Jan. 6 that they are also exploring the
possibility of filing cases with United Nations bodies and holding
Philippine President Benigno Aquino III liable for allegedly
failing to support the case of the women against Japan.

Isabelita Vinuya, the 84-year-old president of a group of
Filipinos forced to provide sex to Japanese soldiers, appealed to
the Philippine government to support them in demanding justice
from Japan.

Japan and South Korea earlier announced that they have settled
their decades-long standoff over wartime sex slaves.


KINGDOM TRUST: Runs $66 Mil. Ponzi Scheme, Investors Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported
that a class of consumers say two investment firms defrauded them
by running a $66 million Ponzi scheme with a man accused of mail
and wire fraud in Dayton, Ohio.

The investors claim Kingdom Trust Co. and Pensco Trust Co.
conspired with William Apostelos and sold unregistered securities
related to real estate and short-term loans. Last year, Apostelos
was charged by a federal grand jury with mail and wire fraud.

Apostelos -- who is not named as a defendant in the case --
allegedly convinced investors to transfer their IRAs to Kingdom
Trust and Pensco Trust.  He then "would either have the plaintiffs
request the defendants purchase unregistered securities using IRA
assets or Apostelos would have the plaintiffs execute powers of
attorney giving him (or one of his associates) the ability to
request the defendants purchase unregistered securities using the
IRA assets," according to a Jan. 7 lawsuit.

Cynthia Boyd and Thomas Flanders, the lead plaintiffs in the case,
say Kingdom Trust and Pensco Trust used their control of the IRAs
to purchase unregistered securities in the amounts of $400,000 and
$497,000, respectively.

The lawsuit says the securities are worthless because they were
not registered with the State of Ohio.

An article from the Dayton Daily News says Boyd is a former
factory worker and Flanders is a former law enforcement officer.

In the same story, Toby Henderson, attorney for the plaintiffs,
said, "These are both folks who were working class, blue collar.
It certainly has been devastating for both of them."

Boyd and Flanders' lawsuit says Apostelos ran the Ponzi scheme
from 2010 to 2014.

"During that time period, Apostelos, individually and through his
various companies, raised at least $66.7 million from at least 350
investors," the complaint states. "Apostelos portrayed himself as
a sophisticated investor and businessman, and he exploited his
network of clients, business associates, and friends to attract
new investors."

Boyd and Flanders seek class action certification and compensatory
damages for the alleged illegal sale of securities. Their
attorney, Henderson, is with the law firm Sebaly, Shillito and
Dyer in Dayton.

Kingdom Trust is located in Murray, Ky., while Pensco Trust
operates out of San Francisco.


LANZA ESTATE: Sandy Hook Shooting Victims' Lawsuits Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Connecticut Law Tribune reports that one of several lawsuits
filed by families of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School
shooting in 2012 has been officially resolved.

The families of more than a dozen victims will split $1.5 million
under recently finalized claims against the gunman's mother's
estate.  A lawyer for several victims' families says the
settlements were finalized Dec. 17.  Details of the agreements
were first announced in August, and lawyers said at the time that
the settlement had to be ratified by a probate court judge.

The lawsuits said Nancy Lanza failed to properly secure her
legally owned Bushmaster AR-15 rifle.  Her son, Adam Lanza, used
the rifle to kill 20 first-graders and six educators at the
Newtown school.  He killed his mother before the school shooting
and killed himself afterward.

The families of 16 victims will split $1.5 million from Nancy
Lanza's homeowner's insurance. The lawsuits were filed on behalf
of 14 of the victims who perished in the massacre, and by two of
the survivors.  One of the plaintiff's lawyers, Joshua Koskoff of
Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder in Bridgeport, has called the claims on
Nancy Lanza's insurance policy "procedural."

"With this many claimants, the money ends up being a symbolic
gesture; but it serves as an important reminder that people who
keep firearms in the home must be scrupulous about securing their
weapons," Mr. Koskoff said.

Mr. Koskoff also represents many of the same families in a lawsuit
against Remington Outdoor Co., the distributor of the Bushmaster
rifle Lanza used.  In September, a Connecticut federal judge gave
plaintiffs a small victory when he decided to move the case back
to state court.  However, legal experts still expect attorneys for
the gun company to push to have the case dismissed under a federal
law that grant firearms manufacturers immunity from liability when
crimes are committed with their products.

Meanwhile, the families of two young victims have filed a lawsuit
against Newtown and the school board.  The 66-page wrongful death
lawsuit alleges that security measures at the school were not
adequate.


LGE COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION: "Tims" Action Hits Overdraft Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Tims, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LGE Community Credit Union, Defendant,
Case No. 1:15-cv-04279-CAP (M.D. Ga. Atlanta Division, December 9,
2015), seeks compensatory damages, recovery on all monies
wrongfully obtained from overdraft fees, enjoinment, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest as well as attorneys' fees resulting
from breach of contract, unjust enrichment and negligence in
violation of Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

Plaintiff claims that the Defendant unlawfully charged overdraft
fees for ATM and debit card transactions despite having money in
her account to cover the transactions.

Defendant is a state chartered credit union with its headquarters
located in Marietta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Adam Webb, Esq.
      G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
      WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
      1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Tel: (770) 444-9325
      Fax: (770) 444-0271
      Email: Adam@WebbLLC.com
             Franklin@WebbLLC.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


LIVE BROADBAND: Misclassifies Technicians, Texas Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Services reported that Live Broadband
misclassifies its technicians and installers as independent
contractors to stiff them for overtime, a class action claims in
Federal Court in Dallas.


LUMOS LABS: Lumosity to Pay $2MM to Settle FTC False Ad Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
The creators and marketers of the Lumosity "brain training"
program have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges
alleging that they deceived consumers with unfounded claims that
Lumosity games can help users perform better at work and in
school, and reduce or delay cognitive impairment associated with
age and other serious health conditions.

As part of the settlement, Lumos Labs, the company behind
Lumosity, will pay $2 million in redress and will notify
subscribers of the FTC action and provide them with an easy way to
cancel their auto-renewal to avoid future billing.

"Lumosity preyed on consumers' fears about age-related cognitive
decline, suggesting their games could stave off memory loss,
dementia, and even Alzheimer's disease," said Jessica Rich,
Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "But Lumosity
simply did not have the science to back up its ads."

According to the FTC's complaint, the Lumosity program consists of
40 games purportedly designed to target and train specific areas
of the brain. The company advertised that training on these games
for 10 to 15 minutes three or four times a week could help users
achieve their "full potential in every aspect of life." The
company sold both online and mobile app subscriptions, with
options ranging from monthly ($14.95) to lifetime ($299.95)
memberships.

Lumosity has been widely promoted though TV and radio
advertisements on networks including CNN, Fox News, the History
Channel, National Public Radio, Pandora, Sirius XM, and Spotify.
The defendants also marketed through emails, blog posts, social
media, and on their website, Lumosity.com, and used Google AdWords
to drive traffic to their website, purchasing hundreds of keywords
related to memory, cognition, dementia, and Alzheimer's disease,
according to the complaint.

The FTC alleges that the defendants claimed training with Lumosity
would

     1) improve performance on everyday tasks, in school, at
        work, and in athletics;

     2) delay age-related cognitive decline and protect against
        mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and Alzheimer's
        disease; and

     3) reduce cognitive impairment associated with health
        conditions, including stroke, traumatic brain injury,
        PTSD, ADHD, the side effects of chemotherapy, and Turner
        syndrome, and that scientific studies proved these
        benefits.

The complaint also charges the defendants with failing to disclose
that some consumer testimonials featured on the website had been
solicited through contests that promised significant prizes,
including a free iPad, a lifetime Lumosity subscription, and a
round-trip to San Francisco.

The proposed stipulated federal court order requires the company
and the individual defendants, co-founder and former CEO Kunal
Sarkar and co-founder and former Chief Scientific Officer Michael
Scanlon, to have competent and reliable scientific evidence before
making future claims about any benefits for real-world
performance, age-related decline, or other health conditions.

The order also imposes a $50 million judgment against Lumos Labs,
which will be suspended due to its financial condition after the
company pays $2 million to the Commission. The order requires the
company to notify subscribers who signed up for an auto-renewal
plan between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2014 about the FTC
action and to provide a means to cancel their subscription.

The Commission vote authorizing the filing of the complaint and
proposed stipulated order was 4-0, with Commissioner Julie Brill
issuing a separate concurring statement. The FTC filed the
complaint and proposed order in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

The FTC is a member of the National Prevention Council, which
provides coordination and leadership at the federal level
regarding prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices.
This case advances the National Prevention Council's goal of
increasing the number of Americans who are healthy at every stage
of life. This case is part of the FTC's ongoing efforts to protect
consumers from misleading health advertising.

NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it
has "reason to believe" that the law has been or is being
violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in
the public interest. A stipulated order has the force of law when
signed by the district court judge.


MAPLEBEAR INC: Faces Suit Alleging Misclassification of Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Sumerlin, Denice Sealy, Era Alta, Denisse Schwartz, Nicole
Crawford and Cordaro Sadder individuals, on behalf of themselves,
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. Maplebear
Inc., d/b/a Instacart, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC 603030 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles,
December 2, 2015), alleges that INSTACART has unlawfully, unfairly
and/or deceptively classified current and former employees as
"independent contractors."

INSTACART is a same-day grocery delivery company delivering
groceries and home essentials from a variety of local stores.
INSTACART is a new service that sends independent contractor
Delivery Drivers to pick-up and deliver groceries for their
customers, wherever their customers are. The Company provides a
delivery driver application and offers delivery services at
anywhere on demand.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
     Kyle R, Nordrehaug, Esq.
     Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
     BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
     2255 Calle Clara
     La Jolla, CA 9203
     Phone: (858)551-1223
     Fax: (858) 551-1232
     Web site: http://www.barolawca.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: "Jimenez" Action Seeks Minimum, OT Recovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Jimenez and Blanca Jimenez, individually on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. and
Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC603320 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles County, December 7, 2015), seeks unpaid minimum wages
and liquidated damages, unpaid overtime wages and statutory
penalties in relation to the Defendant's failure to provide rest
periods and wage statement, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
of suit in violation of the California Labor Code.

Plaintiffs worked in housekeeping and food and beverage service.

Marriott, a Delaware Corporation, is located at 5855 W. Century
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90045.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
      Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
      Kevin S. Conlogue, Esq.
      KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
      1850 SW 8th Street, Suite 307
      644 S. Figueroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Tel: (213) 217-5000
      Fax: (213)217-5010
      E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
              jhh@kbklawyers.com
              ksc@kbklawyers.com

           - and -

      Daniel Z. Srourian, Esq.
      SROURIAN LAW FIRM
      3440 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 915
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Tel: (310) 601-3131
      Fax: (310) 388-8444
      Email: daniel@slfla.com


MCCAUGHEY CONSUMER: Recalls Psoriasin Liquid Solutions
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 13, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55882

Out of specification result for potency during shelf life testing.

Affected products: Psoriasin Liquid
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02246974
Dosage form: Solution
Strength: 0.66% Coal Tar
Lot or serial number: 4877
                      4877A

Recalling Firm: McCaughey Consumer Products Management Inc.
                3365 Harvestor Road, Suite 204
                Burlington
                L7N 3N2
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Alva-Amco Pharmacal Companies
                                Inc.
                                7711 Merrimac Ave
                                Niles
                                60714
                                Illinois
                                UNITED STATES


NAZARETH CLASSIC: "Palominos" Suit Alleges Denial of Rest Periods
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Azucena P. Palominos, individually and on behalf of all current
and former employees of Defendants in the State of California, v.
Nazareth Classic Care Community, Inc., a California corporation,
and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case: CIV536397 (Cal. Super.,
County of San Mateo) November 30, 2015, alleges that Nazareth
denied its caregivers, medical technicians, and housekeepers rest
periods as required by California law.

Nazareth is a California corporation headquartered in San Mateo,
California.  Nazareth operates a facility located in Menlo Park.
The facility is 45-bed residential facility that provides memory
care services for persons with mid to high-level Alzheimer's or
dementia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert E. Camors Jr., Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF BOB CAMORS
     50 W. San Fernando Street, Suite 750
     San Jose, CA 95113
     Phone: (408) 573- 5745
     Fax: (408) 573- 5743

        - and -

     Daniel J. Muller, Esq.
     SLATER HERSEY & LIEBERMAN LLP
     160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1575
     San Jose, CA 95113
     Phone: (408) 512- 3022
     Fax: (408) 512- 3023
     E-mail: dmuller@slaterhersey.com


NEW YORK, NY: Destroyed Evidence in Quota Class Suit, Judge Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported
that, demonstrating "gross negligence," New York City destroyed
evidence in a class action concerning quotas that entangled
hundreds of thousands of black citizens, a federal judge in
Manhattan ruled.

If the case goes to trial, class counsel can now tell the jury
that the missing evidence would have been helpful to their case.

A 24-page opinion U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet details the
problems that have plagued the case ever since its filing roughly
six years ago.

East Harlem resident Sharif Stinson brought the lawsuit in 2010,
seeking to represent a class of potentially hundreds of thousands
of black New Yorkers accusing the New York City Police Department
of issuing 850,000 phony summonses in service of an
unconstitutional quota scheme.

New York City waited three years to begin preserving evidence.

Sweet on Jan. 5, 2016 called this delay "the first and most
egregious instance of gross negligence."

During the discovery process, Stinson's lawyers noticed what they
called a "stunning pattern" of missing evidence. The court
formally found that police "shredded" hard copies of records from
CompStat meetings and "destroyed" officer activity reports.

CompStat meetings involve senior police brass reviewing data to
make policy decisions, and use monthly activity reports to judge
the individual-officer performances.

Sweet also slammed the city for not preserving text messages and
failing to produce responsive documents, including ex-NYPD
Commissioner Ray Kelly's emails.

Late last year, Kelly insisted in a sworn declaration that it was
"never my practice" to use email or text messages to discuss any
"substantive communication."

His former chief of department, Joseph Esposito, signed a similar
statement claiming "it was never my practice to use email or text
messaging to communicate about topics like summonses, enforcement
activity, performance goals."

At the time, Stinson's lawyer Elinor Sutton from the firm Quinn
Emanuel called these statements "demonstrably false," and the city
indignantly replied in a brief that "Commissioner Kelly did not
commit perjury."

But Sweet found that the officials' alleged distaste for email was
"contradicted by emails that the plaintiffs have obtained through
other means."

"For instance, the plaintiffs attached a copy of a Sept. 27, 2010,
email from Commissioner Kelly's BlackBerry in which he approves
the transfer of a police officer from a precinct in Queens to one
in the Bronx, based in part on her having told two officers to
stop writing summonses," the opinion states.

Still, Sweet found that any allegation of perjury would be
"unsupported," and there was "no basis to conclude the city acted
in bad faith."

"The city's conduct shows a broad failure to take its preservation
obligations seriously rather than any deliberate attempt to lie or
mislead," Sweet added.

As a result, the court found the plaintiffs entitled to an
"inference that helpful evidence may have been lost, not relief
from their obligation to prove their case."

A New York City Law Department spokesman emphasized this finding
in a statement.

"While the court suggests that there may have been systemic
failures in preserving electronic and other communications, Judge
Sweet categorically dismisses any suggestion that either former
Commissioner Kelly or former Chief Esposito testified falsely as
to the matters in question," the spokesman said.

In a phone interview, Stinson's attorney Sutton applauded the
"severe consequences" the city will face.

"Plaintiffs are pleased to see that the federal court has ensured
that the defendants will face severe consequences for failing to
take their legal obligations seriously, especially in light of the
fact that this case concerns the constitutional rights of hundreds
of thousands of individuals," Sutton said. "Plaintiffs hope that
the court's decision will help ensure that relevant evidence is no
longer destroyed in future litigations concerning the NYPD.

The case is, Sharif Stinson, et al., Plaintiffs v. City of New
York, et al., 10 civ. 4228 (RW) (S.D.N.Y.).


NEW YORK: Group of Terminally Ill Patients Appeal Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
group of terminally ill patients seeking to block prosecution of
doctors who would aid them in dying is appealing a Manhattan
judge's decision to dismiss their lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in Myers v. Schneiderman, 151162/2015, which
include five medical professionals and the advocacy group End of
Life Choices New York, seek a declaration that physicians who
provide "aid-in-dying" service to mentally competent, terminally
ill patients are not criminally liable under existing state
statutes and an injunction to prohibit prosecution.

The plaintiffs are suing New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman and five New York district attorneys with
jurisdiction over the locations where the plaintiffs live and
practice.

"The patients seek to exercise control, avoid a loss of dignity
and reduce unbearable suffering as they approach death by
obtaining a prescription from their physicians for medication they
could ingest to achieve a peaceful death," the brief said.

The district attorneys are Janet DiFiore of Westchester County,
Sandra Doorley of Monroe County, Acting Saratoga County District
Attorney Karen Heggen, Robert Johnson of Bronx County and Cyrus
Vance Jr. of Manhattan.

The parties have entered into a stipulation that the DAs would be
bound by any result reached in litigation between the plaintiffs
and Mr. Schneiderman's office.

Under Penal Law Sec. 120.30, it is a class E felony, punishable by
up to four years in prison, to "promote a suicide attempt," which
is defined as intentionally causing or aiding another person to
commit suicide.  This section applies if the person does not die.
Under Sec. 125.15, the act of intentionally causing or aiding
another person to commit suicide, in which the person dies, is
classified as second-degree manslaughter, a class C felony
carrying a maximum prison sentence of 15 years.

On Oct. 16, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Kenney found for
the plaintiffs on the issue of standing but found for
Mr. Schneiderman and the district attorneys on the statutory
language issue.  The judge wrote that the court must avoid
"intrusion on the primary domain on another branch of government"
with respect to analyzing and enforcing the law, and that state
law pertaining to physician-assisted suicide is "clear and
concise," which negates the need for judicial review of the
statutes.

In their 26-page appeal, filed late in November with the Appellate
Division, First Department, the plaintiffs argued that Justice
Kenney failed to address their allegation that aid-in-dying is not
assisted suicide, and that it is indistinguishable from other
lawful medical practices such as terminal sedation, in which
patients are kept sedated while food and fluids are withheld from
them.

With regard to the state's laws on assisted suicide, the
plaintiffs asserted that Justice Kenney did not address in her
opinion if the statutes applied to aid-in-dying.  They also argued
that Justice Kenney did not address New York's "fundamental common
law right to self-determination with respect to one's body and to
control the course of his medical treatment".

"Although New York courts have not yet addressed the specific
question of whether aid-in-dying is a fundamental right, the
fundamental right to self-determination is certainly broad enough
to encompass aid-in-dying," the appeal stated.

Aid-in-dying is legal in the states of Oregon and Washington.
Assistant Attorney General Kathleen Dirks appeared for the
defendants at the trial level.  Mr. Schneiderman's office declined
to comment on the appeal.


NY LIFE INSURANCE: "Wittman" Action Alleges ERISA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Wittman, on behalf of the Voith Retirement Savings Plan
for Bargaining Unit Employees and all other similarly situated
ERISA-covered employee pension benefit plans, Plaintiff, v. New
York Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-09596
(S.D.N.Y., December 8, 2015), seeks equitable relief and damages
and as a result of breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiff alleges unfair discretion on the part of the Defendant
in determining the crediting rate by which retirement plan income
is invested into group annuity contracts. By setting the crediting
rate below its internal rate of return, it allegedly guarantees a
substantial profit for itself.

John W. Wittman is a participant in the Voith Retirement Savings
Plan for Bargaining Unit Employees.

New York Life Insurance Company is a legal reserve insurance
company authorized under the insurance laws of New York. Its
principal place of business is New York and sells group annuity
contracts to retirement plans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Barrett, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      I37 Betsy Brown Road
      Port Chester, NY 10571
      Tel: (646) 776-8580
      Email: kbarrett@baileyglasset.oom

           - and -

      Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
      Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      1054 3lst Street, NW
      Suite 230
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 463-2l0l
      Fax: (202) 463-2103
      Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com
             rjenny@baileyglasser.com

           - and -

      Robert A. Izard, Esq.
      Mark P Kindall
      IZARD NOBEL LLP
      29 South Main Street, Suite 305
      West Hartford, CT 06107
      Tel: (860) 493-6292
      Fax: (860) 493-6290
      Email: rizard@izardnoble.com
             mkindall@izardnoble.com


PANASONIC CORP: Non-Calif. Law Claims Tossed in Capacitor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco in dumped non-California law
claims from an antitrust class action accusing major tech firms of
conspiring to fix the prices of capacitors, a common component in
most electronic devices.

The consolidated class action stems in part from a complaint filed
by lead plaintiff Chip-Tech in July 2014 against a slew of
corporations including Panasonic, Hiatchi, Samsung, NEC, ROHM and
others.

In his Dec. 30 ruling, U.S. District Judge James Donato found
indirect buyers of capacitors lacked standing to sue over claims
arising from antitrust and consumer protection laws in 21 states
other than California.

The indirect buyers claimed one of their named plaintiffs, the
liquidating trustee of the now-bankrupt Circuit City Stores,
received deliveries of price-fixed capacitors in 21 states and
therefore established standing to sue.

But Donato found the capacitors were actually purchased in
Virginia and receiving deliveries of price-fixed goods is not
enough to establish Article III standing.

The judge ruled that two individual indirect buyer plaintiffs
residing in other states failed to establish standing as well
because there was no evidence that they bought a product
containing a price-fixed capacitor.

"Merely living in a state, even one where price-fixing conduct
occurred, is not a basis for standing if the plaintiff did not
actually pay a supracompetitive price there for the accused
product," Donato wrote in his 19-page ruling. "Standing does not
arise simply because illegality is in the air."

The judge also refused to grant Hitachi Chemical Co. America's
motion to dismiss indirect buyer claims, finding the plaintiffs
adequately alleged the company was established "to effectuate and
achieve the cartel's aims and purposes" for the benefit of its
Japanese parent firm.

Specifically, the plaintiffs obtained evidence through discovery
that showed a Hitachi corporate officer represented the interests
of the "entire corporate family" in meetings with companies taking
part in the conspiracy, according to the ruling.

Donato also rejected an additional five motions to dismiss the
direct buyers' consolidated class action brought by Hitachi
Chemical Co. America, AVX Corporation, Holy Stone Enterprises,
Milestone Global Technology and Shizuki Electric.

However, the judge did dismiss one defendant, American Shizuki
Corporation, from the direct buyers' class action, finding
allegations against the American subsidiary were "too paltry."
American Shuziki's motion to dismiss was granted with leave for
plaintiffs to amend.

The indirect buyers were given until Jan. 27 to file an amended
complaint to fix standing issues with their non-California state
law claims against the defendants.

A hearing on class certification motions has been scheduled for
July 20, 2016.

Panasonic and other technology firms are also fighting similar
antitrust class actions for their alleged roles in conspiracies to
fix the prices of lithium ion batteries and electronic.

The case is, In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation No. 14-cv-
03264-JD (N.D. Cal.).  A copy of the Court's December 30, 2015
ruling is available at http://is.gd/t64Mpmfrom Leagle.com.

Chip-Tech, Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by C. Andrew Dirksen, Cera
LLP, Joseph J. DePalma, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Solomon B.
Cera, Cera LLP, Steven J. Greenfogel, Lite DePalma Greenburg, LLC,
Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Daniel R. Karon,
Karon LLC, Eric L. Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., James W
Anderson, Heins Mills Olson, P.L.C., James Gerard Beebe Dallal,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Jason Scott Hartley, Stueve Siegel Hanson,
LLP, Jessica N. Servais, Heins Mills and Olson, P.L.C., Michael C
Dell'Angelo, IV, Ruthanne Gordon, Berger & Montague PC, Ryan James
McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Vincent J. Esades, Heins
Mills & Olson, P.L.C. & Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm,
Inc..

Dependable Component Supply Corp., Plaintiff, represented by C.
Andrew Dirksen, Cera LLP, Solomon B. Cera, Cera LLP, Steven J.
Greenfogel, Lite DePalma Greenburg, LLC, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Michael C Dell'Angelo, IV & William Henry
London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC.

In Home Tech Solutions, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth
R. Odette, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M Silton,
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P, Alexander Dewitt Singh Kullar, Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez Smith LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP & Gabriel Dash Zeldin,
Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez Smith LLP.

Everett Ellis, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc., Anne Elizabeth
Smith, Shaffer Lombardo Shurin, Kathleen Kopach Woods, Shaffer
Lombardo Shurin, Richard Lombardo, Shaffer Lombardo Shurin &
William Robert Pointer, II, Duncan Firm.

Fredrick P. Hege, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

Mike Fisher, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

Michael W. Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

Jane Schmit, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

Johnny Walker, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

John E. McDowell, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

Marta Michaud, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

Timothy Duffy, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

Sean G. Tarjoto, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

Todd Stowater, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

David C. Keller, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

Jamie Thaemert, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

Scot Dunlap, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

Scott Huffman, Plaintiff, represented by Brett Ashley Emison,
Langdon Emison, Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie
Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc. & James Kent Emison, Langdon and
Emison.

Charles Rusher, Plaintiff, represented by Brett Ashley Emison,
Langdon Emison, Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie
Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc. & James Kent Emison, Langdon and
Emison.

Jennifer Rusher, Plaintiff, represented by Brett Ashley Emison,
Langdon Emison, Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie
Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc. & James Kent Emison, Langdon and
Emison.

David Standridge, Plaintiff, represented by Brett Ashley Emison,
Langdon Emison, Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie
Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc. & James Kent Emison, Langdon and
Emison.

Troy Gibson, Plaintiff, represented by Brett Ashley Emison,
Langdon Emison, Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie
Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc. & James Kent Emison, Langdon and
Emison.

Garth Russell, M.D., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

BHRAC, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

Beverly Hills Leasing LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

Cetacea Sound, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

Computing Solutions, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

Gossett Motor Cars, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc., Daniel
Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc.,
Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro
Davis, Inc., Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson
Shapiro Davis, Inc., Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie
Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc., Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson
Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc., Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc., Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc. & Daniel
Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

WE 3 Gossett, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc., Daniel
Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc.,
Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro
Davis, Inc. & Daniel Stewart Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson
Shapiro Davis, Inc..

Autorama, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc..

eIQ Energy Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Austin B Cohen, Levin
Fishbein Sedran and Berman, Howard J Sedran, Levin Fishbein Sedran
and Berman, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Keith
J Verrier, Levin Fishbein Sedran and Berman, Ria C. Momblanco,
Fine Kaplan and Black, R.P.C. & Roberta D. Liebenberg, Fine Kaplan
and Black, RPC.

Toy-Knowlogy Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Eric B. Fastiff,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP & Steven Noel Williams,
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP.

CAE SOUND, Plaintiff, represented by Cadio R. Zirpoli, Saveri &
Saveri, Inc., Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Matthew
Dickinson Heaphy, Saveri and Saveri, Steven Noel Williams,
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP & Travis Luke Manfredi, Saveri and
Saveri Inc.

Michael Brooks, Plaintiff, represented by Guido Saveri, Saveri &
Saveri, Inc., Matthew Dickinson Heaphy, Saveri and Saveri, Richard
Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Travis Luke Manfredi,
Saveri and Saveri Inc & Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine.

Steve Wong, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Wing Lee, Minami Tamaki
LLP & Daniel R. Shulman, Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett,
P.A..

David A Bennett, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Michael
Schack, Law Offices of Alexander M. Schack.

Walker Component Group, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Christina
H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP &
Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc..

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Adam John
Zapala, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Elizabeth Tran, Cotchett,
Pitre and McCarthy, Steven Noel Williams, Cotchett Pitre &
McCarthy LLP, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C.
Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Joseph C Bourne, Gustafson Gluek
PLLC & Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc..

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph R.
Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Alfred Luke Smith, Radice
Law Firm PC, Daniel R. Karon, Karon LLC, James Gerard Beebe
Dallal, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Jason Scott Hartley, Stueve Siegel
Hanson, LLP, John Daniel Radice, Radice Law Firm, Kenneth Bruce
Pickle, Jr., Radice Law Firm, PC & Matthew Sinclair Weiler, Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Inc..

Flextronics International USA, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Charles E. Tompkins, Williams, Montgomery & John, Ltd., Jordan D.
Shea, Williams Montgomery & John Ltd., Paul James Ripp, Williams
Montgomery John Ltd., Anthony J. Geroulis O'Neill, Williams
Montgomery and John Ltd., Eric Richard Lifvendahl, Williams
Montgomery and John Ltd. & Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Block &
Leviton LLP.

Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn
LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Ian L Papendick,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn
LLP, Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Mollie C
Richardson, Winston and Strawn LLP & Molly Donovan, Winston &
Strawn LLP.

PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, A. Paul Victor, Winston
& Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Ian L
Papendick, Winston & Strawn LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston
and Strawn LLP, Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP,
Mollie C Richardson, Winston and Strawn LLP & Molly Donovan,
Winston & Strawn LLP.

Sanyo Electric Group, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn
LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Ian L Papendick,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Mollie C Richardson, Winston and Strawn LLP
& Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP.

Sanyo Electronic Device (U.S.A.) Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, A. Paul
Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Ian L Papendick, Winston & Strawn LLP, Mollie C Richardson,
Winston and Strawn LLP & Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP.

Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock,
Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher J. Cox, Weil Gotshal &
Manges, David Ramraj Singh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Steven
A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP & David Ramraj Singh, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges LLP.

Taiyo Yuden (USA) Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock,
Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher J. Cox, Weil Gotshal &
Manges, David Ramraj Singh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Steven
A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP & David Ramraj Singh, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges LLP.

NEC Tokin Corporation, Defendant, represented by George Arnold
Nicoud, III, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Austin Van Schwing,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Eli Martin Lazarus, Gibson, Dunn and
Crutcher LLP & Matthew Cameron Parrott, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher
LLP.

NEC Tokin America, Inc., Defendant, represented by George Arnold
Nicoud, III, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Austin Van Schwing,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Eli Martin Lazarus, Gibson, Dunn and
Crutcher LLP & Matthew Cameron Parrott, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher
LLP.

KEMET Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jacob R. Sorensen,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Lindsay A. Lutz, Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman & Roxane Alicia Polidora, Pillsbury Winthrop
Shaw Pittman LLP.

KEMET Electronics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jacob R.
Sorensen, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Lindsay A. Lutz,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman & Roxane Alicia Polidora,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

Nippon Chemi-con Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph J.
Bial, Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP & Steven Shea Kaufhold,
Kaufhold Gaskin LLP.

Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Chul Pak,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Edmundo Clay Marquez,
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Jeffrey C. Bank, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich
and Rosati, Jonathan M. Jacobson, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati, Justin Andrew Cohen, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati &
Jeffrey James VanHooreweghe, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Nichicon Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel William
Fox, K&L Gates LLP, John Edward Susoreny, Lauren Nicole Norris &
Michael Edward Martinez, K&L Gates LLP.

Nichicon (America) Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel
William Fox, K&L Gates LLP, John Edward Susoreny, Lauren Nicole
Norris, Lauren Britt Salins, Michael Edward Martinez, K&L Gates
LLP, Scott M Mendel & Steven M Kowal.

AVX Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bruce Douglas Sokler,
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, Evan Nadel, Mintz Levin
& Stephen Michael Chippendale, McKenna Long and Aldridge LLP.

Rubycon Corporation, Defendant, represented by Djordje Petkoski,
Hunton and Williams LLP, David Higbee, Hunton and Williams LLP,
Leslie Kostyshak, Hunton amd Williams LLP, Michael Brett Burns,
Hunton and Williams, LLP, Robert A. Caplen, Hunton and Williams
LLP & Wendell L Taylor, Hunton and Williams LLP.

Rubycon America Inc., Defendant, represented by Djordje Petkoski,
Hunton and Williams LLP, David Higbee, Hunton and Williams LLP,
Leslie Kostyshak, Hunton amd Williams LLP, Michael Brett Burns,
Hunton and Williams, LLP, Robert A. Caplen, Hunton and Williams
LLP & Wendell L Taylor, Hunton and Williams LLP.

Elna Co. Ltd., Defendant, represented by Alanna Gayle Buchanan,
WilmerHale, Christopher Matthew Megaw, Erik Chiles Shallman,
Wilmer Hale, Heather S. Tewksbury, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, Stacy Elizabeth Frazier, Wilmer Hale & Thomas
Mueller, WilmerHale.

Elna America Inc., Defendant, represented by Alanna Gayle
Buchanan, WilmerHale, Christopher Matthew Megaw, Erik Chiles
Shallman, Wilmer Hale, Heather S. Tewksbury, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Stacy Elizabeth Frazier, Wilmer Hale
& Thomas Mueller, WilmerHale.

Matsuo Electric Co, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Felix T. Woo,
Sonnenschein Nath et al & Bonnie Lau, Dentons US LLP.

Toshin Kogyo Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Kenji Kasahara,
Representative Director of Toshin Kogyo Co., LTD.

Samsung Electro-Mechanics, a South Korean corporation, Defendant,
represented by Derek Ludwin, One CityCenter & Anita Fern Stork,
Esq., Covington & Burling LLP.

Samsung Electro Mechanics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Derek Ludwin, One CityCenter & Anita Fern Stork, Esq., Covington &
Burling LLP.

Rohm Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Michael Frederick
Tubach, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Rohm Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth
Ryan O'Rourke, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Michael Frederick Tubach,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

United Chemi-con Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles F.
Rule, Cadwalader Wickersham and Taft LLP, Daniel J. Howley,
Cadwalader Wickersham and Taft LLP, Joseph J. Bial, Cadwalader
Wickersham & Taft LLP & Steven Shea Kaufhold, Kaufhold Gaskin LLP.

Hitachi Chemical Company America, Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Chul Pak, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, Edmundo Clay
Marquez, O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Jeffrey C. Bank, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich and Rosati, Jonathan M. Jacobson, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich
& Rosati, Justin Andrew Cohen, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati &
Jeffrey James VanHooreweghe, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Hitachi AIC Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Edmundo Clay
Marquez, O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Jonathan M. Jacobson, Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Justin Andrew Cohen, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich Rosati.

TDK Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP.

Soshin Electronics of America Inc., Defendant, represented by
David Hugh Stern, Hughes Hubbard Reed LLP, Ethan E. Litwin, Hughes
Hubbard & Reed LLP, Morgan J Feder, Hughes Hubbard and Reed LLP &
Sigrid Ursula Jernudd, Hughes, Hubbard and Reed LLP.

Soshin Electric Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by David Hugh
Stern, Hughes Hubbard Reed LLP, Ethan E. Litwin, Hughes Hubbard &
Reed LLP, Morgan J Feder, Hughes Hubbard and Reed LLP & Sigrid
Ursula Jernudd, Hughes, Hubbard and Reed LLP.

Nissei Electronic Co. LTD., Defendant, represented by Helen Huang
Yang, Squire Sanders US LLP.

Nitsuko Electronics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ashley
Marie Bauer, Latham & Watkins LLP & Belinda S Lee, Latham &
Watkins.

Shinyei Corporation of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Gaspare J. Bono, Dentons US LLP, Andrew S. Azarmi, Dentons US LLP,
Claire M Maddox, McKenna Long and Aldridge LLP, Eric Yu-Dar Wu,
Dentons US LLP & Stephen Michael Chippendale, McKenna Long and
Aldridge LLP.

Shinyei Capacitor Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Gaspare J.
Bono, Dentons US LLP, Andrew S. Azarmi, Dentons US LLP, Claire M
Maddox, McKenna Long and Aldridge LLP, Eric Yu-Dar Wu, Dentons US
LLP & Stephen Michael Chippendale, McKenna Long and Aldridge LLP.

Shinyei Kaisha, Defendant, represented by Gaspare J. Bono, Dentons
US LLP, Andrew S. Azarmi, Dentons US LLP, Claire M Maddox, McKenna
Long and Aldridge LLP, Eric Yu-Dar Wu, Dentons US LLP & Stephen
Michael Chippendale, McKenna Long and Aldridge LLP.

Taitsu America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron R Gott &
Jarod Michael Bona, Bona Law PC.

Taitsu Corporation, Defendant, represented by Aaron R Gott & Jarod
Michael Bona, Bona Law PC.

Okaya Electric America Inc., Defendant, represented by Darrell
Prescott, Baker and McKenzie LLP, Catherine Yunie Stillman, Baker
McKenzie LLP, Colin H. Murray, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Meghan
Elizabeth Hausler, Baker and McKenzie LLP & Michael B Atkins,
Baker and McKenzie LLP.

Okaya Electric Industries Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Darrell Prescott, Baker and McKenzie LLP, Catherine Yunie
Stillman, Baker McKenzie LLP, Colin H. Murray, Baker & McKenzie
LLP, Meghan Elizabeth Hausler, Baker and McKenzie LLP & Michael B
Atkins, Baker and McKenzie LLP.

Vishay Polytech Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Alan
LeVee, Jones Day & Rachel Hadass Zernik, Jones Day.

HolyStone International, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Alan
LeVee, Jones Day & Rachel Hadass Zernik, Jones Day.

Holy Stone Enterprise Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
Alan LeVee, Jones Day & Rachel Hadass Zernik, Jones Day.

FPCAP Electronics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Daniel William Fox, K&L Gates LLP & Scott M Mendel.

Fujitsu Components America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul
T. Friedman, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Jeffrey A Jaeckel, Morrison
and Foerster LLP & Michael P. Kniffen, Morrison Foerster LLP.

Sanyo North America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Ian L Papendick, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP &
Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP.

Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Paul T. Friedman, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Jeffrey A Jaeckel,
Morrison and Foerster LLP & Michael P. Kniffen, Morrison Foerster
LLP.

SANYO Electric Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Ian L Papendick, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP & Matthew
Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP.

Milestone Global Technology, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey Alan LeVee, Jones Day, Eric Patrick Enson, JONES DAY &
Rachel Hadass Zernik, Jones Day.

Shizuki Electric Co., Ltd, Defendant, represented by Allison Ann
Davis, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Nick Steven Verwolf, Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP & Sanjay Mohan Nangia, Davis Wright Tremaine
LLP.

American Shizuki Corporation, Defendant, represented by Allison
Ann Davis, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Nick Steven Verwolf, Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP & Sanjay Mohan Nangia, Davis Wright Tremaine
LLP.

Shizuki Electric Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Allison Ann
Davis, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

Quathimatine Holdings, Inc., Movant, represented by Todd Anthony
Seaver, Berman DeValerio.

Schuten Electronics, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Brent
W Johnson, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, Kit A. Pierson,
Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC & Matthew W Ruan, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll.

Top Floor Home Improvements, Interested Party, represented by
Christopher L. Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, represented by Jacklin Chou
Lem, United States Department of Justice & Howard J. Parker, U.S.
Dept. of Justice.


PARAGON CONTRACTORS: Accused of Child Labor by Federal Lawyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Whitehurst, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a Utah contracting company frequently used kids from a polygamous
group as unpaid workers on a pecan farm during school hours,
according to federal labor lawyers pushing back against the
company's contention that the hours were legal because the kids
were home-schooled.

The U.S. Labor Department attorneys argue in new court documents
that children worked long days harvesting nuts for years, and also
did pruning, trimming and watering of the trees and cleaning of
the fields.

"Instead of going to school, hundreds -- if not over one thousand
-- of children were performing the duties related to Paragon's
contract," federal labor lawyers say in court documents.  "Some
children were taken out of school to perform these duties on a
year-round basis to prepare the ranch for the harvest.  Other
children were taken out of school for weeks at a time to perform
these duties during the actual harvest."

The agency wants a judge to order Paragon Contractors to pay back
wages and stop the practices described by alleged former child
workers and captured by news cameras during a harvest in 2012.  A
hearing in the case is set for Jan. 25.

Paragon denies doing anything wrong.  They say that the harvest
manager invited families from the group led by Warren Jeffs to
gather nuts left on the ground after the mechanized harvest was
done and keep half of what they gathered for their own use.

They have said the work wasn't forced, and the women and children
were not employees.

Farm work is generally exempt from child labor laws in Utah as
long as it's done outside of school hours, and Paragon says the
2012 pecan harvest can't be considered a school day because
children in the group are homeschooled and minors who worked on
the farm were with their parents.

Federal attorneys disagree.  In court documents filed on Dec. 22,
they say that under the law, it doesn't matter whether the
children were taught at home, they still shouldn't have been
working during public school hours.

A lawyer for Paragon didn't immediately return messages on Dec. 24
seeking additional comment.

Pointing to sworn statements from adults who say they worked on
the farm when they were children, the government says children as
young as 6 years old worked on the ranch for long hours, got sick
from crawling over the damp ground and were sent to work with the
nuts even if were allergic

Federal lawyers say the company violated a 2007 order involving
underage labor and should be held in contempt for failing to pay
1,400 workers -- including 175 children -- who worked at the
direction of church leaders who told parents to take days off from
homeschooling during the 2012 harvest.

Paragon and several members of the polygamous group have already
been fined a total of $1.9 million after a labor investigation
found that sect leaders directed the harvest that took place in
Hurricane, about 300 miles south of Salt Lake City.

Authorities say those leaders are loyal to Warren Jeffs, who is
serving a life prison sentence in Texas after being convicted in
2011 of sexually assaulting underage girls he considered brides.
Members of his sect, a radical offshoot of mainstream Mormonism,
believe polygamy brings exaltation in heaven.

Polygamy is a legacy of the early teachings of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints.  However, the mainstream church and
its 15 million members worldwide abandoned the practice more than
a century ago.


PARKER PLASTICS: "Voils" Action Seeks OT Recovery
-------------------------------------------------
James Voils, Gary Huffman, Pamela Crossno, Terry Grider,
individually, all on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Parker Plastics, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00691-GKF-PJC (N.D. Okla., December 7,
2015), seeks recovery of unpaid wages, unpaid 401(k) contributions
and premium overtime wages, along with appropriate liquidated
damages, attorney fees, and costs of the suit pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Oklahoma Protection of Labor Act.

Huffman and Voils worked as forklift operators. Crossno works as a
bottle inspector and/or packer. Grider works as a material
handler. They allege the Defendant for downward adjustment of
their time card, thus not showing overtime.

Parker Plastics, Inc. is an Oklahoma domestic corporation with its
principal place of business in Sand Springs, Tulsa County,
Oklahoma. It is a custom plastic blow molding company for custom
packaging solutions. Parker Plastics operates four manufacturing
facilities in Sand Springs, Oklahoma, Hagerstown, Maryland,
Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin and Las Vegas, Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael C. Redman, Esq.
      NEUENS MITCHELL BONDS, PLLC
      2021 S. Lewis Ave., Ste. 660
      Tulsa, OK 74104
      Tel: (918) 749-9334
           (918) 388-1704
      Fax: (918) 749-9335
      Email: mredman@neuensmitchell.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Jury Awards $35 Million to Smoker's Widower
----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Kay, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
Miami-Dade jury has awarded $35 million to the husband of a Miami
woman who died of lung cancer after smoking for 41 years.

The verdict is the fourth multimillion-dollar tobacco verdict
obtained by lead counsel Gary Paige of Gordon & Doner of Davie
this year and his second largest.  His co-counsel were Adam Trop
of Trop Law Group in Fort Lauderdale and David J. Sales of David
J. Sales of West Palm Beach, with Robert Philipson of Legal-eze
Litigation Consulting and Graphics in Fort Lauderdale assisting on
jury and witness consulting.

The verdict, handed down Dec. 22, came after an approximately
three-week trial.  One of the Engle Progeny cases, it included $10
million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive
damages -- $12.5 million against Philip Morris USA Inc. and $12.5
million against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Jurors attributed 6
percent fault to the decedent, Patricia Mary Ledoux.

The case was filed by Ledoux's husband, Miami resident Roland
Ledoux, in 2007.

"Mr. Ledoux waited a long time to get his day in court," Paige
said in a statement.  "This verdict proves that corporations must
be held accountable for their lies and deceit no matter how long
they are able to conceal them."

Ledoux began smoking at the age of 14 and died at 55, just months
after being diagnosed with small cell lung cancer.  According to
plaintiff lawyers, she unsuccessfully tried to quit smoking for
many years using nicotine gum, a nicotine patch, hypnosis and
other means.  She also switched to filtered and light cigarettes
based on reassurances from the industry that they were safer.
Ledoux, a mother of twins, worked in the airline industry.

Testifying for the plaintiffs in addition to Roland Ledoux were a
Stanford University historian who testified about the tobacco
industry's conspiracy to hide the health hazards of cigarettes and
an addiction expert who testified about the strong addictive
nature of cigarettes.

The defense only called two witnesses to the stand--an addiction
expert who testified that Ledoux was not addicted to cigarettes
and corporate representatives from each tobacco company who
testified that the companies have changed, are now regulated by
the FDA and now inform users the product is addictive.

Jurors answered affirmatively that Ledoux was addicted to
cigarettes and they caused her lung cancer and ultimate death, and
that the companies conspired to fraudulently conceal the health
hazards of smoking.

"We now know filters and lights were a marketing ploy dreamt up by
marketing executives to sell cigarettes," Mr. Trop said.  "It took
public health nearly 50 years to discover that they were no safer
and in fact are more dangerous.  Their fraud and concealment cost
Mrs. Ledoux her life -- this should never have happened."

Defense lawyers Jonathan Stern of Arnold & Porter in Washington
and Ursula Henninger of King & Spalding of Charlotte did not
return calls for comment.  Philip Morris USA declined comment.
The plaintiffs expect an appeal.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beatrice Butchko presided over the case.


PHILIP MORRIS: Pa. High Court Denies Appeal of Settlement Changes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lizzy McLellan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has denied the appeal of a lower
court's ruling that modified a partial settlement agreement
between several states and tobacco companies in a way that saved
Pennsylvania about $126 million.

The justices denied allocatur Dec. 23 in Commonwealth v. Philip
Morris USA.

In April, a five-member en banc panel of the Commonwealth Court
unanimously affirmed a trial court's determination that an
arbitration panel had exceeded its authority when it allowed
several states and tobacco companies to enter into a partial
settlement, modifying the requirements of a master settlement in
which the companies agreed to pay the states billions of dollars.

The Commonwealth Court's ruling affirmed a trial court decision
invalidating the partial settlement and affirmed the trial court's
modification of the partial settlement, which reduced
Pennsylvania's financial burden from $242 million to $116 million.

While much of the arguments in the case had focused on the
standard of review that the trial court needed to follow, Judge
Robert Simpson, who wrote the court's opinion, said the case came
down to an essence test regarding whether the partial settlement
derived from the initial global settlement agreement.

"Under any standard of review, the trial court properly modified
the partial settlement award because the panel exceeded its
authority under the MSA," Judge Simpson said.

According to Judge Simpson, in 1998, 52 states and territories
entered into a "master settlement" to end litigation against the
tobacco industry for recovery of health care costs.  Not all
tobacco companies participated in the settlement, Judge Simpson
said.

Under the settlement agreement, the participating companies agreed
to make annual payments to an independent auditor who would then
allocate the payments to the states.  The payment to the auditor
in 2003 was $6.4 billion, and Pennsylvania was allocated about
$370 million, according to Judge Simpson.

Under the master settlement, the payment is subject to an
adjustment determined by lost market share the participating
tobacco companies suffer due to their compliance with the master
settlement.  However, according to the settlement terms, states
are exempt from paying toward the adjustment if, during the year
at issue, the state "diligently enforced" a qualified statute that
neutralizes the cost disadvantages for the participating
companies.  The non-diligent states then split the adjustment
payment, according to Judge Simpson.

Starting in 2003, disputes arose regarding the payments.  In that
year, the companies sought a $1.1 billion adjustment that the
states rejected.

While some states submitted to arbitration, Pennsylvania, which
was eventually determined to be a "non-diligent" state, refused.

In November 2012, the tobacco companies and 19 states reached a
partial agreement over the payments from 2003 through 2012.
However, because this agreement increased the burden for "non-
diligent," non-settling states, Pennsylvania and other states
objected to the partial settlement.

The settling parties filed a proposed stipulated partial award
with an arbitration panel.  The arbitration panel entered a
partial settlement award that included directing the auditor to
treat the settling states as "diligent."

In November 2013, Pennsylvania filed a motion with the trial court
to vacate the final award and partial settlement.


PITTMAN CONSULTANTS: "Mosley" Action Seeks OT Recovery
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mosley, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pittman Consultants Inc. and Michael
Pittman, individually, Defendants, Case No.: CV 1:15-cv-15-04247
(N.D. Ga., Atlanta Division, December 7, 2015), seeks recovery of
unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act Sec. 216(b).

Plaintiff worked as a dishwasher and baker for the Defendants and
claims to have rendered at least 60-72 hours per work week without
overtime premium in excess of 40 hours.

Defendants own and operate three bakeries under the trade name
Martha's Country Bakery with George Stertsios, Antonio Zannikos
and George Doulias as owners and 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


PROFESSIONAL RODEO: Cowboys May Compete in Events, Judge Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
cowboys who formed a rival rodeo association may compete in events
sanctioned by the allegedly monopolistic Professional Rodeo
Cowboys Association, for the next six weeks anyway, a federal
judge in Dallas ruled.

The newly formed Elite Rodeo Association and rodeo athletes Trevor
Bazile, Bobby Mote and Ryan Motes filed an antitrust class action
against the PRCA in November last year. They claim the PRCA
quickly enacted bylaws banning ERA athletes from competing in
PRCA-sanctioned events after ERA was formed.

The ERA's first season begins this year and will culminate in a
World Championship Rodeo at the American Airlines Center in
downtown Dallas in November.

"PRCA's message is clear: If you want to compete in PRCA-
sanctioned rodeos, it's the PRCA way or the highway," the 40-page
complaint stated. "The PRCA bylaw is intended to force members to
make a Hobson's choice: i.e., to participate in any PRCA-
sanctioned rodeos, a rodeo athlete must do so exclusively and stop
participating in any ERA rodeo. PRCA is bullying its own
membership into toeing the PRCA line by threatening any member who
wants to be involved in ERA with being locked out of PRCA rodeos."

On Jan. 5, U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn ordered that all
members of the proposed class can compete in PRCA-sanctioned
events until Feb. 12, regardless of whether they were issued
current PRCA membership.

According to the 3-page order, the PRCA agreed to the interim
inclusion of plaintiff class members after a Dec. 29 hearing on
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against their
exclusion from PRCA events. Lynn has yet to rule on that motion,
according to court records.

The interim inclusion of the plaintiff class members does not
include events in the PRCA's Wrangler Champions Challenge events.
In the event the plaintiffs' motion is denied, the PRCA
competitions in which class members participate will not count for
prize money or PRCA rankings, the order states.

The plaintiffs say they want to co-exist with PRCA, and compare
their group to smaller regional rodeo associations and to the
successful Professional Bull Riders sanctioning body, formed in
the early 1990s by the top 20 PRCA bull riders at the time.

The PRCA describes itself as the largest and oldest rodeo-
sanctioning body in the world. It holds more than 600 multiple-
event rodeos per year. The plaintiffs contend they have been
longtime, loyal, dues-paying members of the PRCA. They claim there
is no legitimate or competitive reason for the PRCA's new bylaws.

"No other sport threatens to kick out its top athletes and
voluntarily chooses to lose revenue from those athletes in the
form of membership fees and all other forms of revenue from fan
and sponsorship interest," the complaint states. "The PRCA's new
bylaws only serve to hurt the sport by reducing output as ERA will
add events, fans, sponsorships, and television interest to rodeo
in the United States now and in the future."

PRCA spokesman Jim Bainbridge said in November that the group will
"vigorously defend its position" in the dispute.


PS CONTRACTING: Sued by Workers at NYCHA Public Works Projects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blendi Agolli and Percy Bonilla, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated who were employed by PS
Contracting of NJ Inc., Technico Construction Services Inc. and/or
any other entities affiliated with or controlled by Ps Contracting
of NJ Inc., and/or Technico Construction Services Inc., v. Ps
Contracting of NJ Inc., Technico Construction Services, Inc., and
John Doe Bonding Company, Index No. 162351/2015 (Super. N.Y.,
County of New York, December 2, 2015), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid prevailing wages and/or supplemental benefits and unpaid
overtime wages for persons who provided services at the New York
City Housing Authority Public Works Projects.

PS Contracting of NJ Inc. primarily operates in the non-
residential Construction.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
     VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
     40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
     New York, New York 10004
     Phone: (212) 943-9080


PURDUE PHARMA: To Pay $24MM Over Misleading OxyContin Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Beam, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
maker of OxyContin will pay Kentucky $24 million over the next
eight years as part of the settlement of a long-running lawsuit
that accused the company of misleading the public about the
addictiveness of the powerful prescription drug.

The state first filed the lawsuit against Purdue Pharma in 2007.
The Connecticut-based company has had FDA approval since 1995 to
market OxyContin, a type of opioid that can relieve pain and has
similar qualities to the illegal drug heroin.

Kentucky officials accused Purdue Pharma of marketing the
prescription painkiller as nonaddictive because it was a pill
that, when swallowed, slowly released the drug over 12 hours.
However, users soon discovered if they crushed the pill the drug
lost its time release qualities and created an instant high.

State officials said that led to a wave of addiction and increased
medical costs across the state, particularly in eastern Kentucky
where many injured coal miners were prescribed the drug.  Former
Attorney General Greg Stumbo, who filed the lawsuit in 2007, said
the case could be worth as much as $1 billion if it ever got in
front of a jury.

Purdue Pharma replaced the drug with a new version in 2010 that
deters abuse.

Conway, a Democrat who leaves office next month, said in a news
release the case was "still facing significant legal issues." The
state Supreme Court was still considering whether Purdue Pharma
missed a deadline to dispute the facts of the case.  That
decision, if awarded in Kentucky's favor, would greatly help the
state wins the case.

In 2007, Conway said Purdue Pharma offered Kentucky $500,000 to
settle the lawsuit.  The state refused.

"Purdue Pharma created havoc in Kentucky, and I am glad it will be
held accountable," Conway said in a news release.  "Purdue lit a
fire of addiction with OxyContin that spread across this state,
and Kentucky is still reeling from its effects."

The agreement says Purdue Pharma will pay Kentucky $12 million
followed by another $12 million over the next eight years. The
court ordered the state to spend the money on addiction treatment
programs

Purdue Pharma did not admit any wrongdoing in the settlement
agreement.

Purdue Pharma General Counsel Philip C. Strassburger said in a
news release the company has focused on reducing the abuse of
prescription opioids for the past 10 years.  He said the
settlement allows the company to "focus on bringing innovative
abuse-deterrent medicines to patients and our other efforts to
combat prescription drug abuse and overuse."

Also on Dec. 23, Conway announced a $15.5 million settlement with
Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceuticals.
Janssen makes Risperdal, an antipsychotic prescription drug used
to treat schizophrenia and acute mania associated with bipolar
disorder.  The lawsuit accuses the companies of marketing the drug
without disclosing its side effects.

Janssen agreed to pay Kentucky $15.5 million.  The company did not
admit wrongdoing.


QUINN EMANUEL: Attorney Loses Overtime Class Action Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that an
attorney hired on a temporary contract basis to review documents
at a law firm is not entitled to overtime pay because his work
involved using his judgment as a lawyer, a federal judge has
ruled.

William Henig sought overtime pay from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan under the Fair Labor Standards Act, saying he did no more
than review 13,000 documents for whether they were, or were not,
responsive to a discovery request.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, law
firms are exempt from the requirement to pay overtime, but
Mr. Henig said he was not engaged in the practice of law during
his two-month stint at Quinn Emanuel as he was not required to
exercise legal judgment and was simply engaged in the mundane
tagging of documents on the firm's Document Review Project.

But Southern District Judge Ronnie Abrams granted summary judgment
to Quinn Emanuel in the putative class action of Henig v. Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, 13-cv-1432, commenting that "Not all
of [mass document review] is law at its grandest but all of it is
the practice of law.  Mr. Henig was engaged in that practice."

In 2012, Mr. Henig was placed with Quinn Emanuel by the legal
staffing company Providus New York.  His job, with the firm's
"First Level Review Team," paid him $35 an hour, with 57-60 hour
weeks and he was expected to review 50 to 60 documents an hour.
After brief orientation and a slide show presentation, he said,
all he had to do was tag documents "responsive" or "non-
responsive," a determination that depended solely on terms or
names contained on lists and charts provided by the law firm.

But the presentation also referred to separate sub-tags for
attorney-client privilege, work product and deliberative process
privilege.  It instructed team members to "err in favor of
designating a document which has any possibility of being
privileged as 'privileged," warning "that [p]rivilege can be
tricky and there are a lot of gray areas."

And in September 2012, the review team received more detailed
instructions on whether and when to mark a document as privileged.

In her decision, Judge Abrams noted that the presentation also
told the team to look for "key" and "interesting" documents that
"are interesting or important to the case and you feel should be
flagged for the group, such as documents that would be helpful in
depositions or briefs."

"The presentation indeed uses language that anticipates the need
for legal judgment, particularly with regard to privilege, which
the presentation acknowledges is 'tricky' and includes 'a lot of
gray areas'," Judge Abrams said.

Mr. Henig argued that the presentation did not accurately describe
the job he did at the firm, but the judge was unpersuaded.

"Even assuming that plaintiff did receive verbal instructions that
contradicted the presentation, however, those instructions did not
strip plaintiff's work on the document review project of all legal
judgment," she said.

At oral argument on Oct. 29, Mr. Henig's attorneys conceded that
he was not claiming he was doing "work a machine could do" but
they insisted the work only involved human judgment, not legal
judgment.

But Judge Abrams said "plaintiff's tagging history and his other
descriptions of his role on the document review project, however,
confirm that his job involved more than the largely mindless task
that would result from following the verbal instructions to the
letter."


RAMESES INC: "Pritchard" Action Seeks OT, Minimum Wage Recovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frances Pritchard, Karisa Mareci, Charlotte Alvarado And Donielle
Taylor, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Rameses, Inc., Clayton Hospitality Group,
C&L Hospitality Group, Inc., Doll House, Inc., Wilan Corporation
and Carol A. Uranick, individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-
02059-GAP-TBS (M.D. Fla., Orlando Division, December 8, 2015),
seeks unpaid wages and overtime compensation due, misappropriated
tips, liquidated damages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Article 10, Sec. 4 of the Florida Constitution.

Plaintiffs work as entertainers for the clubs operated by the
Defendant. They claim to work in excess of 40 hours per week
without applicable minimum wage and overtime premium. Plaintiffs
only compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons.

Rameses is a Florida corporation operating under the name
"Cleo's." Clayton is a Florida corporation operating under the
name "Diamond Club." C&L is a Florida corporation operating under
the name "Crystal Cabaret." Doll House is a Florida corporation
operating under the name "Thee Doll House." Wilan is a Florida
corporation operating under the name "Stars." Carol A. Uranick is
the President of Rameses, Clayton, C&L, Doll House and Wilan.
These establishments are adult entertainment clubs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John B. Gallagher, Esq.
      2631 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 201
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306
      Tel: (954) 524-1888
      Fax: (954) 524-1887
      E-mail: gal270l@aol.com


RMR SERVICE: Faces "Ross" Suit Alleging Violation of MFLSA, FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Ross, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v.
RMR Service, Inc., Case: 27-CV-15-20694 (Minn. Fourth Judicial
Dist. Court, County of Hennepin, November 30, 2015) alleges that
former employees were not paid as required by the Minnesota Fair
Labor Standards Act and Fair Labor Standards Act and were
therefore denied required overtime compensation under both laws.

RMR is a sub-contractor for municipalities and companies that sell
and deliver water and natural gas to homes and businesses in
Minnesota.  The services that RMR performs include reading gas and
water meters, collections, turning meters on and off, performing
safety inspections, and other related services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charlie R. Alden, Esq.
     ALDEN LAW
     310 4th Ave. S. Suite 8000
     Minneapolis, MN 55415
     Phone: 612-455-6237
     Fax: 612-806-0585
     E-mail: charlie@caldenlawoffice.com


RUSH WELLSITE: "Whitworth" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Recovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lee Whitworyh and Paul Whitworth, Plaintiffs each individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Rush Wellsite
Services, LLC; and Rush Wellsite Holding, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-
1094 (W.D. Tex., December 9, 2015), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq.

Rush Wellsite Services, LLC, is a domestic limited liability
company under the laws of South Dakota, registered to do business
in the State of Texas, providing products and services in the oil
and gas industry. Its principal address is 1500 East Dave Ward
Drive, Suite 100 Conway, Arkansas 72032.

Lee Whitworth and Paul Whitworth worked the oilfields in Texas and
Pennsylvania as field hands field hands, operators, wireline
operators. Plaintiffs worked approximately 70-90 hours per week
without overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
      Tel: (501) 221-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


SANOFI AMERICAN: Weil Wins Dismissal of Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
On January 6, 2016, Weil achieved a major victory for Sanofi and
its former Chief Executive Officer, Christopher Viehbacher, in a
securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The plaintiff in the action,
representing a putative class of investors in Sanofi American
Depositary Shares, principally alleged that Sanofi's public
disclosures were materially misleading because they failed to
disclose that growth in Sanofi's diabetes franchise was boosted by
illicit promotional activities.  In a thorough 37-page opinion,
Judge P. Kevin Castel dismissed the complaint in its entirety,
holding that the plaintiff failed to plead with particularity the
existence of an illegal scheme, much less that Sanofi's public
disclosures were misleading or that either Sanofi or Mr.
Viehbacher acted with an intent to defraud investors.

This is Weil's second significant securities litigation win for
Sanofi in less than a year. In January 2015, Judge Paul A.
Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York granted in its
entirety Sanofi's motion to dismiss a securities fraud class
action and a related case for securities fraud challenging
statements regarding the results of Phase 3 clinical trials for
the multiple sclerosis drug Lemtrada and the drug's prospects for
approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  Judge
Engelmayer's decision is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Weil team included partners John Neuwirth, Esq. --
john.neuwirth@weil.com -- and Joshua Amsel, Esq. --
joshua.amsel@weil.com -- counsel Stefania Venezia, Esq. --
stefania.venezia@weil.com -- and associates Melanie Conroy, Esq. -
- melanie.conroy@weil.com -- Lauren Engelmyer, Esq., Corinna
Provey, Esq. -- corinna.provey@weil.com -- and Gena Gonzales,
Esq., all in New York.


SKADDEN ARPS: Settles Contract Attorneys' OT Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom moved a step closer to ending
a contentious and closely watched labor fight when it agreed to
settle a proposed collective action that sought overtime pay for
former contract lawyers at the firm.

The deal, unveiled in a court filing on Dec. 15, would resolve a
Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit brought against Skadden and
co-defendant Tower Legal Staffing Inc. in July 2013.  The proposed
settlement calls for a $75,000 payout to named plaintiff
David Lola and two other contract lawyers who performed document
review for Skadden.

Tower, a staffing outlet that hired and formally paid the contract
lawyers' regular wages, will cover the full costs of the
settlement, according to court documents. The agreement is subject
to court approval.

The case has attracted widespread attention because it threatened
law firms' ability to rely on contract attorneys without
triggering overtime requirements.  Lawyers generally fall under an
overtime exemption for professionals under the FLSA, but the
plaintiffs maintained that the tasks they performed were so
mundane that the exemption did not apply.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived the
lawsuit in July on the grounds that it was prematurely dismissed,
reversing a September 2014 decision by Manhattan U.S. District
Judge Richard Sullivan.

While the settlement would allow Skadden to exit the case, it
leaves unanswered the key question of whether some legal work is
so routine that it should not be considered the practice of law.

The settlement also doesn't address whether Skadden should have
been considered the contract lawyers' joint employer along with
Tower. (In the agreement, Skadden explicitly denies that it was
the plaintiffs' employer or joint employer under federal or state
laws.)

Each of those questions remains in play, however, in a similar
proposed class action against Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
and legal staffing company Providus New York LLC that is still
pending in Manhattan federal court.

In that lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams declined in
December 2013 to dismiss FLSA claims lodged by contract lawyer
William Henig.  The judge also allowed limited discovery on the
question of whether Mr. Henig had been practicing law while doing
document review, and the two sides squared off at a summary
judgment hearing in October.  The judge has yet to rule.

Maimon Kirschenbaum of Joseph & Kirschenbaum, who represents the
plaintiffs in both cases, didn't immediately respond to a phone
message on Dec. 16.  In the settlement papers filed on Dec. 15,
Mr. Kirschenbaum described the agreement with Skadden and Tower as
a "particularly excellent result."  He wrote that each of the
three named plaintiffs will receive the maximum compensatory
damages and roughly one-third of the possible liquidated damages.

"Although plaintiffs defeated a motion to dismiss, the question of
how much judgment can be exercised by a contract attorney before
he or she is professionally exempt is still an unsettled
question," Mr. Kirschenbaum wrote.  "In light of these risks,
plaintiffs' recovery . . . is clearly fair and reasonable."

Skadden labor and employment partner David Schwartz --
david.schwartz@skadden.com -- who signed the settlement agreement
as a representative for the firm, declined to comment on Dec. 16.
The firm's outside counsel, Brian Gershengorn --
brian.gershengorn@ogletreedeakins.com -- of Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, didn't immediately respond to a request for
comment.

Along with named plaintiff Lola, two other former Skadden contract
lawyers who opted into the FLSA collective action, George Edwin
Rush II and Lisa Gale Lewis, would receive funds from the
settlement.  Mr. Lola's journey from aspiring patent lawyer to a
down-on-his-luck temporary attorney was chronicled in 2014 by
Reuters blogger Alison Frankel.


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Residents Want Facility Shut Down
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported
that, with 12,000 Los Angelenos displaced by a massive, continuing
leak of methane gas, residents of the northwest San Fernando
Valley demanded that the site be shut down, at a Saturday, Jan. 9
meeting of an administrative law panel in Los Angeles.

Gov. Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency last week.
Residents of the Porter Ranch neighborhood began complaining of a
rotten egg smell on Oct. 23, and engineers have said the leak
which originates far underground, could take as long as three more
months to fix.

Millions of cubic feet of methane and other toxic chemicals,
including benzene, have leaked from the natural gas well at
SoCalGas' Aliso Canyon storage field -- north of Porter Ranch in
the northwest San Fernando Valley. Residents have suffered
headaches, nosebleeds, shortness of breath and nausea. Thousands
have been evacuated from their homes, two schools have been
evacuated, and at least one class action has been filed demanding
that the gas company buy the emptied houses.

A Los Angeles City Council estimated that 12,000 people had been
displaced by the environmental disaster, during the Saturday
morning meeting with an independent administrative law panel at
the Granada Hill Charter School.

Maureen Capra, 65, told the panel she had lived in the community
for 40 years. Her daughter suffered bloody noses growing up in the
house, but the problem ended when she moved to New York.  Now when
her daughter and granddaughter come to visit, their noses are
"gushing blood," she said. She said she also suffered headaches,
asthma and bloody noses.

"It's killing us. Do something, please," Capra said as she wiped
tears from her eyes.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District has petitioned the
panel -- an engineer, an attorney, a doctor, and two public
members -- to force SoCalGas, which owns the storage fields, to
comply with state air-quality rules.  Scores of residents in the
packed hall held signs aloft: "Shut. It. All. Down." They want the
SCAQMD to go further and order SoCalGas to shut down the Aliso
Canyon storage field.

The energy company is already facing at least 20 lawsuits.
Residents have complained of headaches, nosebleeds, shortness of
breath and nausea.  SoCalGas insists that natural gas is not
harmful, though it contains foul smelling odorants used to detect
gas leaks.

In statement before the floor was opened to the public, SoCalGas
attorney Robert Wyman said the energy company had responded within
24 hours to reports of the leak. He said an attempt to plug or
"kill" the well by injecting gas into it in had failed.

"We will not be commenting on these lawsuits in this proceeding,"
Wyman told the panel, as residents behind him looked on with stony
expressions.

They dispute that the chemicals are not harmful, claiming that the
odorant methyl mercaptan is toxic. Mercaptans are stinky,
irritating chemicals that are found, for example, in the defensive
scent glands of skunks.

The residents say that benzene, a carcinogen, also has been
detected in the air.

Millions of cubic feet of methane have leaked from the well,
according to court documents. The energy company has offered
temporary relocation to thousands of Porter Ranch residents and
2,500 households and two schools have been evacuated.

Speaking at the Saturday hearing, Los Angeles City Councilman
Mitch Englander said that about 12,000 people have been displaced
by the leak.

While SoCalGas has responded to his constituents' complaints,
Englander said, he's seen no emergency plan to address the
disaster.

"This is beyond gross negligence on behalf of SoCalGas," Englander
said.

L.A. County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, also a Republican,
aimed his ire at regulators that he said should have done more to
foresee the disaster, drawing some of the loudest whoops and
cheers from the crowd.

According to Antonovich, regulators were put on notice that safety
valves at the site were in a state of disrepair 37 years ago. He
said the ruptured well had gone into operation in 1954 and was
converted into a gas storage well in 1973.

"Those pipes are 61 years old," Antonovich said.

SoCalGas had told state regulators in 1979 that it would replace
the safety valve but later reversed the decision because the
problem was not deemed "critical," Antonovich said.

"This is a critical problem. This is a mini-Chernobyl," Antonovich
said.

Speaking after Antonovich, Assemblyman Scott Wilk called the gas
leak California's "worst catastrophe" since the Northridge
Earthquake in 1994.

SoCalGas attorney Wyman told the panel that SoCalGas had offered
to install purification systems in more than 3,000 households.
The panel said that if it did not rule on the petition for an
order for abatement on Saturday, it would continue the courtlike
proceedings to another date.

Chairman and engineer Edward Camarena was joined on the panel by
Dr. Clifton Lee, attorney Julie Prussack, and public members
Patricia Byrd and David Holtzman.


SPD SWISS PRECISION: "Olvera" Suit Hits Defective Pregnancy Test
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Olvera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics GMBH,
Procter & Gamble Co., and Alere, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 8:15-
cv-02035 (C.D.Cal., December 7, 2015), seeks compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, restitution
and all other forms of equitable monetary relief and reasonable
attorneys' fees arising from breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, fraud and negligent misrepresentation in
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2301,
et seq., California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California
Civil Code Sec. 1750, et seq. California's Unfair Competition Law,
False Advertising Law.

SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostic GmbH makes pregnancy tests that
claim could estimate the number of weeks a woman was pregnant.
Upon purchasing the product, Olvera claims that this does not
work.

Procter & Gamble Co. is incorporated in the State of Ohio, with a
principal place of business at One Procter & Gamble Plaza
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202.

Alere, Inc. is incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its
principal place of business at 51 Sawyer Road, Suite 200 Waltham,
Massachusetts.

SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostic GmbH is a Swiss company based in
Geneva, Switzerland. It is a joint venture between Procter &
Gamble Co. and Alere, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      Julia A. Luster, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Tel: (925) 300-4455
      Fax: (925) 407-2700
      E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
              jluster@bursor.com

           - and -

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (212) 989-9113
      Fax: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: scott@bursor.com


STK WESTWOOD: Faces "Doe" Suit Over Violations of Cal. Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Doe, in his individual and representative capacity, v. STK
Westwood LLC, a California limited liability company, Bagatelle La
Cienega LLC, a California limited liability company, The One Group
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Committed Capital
Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-10,
Inclusive, Case: BC 602461 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles,
November 30, 2015), alleges that Defendants failed to: provide
mandated timely meal periods and rest periods; pay wages; issue
accurate itemized wage statements to employees; and pay wages upon
termination, among other violations of the California Labor Code,
Wage Orders and Private Attorneys General Act of2004.

Defendants operate restaurants in California including Los Angeles
County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James B. Hardin, Esq.
     Ward J. Lott, Esq.
     HARDIN & ASSOCIATES, APC
     4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite 800
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Phone: (949) 337-4810
     Fax: (949) 706-6469
     E-mail: jhardin@hardinemploymentlaw.com
             wlott@hardinemploymentlaw.com


SUNEDISON INC: "Moodie" Suit Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth J. Moodie, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SunEdison, Inc., Ahmad Chatila and Brian
Wuebbels, Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-01809 (E.D. Mo., December
9, 2015), seeks to compensatory damages, equitable or injunctive
relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff purchased SunEdison stock and sustained substantial
losses when share prices dropped as a result of the company's
failure to disclose substantial and material information about its
current financial condition.

SunEdison is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 13736
Riverport Drive, Maryland Heights, Missouri 63043. It develops,
manufactures, and sells silicon wafers and is a major developer
and seller of photovoltaic energy solutions. Ahmad Chatila is the
President and CEO while Brian Wuebbels is the Executive Vice
President, Chief Administration Officer and Chief Financial
Officer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1675
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Tel: (314) 226-1015
      Fax: (202) 789-1813
      Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

           - and -

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

           - and -

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


SUPERCOM LTD: Faces "Wexler" Action Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
Elad Wexler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Supercom LTD., Arie Trabelsi, Tsviya
Trabelsi, Ordan Trabelsi, Barak Trabelsi and Simona Green,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-09650 (S.D.N.Y., December 9, 2015),
seeks compensatory damages, counsel fees and equitable or
injunctive relief under Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule l0b-5 promulgated.

Plaintiff alleges the Supercom of artificially inflating its share
prices and withholding material fiscal information from the SEC
and its shareholders about its true financial status. Share prices
dropped upon disclosure.

SuperCom, headquartered in Herzliya, Israel, provides traditional
and digital identity solutions to governments and private and
public organizations.

Arie Trabelsi is the President and CEO of SuperCom. Tsviya
Trabelsi is the Chairperson of the Board of Directors. Ordan
Trabelsi is the President of SuperCom of the Americas. Barak
Trabelsi is Vice President, M2M Division. Simona Green was acting
CFO of SuperCom.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631)367-7100
      Fax: (631)367-1173
      Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
             mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

           - and -

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

           - and -

      W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 802-1486
      Fax: (212) 602-1592
      Email: scotth@johnsonandweaver.com


TAKATA CORP: Judge Calls for Venue Transfer in Air Bag Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
BMW's regular attendance at the Philadelphia Auto Show should not
be enough to keep a man's suit against the car company and Takata
over allegedly defective air bags in Philadelphia, according to a
common pleas judge.

In December, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Ellen
Ceisler urged the state Superior Court to reject the appeal of her
decision to grant the defendants' preliminary objections
challenging plaintiff Max Faust's chosen venue in the case.  Her
ruling transferred the matter to the Lancaster County Court of
Common Pleas.

Although Mr. Faust pointed to BMW's sales efforts within
Philadelphia -- including its participation in the city's annual
car show -- as reasons why the case should be heard there,
Ms. Ceisler said the contacts Faust pointed to fell "far short" of
satisfying venue requirements.

"Even the fact that BMW N.A. regularly attends, and has a physical
presence at, the annual Philadelphia Auto Show does not aid
Faust's argument," Ms. Ceisler said.  "In short, the mere fact
that BMW N.A. lets people see their latest models, sit in the
driver's seat, and kick the tires a bit, does not transform such
enticement into a connection with Philadelphia County that would
render it a proper venue for this lawsuit."

According to Ms. Ceisler, Mr. Faust was a passenger in the front
of a BMW sedan in January 2014, when the car was involved in a
multivehicle collision in Lancaster County.  The BMW's air bags
deployed during the crash, and allegedly caused "severe and
serious injury" to Faust's right eye.

Mr. Faust then sued BMW, Takata, which manufactured the air bag,
and Hanna Motors, which was the car dealership that sold the
vehicle.  He alleged breach of warranty, negligence, and strict
liability, stemming from claims that the air bag system had been
defective.

The defendants filed preliminary objections arguing Philadelphia
was an improper venue, and the case should be heard in Lancaster
County.  Mr. Faust replied that BMW conducted extensive targeted
marketing and promotional activities in Philadelphia, and had a
network of dealerships selling to Philadelphia residents.

The defendants countered Faust had "twisted or misinterpreted
evidence and deposition testimony" to try to defeat their
preliminary objections.

After the parties conducted discovery in the matter, Mr. Faust
replied with information focusing on BMW's regular attendance at
the Philadelphia Auto Show, and pointed to testimony of employees
at a nonparty BMW dealership near Philadelphia as indicating BMW
was directly involved in the sales.

BMW noted it does not keep sales data by county, and maintained
that it has no substantial contact with sales in Philadelphia.
Ms. Ceisler sustained the preliminary objections to transfer the
case in October, and Mr. Faust appealed.  In her opinion to the
Superior Court, Ms. Ceisler said none of the contacts Mr. Faust
identified "amount to anything more than solicitation, rather than
business conduct sufficient to make Philadelphia a proper venue."

Ms. Ceisler noted that BMW's primary business purpose is to sell
or lease its vehicles through independently-owned BMW dealerships,
but these contacts, she said, would need to directly further the
company's objective.

Mr. Faust had noted direct mail, radio, television, Internet and
in-person marketing campaigns directed toward Philadelphia
residents, but Ms. Ceisler said these fall under the category of
mere solicitation.

She added that, although there are some BMW dealerships that have
defined sales areas within Philadelphia, she noted that Ms. Faust
did not allege or provide evidence that these sales were
consummated within the city.

Mr. Faust, Ms. Ceisler said, "made much ado" about the fact that
BMW's participation in the auto show resulted in sales, but this
claim, she said, ignored the fact that BMW is prohibited from
directly selling its vehicles to end users.

"The slender reed upon which Faust has placed the entire weight of
his venue argument is the notion that BMW N.A. regularly conducts
business in Philadelphia County, which, if true, would mean that
this court erred granting the aforementioned preliminary
objections," Ms. Ceisler said.  "The only manner in which BMW
N.A.'s presence at the Philadelphia Auto Show could have resulted
in BMW sales or leases was for individuals to take an additional
step, by acting upon the interest sparked at the show and
transacting with one of BMW N.A.'s dealerships."

John Zervanos of Soloff & Zervanos, who is representing Mr. Faust,
said he believes BMW has yet to turn over some data that he said
will show a direct connection between BMW and sales efforts
focused on Philadelphia.

"I think there's additional information establishing that they're
doing more business in Philadelphia than they want anybody to
believe," Mr. Zervanos said.  "Yes they're selling cars to their
dealers and [the dealers are] selling directly to the public, but
without BMW's assistance, without helping these sales, the dealers
aren't selling."

Oliver R. Brooks -- obrooks@lavin-law.com -- of Lavin, O'Neil,
Cedrone & DiSipio, who represented BMW; Daniel Rucket --
drucket@rawle.com -- of Rawle & Henderson, who represented the
dealership; and Madeline S. Baio -- mbaio@goldbergsegalla.com --
of Goldberg Segalla, who represented Takata, did not return a call
for comment.


TARANTINO PROPERTIES: "Scola" Action Seeks OT Recovery
------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Scola, individually and as class representative of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Tarantino
Properties, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 9:15-cv-81653-KAM (S.D.Fla.,
December 7, 2015), seeks recovery of overtime pay, unpaid wages,
declaratory relief, interest, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked as was employed as an in-house sales counselor.
She claims that she was not paid the mandatory overtime premium in
excess of 40 hours per work week.

Tarantino Properties, Inc. is a seller of residential properties
in Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher C. Copeland, Esq.
      CHRISTOPHER C. COPELAND, P.A.
      824 W. Indiantown Road
      Jupiter, FL 33458
      Tel: (561) 691-9048
      Fax: (866) 259-0719
      Email: Chris@CopelandPA.com


TEXAS: Commission Approved $254,000 in Legal Fees
-------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that by
3-2 vote Jan. 11 a Texas county commission approved paying special
prosecutors $254,000 in legal fees for the felony securities fraud
case against McKinney, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The Collin County Commissioners Court approved the payments one
week after presiding Tarrant County District Judge George
Gallagher approved the $300 per hour rate the prosecutors
negotiated last year and ordered the county to pay.

Collin County Judge Keith Self questioned the need for the
expensive "gold-plated justice," the Dallas Morning News reported.
Self said the county has "little discretion" over the judge's
order and urged the special prosecutors -- private attorneys Kent
Schaffer, Brian Wice and Nicole DeBorde -- to resign, so a nearby
district attorney's office can be appointed to take over. The
replacement prosecutors would then draw their normal salaries.
Dallas County District Attorney Susan Hawk had declined to
investigate Paxton before he was indicted in Collin County.

Collin County's rules limit first-degree felony attorneys' fees to
a $1,000 flat fee and an additional $1,000 per day during trial,
with payment withheld until the case is over.

The vote came two weeks after a proposed class action was filed
against Gallagher, the commissioners court and county Auditor Jeff
May. That lawsuit, in Collin County Court, claims the special
prosecutors seek " expenditure of public funds that would
unlawfully serve to enrich private attorneys at the expense of
taxpayers in Collin County. It claims the special prosecutors are
limited to what court-appointed attorneys for the indigent are
paid under the Texas Fair Defense Act.

"Defendant Judge Gallagher has discretion to adjust the payment in
an amount not to exceed $1,000.00, but that payment is a '[per]
case adjustment' and cannot occur until disposition of the case,"
plaintiff Jeffory Blackard said in the complaint. "For these
reasons, the payment sought by the Attorneys Pro Tem violates
Local Rule 4.01 and Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Sections 2.07 and 26.05.
It seeks an illegal expenditure of taxpayer funds."

A Collin County grand jury in August 2015 charged Paxton with two
first-degree felony counts of securities fraud and a third-degree
felony count of failing to register with the Texas State
Securities Board. If convicted of all charges, he could be
sentenced to up to life in prison.'

Paxton is accused of fraudulently selling more than $100,000 in
Servergy stock to two investors in July 2011 without disclosing
that he would be paid commissions on it. He also failed to
disclose that he had been given 100,000 shares in the company but
had not invested in the company himself, according to the
indictment.

Judge Gallagher denied 10 dismissal motions from Paxton's defense
attorneys in December, paving the way for trial. He was not
persuaded by arguments that the charges are unconstitutionally
vague or that state District Judge Chris Oldner improperly
impaneled the grand jury before recusing himself. Paxton has
appealed.


TIME WARNER CABLE: "Villa" Suit Hits Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
Anne Marie Villa, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Time Warner Cable Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:15-cv-09576 (S.D.N.Y. December 8, 2015), seeks statutory
damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 227).

Defendant uses an auto-dialer to make telephone calls to
Plaintiff's cellular phone numbers, often without the prior
express in order to sell their services.

Time Warner Cable Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 60 Columbus Circle, New York, New
York 10023.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
      Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (646) 837-7150
      Fax: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
              jmarchese@bursor.com
              jarisohn@bursor.com


TIRE DISCOUNTERS: "Lindsey" Action Seeks OT Recovery
----------------------------------------------------
Justin Lindsey and Matthew Titus, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tire Discounters,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-3065 (S.D. Ohio, Eastern
Division, December 7, 2015), seeks unpaid wages and overtime and
liquidated damages, payment of a service award, equitable and
injunctive relief, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Ohio Minimum
Wage Act.

Plaintiffs worked as sales managers and claims that they were not
paid the mandatory overtime premium in excess of 40 hours per work
week.

Tire Discounters is an Ohio-based corporation with headquarters in
Cincinnati, Ohio is a tire retail chain providing automotive
maintenance and repair.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Drew Legando, Esq.
      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      Edward S. Jerse, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
      1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216) 522-9000
      Fax: (216) 522-9007
      Email: drew@lgmlegal.com
             jack@lgmlegal.com
             edjerse@lgmlegal.com

           - and -

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over "Winter Warm Up Promotion"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported
that Uber has not paid drivers as it promised in its "Winter Warm
up promotion," drivers claim in a federal class action in San
Francisco.

Lead plaintiff Kimberly Berger accuses Uber of breach of contract,
unfair competition and breach of faith in the Jan. 5 class action.
She says Uber sent drivers a promotional email on Jan. 15, 2015,
promising "round-the-clock UberX partner fare guarantees" and
lower prices for riders, "to increase demand and your trips."

Uber guaranteed its drivers rates of $26 during peak hours and $20
during regular hours, and the only requirements were that they
accept 90 percent of trips, average at least one trip per hour and
be online for 50 minutes of every hour worked, Berger says in the
complaint.

Berger says Uber did not pay its drivers as promised, nor did it
provide a clear expectation of how the guarantee worked.

Based on the promotional email, she says, drivers were led to
believe that as long as they followed the requirements, they would
be guaranteed the advertised rates.

But "Uber did not disclose that the hourly guarantee would be
calculated based on a weekly, or per pay period, gross average all
hours worked by Uber drivers, and not on an hourly basis as
promised in the Uber 'Winter Warmup' guarantee promotion," Berger
says in the complaint.

Since the hourly guarantee reflected an average gross hourly rate
before Uber fees were subtracted, she said, drivers were paid
hourly rates up to 40 percent less than advertised.

She seeks class certification, an injunction, damages, waiting
time penalties, and costs and fees.

Her attorney, Christopher Hamner, of Los Angeles, did not
immediately respond to an email requesting comment on Thursday
afternoon.

Uber declined to comment.


UBER TECH: N.D. Cal. Judge Won't Stay Proceedings in TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco rejected on Jan. 8 Uber's
request to stay proceedings in two class actions pending the
results of appeals that could reshape the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Uber attorney Debra Bernard made her case to U.S. District Judge
Jon Tigar during a Thursday hearing, arguing that potential
changes to the law could force the judge to revisit issues that
will soon be decided in the two lawsuits.

Plaintiffs in both class actions -- Lathrop v. Uber and Kafatos v.
Uber -- claim the ride-hailing company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text messages to
recruit new drivers.

Kristen Sagafi, attorney for the Lathrop plaintiffs, said waiting
for two higher courts to rule on the appeals would unreasonably
delay justice. She said many issues raised in those appeals are
irrelevant to the case at hand.

Tigar denied Uber's motion to stay, finding any hardships Uber
might suffer in having to produce additional discovery because of
the appeals do not justify staying the cases.

The two appeals in question are before the D.C. Circuit and U.S.
Supreme Court.

In Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, the Supreme Court must decide whether
plaintiffs who suffer no concrete injury have standing to sue.

Whether people that received unwanted text messages without being
charged for them qualify for Article III standing is an issue
central to both lawsuits, Bernard told the judge.

Sagafi countered that Spokeo would have no bearing on her clients'
case because the plaintiffs do allege a concrete injury stemming
from the unwanted texts.

With the advent of unlimited call and texting plans, getting
charged for calls and messages has become less common, Bernard
argued. She said the law requires that plaintiffs allege a
concrete injury, such as an added phone charge, to establish
standing.

"Do you think your time has an opportunity cost?" Tigar asked,
suggesting that a nonmonetary injury could also be established.

"In a world where there's no penalty for sending text messages,
how many would you receive?" Tigar asked.

Bernard responded that statutory fines of $500 to $1,500 for
violating the law exist, but that doesn't mean plaintiffs should
be able to sue in Federal Court or bring class actions if they did
not suffer concrete harm.

Another appeal pending before the D.C. Circuit, ACA International
et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, challenges an FCC
order issued in June 2015, which redefined certain terms in the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

The ruling clarified definitions of "automatic telephone dialing
system" and "called party," along with what qualifies as
"revocation of consent."

The meaning of automatic dialing system was changed to encompass a
system's present and potential capacity, a move that Uber and
other interested companies strongly disagree with.

"If your honor determines we have to go forward in this case
because the way the text messages are sent constitute an
[automatic dialing system], then the D.C. Circuit disagrees with
that, then we go forward with class certification finding the
outcome has to be revisited," Bernard said.

In its ruling, the FCC decided that a "called party" can be either
the subscriber of a phone number or the nonsubscribing customary
user of that number.

Bernard said that issue directly affects one named plaintiff in
the Lathrop case, Julie McKinney , who sued Uber for receiving
unsolicited text messages even though her husband allegedly signed
up with Uber and had the phone in his name.

"He's the one that signed up," Bernard said. "Uber tried to
contact him, but she's the named plaintiff."

The FCC also adopted what Uber considers a broad interpretation of
"revocation of consent," which the company says makes it tough to
pinpoint what terms and phrases signal a request to stop sending
messages.

"It's a very nebulous standard that companies cannot live up to,"
Bernard said of the "revocation of consent" definition. "If
someone says, 'Please stop texting me' or 'I don't want to get
these anymore,' there are technological barriers for companies to
recognize that."

She added that some named plaintiffs in both suits claim they
tried to opt out from receiving messages by using terminology the
company has no ability to recognize.

Adrian Bacon, representing the Kafatos plaintiffs, argued that no
"seismic change" is being requested in the appeal before the D.C.
Circuit, and that the issues in both lawsuits have been well
established through extensive litigation.

"The Supreme Court will probably ultimately have to weigh in on
this," Bacon said. "Somebody's going to appeal this thing, and it
will take a few years to work out. That's not a burden the
plaintiffs should have to bear."

Turning to discovery issues, Tigar ordered Uber to submit to a
Jan. 20 deposition regarding its ability to pull data and produce
discovery on its text logs, which the Lathrop plaintiffs say are
crucial to determine the scope of their proposed class and to
identify class members.


UBER TECH: Excluded Drivers Sue in San Francisco State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
Uber drivers who were excluded from a federal class action in 2015
are now suing in state court in San Francisco to be treated like
employees.

The 78 drivers named in the complaint claim Uber misclassifies
them as independent contractors and requires them to pay for their
own gas and vehicle maintenance, along with other business
expenses. They were excluded from the federal class certified last
year by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen because they drove for
Uber through third-party transportation companies or drove under
business names.

At a hearing in November, lead plaintiff attorney Shannon Liss-
Riordan told Chen that the excluded drivers would take their
claims to state court.

"Their claims are not going away," she said. "They will be
adjudicated. Would the court in its discretion prefer to keep them
all within the same proceeding, or have them all flood the state
court system? This whole litigation is going to be much less
manageable than keeping them in this courtroom."

In an email on Jan. 6, Liss-Riordan said she expects "many more
will eventually be added."

The drivers seek restitution and reimbursement for their expenses.
Lead plaintiff Thomas Colopy is also seeking civil penalties for
labor code violations under the Private Attorney General Act.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Revamps Drivers' Arbitration Agreements
----------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that a
high-profile worker classification lawsuit against Uber
Technologies Inc. in California has brought national attention to
the question of whether workers in the sharing economy are full-
fledged employees or just contractors on a digital platform.

The issue is at the center of the class action case, O'Connor v.
Uber, but it hasn't been the only one that matters as the case
makes its way through the courts.

The validity of the arbitration agreements that Uber asks drivers
to sign when they register to drive on Uber's platform has been a
major point of contention between the plaintiffs and the company.
So far, the plaintiffs have been winning the argument, and Uber
recently revamped its drivers' arbitration agreements in what
looks a lot like a direct response to its recent setbacks.

Uber already suffered a loss earlier in 2015 when Judge Edward
Chen in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California ruled that a class of drivers could sue to get the
benefits and rights of W2 employees.  The question remained as to
how large the class would be, with Uber arguing that since drivers
who started in 2014 or after signed an arbitration agreement that
waived their rights to take the company to court, the class should
exclude these drivers.

Originally it seemed that Chen agreed with Uber, but he apparently
changed his mind after new case law emerged in California under
the Private Attorney General Act, a state law that allows private
citizens to pursue violations of California's Labor Code and
collect penalties (albeit usually small ones) from violators.
Judge Chen ruled that Uber's arbitration agreement included an
illegal waiver of drivers' rights under PAGA, and was therefore
invalid.  Now plaintiffs from 2014 and beyond are included in the
class action's numbers.

Uber, which has appealed this latest ruling, acted quickly,
releasing a new arbitration agreement for drivers that includes a
carve-out for PAGA claims just days after Judge Chen's ruling.  It
seems unlikely that the new agreement could apply retroactively to
the class already certified, but releasing a new agreement in the
middle of litigation could still have influence on how class
members perceive the case, according Adam Moskowitz --
amm@kttlaw.com -- a partner at Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, who
manages the firm's class action practice.

"Clearly this isn't going to be enforced against the class
members," he says.  "But it does raise the issue of: 'is this an
unsolicited communication to the certified class?' The court has
to address that." If the new policy affects the way class members
view the case, and prompts them to opt out of the class action, it
could be very consequential.

The lead plaintiffs attorney in the case, Shannon Liss-Riordan,
has filed an emergency motion calling the new arbitration
agreement misleading and saying it has already created confusion
for drivers. It remains to be seen whether the motion will result
in any change, or whether Uber will be able to continue
promulgating the new policy.  But either way, it does raise some
interesting issues.

One is the need to ensure that companies articulate the terms of
an arbitration agreement so that the person signing it actually
knows what they are agreeing to.  Some have expressed concern that
Uber drivers might not understand the sort of "legalese" that the
company is throwing at them with its updated agreement or be able
to figure out how to opt out from the reworked arbitration
agreement

While not commenting on Uber's policy specifically, Todd Lebowitz
-- tlebowitz@bakerlaw.com -- a partner at Baker & Hostetler, says
that drafting agreements that are still legally airtight while
also as readable as possible for the average person isn't always
easy.  "It's constantly a struggle for attorneys to draft an
arbitration agreement that will be held up in court as
enforceable," he says, "while at the same time not making it so
complicated and so convoluted that people can't understand it.
It's a difficult path."  If a company fails to do this
effectively, Mr. Lebowitz adds, its contract may fall into the
legal trap of "procedural unconscionability."

Douglas Bohn -- dbohn@cullenanddykman.com -- a partner in the
commercial litigation department of Cullen and Dykman, emphasizes
that companies need to make sure the person signing the agreement
understands what the procedures are going to be for resolving a
dispute and knows that they have waived the right to take the
issue to court.  "As long as the parties know what they are
agreeing to, that's always the key," he says. If done right, Bohn
explains, mandatory arbitration can often provide valuable savings
in costs and time.

For now, says Todd Scherwin -- tscherwin@laborlawyers.com --
regional managing partner at Fisher & Phillips' Los Angeles
office, it makes a lot of sense for Uber to fight tooth and nail
to shrink the class as much as possible, since a loss would likely
upend the company's contractor-based business model.

But that means it'll probably be awhile before courts can get past
the arbitration issue and make it to the major employment law
questions.  "You may be looking at months, if not years or longer
before any decisions on the merits are actually reached,"
Mr. Scherwin says.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Wants Drivers' Case Tried Without Jury
---------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that after
securing a pair of favorable rulings -- and in the face of a
supercharged media campaign launched by Uber -- plaintiffs
challenging the company's business model are seeking to put on
their case without a jury.

Plaintiffs lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan, who won class
certification for drivers suing over their status as independent
contractors and then got the class significantly expanded, moved
on Dec. 17 to dismiss an expense-reimbursement claim in an effort
to proceed to a bench trial. The proposal, subject of a hearing
before U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, drew a vigorous objection
from Uber Technologies Inc. lawyer Theodore Boutrous of Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher.

"Plaintiffs counsel is afraid of a jury trial here in the Northern
District," Mr. Boutrous said, adding that assertions that a jury
could not be fair minded are "ridiculous" and "outrageous."

Uber was also playing defense at the hearing over the rollout of a
new driver arbitration agreement, a contract Judge Chen said
"raises grave concerns." Liss-Riordan filed an emergency motion to
block enforcement of the agreement, which Uber recently unveiled.
Uber previously said the company wouldn't enforce the agreement
against drivers who are already part of Ms. Liss-Riordan's
certified class.

Despite his concerns, Judge Chen said he was unsure if he had the
authority to halt the agreement from taking effect.  Instead, he
said he would issue an order confirming that the new agreement
cannot be enforced against members of the certified class.  He
also directed Uber to refrain from communicating with class
members "with respect to anything that might affect the
prosecution of the case."  Jduge Chen put off deciding on whether
there needs to be additional protection for plaintiffs in the
several other cases filed against the company.

The plaintiffs' bid to forgo a jury comes after Judge Chen allowed
plaintiffs to pursue classwide reimbursement for driving expenses
under the California Labor Code.  After that ruling, Ms.
Liss-Riordan asked Judge Chen to rule on that issue under
California's Unfair Competition Law, which she says does not
include a right to jury trial.

"A bench trial will assure that there are clear factual findings
and conclusions in the record and can more easily allow for an
appeal of any adverse decisions in a way that would be more
difficult in a jury trial," Ms. Liss-Riordan wrote in the motion
filed just before the hearing.

She added that Uber's press push, including the company's
publicizing of hundreds of declarations by drivers who say they
like being independent contractors, may have prejudiced potential
jurors.

"This is simply another attempt we are making to obtain a bench
trial. It may work and it may not," Ms. Liss-Riordan wrote in an
email after the hearing.  "But either way, I am not afraid of a
jury.  We are only saying that this legal issue [of worker status]
is properly decided by a court because there really aren't factual
disputes in this case -- the issue is simply how the law applies
to this fact situation."

Judge Chen put off ruling but expressed concerns.  "Manageable or
not, there is a right to a jury trial," he said.  "You cannot
unilaterally withdraw the right to a jury trial."

Judge Chen ordered Uber to respond to Ms. Liss-Riordan's motion.
The case, O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, is scheduled to go to
trial in summer 2016.


UNION COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT: Principal Sues Over Hidden Camera
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that a
former high school principal in South Carolina claims in court he
was forced to resign from his job after learning the district
superintendent installed a hidden camera his office and had filmed
him changing for his daily workout.

In a complaint filed in Union County, S.C., plaintiff Floyd Lyles,
Jr. says until he had a falling out with defendant Dr. Kristi
Woodall, superintendent for the Union County School District, his
career had been marked by success -- and one promotion -- after
another.

Initially hired as a math teacher in 1998, by 2004 he had been
named assistant principal at the Union County High School, and
over the next eight years he advanced to a number of other
administrative positions at other schools in the district before
returning to the high school to serve as its principal.

But Lyles claims his relationship with the district soured after
he asked for a raise prior to the 2013-2014 school year.

Lyles says in making his request, he pointed out that he had taken
a poor performing school and turned it around, the result being
"significant improvement in classroom scores and staff morale."

"Defendant showed outright animus towards Plaintiff telling him he
should be satisfied with the raise he got at the time of his 2012
promotion," the complaint says.

Unsatisfied with that response, and believing he was being treated
differently from other principals and administrators who he knew
had received merit raises from time to time, Lyles renewed his
quest for a raise, and again saw his request denied.

Lyles says he received "no explanation as to why he had been
denied a raise. Defendant's actions were hostile and exhibited
outright indifference towards Plaintiff."

Specifically he claims the disagreement over salary placed him in
the crosshairs of district Superintendent Dr. Kristi Woodall, who
he says retaliated against him by taking away one of the assistant
principal positions in his school and moving it to the district's
much smaller career center.

Other disputes followed.

Lyles says the matters came to a head on March 10, 2015, after
what he describes as months of harassment by the defendants, when
he was confronted by Woodall who informed him that a hidden camera
had been placed in his office and that he' been caught on tape
engaging in "improper behavior."

He says he was shocked by this revelation because Woodall knew and
condoned his using his office to change clothes before and after
his twice-a-day workouts. The next day, he says, Woodall gave him
the option to resign or else face an investigation of his alleged
improper behavior.

"Plaintiff knew that he had done nothing improper during the
performance of his job on tape or off tape, Dr. Woodall had been
spying on him and invading his privacy while he changed clothes in
his office which caused Plaintiff a great deal of embarrassment,
mental anguish, and humiliation," the complaint says.

As a result, "Plaintiff felt he had no option other than to
resign," it continues.

Lyles seeks compensatory and punitive damages, from pay, back pay
and injunctive relief on claims of breach of contract, breach of
contract with fraudulent intent, wrongful discharge, invasion of
privacy.

He is represented by Donald Gist and Keira Dillon of Columbia,
S.C.

Representatives of the school district did not immediately respond
to an emailed requested for comment from Courthouse News.


UNITED COLLECTION: Court Rejects 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, Esq. -- david.anthony@troutmansanders.com -- 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.


UTZ QUALITY: Faces "Cummings" Suit Over Wage Law Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
George Cummings, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. UTZ Quality Foods, Inc. and Dylan Lisseite, Case no:
15-6595 (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, December 2, 2015) alleges
that Defendants have misclassified the Plaintiff as an independent
contractor and was thus denied various rights under the wage laws,
including the right to minimum wages and the right to receive all
wages due without unlawful deductions.

Utz is in the business of manufacturing certain brands of snack
foods to stores throughout the country, including in
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip J. Gordon., Esq
     Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
     GORDON LAW GROUP LLP
     585 Boylston Street
     Boston, Massachusetts 02116
     Phone: (617) 536-1800


VIBRAM USA: 1st Cir. Affirms Settlement in Product Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported
that Vibram can settle claims that it misrepresented the health
benefits of FiveFinger shoes by compensating consumers to the tune
of $8.44 per pair, the First Circuit ruled.

Vibram FiveFingers claims its "minimalist shoes," which cost $80
to $125, replicate the benefits of barefoot running.

Contoured to fit the shape of the foot with glovelike appendages
for the toes, the shoes are made with a thin Vibram patented sole.

Consumers took to court, however, with claims that the shoes
failed to perform as advertised.

"Defendants' health benefit claims are false and deceptive because
FiveFingers are not proven to provide any of the health benefits
beyond what conventional running shoes provide," a 31-page federal
complaint alleged.

In addition to questioning the scientific evidence in support of
FiveFingers, the class claimed that the so-called barefoot shoes
could actually increase the risk of injury.

A University of Wisconsin study found that runners often have to
change their gait when switching to FiveFingers running shoes, and
that adapting to the shoes may involve an "injury-fraught
regimen," the complaint alleged.

After extensive written discovery, but before the plaintiffs could
move for class certification, the parties to the Massachusetts
action reached a settlement.

The agreement established a $3.75 million fund to provide consumer
claimants with an expected average refund of $20 to $50 per pair
of shoes.

These estimates took a hit, however, when the fund received a
higher-than expected number of claims -- 154,927 claims for
279,570 pairs of FiveFingers shoes.

The high number of claims resulted in a far lower estimated refund
for consumers -- approximately $8.44 per pair of shoes.

Three objectors challenged the settlement, but a federal judge
affirmed the deal despite the disparity between the estimated and
actual refund for potential class members.

The First Circuit affirmed Dec. 31 from Boston.

"Contrary to the objectors' claims, there was no misrepresentation
in the notices sent to class members," Judge Sandra Lynch wrote
for the three-judge panel. "The summary settlement notice and the
postcard notice both contained explicit language that recovery
could 'decrease depending on various factors, including the number
of valid claims.' Although the class notice did not contain such
language, it did not misrepresent the situation."

Given the uncertainty of success at trial -- especially with a
class-certification battle still to go -- the lower court
reasonably decided that $8.44 per pair of shoes was a fair refund,
the panel said.

"The fact that a better deal for class members is imaginable does
not mean that such a deal would have been attainable in these
negotiations, or that the deal that was actually obtained is not
within the range of reasonable outcomes," Lynch concluded.

The panel also affirmed the terms of the agreement providing that
class counsel may apply for fees that do not exceed 25 percent of
the settlement fund.

A copy of the First Circuit's Dec. 31 decision is available at
http://is.gd/lJ4rHTfrom Leagle.com.

The cases are: VALERIE BEZDEK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. VIBRAM USA,
INC.; VIBRAM FIVEFINGERS, LLC, Defendants, Appellees. MADELINE
MONTI CAIN; JUSTIN FERENCE; MICHAEL NARKIN, Interested Parties,
Appellants. BRIAN DEFALCO, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. VIBRAM USA,
INC.; VIBRAM FIVEFINGERS, LLC, Defendants, Appellees. JUSTIN
FERENCE, Interested Party, Appellant, Nos. 15-1207, 15-1208, 15-
1209 (1st Cir.).

On brief, for Cain and Ference:

     Christopher T. Cain, Esq.
     SCOTT & CAIN
     550 West Main Street Suite 601
     Knoxville, TN 37902
     Tel: 865-525-2150

          - and -

     David Aisenberg, Esq.
     LOONEY COHEN & AISENBERG LLP
     33 Broad Street, 6th Floor
     Boston, MA  02109
     Tel: (617) 371-1157
     E-mail: daisenberg@lca-llp.com

On brief, for Vibram USA, Inc. and Vibram FiveFingers, LLC:

     Christopher M. Morrison, Esq.
     Dana Baiocco, Esq.
     JONES DAY
     100 High Street, 21st Floor
     Boston, MA 02110-1781
     Tel: 617-449-6895
     Fax: 617-449-6999
     E-mail: cmorrison@jonesday.com
             dbaiocco@jonesday.com

On brief, for Bezdek and DeFalco:

     Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: 212-545-4710
     E-mail: pollack@whafh.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: US Files Suit Over Emissions-Cheating Software
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Biesecker and Eric Tucker, writing for The Associated
Press, report that the Justice Department sued Volkswagen on
Jan. 4 over emissions-cheating software found in nearly 600,000
vehicles sold in the United States, potentially exposing the
company to billions of dollars in penalties for clean air
violations.

The civil complaint against the German automaker, filed on behalf
of the Environmental Protection Agency in U.S. District Court in
Detroit, alleges the company illegally installed software designed
to make its "clean diesel" engines pass federal emissions
standards while undergoing laboratory testing.  The vehicles then
switched off those measures in real-world driving conditions,
spewing harmful gases at up to 40 times what is allowed under
federal environmental standards.

"Car manufacturers that fail to properly certify their cars and
that defeat emission control systems breach the public trust,
endanger public health and disadvantage competitors," John C.
Cruden, the assistant attorney general for the Justice
Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, said in a
statement.

"The United States will pursue all appropriate remedies against
Volkswagen to redress the violations of our nation's clean air
laws alleged in the complaint," he said.

The company is in the midst of negotiating a massive mandatory
recall with U.S. regulators and potentially faces more than $18
billion in fines for violations of the federal Clean Air Act.

The company and its executives could also still face separate
criminal charges, while a raft of private class-action lawsuits
filed by angry VW owners are pending.

Volkswagen Group of America spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan said on
Jan. 4 that the company "will continue to cooperate with all
government agencies investigating these matters."

In past statements, high-ranking VW executives have sought to
blame only a small number of software developers in Germany for
the suspect computer code designed to trick emissions tests.  The
company has hired a U.S.-based law firm to conduct an internal
investigation into the scheme. The findings of that review have
not yet been made public.

The company first acknowledged in September that the cheating
software was included in its diesel cars and SUVs sold since the
2009 model year, as well as some recent diesel models sold by the
VW-owned Audi and Porsche brands.  Worldwide, the company says
cheating software was included in more than 11 million vehicles.

The federal lawsuit alleges that Volkswagen intentionally tampered
with the vehicles sold in the U.S. to include what regulators call
a "defeat device," a mechanism specifically designed to game
emissions tests.  Under the law, automakers are required to
disclose any such devices to regulators.

Because Volkswagen kept its suspect software secret, the lawsuit
alleges the company's cars were sold without a valid "certificate
of conformity" issued by EPA to regulate new cars manufactured or
imported into the country.

In addition to producing far more pollution than allowed, experts
say the excess nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions from the
more than half-million VW vehicles had a human cost.  A
statistical and computer analysis by the Associated Press
estimated the extra pollution caused somewhere between 16 and 94
deaths over the last seven years, with the annual toll increasing
as more of the diesels were on the road.

"With the filing, we take an important step to protect public
health by seeking to hold Volkswagen accountable for any unlawful
air pollution, setting us on a path to resolution," said Assistant
Administrator Cynthia Giles for EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance.  "So far, recall discussions with the
company have not produced an acceptable way forward. These
discussions will continue in parallel with the federal court
action."

Justice Department officials said on Jan. 4 the case was filed in
the Eastern District of Michigan because that is where
"significant activity" related to the company's cheating scheme
occurred.  EPA's primary emissions-testing lab is located in
Ann Arbor and Volkswagen also has facilities in the Detroit metro
area.

However, as the legal case proceeds, the venue is expected to move
to Northern California, where hundreds of the class-action cases
have been consolidated and state regulators played a key role in
uncovering VW's deceptions.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Retains Feinberg to Administer Emissions Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Volkswagen A.G. has retained Kenneth Feinberg to administer a
claims program designed to compensate consumers for lost value to
their vehicles and other economic damages caused from its recent
emissions scandal.

In a conference call with reporters on Dec. 17, Mr. Feinberg,
managing partner of The Law Offices of Kenneth R. Feinberg in
Washington, gave scant details about the program other than to say
he would be accepting an estimated 500,000 claims from owners of
diesel vehicles.

The move comes as more than 500 class actions against Volkswagen
were coordinated in December before U.S. District Judge Charles
Breyer of the Northern District of California, with an initial
hearing set for Dec. 22.

Mr. Feinberg said Volkswagen reached out to him to set up the
program "in an effort to divert those claims out of the court
system and into a claims program that will provide remedies to
those automobile owners."

It's an abrupt turn of events for Volkswagen, which in September
admitted that 11 million cars and trucks have a "defeat device" in
them designed to cheat emissions tests, including 482,000 in the
United States.  On Dec. 17, Michael Horn, president and CEO of
Volkswagen Group of America, said in a prepared statement: "We are
pleased to announce the retention of Kenneth Feinberg.  His
extensive experience in handling such complex matters will help to
guide us as we move forward to make things right with our
customers."

Mr. Feinberg, who is wrapping up a similar compensation program
over General Motors Co.'s ignition-switch recalls, emphasized that
the program was voluntary and has no estimated cost so far.  He
said that although he would be meeting with regulators,
Volkswagen's program was separate from those efforts to fix the
cars.

Plaintiffs lawyers had mixed reactions to the news.
Frank Pitre of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy in Burlingame,
California, said the announcement appeared to be an attempt by
Volkswagen to appease its customers after November's $1,000
goodwill payment program failed.

"It appears to me they're taking a page out of GM," he said.
"Volkswagen's first foray into a public relations venture in
trying to get the goodwill back with the consumers -- that was a
black eye.  I don't think it sold very well -- 25 percent of the
people actually took it. So they've got to do something."

Like GM, Volkswagen would not interfere with Mr. Feinberg's
decisions in determining the value of individual claims,
Mr. Feinberg said.

Mr. Feinberg said that in the coming months he would be meeting
with Volkswagen officials, car owners and their lawyers to
determine which models should be included and what types of
remedies could be available, such as buying back vehicles or
compensating for lost gas mileage that could result from fixing
the cars.

"What the remedies will be -- and there may be a menu of remedies
depending on the car owner and vehicle -- what the cost of the
program will be, how long it will take for this program to accept
claims, remains to be seen," he said.  "We have to wait and see
what those legal remedies will be that attract people out of the
court system and voluntarily encourage them to go this route
instead of the courtroom."

Mr. Feinberg acknowledged that, like GM and the other victim-
compensation funds, it was fair to assume that those who
participate in the program would waive their rights to sue.
The suits that have been filed allege consumers were duped into
paying premium prices for "clean diesel" cars that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has said emit as much as 40 times
the standard for nitrogen oxides.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Plaintiffs Must Suggest Settlement Master
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Volkswagen A.G.'s legal problems tied to its emissions
scandal could be over before they've hardly begun.

In one of his first orders, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer has
asked plaintiffs lawyers suing Volkswagen to suggest the best
person to oversee settlement of more than 500 class actions.

The selection of a special settlement master is not uncommon, but
it usually takes place much later in the course of litigation.
Many plaintiffs lawyers have predicted that Volkswagen could
quickly settle the litigation, having already admitted that 11
million cars and trucks have a "defeat device" in them designed to
cheat emissions tests, including 482,000 in the United States.

Then, on Dec. 17, Volkswagen announced that it had hired famed
claims administrator Kenneth Feinberg to set up a compensation
fund for an estimated 500,000 diesel-car owners.  Mr. Feinberg,
managing partner of The Law Offices of Kenneth R. Feinberg in
Washington, gave few details about the program, including when it
would begin accepting claims.  Volkswagen reached out to him to
set up the program "in an effort to divert those claims out of the
court system and into a claims program that will provide remedies
to those automobile owners," he said.

Volkswagen's move could put a dent in the plans of plaintiffs
lawyers, who have clamored in December over their favorite picks
for settlement master.

"I don't know how they'll play it," Frank Pitre of Cotchett, Pitre
& McCarthy in Burlingame, California, said of Volkswagen.  His
firm supports three mediators in San Francisco as potential
settlement masters.  "Now we have Feinberg who will be involved in
some kind of consumer goodwill package they'll offer to people
and, therefore, if he's doing that, wouldn't it be nice if he also
was involved as a special master with all the settlement of the
class action claims?"Feinberg is among the 18 names plaintiffs
lawyers have suggested for settlement master.

Bob Hilliard of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales of Corpus Christi, Texas,
who supports Feinberg, said Volkswagen's announcement raised
Feinberg's chances of getting the job.

"It might enhance his curriculum vitae to get the appointment," he
said.  "It makes no sense to have two settlement masters."
But not everyone agrees.

Elizabeth Cabraser, a partner at San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, said in a Dec. 17 court filing that "while
Mr. Feinberg's retention is a meaningful development, and a
commendable action by Volkswagen, this alone does not guarantee a
fair, adequate, reasonable and comprehensive settlement."

Judge Breyer, of California's Northern District, didn't give any
reasons behind his Dec. 9 pretrial order asking for settlement
master selections. He asked lawyers to submit names by Dec. 22 --
the date of the first hearing in the litigation.  Consumers allege
they were duped into paying premium prices for "clean diesel" cars
that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said emit as
much as 40 times the standard for nitrogen oxides.

Some lawyers suggested that Judge Breyer should appoint more than
one settlement master, particularly after Volkswagen's
announcement about Feinberg, while others have said that one was
enough.  The most popular name was retired U.S. District Judge
Layn Phillips, who was appointed in October by both Gerald Rosen,
chief judge of the Eastern District of Michigan, and U.S. District
Judge Jose Linares of New Jersey to oversee preliminary settlement
discussions.  Those talks went nowhere, but plaintiffs lawyers
involved in those efforts submitted Phillips as a candidate on
Dec. 14.

Judge Phillips, of Phillips ADR in Newport Beach, California, is a
former federal prosecutor who was U.S. attorney for the Northern
District of Oklahoma and a federal judge for the Western District
of Oklahoma.  John Perry, who was appointed on Dec. 11 as a
special master to oversee General Motors Co.'s settlement of 1,380
personal injury and wrongful-death lawsuits tied to its ignition-
switch recalls in 2014, also is a lead candidate.  He is a partner
at the law firm Perry, Atkinson, Balhoff, Mengis, Burns & Ellis
and founding principal of mediation firm Perry Dampf Dispute
Solutions, both in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.Many are looking closer
to home, suggesting JAMS mediators in San Francisco.  Among the
most popular was Edward Infante, who was chief magistrate judge of
California's Northern District from 1990 to 2001, and Rebecca
Westerfield, a former Jefferson County Circuit Court judge in
Kentucky with experience in dealing with international matters.

"This is a somewhat unique litigation where there probably are
going to be these constant parallel settlement discussion while
litigation is proceeding," said Shon Morgan, chairman of the
national class action practice group at Los Angeles-based Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.


VPNE PARKING: Faces "Deandrade" Suit Over Illegal Wage Deductions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aliulino Deandrade, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. VPNE Parking Solutions LLC, (Mass. Super., November
24, 2015), seeks mandatory treble damages, costs, and attorneys'
fees for Defendant's alleged violation of minimum wage law and
unlawful wage deductions.

VPNE employs persons as valet attendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J. Fogelriian, Esq.
     Jeffrey M. Simons, Esq.
     Danielle F. Jurema, Esq.
     FOGELMAN & FOGELMAN
     189 Wells A venue
     Newton, MA 02459
     Phone: 617-559-1530
     E-mail: mjt@fogdmanlawfirm.com
             jms@fogelmanlawfirm.com
             tj@fogelmanlawfirm.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces "Seviola" Suit Over Defective Fridge
----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Seviola on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Whirlpool, Corp. and Kitchenaid, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 0:15-cv-04334-MJD-BRT (D. Minn., December 9,
2015), seeks compensatory, punitive and actual damages,
restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief and reasonable
attorney fees in violation of the Unlawful Trade Practices Act,
False Statements in Advertising Act, Prevention of Consumer Fraud
Act and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Seviola purchased a KitchenAid Refrigerator, Model No. KFXS25RYMS
which allegedly leaked due to a defective defroster after 18
months use. Defendant refused to honor its warranty.

Whirlpool Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business at 2000 N. M-63 Benton Harbor, Michigan.
KitchenAid is an Ohio Corporation and is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Whirlpool Corporation. It maintains its principal place of
business at 553 Benson Road, Benton Harbor, Michigan. KitchenAid
is incorporated in Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
      Amy E. Boyle, Esq.
      HALUNEN LAW
      1650 IDS Center, 80 S Eighth St.
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 605-4098
      Fax: (612)605-4099
      Email: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
             boyle@halunenlaw.com

           - 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: charles@cuneolaw.com

           - and -

      Robert K. Shelquist, 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


YAHOO INC: Judge Tosses Shareholder Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers for
Yahoo Inc. have snuffed out shareholder derivative claims over the
company's alleged mishandling of its interest in Alibaba-owned
payment processor Alipay.

There's no evidence that Yahoo directors failed to conduct due
diligence with regard to the 2011 divestiture of Alipay, ruled
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of
California.  Judge Breyer granted Yahoo's motion to dismiss in its
entirety, without giving plaintiffs leave to amend.

Investors claimed that Yahoo directors should have stepped in and
vetoed the transaction when they realized the deal valued Alipay
at far less than the company was worth.

At the time, analysts valued Alipay at $5 billion to $16 billion.
But Yahoo, which acquired roughly 40 percent of Alibaba Group
Holding Ltd. in 2005, was in a bind after the Chinese government
made it more difficult for foreign entities to own nonbank payment
companies such as Alipay.

According to plaintiffs lawyers, Alibaba founder Jack Ma used the
2010 regulations as a pretext to assume ownership of Alipay and
Yahoo's directors ignored signs that Alipay would be
misappropriated.

Judge Breyer said those charges relied on the benefit of
hindsight.

"Plaintiffs do not point to any particularized allegations showing
that any of the Yahoo directors, let alone a majority, 'knew that
they were not discharging their fiduciary obligations,'" Judge
Breyer wrote.  "In other words, plaintiffs fail to establish that
the directors acted in 'bad faith.' "

Robbins Arroyo sued on behalf of Yahoo shareholders.  Morrison &
Foerster represents Yahoo.

Judge Breyer found plaintiffs did not clear the presuit demand
required of shareholders prior to commencing a derivative
proceeding. He shot down their argument that they were exempt
because the board was involved in the breach of duty.

Judge Breyer also dismissed plaintiffs' claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets.

"Plaintiffs' argument is based on an alleged inaction -- that the
directors failed to obtain 'adequate consideration' for Alipay,"
Judge Breyer wrote, "but a claim for waste must be predicated on
an affirmative board decision."

Plaintiffs also lost a securities class action filed against Yahoo
over similar allegations.  Judge Breyer rejected plaintiffs'
argument that Yahoo had a duty to correct Alibaba-related
statements made in 2010 and 2011.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit affirmed in May.


YUKOS OIL: May 30 Claims Filing Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED, ACQUIRED OR HELD SECURITIES OF
YUKOS OIL COMPANY "YUKOS" BETWEEN JULY 2, 2003 AND NOVEMBER 28,
2007

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR RECOVERY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that if you purchased, acquired or held
Yukos Ordinary Shares or Yukos ADRs from July 2, 2003 through and
including November 28, 2007, you may be eligible to receive a
distribution from the assets of Yukos.  If you have not received a
detailed Notice and copy of the Claim Form, you may obtain copies
of these documents by contacting the Yukos Distribution Agent or
visiting its website:

          Yukos Claims Administration
          c/o GCG
          P.O. Box 9601
          Dublin, OH 43017-4901
          USA
          info@yukosclaims.com
          www.yukosclaims.com

If you are in the United States, you can call (888) 846-6410 toll-
free.  For a full list of telephone numbers, please see below.

COUNTRY        TOLL-FREE NUMBERS    TOLL NUMBERS
France         0 800913918          170394943
Germany        0 8001880934         69 257367384
Netherlands    0 8000232753         20 2170207
Russia         8 800 1006372        499 5044429
Sweden         0 200120641          8 12410248
Switzerland    0 800802446          44 5083383
United Kingdom 0 8000966481         20 38070019
United States (888) 846-6410        (210) 529-7539

If you are a former Yukos shareholder, in order to be eligible to
participate in the distribution, your Claim Form must be received
by the Distribution Agent by May 30, 2016, establishing that you
are entitled to recovery.

If you have questions about the Yukos Claims Administration, you
may contact the Distribution Agent.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT YUKOS REGARDING THIS NOTICE. ALL QUESTIONS
ABOUT THIS NOTICE OR YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO RECEIVE A DISTRIBUTION
SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE DISTRIBUTION AGENT USING THE CONTACT
INFORMATION LISTED ABOVE.


ZIRX CONSUMER SERVICES: "Pascual" Suit Seeks OT Recovery
--------------------------------------------------------
Christina Pascual, on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated employees of Defendant, Plaintiffs, v. Zirx
Consumer Services, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 2:15-cv-01923 (W.D. Wash, December 7, 2015), seeks recovery of
unpaid wages and overtime, exemplary damages, permanent enjoinment
and reasonable attorneys' fees in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a parking agent and claims
not being paid being the mandatory overtime premium in excess of
40 hours per work week.

Defendant owns and operates valet parking services in Seattle.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne-Marie E. Sargent, Esq.
      Steven P. Connor, Esq.
      CONNOR & SARGENT PLLC
      999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Tel: (206) 654-4011
      Email: aes@cslawfirm.net


* Experian Announces Data Breach Predictions for 2016
-----------------------------------------------------
Judy A. Selby, writing for Legaltech News, reports that Experian
has once again looked into its crystal ball and announced its data
breach predictions for 2016.  In its third annual Data Breach
Industry Forecast, Experian makes five sobering predictions based
on recent events and new and emerging trends.  The upshot of the
forecast is that today's enterprises must remain more vigilant
than ever and should update their data breach response plans in
light of the evolving threat landscape.

Prediction 1: The EMV Chip and PIN Liability Shift Will Not Stop
Payment Breaches

Experian predicts that the Oct. 1, 2015 liability shift for U.S.
vendors to adopt EMV chip and PIN compatible payment terminals
will not turn out to be a silver bullet against payment breaches.
Noting research indicating that 86 percent of small businesses
have not yet invested in Chip and PIN technology and that gas
stations and independent ATM networks need more time to adopt the
system, Experian said "it's possible we could see the cost of
breaches to these types of organizations increase in the coming
year."  In addition, unknown vulnerabilities in the new Chip and
PIN technology as well as implementation errors might be ripe for
exploitation.  It also is likely that attackers will now shift
their focus to online "card not present" transactions, leading to
an increase in attacks on e-commerce sites.

Prediction 2: Big Healthcare Hacks Will Make Headlines but Small
Breaches Will Cause the Most Damage

The high black market value of compromised healthcare data will
drive targeted attacks on healthcare companies.  The move to
electronic health records (EHRs) and the increased use of mobile
applications to access EHRs are increasing the attack surface for
healthcare data, and the enrollment of more people into health
insurance systems due to the Affordable Care Act has lead to the
creation of more data to steal.  Experian states that although
"large breaches may be compromising millions of people's records
in one fell swoop, smaller incidents caused by employee negligence
will also continue to compromise millions of records each year."

Michael Bruemmer, vice president of Experian Data Breach
Resolution noted that "data breaches at smaller, regional
healthcare organizations are often caused by employees mishandling
paper records or losing physical back-ups of information.  The
good news is that issues like this can be addressed through
regular security training.  It's important that health
organizations not only continue to invest in current security
technologies, but also focus on ensuring employees are up to speed
on proper data handling practices."

Prediction 3: Cyber Conflicts Between Countries Will Damage
Consumers and Businesses

Experian predicts that "[a]s nation-states continue to move their
conflicts and espionage efforts to the digital world, we are
likely to see more incidents aimed at stealing corporate and
government secrets or disrupting military operations."
Mr. Bruemmer anticipates that "consumers will be caught in the
cross-hairs" if there are large public and/or private sector data
breaches caused by nation-states resulting in the exposure of
millions of personal records.

He urges companies involved in critical infrastructure or
potentially sensitive political information to invest in advanced
threat protection, and consumers to take advantage of free
identity theft protection services offered after a known data
breach and to proactively monitor all their accounts for
suspicious activity.

Prediction 4: 2016 Presidential Candidates and Campaigns Will be
Targets

Candidates beware. Experian believes that the potential for a
politically-motivated attack is significant, and that it is
"likely that one of the presidential candidates, their campaigns
and/or a major donor base will be hacked."

Experian noted a report that 64 percent of registered voters
believe that a presidential campaign will suffer a cybersecurity
incident, and warns that exposure of donor information and
sensitive campaign information could cause disruption and
reputational damage.

Prediction 5: Hactivism Will Make a Comeback

Financial gain is not the only objective of cyberattacks.
Experian predicts that attacks designed to cause reputational
damage to a company or a cause are likely to increase in 2016.
"Any organization or group with a polarizing or controversial
standing should be prepared for the possibility of an attack for
the purpose of harm to the organization and/or its constituenc,"
the report said.

All such organizations are advised to be prepared to respond to a
security incident and to rethink their breach response plans to
deal with a variety of scenarios, including extortion.

2015 Prediction Scorecard

To hold themselves accountable, last year Experian Data Breach
Resolution graded its predictions to determine which rang true at
the end of the year.  This year the firm did the same, earning an
A+ for accurately predicting the persistent and growing threat of
healthcare breaches.  Predictions forecasting how non-malicious
employee error would constitute companies' biggest threats and
that business leaders would come under increasing scrutiny for
management of security issues also earned top marks.
Predictions concerning an increase in security incidents affecting
the Internet of Things and data in the cloud proved to be less
accurate, fortunately, although both areas should remain top
concerns for today's enterprises.


* FDA Reclassifies Transvaginal Mesh as High-Risk Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Ramona Young-Grindle, writing for Courthouse News Services,
reported that, as reports of serious complications continue to
rise, the Food and Drug Administration has issued two orders to
manufacturers to strengthen requirements for transvaginal surgical
mesh.

The FDA's orders reclassify these medical devices from class II,
moderate-risk devices, to class III, high-risk devices, and
require manufacturers to submit a premarket approval application
to enhance the safety and effectiveness of surgical mesh used for
transvaginal, or through the vagina, repair of pelvic organ
prolapse, which is believed to be less invasive than abdominal
surgery.

The mesh is designed to treat conditions where organs in the
pelvis, such as the bladder or bowel, drop (or prolapse) from
their normal placement and push into the walls of the vagina. The
condition can occur from muscles stretching during childbirth, or
after a hysterectomy or menopause. Estrogen, which helps with
collagen formation when levels are normal, can contribute to
weakening of supportive tissues as levels drop with age or due to
surgery.

The mesh device is also used to treat an associated condition
called 'stress incontinence,' which can cause bladder leakage when
coughing, sneezing, laughing or during exercise, again due to loss
of muscle strength.

The new FDA directives only apply to mesh used for these two
applications. Surgical mesh has been used since the 1950s for
abdominal hernias, and this use is not affected by these new
orders.

Transvaginal uses began in the 1990s, and the mesh was cleared for
use as a class II moderate-risk device in 2002, according to the
agency's announcement.

By October 2008, the FDA issued an alert to practitioners that it
had received over one thousand reports of complications from mesh
manufacturers over a three year period, which included vaginal
erosion, infection, pain, urinary problems, and perforations of
the bladder, bowel or blood vessels. At that time, nine
manufacturers were making the mesh.

The agency updated its notice to practitioners in July 2011 to
specify that the complications were "not rare," as an additional
2,874 complication reports were received in an intervening two-
year period.

The agency's update in July 2013 included three deaths associated
with the mesh implants due to perforations.
A November 2014 U.S. Judicial Panel report indicated more than
55,000 pending actions at the U.S. District Court level against
six manufacturers of the device.

Under the new FDA orders, the five manufacturers currently
marketing this transvaginal device will have 30 months to submit a
premarket approval for devices that are already on the market.
Manufacturers of new devices must submit a premarket approval
before those devices can be approved for marketing. The
manufacturers either declined to comment, or did not immediately
respond to requests for comments.

"These stronger clinical requirements will help to address the
significant risks associated with surgical mesh for repair of
pelvic organ prolapse," William Maisel, M.D., M.P.H., deputy
director of science and chief scientist for the FDA's Center for
Devices and Radiological Health, said. "We intend to continue
monitoring how women with this device are faring months and years
after surgery through continued postmarket surveillance measures."

Both orders are effective Jan. 5, 2016.


* Mass Tort Litigation Dominated Philadelphia Court in 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
from multimillion-dollar verdicts to the creation of a new mass
tort program and novel cases going before juries, mass tort
litigation dominated the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in
2015.

The year kicked off with the first Risperdal-related case to hit
trial in Philadelphia, and a mass tort program being created for
the blood thinner Xarelto.

The Risperdal-related case began in January and ended in a $2.5
million award for the plaintiffs the following month.  Pledger v.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals involved plaintiff Austin Pledger, who
took Risperdal to assist with behavioral symptoms related to
autism.  He claimed the drug caused him to develop a condition
known as gynecomastia, which is excessive growth of breast tissue
in men and boys.

In the second trial, the case of plaintiff William Cirba, the jury
found that Risperdal was not the cause of the plaintiff's breast
growth.  However, the jury did find that Janssen Pharmaceuticals
was negligent in failing to warn about the potential risk of
Risperdal to cause gynecomastia.

Another case, Walker v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, settled in late
May on the day opening arguments were scheduled to take place.
The third Risperdal case to go to trial, Murray v. Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, resulted in a $1.75 million award, and another
jury awarded $500,000 to plaintiff Timothy Stange, the plaintiff
in the fourth and final Risperdal case that was heard in 2015.

Plaintiffs in all of the cases argued Janssen had been aware of
the high risk for gynecomastia, but negligently failed to warn the
medical community, and even hid data from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.

At the beginning of the year, the court also established a mass
tort program for Xarelto over claims that the drug causes
uncontrollable and sometimes fatal bleeding.  Roughly 75 cases
were transferred to the court's Complex Litigation Center in
January, which created the mass tort.

According to the plaintiffs' petition for the creation of a mass
tort, Xarelto was marketed as the "next generation" of blood
thinners in that it does not require monitoring of blood plasma
levels, as its ?counterpart medications do.

Xarelto was approved by the FDA and eventually went on to garner
$2 billion in sales nationwide with roughly 1 million
prescriptions written by 2013, two years after the drug's
introduction into the market, according to the petition.

The plaintiff in a Xarelto-related case originally filed outside
the mass tort also made novel claims that the drug was ineffective
for advertised once-daily use.

While counsel for the plaintiff said they were pursuing several
additional cases on similar claims and other attorneys said the
claims had potential to become a separate mass tort, the case was
rolled into the existing Xarelto mass tort program later in the
year.

But Risperdal and Xarelto were not the only two mass torts that
were active in 2015.

In August, the makers of Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella agreed to provide
nearly $56.9 million to establish a settlement program for
plaintiffs claiming they suffered arterial blood clots as a result
of taking the birth-control drugs. The agreement covered cases
pending in Pennsylvania, California and New Jersey.

The court also saw its first case over allegedly defective pelvic
mesh go to trial in December. That case, Hammons v. Ethicon,
resulted in a $5.5 million compensatory award for the plaintiff,
and a $7 million punitive damages award.  As of early December,
there were 181 pending cases in the pelvic-mesh mass tort.

Mass torts were not the only issues the court tackled in 2015.
There were also developments in the ongoing controversy involving
Nancy Raynor, a defense attorney sanctioned for more than $1
million for eliciting banned testimony.

Ms. Raynor was sanctioned by Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
Judge Paul P. Panepinto in late 2014 for drawing a prohibited
reference to smoking from an expert in a lung-cancer-related
medical malpractice case, which resulted in a mistrial.

In March, a hearing on the issue descended into chaos, with
Panepinto and attorneys handling the case getting into heated
exchanges.

After Judge Panepinto upheld his ruling on appeal, the issue went
to a state Superior Court panel, but in the time leading up to the
arguments, Ms. Raynor's personal business assets were targeted for
collection.

The largest verdict to come out of the court in 2015 was $38.5
million in punitive damages awarded to the estates of two Kraft
employees who were fatally gunned down by a disgruntled co-worker.
The award came about a month after a separate jury awarded the
estates more than $8 million.

The first jury found in favor of the estates of LaTonya Brown and
Tanya Wilson, and against shooter Yvonne Hiller and U.S. Security
Associates Inc., the company that provided security at the factory
where the three worked.

According to the plaintiffs' pretrial memo, Ms. Wilson and Ms.
Brown were fatally shot by Ms. Hiller on Sept. 9, 2010, after
Ms. Hiller had been suspended from working at the plant.  The
plaintiffs contend in the memo that security company officials
knew Ms. Hiller was troubled, but failed to properly escort
Ms. Hiller to her car after she was suspended.  This, according to
the plaintiffs, allowed Hiller to re-enter the plant with a 0.357
magnum revolver and kill Ms. Brown and Ms. Wilson.

The memo said that, while the guards should have watched
Ms. Hiller as she drove off the premises, she instead drove up to
a security post unobserved, surprised the guards and then gained
entry to the facility.


* S.D. Florida Court to Hear Five MDL Cases This Year
-----------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that many
Florida attorneys are poised to make national news in 2016 as they
toil away at significant multidistrict litigation, from a case
involving the largest auto recall in history to about
$1 billion in overdraft fee claims against Wells Fargo.

The Southern District of Florida will kick off the year with five
multidistrict litigation, or MDL, cases, according to the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.  And at least one more
might pop up as Colson Hicks Eidson lawyers ask the JPML to choose
a South Florida judge to hear breach-of-contract and racketeering
cases against the fantasy sports websites FanDuel and DraftKings.

The JPML consolidates federal cases filed across the country to be
heard in one district to streamline discovery and pretrial
rulings.  Cases that survive the pretrial MDL process are then
remanded to their original districts.

South Florida lawyers and judges are being chosen more often to
handle MDLs as the legal community's reputation improves, said
Miami attorney Scott Wagner, who has worked on about a dozen of
the consolidated cases.

Plus, the district's caseload has shifted, the Bilzin Sumberg
partner said.

"There's been a downturn in the amount of criminal cases here in
the Southern District of Florida in the last 10, 15 years," he
said.  "The courts have more time to deal with large, complicated
MDLs."

One such MDL is the Takata air bag litigation, in which Mr. Wagner
represents Honda defendants accused of colluding with air bag
manufacturer Takata Corp. to hide an alleged defect in the air
bags.

Three of the four lead plaintiffs' firms in that case are in South
Florida: Podhurst Orseck in Miami, Colson Hicks in Coral Gables
and Boies, Schiller & Flexner, whose Miami office is involved
along with New York and New Hampshire attorneys.

The case includes personal injury claims filed by 28 people
allegedly injured by the defective air bags and economic loss
claims from more than 100 drivers whose cars were recalled.

The size of the case and the number of defendants make it stand
out among other MDLs, said chair lead counsel for the plaintiffs,
Peter Prieto of Podhurst Orseck.

"You have close to a dozen defendants, which is kind of unique in
an MDL," he said.  "You have so many cars involved, which at this
point are 19 million U.S. cars.  The other uniqueness is you have
both economic loss and personal injury claims. It's usually one or
the other."

The plaintiffs' attorneys are hoping for trial on the economic
loss claims sometime in 2017.  The coming year will be spent on
discovery, including foreign discovery involving Japanese and
German defendants.

"There will be millions of pages of documents to review, and it's
unclear right now how many depositions will be taken," Mr. Prieto
said. "It's safe to say there will be a lot of depositions taken
by both sides."

If discovery is substantially completed within the year, the
attorneys will also work on motions for class certification, he
said.  The personal injury claimants do not have to be certified
as a class, and therefore their claims will likely go to trial
before the economic loss claims.

Mr. Wagner declined to comment on the Takata case.

The Takata case is still in the early stages, unlike another
Southern District of Florida MDL that has been chugging along
since 2009.

Plaintiffs in that case claim their banks re-ordered debit card
and other charges to collect extra overdraft fees.  Many
defendants have already settled, including Bank of America, J.P.
Morgan Chase and U.S. Bank.

But one of the few remaining defendants, Wells Fargo, will likely
make a big splash in 2016.

"Despite the fact that we've settled about $1.2 billion worth of
cases, that one, if we were successful, it would probably double
the number," said solo practitioner Bruce Rogow of Fort
Lauderdale, who represents the plaintiffs along with Podhurst
Orseck and Kopelowitz Ostrow.

Wells Fargo, which is also defending claims against Wachovia after
acquiring that bank, will also raise interesting questions about
arbitration in the coming year, Mr. Rogow said.

The bank plans to file a motion to compel arbitration in the case,
even though it waived arbitration six years ago, he said.  Wells
Fargo's theory is that class certification led to a whole new set
of plaintiffs.

"That's where the battle is going to be: Can a defendant waive
arbitration against the named plaintiffs and then try to revive
its failure to have raised it by asserting it against the class
after the class is certified?" Mr. Rogow said.

A Wells Fargo spokeswoman declined to comment.

The other three MDLs in the Southern District of Florida are at
various stages: the settlement of a false advertising case against
the makers of Horizon Organic Milk was preliminarily approved in
2015, while cases against Chiquita Brands Inc. and the owners of a
plane that crashed are plowing through the pretrial process.

A brand-new MDL might join their ranks if Colson Hicks attorney
Ervin Gonzalez is successful in asking the JPML to consolidate
cases he's involved in and assign them to the Southern District of
Florida.

At a JMPL hearing Jan. 28 in Fort Myers, Mr. Gonzalez will request
the district be chosen for cases against FanDuel and DraftKings.

Mr. Gonzalez represents plaintiffs who allege both websites'
contests are dominated by people who use algorithms and other
automated tools to win, an unfair advantage the sites don't
disclose to other players.

His firm is involved in a handful of MDLs across the country now.
The consolidated cases are becoming more prevalent as federal
judges whittle the number of national class actions by
interpreting the rules of civil procedure more conservatively,
Mr. Gonzalez said.

The benefit of an MDL is that many cases settle once a bellwether
case has been tried, said Colson Hicks partner Mike Eidson --
mike@colson.com -- who has worked on several prominent MDLs.

But MDLs can rankle some lawyers who want to take their own
depositions and try their own cases instead of allowing one lead
attorney to do so, Mr. Gonzalez said.

"That can frustrate your traditional trial lawyer who likes to be
his own general," he said.


                            *********

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  * * *