CAR_Public/160115.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, January 15, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 10


                            Headlines


ADEX INTERNATIONAL: Kuehne Suit Goes to S.D. Florida
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Landau" Suit Claims
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Brown" Suit Included in Airline Antitrust MDL
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Kelly" Suit Moved From N.D. Calif. to D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Grimes" Suit Goes From N.D. Calif to D.C.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Garzel" Case Suit Goes to Wash. D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Lax" Suit Moved from N.D. Calif to D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Reiber" Suit Moved from N.D. Calif. to D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Jung" Suit Goes to Washington D.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Chen" Suit Moved From N.D. Calif. to D.C.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: BABC Suit Goes From N.D. Calif. to Wash. D.C.
ANDOVER SCHOOL: Judge Narrows Claims in "Meagher" Suit
APPLE INC: Class Cert. Denied in Suit Over Replacement Phones
AQUA TRANSFER: "Gonzales" Action Seeks OT Recovery
ATLAS ROOFING: Judge Picks Guide in Daubert Motion Application

BED BATH: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: "Sciulli" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
BISON DRILLING: Faces "Talamantez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CAFE VICO: "Bou-Merhi" Action Seeks OT Recovery
CANALU LLC: "Garcia" Action Seeks OT Recovery

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lopez" Suit Claims
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Abramowitz" Suit Over Debt Collection
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Sued in Penn. Over Alleged Royalty Conversion
CHIPOTLE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit From Investors
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Faces Shareholder Class Suits

CONVERSE INC: "Munoz" Suit Goes from N.D. to C.D. California
CORINTHIAN INTERNATIONAL: Judge Won't Allow Suit to be Remanded
CREDIT CONTROL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Sanchez" Suit Claims
DART CHEROKEE: Judge Denies Plaintiff's Second Bid to Remand Suit
DELAWARE: "Chandler" Seeks Damages Over Mortgage Deal

DELTA AIR LINES: "Pomeroy" Suit Moved From N.D. Ga. to D.C.
DELTA-T GROUP: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DIRECTV INC: "Lippincott" Suit Moved to N.D. California
DON RASMUSSEN: Sued Over Land Rover Vehicle Trade Restraint
DOORDASH INC: "Gerald" Action Hits Unsolicited Texts

DRAFTKINGS & FANDUEL: "Martinelli" Alleges Rigged Online Games
DUPONT: Class Settlement Precludes Late Complainant's Cause
EBAY INC: "Chen" Suit Removed from Alameda Court to N.D. Calif.
ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: Faces "Tran" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
ESSEX PROPERTY: Case Management Conference Set for Feb. 25

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Fennern" Suit Over FCRA Violation
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Letren" Suit Goes to Maryland Dist. Court
FIFTH STREET ASSET: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action
FITBIT: Sued Over Inaccurate Heart-Rate Monitoring
FLOWERS FOODS: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Neff" Suit Says

FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Judge Denies Bid to Unseal Records
FRENKEL LAMBERT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Welch" Suit Claims
GENERAL MARITIME: "Batchelor" Action Seeks OT Recovery
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Hill" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL
HOSPITAL SERVICE: "Leet" Class Suit Removed to M.D. Louisiana

IQ DATA: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
J CREW: "Kamal" Suit Stayed Pending Decision in Spokeo
J&J PAVEMENT REPAIRS: "Aguilar" Action Seeks OT Recovery
JASA MARKETING: Faces "Almanza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
KATZMAN PRODUCE: "Capote" Suit Seeks Overtime Recovery

KEANE FRAC: "Metz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
KLASSEN WELL TESTING: "Kuni" Action Seeks OT Recovery
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: "Chowning" Suit Moved to C.D. California
LOCKS & KEYS: Mass. App. Court Narrows Appeal on "Collins" Suit
MARTINEZ ENTERPRISES: Baltazar Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

MARYLAND TREATMENT: "Batiste" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MATTEL INC: "Archer-Hayes" Suit Alleges Eavesdropping Doll
MICHAEL STORES: Plaintiff Suffers No Injuries on Security Breach
MIYABI RESTAURANTS: "Crumbling" Action Seeks Minimum Wages
MODELL'S SPORTING: Faces "Diaz" Suit in N.Y. Over ADA Violation

NATIONAL FREIGHT: "Portillo" Suit Goes to NJ District Court
NATIONAL STORES: "Danino" Suit Seeks Overtime Recovery
NEIL JONES: Judge Requires Parties to Submit Additional Briefings
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: "Oravis" Moved to Wash. D.C.
PACIFICA HOTEL: "Shasheet" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

PDF FILLER: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Automatic Renewal Policies
QUALITY ENERGY: Faces "Granado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
R.J. REYNOLDS: "Fienman" Suit Over Camel Loyalty Program Settled
ROSICKI ROSICKI: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
RUST-OLEUM: "Howell" Suit Removed to New Jersey District Court

RYAN TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Bell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SAINT PETER'S HEALTHCARE: Plan Does Not Qualify for Exemption
SELENE FINANCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Mohammed" Suit Claims
SELENE FINANCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Jorge" Suit Claims
SESTWON PIZZA: Faces "Munoz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: "Valdes" Suit Moved from S.D. Fla. to D.C.
SPOTIFY: Musicians Seek Class-Action Status for Copyright Suit
SPOTIFY USA: Faces "Lowery" Suit Over Copyright Infringement
SUNOCO INC: Faces "Hernandez" Suit in N.Y. Over ADA Violation
SYNTHES USA: Judge Narrows Parties' Claims in "Lindell" Suit

TARGET CORP: "Bowen" Suit Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
TOTAL GAS & POWER: "Anastasio" Suit Hits Natural Gas Bids
TRADER JOE'S: Under-Fills Tuna Cans, New York Suit Says
TRINET GROUP: Robbins Geller Named Lead Counsel in "Welgus" Case

TRINITY INDUSTRIES: "Nemky" Suit Goes from E.D. to N.D. Texas
UBER TECH: Limo Drivers in Philadelphia File Class Action
UNITED CONTINENTAL: "David" Suit Over Inflight Service Dismissed
UNITED STATES: OPM Sued in D.C. Over Alleged Data Breach
VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE: "Tiller" Suit Removed to M.D. Florida

VITAL THERAPIES: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Abdy" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
XBIOTECH INC: Faces "Tran" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports

* KCC Expands New York Class Action Practice
* Obama Administration to Veto H.R. 1927


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Suit Bill Faces Steep Senate Hurdle
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRC Has Fibro Reinsurance Deals with AIG, et al.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSC Continues to Indemnify DyCorp Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FedEx Continues to Defend Fibro-related Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Continues to Defend Fibro Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review Stay of Allstate Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Custodian Loses Summary Judgment Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Summary Judgment Favoring Fluor
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fed. Cir. Dismisses Veteran's Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dale Farm Fined Over Cookstown Fibro Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stobbs Denies Ford's Bid to Junk Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Postpones Fibro Hearing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Names 70 Companies in Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olivetti Fibro Trial Gets Underway
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-related Deaths of Steelworkers Probed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Blames Cos. for Exposing Her, Father
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hundred of Hoo Academy Fined GBP35K Over Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dust Exposure Leads Rise in Construction Deaths
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. SC Bars Workers' Compensation Fibro Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Mortality Rates Exceed Nat'l Average

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Says Ex-Employers Caused Husband's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two Companies Fined GBP165K for Fibro Failings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wateringen Residents Exposed to Deadly Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Security Guard Dies of Fibro-related Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Bill Would Expose Victims' Personal Data




                            *********


ADEX INTERNATIONAL: Kuehne Suit Goes to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kuehne Chemical Company, Inc. v.
Adex International, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-05630, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-24157-DLG to the proceeding.

Plaintiff brought the lawsuit alleging fraud, conversion, breach
of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel,
indemnity, and intentional interference with contractual relations
against the Defendant.

Kuehne Chemical Company manufactures industrial inorganic
chemicals. The company was founded in 1988 and is based in Kearny,
New Jersey.

Adex International provides tradeshows, exhibits, and marketing
solutions. It offers marketing consultation and analysis design,
project management, engineering, graphics, fabrication,
installation, logistics, warehousing, multimedia, portables, and
asset management services. The company was founded in 1978 and is
based in Cincinnati, Ohio.


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Landau" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Landau, Saul Moskowitz, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated consumers v. Allied Interstate LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-06854-JG-PK (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Allied Interstate LLC provides accounts receivable, customer
retention and debt collection services to blue-chip companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Brown" Suit Included in Airline Antitrust MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brown v. American Airlines Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07433, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).
The DC District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01888-CKK to
the proceeding.

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

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

American Airlines Group Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.  American Airlines Group has
been the holding company and parent company of American Airlines,
Inc. since December 9, 2013.  American Airlines Group has hubs in
Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, New
York, Philadelphia, Phoenix and Washington, D.C.  American
Airlines and the other airline companies under the American
Airlines Group umbrella average close to 6,700 flights per day to
339 destinations in 54 countries.  Over half a million passengers
fly one of the airlines owned by American Airlines Group daily.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Kelly" Suit Moved From N.D. Calif. to D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kelly v. American Airlines, Inc.
et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03222, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).
The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01916-
CKK to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly conspired for
fixing, raising, maintaining, and/or artificially inflating the
prices for domestic air passenger transportation services in the
US in violation of Sherman Antitrust Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
          Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Esq.
          Eric W. Buetzow, Esq.
          ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 693 0700
          Facsimile: (415) 693 0770
          E-mail: cmicheletti@zelle.com
                  ahou@zelle.com
                  ebuetzow@zelle.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Grimes" Suit Goes From N.D. Calif to D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Grimes et al. v. American Airlines
Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03269, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Northern, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
(Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:15-cv-01915-CKK to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly conspired for
fixing, raising, maintaining, and/or artificially inflating the
prices for domestic air passenger transportation services in the
US in violation of Sherman Antitrust Act.

American Airlines Group is an American publicly traded airline
holding company headquartered in Fort Worth. American Airlines
provides scheduled airline services. It offers scheduled jet
services primarily to Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles,
Miami, and New York City. Delta Air Lines is a major American
airline, with its headquarters and largest hub at Hartsfield-
Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia.
Southwest Airlines is a major U.S. airline and the world's largest
low-cost carrier, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United
Continental Holdings is a publicly traded airline holding company
headquartered in the Willis Tower in Chicago, and owns and
operates United Airlines.  Chicago, Illinois-based United Airlines
offers passenger and cargo air transportation services. As of
October 28, 2015, the company operated approximately 700 mainline
aircraft.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Whitney E. Street, Esq.
          Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
          Erica G. Langsen, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          520 Third Street, Suite 108
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 968 8999
          Facsimile: (617) 507 6020
          E-mail: wstreet@blockesq.com
                  lweaver@blockesq.com
                  elangsen@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          Roger A. Sachar Jr., Esq.
          Domenico Minerva, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 564 1637
          Facsimile: (212) 564 1656
          E-mail: PSafirstein@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com
                  RSachar@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com
                  DMinerva@Forthepeople.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Garzel" Case Suit Goes to Wash. D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Garzel v. American Airlines Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06940, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington,
DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
01890-CKK to the proceeding.

Plaintiff brought the civil action for treble damages under the
antitrust laws of the United States. The lawsuit arose out of the
alleged conspiracy by the Defendants to limit flight capacity,
thus fixing, raising, maintaining, and/or stabilizing the price of
domestic air travel services in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

American Airlines Group is an American publicly traded airline
holding company headquartered in Fort Worth. American Airlines
provides scheduled airline services. It offers scheduled jet
services primarily to Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles,
Miami, and New York City. Delta Air Lines is a major American
airline, with its headquarters and largest hub at Hartsfield-
Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia.
Southwest Airlines is a major U.S. airline and the world's largest
low-cost carrier, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United
Continental Holdings is a publicly traded airline holding company
headquartered in the Willis Tower in Chicago, and owns and
operates United Airlines. United Airlines based in Chicago,
Illinois, offers passenger and cargo air transportation services.
As of October 28, 2015, the company operated approximately 700
mainline aircraft.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          Mark R. Miller, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE, LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346 2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346 0022
          E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  mrm@wexlerwallace.com
                  aek@wexlerwallace.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Lax" Suit Moved from N.D. Calif to D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lax & Company, Inc. et al v.
American Airlines Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-04085, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01901-CKK to the proceeding.

The class action lawsuit seeks to recover damages and other
appropriate relief based on the Defendants' unlawful conspiracy
for fixing, raising, maintaining and stabilizing the price of
domestic airline tickets in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act of 1890.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Whitney E. Street, Esq.
          Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
          Erica G. Langsen, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          520 Third Street, Suite 108
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 968 8999
          Facsimile: (617) 507 6020
          E-mail: wstreet@blockesq.com
                  lweaver@blockesq.com
                  elangsen@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          Roger A. Sachar Jr., Esq.
          Domenico Minerva, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 564 1637
          Facsimile: (212) 564 1656
          E-mail: PSafirstein@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com
                  RSachar@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com
                  DMinerva@Forthepeople.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Reiber" Suit Moved from N.D. Calif. to D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Reiber v. American Airlines, Inc.
et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03387, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of. Columbia (Washington,
DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
01910-CKK to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

The Defendants are represented by:

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Jung" Suit Goes to Washington D.C.
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jung v. American Airlines, Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03362, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of. Columbia (Washington,
DC). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01912-CKK
to the proceeding.

Plaintiff brought the action for damages and injunctive relief
pursuant to section 1 of the Sherman Act and sections 4 and 16 of
the Clayton Act. Plaintiff seeks to recover treble damages for
Defendants' alleged illegal conduct.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
          Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
          Joyce Chang, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697 6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697 0577
          E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                  swilliams@cpmlegal.com
                  azapala@cpmlegal.com
                  etran@cpmlegal.com
                  jchang@cpmlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Chen" Suit Moved From N.D. Calif. to D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Chen v. American Airlines, Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03342, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of. Columbia (Washington,
DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
01913-CKK to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly conspired to
fix, raise, maintain, and/or artificially inflate the prices for
domestic air passenger transportation services in the US in
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
          Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Esq.
          Eric W. Buetzow, Esq.
          ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 693 0700
          Facsimile: (415) 693 0770
          E-mail: cmicheletti@zelle.com
                  ahou@zelle.com
                  ebuetzow@zelle.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: BABC Suit Goes From N.D. Calif. to Wash. D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Boston Amateur Basketball Club,
III, Ltd. v. American Airlines Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-
cv-04459, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01899-CKK to the proceeding.

The proposed class action seeks to recover damages and other
appropriate relief based on the Defendants' alleged conspiracy of
fixing, raising, maintaining and stabilizing the price of domestic
airline tickets in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act of
1890.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Whitney E. Street, Esq.
          Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
          Erica G. Langsen, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          520 Third Street, Suite 108
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 968 8999
          Facsimile: (617) 507 6020
          E-mail: wstreet@blockesq.com
                  lweaver@blockesq.com
                  elangsen@blockesq.com

              - and -

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          Roger A. Sachar Jr., Esq.
          Domenico Minerva, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 564 1637
          Facsimile: (212) 564-1656
          E-mail: PSafirstein@ForThePeople.com
                  RSachar@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com
                  DMinerva@Forthepeople.com


ANDOVER SCHOOL: Judge Narrows Claims in "Meagher" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Judith Gail Dein of the District of Massachusetts
ruled on plaintiff's motions in the case Jennifer Meagher,
Plaintiff, v. Andover School Committee, et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 13-11307-JGD (D. Mass.)

Meagher was terminated on September 2012 from her employment as a
tenured teacher at Andover High School (AHS) in Andover
Massachusetts. The termination was based on Meagher having sent an
email to approximately 60 of her colleagues urging them to vote
against certain reports required as part of the school's
accreditation application.

Meagher filed a suit on May 30, 2013 against the Andover School
Committee, the Andover School Department and the Superintendent of
the Andover Public Schools, Marinel McGrath, and alleged that
defendants violated her rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983  and
the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12,
Sections 11H and 11I (MCRA).

On July 2, 2013, while the suit was pending, the Commonwealth
Employment Relations Board issued its decision in connection with
an unfair labor practices charge filed by the union, finding
Meagher's termination was in response to protected concerted
activity and that her employer had discriminated against her based
on her union activity in violation of Massachusetts law. The
School Committee was ordered to reinstate Meagher to her teaching
position at AHS and to compensate Meagher for all losses she had
suffered, if any, as a result of the unlawful action. No appeal
was taken.

Meagher continued to pursue her claims against the defendants and
eventually, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment
as to liability only. In a decision dated March 31, 2015, the
court concluded that Meagher had been unlawfully dismissed from
her employment in retaliation for protected speech, but that
McGrath was immune from liability under the doctrine of qualified
immunity. The court further held that the plaintiff had failed to
establish a triable issue with respect to her claims under the
MCRA.

A trial was scheduled on the issue of damages. Before trial, the
parties settled Meagher's claim for $100,000.00, leaving to the
court the issue of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff and her counsel filed an amended motion to assess costs
including reasonable attorney's fees and a motion to submit
additional materials to the court. Plaintiff's counsel is seeking
$488,660.80 in fees, and $16,237.79 in costs, for a total amount
of $504,898.59.

Magistrate Judge Dein allowed, in part, and denied, in part,
plaintiff's amended motion to assess costs including reasonable
attorney's fees. Plaintiff is awarded $167,454.18 in fees and
$16,237.79 in costs, for a total award of $183,691.97. Plaintiff's
motion to submit additional materials to the court is denied.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Dein's memorandum of decision and order
dated January 6, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/FFgpCofrom
Leagle.com.

Ms. Jennifer Meagher, Plaintiff, represented by Mark D. Stern --
lawoffice@mdsternlaw.com -- at Law Offices of Mark D. Stern

Defendants, represented by:

     Gregor A. Pagnini, Esq.
     Leonard H. Kesten, Esq.
     BRODY, HARDON, PERKINS, & KESTEN LLP
     699 Boylston Street
     Boston, MA 02116
     Telephone: 617-880-7100
     Facsimile: 617-880-7171


APPLE INC: Class Cert. Denied in Suit Over Replacement Phones
-------------------------------------------------------------
Named plaintiff Fabrienne English accuses defendants Apple Inc.,
AppleCare Service Company Inc., and Apple CSC Inc. of various
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with AppleCare+ and
AppleCare Protection Plan, extended service plans Apple offers to
purchasers of iPhones.  English's claims vary slightly, but her
core complaint is that Apple misrepresents to consumers that
replacement iPhones under AC+ and APP will be new, when in fact
many of the replacement devices in Apple's service stock are
"refurbished" or otherwise not new.  She moves to certify a class
and two subclasses of purchasers of AC+ and APP asserting claims
under California law for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, the False Advertising Law, the Unfair Competition Law, and
the Secondhand Merchandize Labeling Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Sec. 17531, and for fraud.

District Judge William H. Orrick ruled that none of her theories
of liability support class certification, and she has not
established adequacy of counsel under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a)(4). Her motion is denied, the judge said in a 27-
page decision.

A Case Management Conference is set for February 9, 2016 at 2 p.m.
The parties shall file a Joint Case Management Statement by
February 2, 2016 proposing a schedule to address the remaining
issues in this case.

The case is, FABRIENNE ENGLISH, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-01619-WHO (N.D. Cal.).


AQUA TRANSFER: "Gonzales" Action Seeks OT Recovery
--------------------------------------------------
James Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Aqua Transfer & Energy Services, LLC,
Premier Flow Control, LLC, K&S Services, LLC and Chadwick Kindle,
Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-01102-OLG (W.D. Tex., San Antonio
Division, December 10, 2015), seeks actual damages, including owed
wages, monthly benefit differential loss, lost benefits, mental
anguish damages and other compensatory damages, liquidated and
punitive damages as well as attorney's fees under Section 216 of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a yard worker and claims being
paid a flat salary with no overtime premium for hours that they
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Aqua Transfer & Energy Services, LLC, is a domestic limited
liability company with its principle office and place of business
located Corsicana, Navarro County, Texas with Chadwick Kindle as
President.

Premier Flow Control, LLC, is a domestic limited liability company
with its principle office and place of business located in
Corsicana, Navarro County, Texas.

K&S Services, LLC, is a domestic limited liability company with
office and place of business located in Corsicana, Navarro County,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glenn D. Levy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY
      906 Basse, Suite 100
      San Antonio, TX 78212
      Tel: (210) 822-5666
      Fax: (210) 822-5650


ATLAS ROOFING: Judge Picks Guide in Daubert Motion Application
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas W. Trash of the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, selected a case law in the case
entitled IN RE ATLAS ROOFING CORPORATION CHALET SHINGLE PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, No. 1:13-md-2495-TWT (N.D. Ga.)

The suit is a products liability action involving allegedly
defective roofing shingles.  Before the court are the parties'
letter briefs regarding the timing of Daubert type challenges to
the plaintiffs' expert opinions in the context of the class
certification. Both sides rely upon unpublished Eleventh Circuit
cases to support their positions.

The Plaintiffs rely upon Drayton v. Western Auto Supply Co., No.
01-10415, 2002 WL 32508918, at *6 (11th Cir. Mar. 11, 2002)
("Appellants have presented no authority establishing a court must
perform a Daubert inquiry of scientific evidence at this early
stage of a class action proceeding. The district court indicated
it will address this issue as this case progresses, which we find
sufficient.").

The Defendant relies on Sher v. Raytheon Co., 419 F. App'x 887,
890 (11th Cir. 2011) ("In American Honda, the Seventh Circuit
found that 'when an expert's report or testimony is critical to
class certification, as it is here . . ., a district court must
conclusively rule on any challenge to the expert's qualifications
or submissions prior to ruling on a class certification motion.'
Id. at 815-16. The American Honda court found that, if the
situation warrants, the district court must perform a full Daubert
analysis before certifying the class. Id. at 816. A district court
is the gatekeeper. It must determine the reliability of the
expert's experience and training as well as the methodology used.
Id. 'The [district] court must also resolve any challenge to the
reliability of information provided by an expert if that
information is relevant to establishing any of the Rule 23
requirements for class certification.' Id. We agree.").

In an opinion and order dated December 29, 2015, available at
http://goo.gl/PqGnxJfrom Lealge.com, Judge Trash adopted the Sher
standard and will conduct whatever Daubert analysis is appropriate
in the context of making the class certification decision.

Diane Dishman, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Coomes,
McConnell & Sneed, LLC, Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, LLP, Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP, Everette L.
Doffermyre, Jr., Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC &
Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC

Rodney Dishman, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Coomes,
McConnell & Sneed, LLC, Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, LLP, Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP, Everette L.
Doffermyre, Jr., Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC &
Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC

Anthony Costanzo, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Coomes,
McConnell & Sneed, LLC, Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, LLP, Shawn M. Raiter, Larson King, LLP, Everette L.
Doffermyre, Jr., Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC &
Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC

Wolfpen II Planned Community Homeowners Association, Inc.,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield Bryson &
Mason, LLP, Scott Crissman Harris, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP,
Everette L. Doffermyre, Jr., Doffermyre Shields Canfield &
Knowles, LLC & Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield &
Knowles, LLC

Brian David Seltzer, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Climaco,
Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli, Co., LPA, John A.
Peca, Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli, Co., LPA,
Patrick G. Warner, Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli,
Co., LPA, Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP,
Everette L. Doffermyre, Jr., Doffermyre Shields Canfield &
Knowles, LLC & Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield &
Knowles, LLC

Michael Mazza, Plaintiff, represented by David Randolph Smith,
David Randolph Smith & Associates, Dominick R. Smith, David
Randolph Smith & Associates, Jamie E. Weiss, Complex Litigation
Group, LLC, Jeffrey A. Leon, Quantum Legal, LLC, Jonathan Shub,
Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C., Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC,
Scott George, Seeger Weiss, LLP, William Lyon Chadwick, Jr., David
Randolph Smith & Associates, Everette L. Doffermyre, Jr.,
Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Kenneth S. Canfield,
Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC

Linda Krehlik, Plaintiff, represented by David Randolph Smith,
David Randolph Smith & Associates, Dominick R. Smith, David
Randolph Smith & Associates, Jamie E. Weiss, Complex Litigation
Group, LLC, Jeffrey A. Leon, Quantum Legal, LLC, Jonathan Shub,
Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C., Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC,
Scott George, Seeger Weiss, LLP, William Lyon Chadwick, Jr., David
Randolph Smith & Associates, Everette L. Doffermyre, Jr.,
Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Kenneth S. Canfield,
Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC

Robert Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by David Randolph Smith,
David Randolph Smith & Associates, Dominick R. Smith, David
Randolph Smith & Associates, Jamie E. Weiss, Complex Litigation
Group, LLC, Jeffrey A. Leon, Quantum Legal, LLC, Jonathan Shub,
Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C., Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC,
Scott George, Seeger Weiss, LLP, William Lyon Chadwick, Jr., David
Randolph Smith & Associates, Everette L. Doffermyre, Jr.,
Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Kenneth S. Canfield,
Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC

David Dickson, Plaintiff, represented by Dabny Lynn, Justin
O'Toole Lucy Law Firm, Jordan L. Chaikin, Parker Waichman, LLP -BS
FL, Justin Lucey, Justin O'Toole Lucey, P.A., Everette L.
Doffermyre, Jr., Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC &
Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC

Patricia Dickson, Plaintiff, represented by Dabny Lynn, Justin
O'Toole Lucy Law Firm, Jordan L. Chaikin, Parker Waichman, LLP -BS
FL, Justin Lucey, Justin O'Toole Lucey, P.A., Everette L.
Doffermyre, Jr., Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC &
Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC

Noble L. Brooks, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by James R. Reeves,
Jr., Lumpkins, Reeves & Mestayer, PLLC, Everette L. Doffermyre,
Jr., Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC, Kenneth S.
Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Christopher
L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP

Lloyd M Denson, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Hoaglund,
McCallum, Hoaglund, Cook & Irby, LLP, Kenneth Edward Sexton, II,
Gentle, Turner, Sexton, Debrosse & Harbison & Daniel K. Bryson,
Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP

Peggy C Denson, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Hoaglund,
McCallum, Hoaglund, Cook & Irby, LLP, Kenneth Edward Sexton, II,
Gentle, Turner, Sexton, Debrosse & Harbison & Daniel K. Bryson,
Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP

Stratford Club Condominium Association, Plaintiff, represented by
James Plummer Lukes, Wise & Donahue, PLC

Bryan Makowski, Plaintiff, represented by John C. Whitfield,
Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP & Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield Bryson
& Mason, LLP

Penny Seaberg, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan L. Chaikin, Parker
Waichman, LLP & Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield &
Knowles, LLC

Atlas Roofing Corporation, Defendant, represented by Conor A.
McLaughlin, Thompson Hine-Cleveland, Dana Woodrum Lang, Womble
Carlyle Sandridge & Rice-Charlotte Harlan Irby Prater, IV,
Lightfoot Franklin & White, LLC, Henry B. Smythe, Jr., Womble,
Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Hugh M. Claytor, Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, James E. Weatherholtz, Womble, Carlyle,
Sandridge & Rice, LLP, Joel G. Pieper, Womble Carlyle Sandridge &
Rice, LLP, John Phillip Wiederhold, Weiderhold, Moses, Kummerien &
Waronicki, P.A., Keith Ashford Clinard, Womble Carlyle Sandridge &
Rice, PLLC, Kip T. Bollin, Thompson Hine,Paul H. Stephenson, III,
Watkins & Eager, Jennifer Saffold Collins, Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, LLP & William M. Ragland, Jr., Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, LLP


BED BATH: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cristhian Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-09439-ALC
(S.D.N.Y., December 2, 2015) arises out of the access barriers in
the Defendant's website that make it difficult if not impossible
for blind customers to use the website.

Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. owns and operates retail stores that
provide to the public important goods, such as domestics
merchandise, home furnishing, and electronics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: "Sciulli" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sciulli et al. v. BellSouth
Telecommunications, LLC, Case No. 15-021841CA01, was removed from
the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-24163-
MGC to the proceeding.

Plaintiff seeks damages exceeding $15,000 pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

BellSouth Telecommunications is a Foreign Limited Liability
Company and is doing business as AT&T.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Leticia de la Caridad Alfonso, Esq.
          LEGAL DEPARTMENT, AT&T SERVICES, INC.
          675 W. Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 4300
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 927 8859
          Facsimile: (404) 927 7167
          E-mail: la4469@att.com


BISON DRILLING: Faces "Talamantez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Talamantez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bison Drilling and Field Services, LLC, Case No. 7:15-
cv-00206 (W.D. Tex., December 2, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Bison Drilling and Field Services, LLC is an oilfield services
company operating drilling rigs throughout the Permian Basin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS &JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              jbresler@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


CAFE VICO: "Bou-Merhi" Action Seeks OT Recovery
-----------------------------------------------
Alexandre Bou-Merhi, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. Cafe Vico, Inc. and Marcos Rodrigues, Defendants,
Case No. 0:15-cv-62596-KMM (S.D. Fla., Fort Lauderdale Division,
December 10, 2015), seeks damages for unpaid overtime and minimum
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cafe Vico is an Italian Restaurant owned by Marcos Rodrigues where
Bou-Merhi worked as a waiter. He routinely worked in excess of 40
hours per week without being compensated.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Tel: (305) 503-5131
      Fax: (888) 270-5549
      Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


CANALU LLC: "Garcia" Action Seeks OT Recovery
---------------------------------------------
Refugio Garcia, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Canalu, LLC
and Dean Lubbat, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-11134
(N.D. Ill., Eastern Division December 10, 2015), seeks recovery of
overtime wages, statutory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Canalu, LLC operate a restaurant called "Dinotto Pizza e Vino,"
located at 1551 N. Wells St., Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiff worked
for Defendants as a cook and claims to have worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek without overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Tel: (312) 800-1017
      Email: ralicea@yourclg.com


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lopez" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Lopez, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, and John Does 1 to 10, Case
No. 2:15-cv-08372-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., December 1, 2015) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC is engaged in acquisition and
management of non-performing consumer loan portfolios.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
      KIM LAW FIRM LLC
      411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl.
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (201) 273-7117
      Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
      E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Abramowitz" Suit Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Abramowitz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-06857 (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC is engaged in acquisition and
management of non-performing consumer loan portfolios.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Sued in Penn. Over Alleged Royalty Conversion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward M. Ostroski, Kathleen M. Ostroski, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation, et
al., Case No. 4:15-cv-02324-JEJ (M.D. Penn.., December 2, 2015) is
an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' practice of
converting royalties under oil and gas leases owned by the
Plaintiffs and the other Class Members, specifically by not paying
a royalty on the revenue paid by the third-party buyer and paying
no royalty on the revenue from derivative contracts.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation produces gas in Pennsylvania through
a subsidiary, Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William R. Caroselli, Esq.
      David A. McGowan, Esq.
      CAROSELLI BEACHLER McTIERNAN & COLEMAN, L.L.C.
      20 Stanwix Street, 7th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 391-9860
      E-mail: wcaroselli@cbmclaw.com
              dmcgowan@cbmclawlaw.com

         - and -

      Robert C. Sanders, Esq.
      LAWOFFICE OF ROBERT C. SANDERS
      12051 Old Marlboro Pike
      Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
      Telephone: (410) 371-2132
      E-mail: rcsanders@rcsanderlaw.com


CHIPOTLE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit From Investors
---------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Malara, writing for UPI, reports that Chipotle Mexican
Grill has been accused of providing misleading information to
investors in a class action lawsuit.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court by New York-based investor
Susie Ong, states the troubled chain restaurant made "materially
false and misleading statements" to investors, hid essential
information regarding lack of quality controls and lied in public
statements following an outbreak of customer illnesses.

The Denver-based company, Chairman M. Steven Ells, President
Montgomery F. Moran and CFO John R. Hartung were named in the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit cites an August incident in Simi Valley, Calif. that
led to about 100 customers becoming ill from norovirus.

"Health inspectors said that the restaurant in question contained
dirty and inoperative equipment, equipment directly linked to the
sewer, and other sanitary and health violations," the lawsuit
said.

The new legal battle begins after Chipotle disclosed it had been
served with a subpoena as part of a federal criminal
investigation. The subpoena was issued as part of an inquiry by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Office of Criminal
Investigations.

Problems for the company began in August when 64 customers in
Minnesota were sickened by salmonella. An E. coli outbreak in
October and November spread over nine states, sickening 53
customers. In December, 140 college students were infected with
norovirus in Boston after dining at a Chipotle location.

The company reported a 14.6 percent decline in sales in the final
quarter of 2015, claiming $14 million to $16 million will be
allotted to dealing with the contamination issues.


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Faces Shareholder Class Suits
----------------------------------------------
Joshua Lindenstein, writing for BizWest.com, reported that Clovis
Oncology Inc. (Nasdaq: CLVS) has been named a defendant in at
least four class-action lawsuits filed in recent weeks on behalf
of shareholders who allege the company and its top executives made
false and misleading statements about the company and clinical
data regarding one of its cancer drug candidates.

Those statements, the plaintiffs say, led to an inflated share
price and, ultimately, the loss of billions of dollars for
investors when Boulder-based Clovis' stock price plunged 70
percent on Nov. 16.

Three such cases were filed in U.S. District Court in Colorado
between Nov. 19 and Dec. 14. A fourth was filed Nov. 20 in U.S.
District Court in northern California.

Clovis officials declined comment on the pending lawsuits.

Clovis is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company developing
multiple cancer drugs, with plans to commercialize its first,
rociletinib, in the United States and Europe.

Clovis filed a New Drug Application with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration last summer for approval of rociletinib in treating
lung cancer, with a decision expected by March 30. But on Nov. 16,
Clovis disclosed that the FDA had requested more clinical data on
rociletinib in part because the number of study patients with
unconfirmed responses to rociletinib who had converted to
confirmed responses was lower than had been expected. That request
was expected to delay the FDA's decision, and on Dec. 15, Clovis
announced that the FDA had extended the goal date by three months
to June 28.

Clovis' share price had risen steadily through 2015 and closed at
$99.43 on Friday, Nov. 13. After the early-morning announcement of
the FDA request the following Monday, shares closed at $30.24,
representing a loss of nearly $2.2 billion in market
capitalization. The company's stock price has languished primarily
between $30 and $35 per share since, and was down $1.13 to $29.67
per share in mid-afternoon trading Thursday.

The respective lawsuits were filed in the names of John Moran,
Sonny P. Medina, Ralph P. Rocco and Steve Kimbro. They name Clovis
CEO Patrick Mahaffy and chief financial officer Erle Mast as
defendants, along with the company. The suits aim to represent
investors who purchased Clovis stock between Oct. 31, 2013, and
Nov. 15, 2015, a period during which they contend that statements
made by the company about the progress of rociletinib and the
anticipated timeline for commercialization of the drug caused the
stock price to rise artificially. The plaintiffs are seeking
damages and attorneys' fees.

The lawsuits contend that Clovis officials knew the data submitted
to the FDA on rociletinib was insufficient and could cause a delay
in approval before disclosing that information on Nov. 16.

Specifically, the California suit alleges that the company failed
to disclose that Clovis' New Drug Application contained immature
data sets based on both unconfirmed and confirmed response rates,
and that as the efficacy data matured, the number of patients with
unconfirmed responses to the drug who converted to confirmed
responses was lower than expected. As a result, the lawsuit
alleges that company officials failed to disclose that Clovis' NDA
was likely to be delayed and/or rejected, and that the company was
in possession of such data during its third-quarter conference
call on Nov. 5 in which company officials discussed Clovis'
financial outlook, including statements implying that
commercialization of the drug was imminent.

Clovis, which went public in 2011, was founded in 2009 and has
burned through hundreds of millions of dollars in developing
drugs. But the company has been eyeing a big year in 2016 for some
time, and last summer closed a $298.4 million follow-on stock
offering as it prepared for regulatory approvals and
commercialization. In addition to rociletinib, the company has
been aiming to submit a New Drug Application for rucaparib for the
treatment of ovarian cancer sometime this year.

Clovis received a boost in May 2014, when rociletinib was granted
Breakthrough Therapy designation by the FDA, a designation
intended to help expedite development and review of certain drugs.
The company received the same designation for rucaparib in early
2015.


CONVERSE INC: "Munoz" Suit Goes from N.D. to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Yuliana Serna Munoz v. Converse,
Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03971, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-08592-PA-JEM to the proceeding.

Converse, a Delaware corporation, manufactures and distributes
galoshes, sneakers, apparel, and accessories for men, women, and
kids. The company offers clothing and custom made shoes; and
socks, goggles, caps, and bags, and is based in Boston,
Massachusetts. Randstad Inhouse Services is a Delaware limited
partnership based in Saint-Denis, France. It offers temporary
staffing and recruitment services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James Alexander De Sario, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553 3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553-3603
          E-mail: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com
        jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Maya Harel, Esq.
          Casey J T McCoy, Esq.
          Jonathan D Meer, Esq.
          Sheryl L Skibbe, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLC
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 277 7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: mharel@seyfarth.com
                  cjtmccoy@seyfarth.com
                  jmeer@seyfarth.com
                  sskibbe@seyfarth.com


CORINTHIAN INTERNATIONAL: Judge Won't Allow Suit to be Remanded
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of the Northern
District of California, Oakland Division, ruled on plaintiff's
motions in the case ADRIAN TURNER, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. CORINTHIAN INTERNATIONAL PARKING SERVICES, INC., an unknown
business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant(s),
Case No. C 15-03495 SBA (N.D. Cal.)

Adrian Turner is a former employee of Corinthian International
Parking Services, Inc. and resides in the State of California.
Turner brought a wage and hour action on behalf of all current and
former hourly-paid or non-exempt California-based employees who
were employed by Corinthians within the State of California at any
time during the period from four years preceding the filing of the
complaint to final judgment, in the Superior Court of California,
Alameda.

Turner alleges seven causes of action arising under California
law, including claims for unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period
premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, failure to pay minimum
wage, failure to timely pay final wages, unreimbursed business
expenses, and unfair business practices.

Corinthians removed the action to the present court pursuant to
the class action fairness act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).
Turner filed a motion to remand.

Senior District Judge Armstrong denied plaintiff's motion to
remand without prejudice; and granted leave to file an amended
complaint for the express purpose of clarifying the putative class
definition.

A copy of Senior District Judge Armstrong's order dated December
1, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/UR1A42from Leagle.com.

Adrian Turner, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Han --
dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh --
statavos@justicelawcorp.com -- at Justice Law Corporation; Edwin
Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- Jill Jessica Parker --
jill@lfjpc.com -- at Lawyers for Justice, PC

Corinthian International Parking Services, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Jennifer Yuen-Sea Leung --
jennifer.leung@berliner.com -- Susan E. Bishop --
susan.bishop@berliner.com -- at Berliner Cohen LLP


CREDIT CONTROL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Sanchez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Sanchez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Credit Control, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-14410-RLR (S.D.
Fla., December 1, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Credit Control, LLC provides credit collection service that offers
debt collections, accounts receivables management, and security.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      S. Keley Jacobson, Esq.
      Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
      DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      5070 A1A Suite D
      Vero Beach, FL 34963
      Telephone: (772) 231-9600
      Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
      E-mail: jacobson@verobeachlegal.com
              lwd@verobeachlegal.com


DART CHEROKEE: Judge Denies Plaintiff's Second Bid to Remand Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Julie E. Robinson of the District of Kansas denied
plaintiff's second motion to remand in the case BRANDON W. OWENS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. DART CHEROKEE BASIN OPERATING CO. LLC, and CHEROKEE
BASIN PIPELINE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 12-4157-JAR-JPO, (D.
Kan.)

Brandon Owens filed a suit in the District Court of Wilson County,
Kansas asserting claims on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated oil and gas lessors. The putative class is
comprised of a group of mineral owners who formed lease agreements
with various production companies, exchanging working interests to
explore for and produce oil and gas from their lands for royalty
interests in the oil and gas yields. Owens asserts that Dart
Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC (Dart) underpaid royalty
owners by taking numerous deductions before the gas products were
in marketable condition, and by deceptively deducting a
conservation fee from plaintiffs' payments. As a result, Owens
alleges that Dart breached its lease agreement with each member of
the putative class by failing to produce and market at its sole
cost the gas by placing the gas in a marketable condition.

Defendants timely filed a notice of removal pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Defendants' notice of removal alleged,
among other things, that Owen's putative class claims exceed $8.2
million. In response, Owens filed a motion to remand, where he
claimed that defendants failed to satisfy their burden of
establishing the requisite amount in controversy by a
preponderance of the evidence in the notice of removal. Two days
after filing the motion to remand, Owens filed an unopposed motion
to stay the case pending mediation. The court granted Owens'
motion to stay and the parties engaged in mediation.
During the mediation, Owens's expert, Daniel Reineke, determined
that the damages available exceeded $14.2 million without
interest, based on the analysis of the three claims alleged in the
petition.

Following mediation, defendants timely filed their remand
opposition containing evidence of Owens's $14.2 million damage
calculation. Owens replied, arguing that defendants' submission of
evidence was improper under Tenth Circuit precedent. Owens did not
contest the alleged amount in controversy at that time. In keeping
with Tenth Circuit precedent, the court held that defendants were
required in their notice of removal to show sufficient facts to
establish the amount in controversy, and granted Owens's motion to
remand.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied defendants' petition for
leave to appeal. Defendants' petition for rehearing en banc was
subsequently denied. Defendants then filed a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was
granted.

On December 15, 2014, the Supreme Court found that the Tenth
Circuit abused its discretion by failing to grant defendants'
petition and that the statutory requirements for removal under
CAFA do not require a defendant to present evidence establishing
the amount in controversy with the notice of removal. The court
vacated and remanded the Tenth Circuit's order denying leave to
appeal. Pursuant to the order of the Tenth Circuit, the court
vacated its May 21, 2013 order remanding the case and reopened the
proceedings. The court then conducted a status conference with the
parties, where Owens indicated his intent to challenge whether the
amount in controversy requirement has been met under CAFA. The
parties agreed that this jurisdictional question should be
resolved before proceeding to discovery.

Plaintiff filed a second motion to remand, asserting that the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. Plaintiff now
asserts that the amount in controversy is $3,599,838.97, implying
that two portions of his claims are not recoverable. Because there
was no subject matter jurisdiction at the outset of the case,
plaintiff argues, remand is warranted.

Judge Robinson denied plaintiff's second motion to remand in a
memorandum and order dated December 3, 2015, available at
http://goo.gl/yTayjIfrom Leagle.com.

Brandon W. Owens, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara C. Frankland -
- bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- David E. Sharp -- dsharp@midwest-
law.com -- Rex A. Sharp -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- at Gunderson
Sharp, LLP; Grady L. Young -- at Southeast Kansas Legal Associates
PA; John F. Edgar -- at Edgar Law Firm, LLC

Defendants, represented by David E. Bengtson --
david.bengtson@stinson.com -- Matthew J. Salzman --
matt.salzman@stinson.com -- at Stinson Leonard Street LLP; Jordan
E. Kieffer -- at Jordan Kieffer Law, LLC


DELAWARE: "Chandler" Seeks Damages Over Mortgage Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Council, Inc., Sharon
Chandler, Nicole Draper, Ruth Corbin and Sewell Corbin on their
behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated Plaintiffs, v.
State of Delaware, Jack Markell, Governor of The State of
Delaware, Ken Simpler, Treasurer of The State of Delaware, Michael
Morton, Controller General of The State of Delaware, Defendants,
Case No. 11773 (Del. Ch., December 7, 2015), seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief resulting from breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duties.

Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Council, Inc. is a non-
profit corporation dedicated to ensuring equitable treatment and
equal access to credit and capital through advocacy, education,
legislation, and outreach on behalf of the citizens of Delaware
headquartered at 601 North Church Street, City of Wilmington.

Sharon Chandler owns property whose mortgage was a high interest
loan with a fifteen year balloon that went into foreclosure when
her loan matured. She was unable to refinance the payment because
her property value dropped below the loan balance.

A settlement agreement with the State of Delaware was executed to
settle claims against Bank of America in connection with its
conduct in the packaging, origination, marketing, sale,
structuring, arrangement and issuance of residential mortgages in
the State of Delaware. Bank of America was alleged to have
violated both state and federal law by inflating home appraisals,
fraudulently selling loans to the Federal National Mortgage
Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and
misrepresenting the quality of the loans it issued.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert D. Goldberg, Esq.
      921 N. Orange Street
      P.O. Box 1489
      Wilmington, DE 19899
      Tel: (302) 655-9677


DELTA AIR LINES: "Pomeroy" Suit Moved From N.D. Ga. to D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Pomeroy v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02525, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The
Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01897-CKK
to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton
Act. The plaintiff seeks to obtain injunctive relief and to
recover treble damages and the costs of the suit, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Bain, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A.BAIN, LLC
          1050 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 724 9990
          Facsimile: (404) 724 9986
          E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          William Parker Sanders, Esq.
          SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
          Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 3100
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3592
          Telephone: (404) 815 3500
          Facsimile: (404) 685 6984
          E-mail: psanders@sgrlaw.com

               - and -

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


DELTA-T GROUP: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Johnson, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees v. Delta-T Group, Inc., Delta-T Group Los
Angeles, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC602925
(Cal. Super. Ct., December 3, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants are providers of staffing solutions in behavioral,
social service, education, psychiatry, mental health and
addictions treatment fields.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Rosen, Esq.
      Kevin P. Smith, Esq.
      ROSE KLEIN & MARIAS, LLP
      12800 Center Court Drive, Suite 500
      Cerritos, CA 90703
      Telephone: (562) 436-4696
      Facsimile: (562) 436-6157


DIRECTV INC: "Lippincott" Suit Moved to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lippincott v. DIRECTV, Inc. et
al., Case No. SCV-257854, was removed from Superior Court of
Sonoma County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of. California (San Francisco). The California District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-05096-MMC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is suing the Defendants for alleged monopolistic
conduct.

DIRECTV Inc. operates as a subsidiary of DIRECTV, and is based in
El Segundo, California. DIRECTV Holdings LLC provides direct-to-
home digital television services and multi-channel video
programming distribution (MVPD) services in the United States. It
provides access to various channels of digital-quality video
entertainment and CD-quality audio programming that are
transmitted directly to subscribers' homes or businesses via
geosynchronous satellites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          Bradley Christopher Buhrow, Esq.
          Brian Gudmundson, Esq.
          Jason R. Lee, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 500
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (877) 500 8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500 8781
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
                  brad.buhrow@zimmreed.com
                  bcg@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Arthur M Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525 8100
          Facsimile: (505) 584 5249

The Defendants are represented by:

          Melissa D. Ingalls, Esq.
          Robyn E. Bladow, Esq.
          Tammy A. Tsoumas, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680 8552
          Facsimile: (213) 808 8073
          E-mail: melissa.ingalls@kirkland.com
                  robyn.bladow@kirkland.com
                  tammy.tsoumas@kirkland.com


DON RASMUSSEN: Sued Over Land Rover Vehicle Trade Restraint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Araman Nahavandifar d/b/a Luxury Motors of California, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Don Rasmussen
Company d/b/a Land Rover of Portland, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
09315-DSF-SP (C.D. Cal., December 2, 2015) arises from an illegal
conspiracy between the Defendants to restrain the sale and use of
their vehicles, and to obtain personal private information to
assist the restraint in trade.

Don Rasmussen Company is in the business of selling new and pre-
owned Land Rover vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Reza Sina, Esq.
      SINA LAW GROUP
      107 West Valencia Avenue
      Burbank, CA 91502
      Telephone: (310) 957-2057
      Facsimile: (425) 409-0763
      E-mail: reza@sinalawgroup.com


DOORDASH INC: "Gerald" Action Hits Unsolicited Texts
----------------------------------------------------
Shaena Gerald, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DoorDash, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-11123 (N.D. Ill., Eastern Division
December 10, 2015), seeks injunction requiring DoorDash to cease
all of its unsolicited text message activities, statutory damages
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227,
et seq., as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

DoorDash is a corporation organized in and existing under the laws
of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business
located at 565 Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94306. It is
an on-demand delivery service whose customers order meals from
local merchants. It allegedly sends unsolicited text messages to
the wireless telephones of Plaintiff without prior express consent
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 227, et seq.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 North State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, Illinois 60602
      Tel: 312.236.0000
      Fax: 312.241.1260
      Email: jsiprut@siprut.com
             isalam@siprut.com


DRAFTKINGS & FANDUEL: "Martinelli" Alleges Rigged Online Games
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian A. Martinelli and Paul Guercio, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FanDuel, Inc. and
DraftKings, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-09641-UA (S.D.N.Y., December 9,
2015), seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief arising from
negligence, fraud and misinterpretation, civil conspiracy and
unjust enrichment in violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law and the New York Deceptive
Acts and Practices Law and the False Advertising Law.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary S. Graifman
      KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER AND GRAIFMAN P.C.
      747 Chestnut Ridge Road
      Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
      Tel: (845) 356-2570
      Fax: (845) 356-4335

           - and -

      John A. Kehoe, Esq.
      KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
      Two Penn Center Plaza, Suite 1020
      1500 JFK Boulevard
      Philadelphia, PA 19120
      Tel: (215) 792-6676
      Fax: (215) 792-6689

           - and -

      Joseph M. Profy, Esq.
      David M. Promisloff, Esq.
      Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, Esq.
      PROFY PROMISLOFF & CIARLANTO, P.C.
      100N 22nd Street, Unit 105
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 259-5156
           (215) 600-2642


DUPONT: Class Settlement Precludes Late Complainant's Cause
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gene E. Pratter of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted defendant's motion in the case entitled IN
RE: IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL ACTIONS, No.
11-md-2284 (E.D. Penn.)

In the fall of 2010, DuPont introduced Imprelis, a new herbicide
designed to selectively kill unwanted weeds without harming non-
target vegetation. After widespread reports of damage to non-
target vegetation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began
investigating Imprelis, leading to lawsuits, a suspension of
Imprelis sales, and an EPA order preventing DuPont from selling
Imprelis.

QueenPin LLC claims that on May 24, 2011 Imprelis was applied to
property adjacent to its two properties, and that this application
of Imprelis damaged several trees and plants on its properties.

In September 2011, DuPont started its own claim resolution process
to compensate victims of Imprelis damage. Despite the voluntary
process, plaintiffs continued to pursue their lawsuits, alleging
consumer fraud/protection act violations, breach of express and/or
implied warranty, negligence, strict products liability, nuisance,
and trespass claims based on the laws of numerous states. After
months of settlement discussions, including mediation, the parties
came to a settlement agreement.

The Imprelis Class Action Settlement (Settlement) covers three
classes of Imprelis plaintiffs. Among the three settlement classes
is a property owner class, to which, DuPont argues, QueenPin
belongs. Under the settlement, property owner class members who
filed claims by the claims deadline would receive tree removal or
compensation for tree removal, payments for replacement trees,
tree care and maintenance payments, and a 15% payment for
incidental damages. The settlement included a warranty that
provided for all benefits but the 15% incidental damages award for
Imprelis damage that manifested after the claims period closed but
before May 31, 2015. On February 12, 2013, the court preliminarily
approved the settlement.

On September 27, 2013, the court held a final fairness hearing to
determine whether the settlement provided fair, reasonable, and
adequate compensation to class members. The order entering final
judgment as to the settlement states that class members are
permanently enjoined and barred from instituting, commencing, or
prosecuting any action or other proceeding asserting any released
claims, against any releasee by whatever means, in any local,
state, or federal court, or in any agency or other arbitral or
other forum. The court also retained exclusive jurisdiction over
any action relating to the settlement.

In April 2015, QueenPin filed its complaint in Ohio state court.
It alleges in its complaint that it tried to participate in the
class action settlement process, but was ignored, and it asserts
claims against both DuPont and its neighbor's lawn care company.
In response, DuPont moved to enjoin the state court proceedings
under the All Writs Act, arguing that the class action settlement
precludes QueenPin's claims against it. QueenPin LLC responds to
DuPont's motion by arguing that (1) because it was never given the
opportunity to opt out, never consented to this Court's
jurisdiction, and has no minimum contacts with the forum, the
Court may not enjoin its state court action, (2) QueenPin is not a
member of any Settlement Class, and (3) the notice program was
inadequate.

Judge Pratter granted DuPont's motion.

A copy of Judge Pratter's memorandum dated November 25, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/sKAsr5from Leagle.com.


EBAY INC: "Chen" Suit Removed from Alameda Court to N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Chen et al. v. eBay Inc. et al.,
Case No. RG15780778, was removed from Alameda County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of.
California (San Francisco). The California District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-05048-EDL to the proceeding.

Plaintiffs seek to recover as monetary damages the amount of sales
that have been lost as a result of alleged competitive
advertisement placed by the Defendants.

eBay is an American multinational corporation and e-commerce
company, providing consumer to consumer &business to consumer
sales services via Internet. It is headquartered in San Jose,
California.

PayPal is an American company operating a worldwide online
payments system. The company operates as an acquirer, performing
payment processing for online vendors, auction sites and other
commercial users, for which it charges a fee.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony Albert Ferrigno, Esq.
          LAW OFCS OF ANTHONY A. FERRIGNO
          1116 Ingleside Ave
          Athens, TN 37303
          Telephone: (423) 744 4041
          Facsimile: (925) 945 8792
          E-mail: A-trust-fraudlaw@msn.com

               - and -

          John David Franklin, Esq.
          FRANKLIN & FRANKLIN
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1140
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (858) 229 4441
          E-mail: jdfranklaw@san.rr.com

               - and -

          Pamela Elizabeth Havird, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAMELA E. HAVIRD
          P O Box 375
          San Diego, CA 92038
          Telephone: (619) 888 8090
          Facsimile: (858) 815 7778

The Defendants are represented by:

          William P. Donovan Jr., Esq.
          Whitty Somvichian, Esq.
          Nathaniel R. Cooper, Esq.
          Kristine A. Forderer, Esq.
          COOLEY, LLP
          1333 Second Street, Suite 400
          Santa Monica, CA 90401-4100
          Telephone: (310) 883-6400
          Facsimile: (310) 883-6500
          E-mail: wdonovan@cooley.com
                  wsomvichian@cooley.com
                  ncooper@cooley.com
                  kforderer@cooley.com


ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: Faces "Tran" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nghiem Tran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Erba Diagnostics, Inc., Mohan Gopalkrishnan, Ernesina
Scala, Sanjiv Suri, and Prakash Patel, Case No. 1:15-cv-24440-MGC
(S.D. Fla., December 2, 2015) alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.

Erba Diagnostics, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets
diagnostic test kits or assays, and automated systems that are
used to aid in the detection of disease markers primarily in the
areas of autoimmune, infectious diseases, clinical chemistry,
hematology, and diabetes testing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10116
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

         - and -

      Michael Goldberg, Esq.
      GOLDBERG LAW PC
      13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404
      Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
      Telephone: (1800) 977-7401
      Facsimile: (1800) 536-0065
      E-mail: info@goldberglawpc.com


ESSEX PROPERTY: Case Management Conference Set for Feb. 25
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division granted defendant's motion to
dismiss in the case MARK FOSTER, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ESSEX
PROPERTY TRUST, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:14-cv-05531-EJD (N.D.
Cal.)

Defendant Essex Property Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment
trust that invests in apartment communities along the West Coast
of the United States. It develops, redevelops, and manages
multifamily communities located in Northern California, Southern
California, and Seattle Metro areas.

Plaintiffs Mark and Akiko Foster reside in an apartment leased
from defendant in Menlo Park, California. Plaintiffs allege that
when they leased their apartment from defendant, they were
required to provide defendant with sensitive personal and
financial information. Defendant allegedly kept the information in
its computer systems, servers, and databases. Plaintiff alleges
that defendant sustained one or more security breaches to its
computer network due to their failure to maintain adequate data
security. The security breaches allegedly placed plaintiffs'
private information into the hands of cyber criminals.

As a result of the data breach, plaintiffs allege their personal
information was used to make unauthorized charges on their credit
cards, and exposed them to a greater risk of identity theft and
fraud.

Plaintiffs commenced an action arising out of the data breach,
asserting violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violation
of California Civil Code Section 1798.80 et seq., negligence under
California law and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Judge Davila granted defendant's motion to dismiss due to lack of
standing. Plaintiffs' entire complaint is dismissed with leave.
The court scheduled the case for a case management conference at
10:00 a.m. on February 25, 2016. The parties shall file a joint
case management conference statement on or before February 18,
2016.

A copy of Judge Davila's order dated November 25, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/bQmz2ifrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Brett E. Bitzer -- Clayeo C. Arnold --
ccacorp@aol.com -- at Clayeo C. Arnold, Clayeo C. Arnold, A
Professional Law Corporation; John A. Yanchunis -- at Morgan and
Morgan, P.A.

Essex Property, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jon Peter
Kardassakis -- Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com -- Michael K.
Grimaldi -- Michael.Grimaldi@lewisbrisbois.com -- at Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Fennern" Suit Over FCRA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angelia Fennern, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Experian Information Solution, Inc., et al., Case No.
8:15-cv-02004-DOC-JCG (C.D. Cal., December 1, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Experian Information Solution, Inc. operates an information
services company, providing data and analytical tools.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Caleb Marker, Esq.
      Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
      555 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 500
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (877) 500-8780
      Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
      E-mail: Caleb.Marker@zimmreed.com
              Christopher.Ridout@zimmreed.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Letren" Suit Goes to Maryland Dist. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Letren v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. et al., was removed from the Circuit Court for
Prince George's County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland (Greenbelt). The Maryland District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-03361-TDC to the proceeding.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an information services
company that provides data and analytical tools to clients around
the world. It offers credit report, credit score, credit
monitoring, and identity theft protection services to individuals;
and customer acquisition, customer management, risk management,
fraud management, debt recovery, regulatory compliance, business
resources, and consulting services to businesses. The company is
based in Costa Mesa, California. Equifax is a global service
provider with US $2.3 billion in annual revenue and 7,000+
employees in 14 countries and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia. TransUnion is an American company that provides credit
information and information management services to approximately
45,000 businesses and approximately 500 million consumers
worldwide in 33 countries, and is based in Chicago, Illinois.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Henry Mark Stichel, Esq.
          GOHN, HANKEY, STICHEL & BERLAGE, LLP
          201 N Charles St., Ste 2101
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 752 9300
          Facsimile: (410) 752 2519
          E-mail: hmstichel@ghsllp.com


FIFTH STREET ASSET: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC said a class action has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on
behalf of purchasers of Fifth Street Asset Management, Inc.
(NASDAQ: FSAM) common stock who purchased shares pursuant to
and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with FSAM's October 30, 2014 initial public
offering (the "IPO").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from Jan. 7, 2016. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Corey D. Holzer,
Esq. via email at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, or Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
via email at mdees@holzerlaw.com, or via toll-free telephone at
(888) 508-6832, to discuss your legal rights.

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. Any purchaser of
FSAM common stock is invited to contact us concerning their
eligibility to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, regardless
of the date of their purchase.

FSAM, which is headquartered in Connecticut, is a credit-focused
asset manager and the investment advisor for Fifth Street Finance
Corp. ("FSC"), Fifth Street Senior Floating Rate Corp. ("FSFR"),
and various private Fifth Street funds. The complaint alleges that
FSAM and certain of its officers and directors violated the
Securities Act of 1933.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that offering documents filed
in connection with the IPO contained materially false and
misleading statements of fact and failed to disclose facts
necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading,
including, among other statements, that: (i) FSAM had $4.2 billion
assets under management from FSC as of June 30, 2014, when in fact
a substantial portion of FSC's portfolio had been impaired on a
cost basis prior to the IPO; (ii) FSAM had increased its
management fee revenues by a compound annual growth rate of nearly
50% year-over-year during the six months ended June 30, 2014 due
to FSAM's "outstanding performance," when in fact the growth in
fee revenue was largely due to the overstatement of FSC's assets
and dilutive stock offerings detrimental to the Funds'
shareholders; and (iii) FSAM had "high-quality and predictable
earnings," when in fact FSAM's revenues were unsustainable and the
result of conduct that placed FSAM's most important asset -- its
management contract with FSC -- at risk.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
FSAM common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com/-- is an
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation.

Contacts:

     Holzer & Holzer, LLC
     Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
     888-508-6832 (toll-free)
     E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


FITBIT: Sued Over Inaccurate Heart-Rate Monitoring
--------------------------------------------------
Samantha Crook, writing for WPXI.com, reported that Fitbit is
facing a class-action lawsuit for inaccurate heart-rate
monitoring.

"PurePulse continuous heart rate shows you how hard you're
working," a Fitbit ad says. One plaintiff claims that her Fitbit
Charge HR underestimated her heart rate by more than 70 beats per
minute.  She claims that she discovered the discrepancy after her
personal trainer manually measured her heart rate.  She says she
was reaching the maximum recommended heart rate for her age, so
relying on the Fitbit's data could have put her in an unsafe
position.

The lawsuit says Fitbit's PurePulse technology is to blame.
The same technology is in the new Fitbit Blaze, which was released
for presale on the same day the suit was filed.
But Fitbit told Ars Technica that it doesn't think the case has
merit.

A company spokesperson told the outlet:

"It's . . . important to note that Fitbit trackers are designed to
provide meaningful data to our users to help them reach their
health and fitness goals, and are not intended to be scientific or
medical devices."


FLOWERS FOODS: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Neff" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Neff and Matthew McCrea, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. Flowers Foods, Inc., LePage
Bakeries, Inc., and CK Sales Co., LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00254-gwc
(D. Vt., December 2, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of developing, baking, and
distributing bakery and snack food products to retail customers,
using a centralized network of communication, distribution, and
warehousing facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick J. Bernal, Esq.
      WITTEN, WOOLMINGTON, CAMPBELL & BERNAL, P.C.
      4900 Main Street, P.O. Box 2748
      Manchester Center, VT 05255
      Telephone: (802) 362-2560
      E-mail: pjb@wittenetal.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Susan E. Ellingstad, Esq.
      Rachel A. Kitze Collins, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: seelingstad@locklaw.com
              rakitzecollins@locklaw.com


FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Judge Denies Bid to Unseal Records
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gregory L. Frost of the Southern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division denied plaintiff's request to unseal in the case
KRISTEN McDONALD, Plaintiff, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO. Defendant,
Case No. 2:13-cv-503 (S.D. Ohio)

Kristen McDonald alleges that Franklin County Corrections Center
(FCCC) took photographs of female, misdemeanant detainees who had
tattoos in private areas at the time of their detention. She
alleges that FCCC took photographs of these detainees' tattoos in
violation of their constitutional rights.

Defendant asserts that there exist approximately 74 females who
were detained at FCCC whose records have been sealed. Defendant
argues that the 74 individuals took affirmative steps to seal
their criminal records. Defendant argues, the relevant statute
provides a process by which the individual can elect to have the
arrest and related proceedings erased from his or her record.
Defendant concludes that both the parties and the Court should
respect that process.

Plaintiff concedes that the privacy concerns underlying the
expungement statutes present a legitimate concern in the case.
Plaintiff argues, however, that the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure require the best notice that is practicable under the
circumstances, which requires individual notice to all members who
can be identified through reasonable effort. Plaintiff asserts
that defendant can and should identify the potential class members
by reviewing the sealed records in the case in order to allow
plaintiff to notify those individuals directly about the lawsuit.
Plaintiff proposes that defendant review the 74 records in
question, that the court identifies the individuals who meet the
class definition from those records, and that plaintiff contact
theose individuals directly via telephone in order to minimize the
chance that the information is revealed to third parties.

Judge Frost declines to unseal the records of approximately 74
individuals who might be plaintiffs in the class action
litigation. Plaintiff's request that the court issue such an order
is denied.

A copy of Judge Frost's opinion and order dated November 30, 2015,
is available at http://goo.gl/UuG9Lkfrom Leagle.com.

Jane Doe, Individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew S Baker and
Elmer Robert Keach, III, Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III,
PC

Kristen McDonald, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew S Baker, D
Aaron Rihn, Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C., Elmer Robert Keach,
III, Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, PC & Nicholas A
Migliaccio, Migliaccio Law Firm PLLC

Franklin County, Ohio, Defendant, represented by Scott Oliver
Sheets, Franklin County Prosecutor's Office &Jesse William
Armstrong, Franklin County Prosecutor's Office


FRENKEL LAMBERT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Welch" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Welch and Kathleen Welch, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Frenkel Lambert Weiss Weisman &
Gordon LLP and Antonio Caula, Case No. 2:15-cv-14412-JEM (S.D.
Fla., December 2, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Frenkel Lambert Weiss Weisman & Gordon LLP owns and operates a law
firm located at 20 West Main Street Bay Shore, New York 11706.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
      S. Keley Jacobson, Esq.
      DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      5070 N. Highway A1A, Suite D
      Vero Beach, FL 32963
      Telephone: (772) 234-5150
      Facsimile: (772) 234-5231
      E-mail: lwd@verobeachlegal.com


GENERAL MARITIME: "Batchelor" Action Seeks OT Recovery
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Batchelor, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated Who Consent to Their Inclusion in a Collective
Action; Plaintiff v. General Maritime Corp. Defendant, Case No.
6:15-cv-02082-CEM-KRS (M.D. Fla., Orlando Division December 10,
2015), seeks payment of unpaid overtime wages, liquidates damages
and reasonable attorneys' fees as well as equitable relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Batchelor was employed as a marine superintendent by Defendant and
claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek without
overtime compensation.

General Maritime Corporation, is a corporation organized under the
laws of Delaware with principal place of business at 101 Harbor
Road, Southport, CT 06890.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dennis Creed, Esq.
      Joseph Odato, Esq.
      FELDMAN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1715 North Westshore Blvd., Suite 400
      Tamp, FL 33607
      Tel: (813) 639-9366
      Fax: (813) 639-9376
      Email: dcreed@ffmlawgroup.com
             jodato@ffmlawgroup.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Hill" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Hill, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-00637, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The Massachusetts District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-13711-FDS to the proceeding.

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

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

GlaxoSmithKline PLC is a limited liability corporation, organized
under the laws of the state of Delaware.  GSK's sole member is
GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware corporation,
and which has identified its principal place of business in
Wilmington, Delaware.  GSK designed, manufactured and distributed
Zofran, the drug that is the subject of the lawsuit.  Zofran is a
drug developed to treat severe nausea on cancer patients resulting
from chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary S. Nitsche, Esq.
          Joel Harry Fredricks, Esq.
          WEIK, NITSCHE, DOUGHERTY, & GALBRAITH
          305 N. Union Street, 2nd Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19805
          Telephone: (302) 655-4040
          Facsimile: (302) 654-4892
          E-mail: gnitsche@attys4u.com
                  jfredricks@attys4u.com


HOSPITAL SERVICE: "Leet" Class Suit Removed to M.D. Louisiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Victoria Leet, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hospital Service
District No. 1 of East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana
d/b/a Lane Regional Medical Center, Alegis Revenue Solutions, LLC,
and Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company, Case No. 639818,
was removed from the 19th Judicial District Court to the U.S.
District Court Middle District of Louisiana (Baton Rouge). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00811-JWD-SCR to
the proceeding.

The case asserts claims for violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

Hospital Service District No. 1 of East Baton Rouge Parish,
Louisiana operates a hospital located at 6300 Main St, Zachary, LA
70791.

Alegis Revenue Solutions, LLC is a third party receivable company
dedicated to maximizing revenue for hospitals.

Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company operates an insurance
company located at 5525 Reitz Ave, Baton Rouge, LA 70809.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Joseph D'Aquilla, Esq.
      ANDREW JOSEPH D'AQUILLA
      P. O. Box 2666
      11745 Ferdinand Street
      Saint Francisville, LA 70775
      Telephone: (225) 635-2020
      E-mail: adaquilla@bellsouth.net

         - and -

      Claude Devall, Esq.
      John Lee Hoffoss Jr., Esq.
      HOFFOSS DEVALL, LLC
      517 W. College
      Lake Charles, LA 70605
      Telephone: (337) 433-2053
      Facsimile: (337) 433-2055
      E-mail: tclaudedevall@yahoo.com
              jlhoffoss@hdinjurylaw.com

         - and -

      Derrick G. Earles, Esq.
      LABORDE LAW FIRM, LLC
      203 Energy Parkway, Building B
      Lafayette, LA 70508-3843
      Telephone: (337) 261-2617
      Facsimile: (337) 261-1934
      E-mail: digger@labordelawfirm.com

         - and -

      Donald Wayne McKnight, Esq.
      HOFFOSS DEVALL, LLC
      3205 Ryan Street
      Lake Charles, LA 70601
      Telephone: (337) 433-2053
      Facsimile: (337) 433-2055

         - and -

      Lawrence J. Centola III, Esq.
      Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
      MARTZELL & BICKFORD
      338 Lafayette Street
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 581-9065
      Facsimile: (504) 581-7635
      E-mail: lcentola@mbfirm.com
              usdcmdla@mbfirm.com

The Defendant Hospital Service District No. 1 of East Baton Rouge
Parish, Louisiana is represented by:

      David Robert Kelly, Esq.
      Chris D. Billings, Esq.
      Joseph John Cefalu III, Esq.
      Thomas Richard Temple Jr., Esq.
      BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON
      P.O. Box 3197
      One American Place, 23rd Floor
      Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3197
      Telephone: (225) 387-4000
      Facsimile: (225) 381-8029
      E-mail: drk@bswllp.com
              chris.billings@bswllp.com
              joseph.cefalu@bswllp.com
              trt@bswllp.com

The Defendant Alegis Revenue Solutions, LLC is represented by:

      George Davidson Fagan, Esq.
      LEAKE & ANDERSSON, LLP
      1700 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras
      New Orleans, LA 70163
      Telephone: (504) 585-7500
      Facsimile: (504) 585-7775
      E-mail: gfagan@leakeandersson.com

         - and -

      Margaret F. Swetman, Esq.
      LEAKE & ANDERSSON, LLP
      1100 Poydras St., Suite 1700
      New Orleans, LA 70163-1701
      Telephone: (504) 585-7500
      Facsimile: 585-7775
      E-mail: mswetman@leakeandersson.com

The Defendant Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company is
represented by:

      Charles A. O'Brien III, Esq.
      Allison Nunley Pham, Esq.
      P.O. Box 98029, 5525 Reitz Avenue
      Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9029
      Telephone: (225) 295-2454
      Facsimile: (225) 297-2760
      E-mail: brien@bcbsla.com
              allison.pham@bcbsla.com


IQ DATA: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------
Sara Judith Garcia Galdamez, Jorge Armando Escobar Barillas,
Virginia de Jesus Pena Pozuelos, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. I.Q. Data International, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-01605-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va., December 1, 2015) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

I.Q. Data International, Inc. is engaged in multi-family property
management debt collections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Simon Yehuda Sandoval-Moshenberg, Esq.
      SIMON SANDOVAL MOSHENBURG
      Legal Aid Justice Center
      6066 Leesburg Pike, Suite 520
      Fall Church, VA 22041
      Telephone: (703) 778-3450
      Facsimile: (703) 778-3454
      E-mail: simon@justice4all.org


J CREW: "Kamal" Suit Stayed Pending Decision in Spokeo
------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Mark Falk of the District of New Jersey granted
defendants' motion to stay in the case AHMED KAMAL, on behalf of
himself and the putative class, Plaintiff, v. J. CREW GROUP, INC.;
J. CREW INC.; J. CREW INTERMEDIATE LLC; J. CREW INTERNATIONAL,
INC.; J. CREW OPERATING CORP.; J. CREW SERVICES, INC.; CHINOS
HOLDINGS, INC.; and CHINOS ACQUISITIONCORPORATION Defendant, Civil
Action No. 15-0190 (WJM)

Defendants J. Crew, a clothing apparel conglomerate, owns and
operates more than 300 retail stores throughout the United States.

Plaintiff Ahmed Kamal a New York resident, filed a class action
complaint based upon defendants' alleged violation of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), an amendment to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq.

J. Crew moved to dismiss the complaint based on plaintiff's
failure to state a willful violation of FACTA. On March 25, 2015,
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint alleging that J. Crew
willfully violated FACTA by disclosing more than the last five
digits of Plaintiff's credit card number on three of his receipts.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons or entities to
whom Defendants provided an electronically printed receipt in a
sale or transaction occurring after January 10, 2010. Plaintiff
seeks statutory and punitive damages.

J. Crew moved to stay the case based on the fact that the Supreme
Court has granted a petition for writ of certiorari review of
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2015).  The
Supreme Court is going to address the issue of whether Congress
may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no
concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the
jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of
action based on a bare violation of a federal statute.

Plaintiff opposes the stay and argues that the court is not
obligated to stay the litigation purely on the chance that the
Supreme Court decision in Spokeo might change the law. He also
argues that a stay would prejudice him and his fellow class
members by preventing their claims from being addressed in a
timely fashion.

Magistrate Judge Falk granted defendants' motion to stay and the
action will be stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision in
Spokeo.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Falk's opinion dated December 29, 2015
is available at http://goo.gl/1Z9wEVfrom Leagle.com.

AHMED KAMAL, Plaintiff, represented by MARVIN L. FRANK --
mfrank@frankllp.com -- at FRANK LLP; PETER Y. LEE -- at LEE LLC &
ROBERT A. SOLOMON -- rsolomon@law.uci.edu -- at FRICKE & SOLOMON,
P.C.

Defendants, represented by ANDREW O. BUNN --
andrew.bunn@dlapiper.com -- at DLA PIPER, LLP


J&J PAVEMENT REPAIRS: "Aguilar" Action Seeks OT Recovery
--------------------------------------------------------
Julio Cesar Aguilar individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J&J Pavement Repairs, Inc., and
John B. Pancorvo, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-11139
(N.D. Ill., Eastern Division December 10, 2015), seeks statutory
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Aguilar worked for Defendants operating heavy equipment and
construction. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per
work week without overtime compensation as well as lunch breaks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Tel: (312) 878-1302
      Email: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


JASA MARKETING: Faces "Almanza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Almanza and other similarly situated sales agents v. Jasa
Marketing Group, Inc. and Enderica, Aldo, Case No. 35127551 (Fla.
11th Ct., December 3, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Jasa Marketing Group Inc. is a management consulting service
located in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305)416-5000
      Facsimile: (305)416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


KATZMAN PRODUCE: "Capote" Suit Seeks Overtime Recovery
------------------------------------------------------
Angel M. Capote, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. S. Katzman Produce Inc., Stephen Katzman,
Stefanie Katzman, and Mario Andreani, Defendants, Case No. 4:15-
cv-01809 (S.D.N.Y., December 9, 2015), seeks collective damages
for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

S. Katzman Produce, Inc. is a New York corporation that owns and
operates a warehouse located at Hunts Point Market, Row A, Unit
153-157, Bronx, New York 10474 with Stephen Katzman as Chief
Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer.

Capote has generally worked as a loader, picker and porter at
Katzman Produce. He regularly worked an average of fifty hours per
workweek without overtime compensation in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq.
      488 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 583-9500
      Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
             cuadra@pechmanlaw.com


KEANE FRAC: "Metz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kalven Metz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Keane Frac TX, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01570-JFC
(W.D. Penn., December 2, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Keane Frac TX, LLC operates an oilfield service company offering a
wide range of services to the oil and gas industry in states such
as Pennsylvania, West Virginia, North Dakota, and Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 766-1455
      Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


KLASSEN WELL TESTING: "Kuni" Action Seeks OT Recovery
-----------------------------------------------------
Bret Kuni, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Klassen Well Testing, Inc. and Pete
Klassen, Defendants, Case No. 7:15-cv-00224 (W.D. Tex., Midland
Division December 10, 2015), seeks to recover compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Kuni was employed by Defendants as a flowback hand and as an HSE
Supervisor. He claims not being paid overtime for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Klassen Well Testing, Inc. is an Arkansas corporation doing
business in the State of Texas and is into well testing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, 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


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: "Chowning" Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Wendy Chowning et al. v. Kohl's
Department Stores, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01624, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The California
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-Cv-08673-RGK-SP to the
proceeding.

Kohl's Department Stores, operates department stores in the United
States. It offers apparel, footwear, accessories, and home
products to middle-income customers. The company is based in
Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin. Kohl's Department Stores operates as a
subsidiary of Kohl's Corp.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James P Frantz, Esq.
          William P Harris III, Esq.
          George Theodore Stiefel III, Esq.
          FRANTZ LAW GROUP APLC
          402 West Broadway, Suite 860
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233 5945
          Facsimile: (619) 525 7672
          E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                  wharris@frantzlawgroup.com
                  gstiefel@frantzlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Matthew J Zevin, Esq.
          STANLEY LAW GROUP
          10021 Willow Creek Road, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 235 5306
          Facsimile: (815) 377 8419
          E-mail: mzevin@aol.com

               - and -

          Derek J Emge, Esq.
          EMGE FIRM LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595 1400
          Facsimile: (619) 595-1480
          E-mail: derek@emgelawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          E Alex Beroukhim, Esq.
          James F Speyer, Esq.
          ARNOLD AND PORTER, LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
          Telephone: (213) 243 4000
          Facsimile: (213) 243 4199
          E-mail: alex.beroukhim@aporter.com
                  james.speyer@aporter.com


LOCKS & KEYS: Mass. App. Court Narrows Appeal on "Collins" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed in part, reversed in
part and remanded the case of MICHAEL COLLINS, vs. LOCKS & KEYS OF
WOBURN, INC., & another (and a companion case), No. 14-P-1556
(Mass. App. Ct.)

Employers Fire Insurance Company (Employers) is the insurer for
defendant Locks & Keys of Woburn, Inc. (Locks & Keys). As insurer
for Locks & Keys, Employers has appealed from a postjudgment order
ruling on several objections to various claims made pursuant to a
class action settlement.

Employers contends that the judge erroneously rejected its
objections to three categories of claims. First, it contends that
the claims of certain class members were filed too late
essentially because class counsel did not send the required fax
notice and mail notice to potential claimants on the same day.
Second, the judge correctly denied Employers's objections that
were based on its contention that the settlement required class
counsel to present proof that a claim was timely received. Third
Employers is concern with the fax number verifications on certain
proof of claim forms.

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed in part, reversed in
part and remanded the case. The portion of the order that denied
Employers's objection based on the absence of the required fax
number from the fax number verification section of the proof of
claim form is vacated. The motion judge's order on the motion for
endorsement of objections is otherwise affirmed. Also on remand,
Employers is required to file a motion to be joined.

A copy of the Appeals Court of Massachusetts' memorandum and
opinion dated December 4, 2015, is available at
http://goo.gl/rI44ksfrom Leagle.com.

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts panel consists of Justices
Cynthia J. Cohen, Andrew R. Grainger and Gabrielle R. Wolohojian


MARTINEZ ENTERPRISES: Baltazar Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valentina Baltazar v. Martinez Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Casa Blanca,
Case No. 5:15-cv-02202-MHH (N.D. Ala., December 2, 2015) is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation and an additional amount as liquidated damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Martinez Enterprises, LLC owns and operates 7 Mexican Restaurant
and Cantina locations in the North Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
     WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER, & GOLDFARB, LLC
     The Kress Building
     301 19th Street North
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Telephone: (205) 314-0500
     Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
     E-mail: dea@wigginschilds.com


MARYLAND TREATMENT: "Batiste" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmelle Batiste, and all others similarly-situated v. Maryland
Treatment Centers, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-03698-PWG (D. Md.,
December 2, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Maryland Treatment Centers, Inc. is a private substance abuse
facility located in Baltimore County, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan Lescht, Esq.
      ALAN LESCHT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1050 17th Street, N.W., Suite 400
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202) 463-6036
      Facsimile: (202) 463-6067


MATTEL INC: "Archer-Hayes" Suit Alleges Eavesdropping Doll
----------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Archer-Hayes, on behalf of herself and C.H., a minor child,
individually, Charity Johnson, on behalf of herself and A.P, a
minor child, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Toytalk, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Mattel, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Samet Privacy, LLC, a
California limited liability company, dba Kidsafe Seal Program,
and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. CCW-CAC-12-322 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles County December 7, 2015), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, statutory, general, special and
exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and expenses resulting from
negligence, unjust enrichment and invasion of privacy in violation
of the Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq. (Unfair
Competition Law).

Plaintiff purchased Internet-enabled toys from the Defendant which
allegedly records audio conversations without their consent.

Toytalk creates toy systems that allow playful conversations
between child and toy. Mattel is a toy company that has been
producing the fashion dolls. The two partnered together to produce
an artificial intelligence-enabled fashion doll called "Hello
Barbie" designed to engage in conversation with children.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
      Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
      Heather Baker Dobbs, Esq.
      Justin M. Keller, Esq.
      Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
      LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Tel: (415) 956-1000
      Fax: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: msobol@lchb.com

        - and -

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com

        - and -

      Briana Kim, Esq.
      249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
      Long Beach, CA 9080
      Tel: (714) 482-6301
      Fax: (714) 482-6302
      E-Mail: Briana@BrianaKim.com

        - and -

      John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 223-5505
      Fax: (813) 222-4738
      E-mail: JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com

        - and -

      Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
      ABBOTT LAW GROUP P.A.
      2929 Plummer Cove Road
      Jacksonville, FL 32223
      Tel: (904) 292-1111
      Fax: (904) 292-1220
      E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com

        - and -

      Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
      RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
      1612 Military Cutoff Road, Ste. 300
      Wilmington, NC 28403
      Tel: (910) 777-7651
      Fax: (910) 772-9062
      E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com


MICHAEL STORES: Plaintiff Suffers No Injuries on Security Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joanna Seybert of the Eastern District of New York
granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case MARY JANE
WHALEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated. Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL STORES INC. Defendant, No. 14-CV-
7006 (JS)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y.)

On January 25, 2014, Michael Stores initially notified its
customers of possible fraudulent activity on some U.S. payment
cards. Three months later, Michaels confirmed the existence of the
security breach and estimated that approximately 2.6 million cards
may have been affected during the time period between May 8, 2013
and January 27, 2014.  Michaels offered free credit monitoring
services for 12 months.

Mary Jane Whalen was one of Michaels' customers during the time
period. She alleges that she made purchases with her credit card
at a Michaels retail location in Manhasset, New York on December
31, 2013.

Whalen commenced an action on December 2, 2014. Her complaint
alleges that she has suffered actual damages and faces an
increased risk of future harm. As to actual damages, Whalen
essentially alleges five different types of injuries: (1) actual
damages including monetary losses arising from unauthorized bank
account withdrawals, fraudulent card payments, and/or related bank
fees charged to their accounts; (2) the loss of time and money
associated with credit monitoring and obtaining replacement cards;
(3) overpayment of Michaels' services because Whalen would not
have shopped at Michaels had she known that Michaels did not
properly safeguard her personal identified information; (4) the
lost value of Whalen's credit card information); and (5) a
statutory violation of the New York General Business Law Section
349 (GBL).

Michaels filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Whalen lacks
Article III standing because she failed to allege any actual
damages arising out of the security breach or any future injuries
that are certainly impending, and even if Whalen did have
standing, she has failed to establish claims for breach of implied
contract and for violation of GBL Section 349.

Judge Seybert granted defendant's motion to dismiss and Whalen's
claims are dismissed without prejudice.

A copy of Judge Seybert's memorandum and order dated December 28,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/9Pp8umfrom Leagle.com.

Daniel A. Edelman, Movant, represented by:

     Dan Edelman, Esq.
     EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
     20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: 312-739-4200
     Facsimile: 312-419-0379

For Plaintiffs:

     Joseph Siprut, Esq.
     Gregory W. Jones, Esq.
     SIPRUT PC
     17 North State Street, Suite 1600
     Chicago, IL 60602
     E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
             gjones@siprut.com

          - and -

     Brian Phillip Murray, Esq.
     Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
     GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
     122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
     New York, NY 10168
     E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
             glinkh@glancylaw.com

          - and -

     Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
     211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
     Chicago, IL 60606
     E-mail: kshamberg@litedepalma.com


For Defendant:

     James D. Arden, Esq.
     Sonia Marquez, Esq.
     SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
     787 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     E-mail: jarden@sidley.com
             smarquez@sidley.com

          - and -

     Edward R. McNicholas, Esq.
     SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
     1501 K Street, NW
     Washington, DC 20005
     E-mail: emcnicholas@sidley.com


MIYABI RESTAURANTS: "Crumbling" Action Seeks Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Krista Crumbling, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Miyabi Murrells Inlet, LLC, United Will
Kyoto Usa, Inc., Miyabi Greenville, Inc., Fayetteville Miyabi,
Inc., Augusta Miyabi, Inc., Savannah Miyabi, Inc., Capital Japan,
Inc,, Koichiro Hirao, individually, Koichiro Maeda, individually;
and John Does 1-10, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-
04902-PMD (N.D. Ill., Eastern Division December 10, 2015), seeks
actual damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Crumbling was employed as a server at the Miyabi restaurant in
Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. She claims to receive an hourly
wage less than the statutory minimum wage when her tips were
withheld. She also claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per
work week without overtime pay.

Defendants operate restaurants under the name Miyabi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
      BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
      147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
      Charleston, SC 29412
      Tel: (843) 579-7373
      Fax: (843) 614-6417
      Email: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com


MODELL'S SPORTING: Faces "Diaz" Suit in N.Y. Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cristhian Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Modell's Sporting Goods, Inc. and Henry Modell &
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-09444-RA (S.D.N.Y., December 2,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Defendants own and operate sporting goods retail stores with
locations in the Northeastern United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:


      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


NATIONAL FREIGHT: "Portillo" Suit Goes to NJ District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Portillo et al. v. National
Freight, Inc. et al., Case No., CAM L 2396 15, was removed from
Camden County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Camden). The New Jersey District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-07908-JBS-KMW to the proceeding.

NFI Interactive Logistics operates as a third-party logistics
company. The company offers supply chain optimization services. It
provides the management of inbound and outbound transportation
requirements, and it is based in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

National Freight, based in Vineland New Jersey, offers truckload
freight carrier services in the United States. The company
operates a fleet of tractors, as well as manages transportation
assets. It has trucking support centers and mobile maintenance
facilities in the United States.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert H. Bernstein, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          P.O. BOX 677
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 360 7946
          Facsimile: (973) 301 8410
          E-mail: bernsteinrob@gtlaw.com


NATIONAL STORES: "Danino" Suit Seeks Overtime Recovery
------------------------------------------------------
Beida Danino, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. National Stores Inc., Conway Stores, Inc. and
Southern Island Stores LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-09627-PAE
(S.D.N.Y., December 9, 2015), seeks injunctive and declaratory
relief, monetary, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other appropriate legal
and equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
new York Labor Laws.

National Stores is a nation-wide retailer of clothes and
merchandise and operates over four hundred retail stores
throughout the country with principal place of business in New
York located at 1375 Broadway, Suite 1102, New York, NY 10018 and
its headquarters located at 15001 S. Figueroa St, Gardena, CA
90248. Conway Stores, Inc. and Southern Island Stores LLC are its
subsidiaries.

Danino worked as an assistant store manager for the Conway Store
and claims to have rendered over 50 hours per work week without
overtime premium and hardly ever took a lunch break.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russell S. Moriarty, Esq.
      LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
      350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3601
      New York, NY 10118
      Tel: (212) 967-3000
      Email: RMoriarty@LevineBlit.com


NEIL JONES: Judge Requires Parties to Submit Additional Briefings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the Eastern District of
California required the parties to submit additional briefings in
the case LUIS VALDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE NEIL JONES FOOD
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-00519-AWI-SAB (E.D.
Cal.)

Plaintiff's second motion for preliminary approval was denied the
court. The court indicated its concern regarding the substantial
possible reversion. The Court noted that there was a realistic
probability that much of the net settlement fund would go
unclaimed as the settlement appeared to be structured to (1) cast
as wide a net as possible in releasing claims of the putative
class members, (2) minimize defendant's likely payout by creating
a potential reversion and a claims process that serves little
purpose, and (3) maximize the attorney's fees to class counsel by
tying fees to the total settlement fund value even though that
figure is an unrealistic projection of the actual benefit to the
class.

The Magistrate Judge and the court suggested that the parties
agree upon a pro rata distribution of unclaimed funds, have
unclaimed funds go to a cy pres beneficiary, or have class
counsel's fee be linked to the actual benefit to the class.

The amended settlement agreement has narrowed the scope of the
release by class members to the claims actually at issue in the
action. The parties have come closer to an agreement that the
court would approve,  but the court still has three overlapping
concerns that may prevent preliminary approval: the reversion, the
claims process, and that the attorney fee request in the claims-
made settlement is based on the maximum settlement amount.
Remedying of any one of these items would likely result in
approval of a settlement in this action.

On November 2, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and
recommendations which recommended granting the parties motion to
certify the class and for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement.

Judge Ishii ordered the parties to submit additional briefings
within fourteen days of the date of the order.

A copy of Senior District Judge Ishii's order dated December 3,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/ZN8GMSfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by Dennis Patrick Wilson --
wilsontrialgroup@att.net -- at Law Offices of Dennis P. Wilson

The Neil Jones Food Co., Defendant, represented by Andrea
Bednarova -- abednarova@fosteremploymentlaw.com -- Michael Eugene
Wilbur -- mwilbur@fosteremploymentlaw.com -- at Foster Employment
Law


OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: "Oravis" Moved to Wash. D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Oravis et al. v. United States of
America, Office of Personnel Management et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01202, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01929-ABJ to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants failed to adequately
safeguard and secure the financial and other personally
identifiable information, including the names, addresses,
fingerprints, and social security numbers of the Plaintiffs and
Class Members.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          David C. Wright, Esq.
          Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
          MCCUNEWRIGHT, LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
          Redlands, CA 92374
          Telephone: (909) 557 1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557 1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  dcw@mccunewright.com
                  mmv@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
          RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1612 Military Cutoff Road, Ste. 300
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (910) 777 7651
          Facsimile: (910) 772 9062
          E-Mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Frazer Walton, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF FRAZER WALTON, JR.
          920 Burns Street, SE
          Washington, DC 20019
          Telephone: (202) 584 7572
          Facsimile: (202) 398 8920
          E-Mail: frawalton@verizon.net


PACIFICA HOTEL: "Shasheet" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------
Issam Shasheet, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Pacifica Hotel Company, a
California corporation, Pacifica Hotel Management, LLC, a
California limited liability company, Invest West Financial
Corporation, a California corporation, Invest West Residential
Group, a California corporation, Invest West Financial Management,
LLC, a California limited liability company, Invest Westfinancial,
LLC, a California limited liability company, Invest Westfinancial
II, LLC, a California limited liability company, Invest West
Financial III, LLC, a California limited liability company,
Larkspur Hotels, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and
Larkspur Hotels Human Resources Company, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
4:15-cv-01809 (E.D. Miss., December 9, 2015), seeks compensatory
damages, restitution of disgorged profits, meal and rest period
compensation pursuant to California Labor Code Sec. 226.7,
liquidated damages pursuant to California Labor Code Sec. 1194.2
and 1197.1, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, waiting
time penalties pursuant to California Labor Code Sec. 203,
statutory and civil penalties, interest on the unpaid wages
pursuant to California Labor Code Sec. 218.6, 1194, 2802 and
California Civil Code Sec. 3287, 3288 and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code Sec. 1194, 2699,
2802 and  California Civil Code Sec. 1021.5.

Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs minimum wages for all hours
worked by, requiring them to work off the clock through meal and
rest breaks, illegally and inaccurately recording time records
thus failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Emma Steiner, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Tel: (310) 531-1900
      Fax: (310) 531-1901


PDF FILLER: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Automatic Renewal Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PDF Filler, Inc. and Does 1 - 10, inclusive, Case No.
8:15-cv-02005-DOC-JCG (C.D. Cal., December 2, 2015) is an action
for damages as a result of the Defendant's practice of making
automatic renewal or continuous service offers to consumers in and
throughout California and at the time of making the automatic
renewal or continuous service offers, failed to present the
automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms,
in a clear and conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to the
request for consent to the offer before the subscription or
purchasing agreement was fulfilled.

PDF Filler, Inc. is an online document management platform that
provides the services of an online editor, cloud storage platform,
and a signature request manager all in one package.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
      David W. Reid, Esq.
      Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
      NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
      A Professional Corporation
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 706-6464
      Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
      E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
              rhikida@trialnewport.com
              dreid@trialnewport.com
              vknowles@trialnewport.com


QUALITY ENERGY: Faces "Granado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keith Granado, Gabriel Granado, Jr., Melvin Locke, Michael Carr,
and Doyle Rice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Quality Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a Qes Quality Energy
Services, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01061-XR (W.D. Tex., December 2,
2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Quality Energy Services, Inc. provides well intervention services
to oilfield and energy companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edmond S. Moreland, Jr.
      MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      13590 Ranch Road 12
      Wimberley, TX 78676
      Telephone: (512) 782-0567
      Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
      E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com


R.J. REYNOLDS: "Fienman" Suit Over Camel Loyalty Program Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vimbai Chikomo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a class
action lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds over its termination of a
consumer loyalty program associated with the company's Camel brand
of cigarettes has been settled.

On Sept. 10, Jeffrey Feinman, Richard Holter and Donald Wilson
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and others,
against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, claiming that the tobacco
company breached its contract with consumers when it discontinued
its Camel Cash consumer loyalty program.

Three months later, the two sides notified the court they reached
a settlement in principle, resulting in a discontinuance of
proceedings. However, should the settlement not be finalized
within 60 days, the plaintiffs can apply to reinstate the case.

The Camel Cash promotion ran from Oct. 1, 1991 to March 31, 2007,
and rewarded consumers who purchased packs of Reynolds' Camel
brand of cigarettes with "C-Notes" they could use to redeem
merchandise listed in a catalogue. The C-notes were enclosed in
the cigarette packaging. The catalogue included merchandise like
ash trays, pool tables, NASCAR trading cards, apparel, computers
and pinball machines.

The plaintiffs allege that after Oct.1, 2006, the merchandise
became limited, and the Camel Cash program was discontinued
altogether on March 31, 2007, offering consumers with C-notes the
option to redeem coupons or more cigarettes. The plaintiffs claim
that RJR breached its contract with them by failing to provide
merchandise for C-note holders to redeem, which they allege was
part of the agreement.

Class action law expert Geoffrey Hazard, Jr, who is Trustee
Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania Law
School, told Legal Newsline that although there was some
probability that RJR could prove that it provided an alternative
reward to customers who participated in the Camel Cash program by
offering coupons and more cigarettes in exchange for the C-notes,
everything boiled down to what the contract states.

"It's a question of contract law, and it depends on what the terms
of the offers were," Hazard said.

Bryan Hatchell, spokesman for RJR declined to comment, stating
that the company does not comment on ongoing litigation.

Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

C-note holders in New York are not the only ones taking legal
action against the tobacco powerhouse for the alleged violation. A
similar class action was revived and certified by a California
judge in 2014, and the case is still pending. A nationwide class
action cannot be certified because contract laws vary from state
to state.

RJR was founded in 1875, is based in North Carolina and is the
second-largest tobacco company in the country.


ROSICKI ROSICKI: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Cohen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, PC and Ditech Financial
LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-06828 (E.D.N.Y., December 1, 2015) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, PC operates a law firm located at
51 East Bethpage Road Plainview, New York 11803.

Ditech Financial LLC is a provider of home loan, loan servicing
and refinance products to consumers and institutional partners in
the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shimshon Wexler, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF SHIMSHON WEXLER, PC
      216 West 104th Street, #129
      New York, NY 10025
      Telephone: (212) 760-2400
      Facsimile: (917) 512-6132
      E-mail: shimshonwexler@yahoo.com


RUST-OLEUM: "Howell" Suit Removed to New Jersey District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Daniel T. Howell, individually
and as a class representative on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Rust-Oleum Corporation, Case No. L-1408 15 was removed
from the Superior Court of Gloucester County to the U.S. District
Court District of New Jersey (Camden). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-08379-RMB-KMW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts product liability claims.

Rust-Oleum Corporation is a maker of protective paints and
coatings for home and industry use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lewis G. Adler, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER
      26 Newton Avenue
      Woodbury, NJ 08096
      Telephone: (856) 845-1968
      E-mail: lewisadler@verizon.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      Marc C. Singer, Esq.
      SAIBER, LLC
      18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 200
      Florham Park, NJ 07932
      Telephone: (973) 622-3333
      E-mail: msinger@saiber.com


RYAN TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Bell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Bell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Ryan Transportation Service, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09857 (D.
Kan. December 2, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Ryan Transportation Service, Inc. is a third-party logistics
company specializing in transportation management and a full range
of value-added freight services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
      OSMAN & SMAY LLP
      8500 W. 110th St., Ste. 330
      Overland Park, KS 66210
      Telephone: (913) 667-9243
      Facsimile: (866) 470-9243
      E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com



SAINT PETER'S HEALTHCARE: Plan Does Not Qualify for Exemption
-------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Thomas L. Ambro of the United States Court of
Appeals, Third Circuit, affirmed the district court's denial of
the motion to dismiss in the appealed case LAURENCE KAPLAN, on
behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. SAINT PETER'S HEALTHCARE SYSTEM; RONALD C.
RAK; SUSAN BALLESTERO, an individual; GARRICK STOLDT, an
individual; JOHN and JANE DOES 1-20, Saint Peter's Healthcare
System, Ronald C. Rak, Susan Ballestero, Garrick Stoldt,
Appellants, No. 15-1172 (3d Cir.)

Saint Peter's Healthcare System is a non-profit healthcare entity
that runs a variety of facilities, including a hospital, and
employs over 2,800 people. Though it is not a church, St. Peter's
has ties to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey.

St. Peter's established a retirement plan in 1974. It is a non-
contributory defined benefit plan, and it covers substantially all
employees of St. Peter's hired before July 1, 2010. St. Peter's
operated the plan subject to the employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and represented to its employees in plan
documents and other materials that it was complying with ERISA.
St. Peter's began to consider whether the church plan exemption
might apply to its retirement plan. It then filed an application
in 2006 with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeking such
exemption.

In May 2013, Laurence Kaplan, who worked for St. Peter's from 1985
to 1999, filed a putative class action alleging that St. Peter's
failed to comply with various ERISA obligations. Among other
things, the complaint alleged that, in the years after St. Peter's
filed the application for a church plan exemption, it did not
provide ERISA-compliant summary plan descriptions or pension
benefits statements.

In August 2013, while the lawsuit was pending, St. Peter's
received a private letter ruling from the IRS affirming the plan's
status as an exempt church plan for tax purposes.  St. Peter's
moved to dismiss the suit, claiming that it qualified for ERISA's
church plan exemption and hence was not required to comply with
the provisions Kaplan claimed it had violated. St. Peter's argued
that the claimed exemption robbed the district court of subject
matter jurisdiction over the ERISA allegations and in the
alternative that the complaint failed to state a claim. The
district court denied the motion after concluding that St. Peter's
could not establish an exempt church plan because it is not a
church. However, the court permitted St. Peter's to seek leave to
appeal.

Circuit Judge Ambro affirmed the district court's denial of the
motion to dismiss.

A copy of Circuit Judge Ambro's opinion dated December 29, 2015,
is available at http://goo.gl/3PB0BOfrom Leagle.com.

Jeffrey J. Greenbaum, Esquire, James M. Hirschhorn, Esquire,
Sills, Cummis & Gross, One Riverfront Plaza, Newark, NJ 07102,
Katherine M. Lieb, Esquire, Sills, Cummis & Gross, One Rockefeller
Plaza, New York, NY 10020, Counsel for Appellants, Saint Peter's
Healthcare System, Ronald C. Rak, Susan Ballestero, Garrick
Stoldt, Monya M. Bunch, Esquire, Karen L. Handorf, Esquire, Mathew
A. Smith, Esquire, Michelle C. Yau, Esquire, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., West Tower, Suite
500, Washington, DC 20005, Ron Kilgard, Esquire, Keller Rohrback,
3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Lynn L.
Sarko, Esquire, Havila C. Unrein, Esquire, Keller Rohrback, 1201
Third Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98101, Counsel for Appellee

Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Esquire, Melissa D. Hill, Esquire, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius, 1701 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
Counsel for Amicus Appellant, Catholic Health East

Mark E. Chopko, Esquire, Marissa Parker, Esquire, Brandon Riley,
Esquire, Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, 1250 Connecticut
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036, Lisa Gilden, Esquire, The
Catholic Health Association of the United States, 1875 Eye Street,
N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20006, Counsel for Amicus
Appellant, Catholic Health Association of the United States

Jared M. Haynie, Esquire, Chipman Gasser, 2000 South Colorado
Boulevard, Tower One, Suite 7500, Denver, CO 80222, James A.
Sonne, Esquire, Stanford Law School, Religious Liberty Clinic, 559
Nathan Abbott Way, Crown Quadrangle, Stanford, CA 94305, Counsel
for Amicus Appellant, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Mary E. Signorille, Esquire, AARP Foundation Litigation, 601 E
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20049,Roberta L. Steele, Esquire,
National Employment Lawyers Association, 2201 Broadway, Suite 402,
Oakland, CA 94612, Counsel for Amicus Appellees, AARP and National
Employment Lawyers Association

Laurence A. Hansen, Esquire, Hugh S. Balsam, Esquire, Locke Lord,
111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4300, Chicago, IL 60606, G. Daniel
Miller, Esquire, Conner & Winters, LLP, 1627 Eye Street, N.W.,
Suite 900, Washington, DC 20006, Counsel for Amicus Appellant,
GuideStone Financial Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention

Richard H. Frankel, Esquire, Drexel University Thomas R. Kline
School of Law, 3320 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, Karen
W. Ferguson, Esquire,Norman P. Stein, Esquire, Pension Rights
Center, 1350 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 206, Washington, DC
20036, Counsel for Amicus Appellee, Pension Rights Center.
Patrick C. Elliott, Esquire, Andrew L. Seidel, Esquire, Freedom
from Religion Foundation, P.O. Box 750, 10 North Henry Street,
Madison, WI 53703, Counsel for Amicus Appellee, Freedom from
Religion Foundation

Gregory M. Lipper, Esquire, Ayesha N. Kahn, Esquire, Americans
United for Separation of Church and State, 1901 L Street, N.W.,
Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005,Daniel Mach, Esquire, American
Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 915 15th Street, N.W., 6th
Floor, Washington, DC 20005, Counsel for Amicus Appellees, ACLU,
ACLU of New Jersey, and Americans United for Separation of Church
and State

The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit panel consists
of Chief Judge Theodore A. McKee and Circuit Judges Thomas L.
Ambro and Thomas M. Hardman


SELENE FINANCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Mohammed" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Majibur R. Mohammed, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Selene Finance LP, Case No. 2:15-cv-06835 (E.D.N.Y.,
December 1, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Selene Finance LP operates a residential mortgage company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan L. Gentile, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA
      110 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 100
      Floral Park, NY 11001
      Telephone: (212) 675-6161
      Facsimile: (212) 675-4367
      E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


SELENE FINANCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Jorge" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Jorge, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Selene Finance LP, Case No. 2:15-cv-08371-KSH-CLW
(D.N.J., December 1, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Selene Finance LP operates a residential mortgage company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Leyland Gentile, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC
      110 Jericho Turnpike-Suite 100
      Floral Park, NY 11001
      Telephone: (201) 873-7675
      E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


SESTWON PIZZA: Faces "Munoz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Isac Munoz, Rumaldo Antonio Sanchez-Vargas, Juan Gonzalez, Jorge
Isaac Parra Romero, Emilio A. Nunez-Bernaid, and Keller Vargas,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Sestwon Pizza LLC d/b/a Domino's Pizza and Robert Cookston, Case
No. 2:15-cv-06833-JFB-AKT (E.D.N.Y, December 1, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a Domino's Pizza franchise located at 935
Front Street, Uniondale, NY 11553.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      E-mail: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: "Valdes" Suit Moved from S.D. Fla. to D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Valdes v. Southwest Airlines Co.,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-23125, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The
Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01898-CKK
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts violations of the antitrust laws of the United
States.  The Defendants allegedly conspired in fixing, raising,
maintaining, or stabilizing prices of airline tickets.  The
Plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, costs of suit,
and other relief as may be determined as just and proper, against
the Defendants.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis I. Mussman, Esq.
          Brian Ku, Esq.
          KU & MUSSMAN, PA
          6001 NW 153rd Street, Suite 100
          Miami Lakes, FL 33014
          Telephone: (305) 891 1322
          Facsimile: (305) 891 4512
          E-mail: louis@kumussman.com
                  brian@kumussman.com

               - and -

          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          Cynthia St. Amant, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524 5777
          Facsimile: (504) 524 5763
          E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
                  c.stamant@kanner-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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


SPOTIFY: Musicians Seek Class-Action Status for Copyright Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Morrison, writing for International Business Times, reports
that Spotify, the music-streaming giant that was sued on claims of
reproducing copyrighted material, was sued again for similar
reasons. This time it's Melissa Ferrick, a Massachusetts-based
indie folk singer best known for being the last- minute opening
act on Morrissey's 1991 tour.

Ferrick's lawsuit seeking $200 million was filed in federal court
in Los Angeles, Agence France-Presse reported. She and an earlier
plaintiff have asked a judge to grant them class-action status
along with other alleged victims of Spotify's streaming service.

In Ferrick's case, she alleged that the privately held Spotify
failed to inform copyright owners when it created co-called
phonorecords, or the files that allow instant music online. The
Swedish-founded company, which provides a huge selection of on-
demand music to 75 million global users, unethically created the
files without getting advance clearance to do so, according to the
lawsuit.

Spotify took "a now-familiar strategy for many digital music
services -- infringe now, apologize later," Ferrick's lawsuit
states. "Spotify chose expediency over licenses. Thus, while
Spotify has profited handsomely from the music that it sells to
its subscribers, the owners of that music (in particular,
songwriters and their music publishers) have not been able to
share in that success because Spotify is using their music for
free."

Ferrick's songs had been streamed or downloaded from Spotify 1
million times over three years without the required licensing,
according to the lawsuit. Spotify, in its response filed last
month, said it was committed to "paying songwriters and publishers
every penny" it owed over licensing issue, the AFP reported.

David Lowery, the leader of alternative rock bands Cracker and
Camper Van Beethoven, brought a $150 million lawsuit against
Spotify in December over the company's failure to seek permission
for copying and distributing his songs.


SPOTIFY USA: Faces "Lowery" Suit Over Copyright Infringement
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID LOWERY, individually and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SPOTIFY USA INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant, Case 2:15-cv-09929 (C.D. Cal.), is a class
action brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the numerous
other similarly situated holders of mechanical rights in
copyrighted musical works that Defendant Spotify USA Inc. has used
without mechanical licenses in an egregious, continuous and
ongoing campaign of deliberate copyright infringement.

The complaint alleges that Spotify has -- and continues to --
unlawfully reproduce and/or distribute copyrighted musical
compositions -- Works -- to more than 75 million users via its
interactive commercial music streaming service, as well as its
offline listening service. Spotify reproduces and/or distributes
the Works despite its failure to identify and/or locate the owners
of those compositions for payment or to provide them with notice
of Spotify's intent to reproduce and/or distribute the Works.

The complaint says Spotify's infringement of Plaintiff's and the
Class Members' mechanical rights is knowing and willful. Indeed,
Spotify has publicly admitted its failures to obtain licenses for
the musical works it distributes or reproduces or to pay royalties
to copyright owners for its use of their Works. Moreover,
Plaintiff is informed and believes that Spotify has created a
reserve fund of millions of dollars wherein the royalty payments
Spotify wrongfully withholds from artists are held. The existence
of this fund reflects Spotify's practice and pattern of copyright
infringement, the suit says.

The suit claims, "Spotify has been unjustly enriched, in an amount
that is not as yet fully ascertained but which Plaintiff is
informed and believes is not less than $150,000,000, according to
proof at trial."

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Class:

     Sanford L. Michelman, Esq.
     Mona Z. Hanna, Esq.
     Melanie Natasha Howard, Esq.
     MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP
     17901 Von Karman Avenue, 10th Floor
     Irvine, CA 92614
     Telephone: (714) 557-7990
     Facsimile: (714) 557-7991
     E-mail: smichelman@mrllp.com
             mhanna@mrllp.com
             mhoward@mrllp.com

          - and -

     David C. Lee, Esq.
     Ilse C. Scott, Esq.
     MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP
     One Post Street, Suite 2500
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 882-7770
     Facsimile: (415) 882-1570
     E-mail: dlee@mrllp.com
             iscott@mrllp.com


SUNOCO INC: Faces "Hernandez" Suit in N.Y. Over ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth A. Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sunoco, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
06858-ERK-CLP (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Sunoco Inc. is an American petroleum and petrochemical
manufacturer headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United
States, formerly known as Sun Company Inc. and Sun Oil Co.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Domenick Zaremba, Esq.
      ZAREMBA BROWNELL & BROWN PLLC
      40 Wall Street, 27th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 380-6700
      Facsimile: (212) 871-6395
      E-mail: jzaremba@zbblaw.com


SYNTHES USA: Judge Narrows Parties' Claims in "Lindell" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill of the Eastern District of
California granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions
for summary judgment in the case TROY M. LINDELL, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. SYNTHES USA,
SYNTHES USA SALES LLC, SYNTHES SPINE COMPANY, LP, Defendants, No.
1:11-cv-02053 LJO BAM (E.D. Cal.)

Defendants Synthes USA, Synthes USA Sales, and Synthes Spine
Company design, manufacture, market, and distribute implants and
instruments for surgery. Defendants have a number of operating
divisions, including Trauma, Spine, and Craniomaxillofacial.

Plaintiff Troy M. Lindell was employed as a sales consultant for
the defendants and was responsible for certain territories in
California. At the time sales consultants are hired, they are
required to read and sign an offer letter. Employees were required
to acknowledge in writing that they read and understood the
manuals.

Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit on December 13, 2011. An
amended complaint was filed on February 27, 2012. Plaintiff argues
that defendants do not reimburse certain employees for business
expenses as required by Cal. Labor Code Section 2802, took
unlawful deductions in violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 221,
223 & 300, willfully failed to pay employees upon discharge in
violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 201-203, and engaged in
unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200-210.

Plaintiff also seeks to recover under California's Private
Attorney General Act (PAGA), Cal. Labor Code Sections 2698-2699.5,
for violations of Labor Code Sections 201-203, 221, 223, 300 and
2804. Plaintiff asserts that the court has subject matter
jurisdiction based on the class action nature of the case and the
parties' diversity of citizenship.

On September 20, 2013, plaintiff moved to certify two classes
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections
1332(d) and 1711-15:

     -- One class (the Expense Class) includes employee sales
        consultants from defendants' Trauma and Spine and
        Craniomaxillofacial (CMF) Division, who earned wages
        based on commission. Plaintiff claims that defendants
        had a policy of not reimbursing these employees for
        business expenses.

     -- The other class (the Deduction Class) includes all
        former, current, and future sales consultants employed
        by defendants for the time period beginning December 13,
        2007 through the date of the final disposition of the
        lawsuit. Plaintiff claims that defendants deducted money
        from these employees' paychecks and failed to pay them
        in full when their employment was terminated.

Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued Findings and
Recommendations, recommending that the court grant plaintiff's
motion. On September 24, 2015, defendants filed for summary
judgment and plaintiff filed for partial summary judgment.

Judge O'Neill granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's and
defendants' motions for summary judgment.

Judge O'Neill denied plaintiff's motion summary judgment as to the
expense class for the period between December 13, 2007 and
December 30, 2012, as well as defendants' motion for the period
between December 13, 2007, and September 2012.

Judge O'Neill granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as
to plaintiff's expense class claims for the period between January
2013 to the present and denied defendants' motion for summary
judgment as to its first counterclaim.

Judge O'Neill granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as
to defendants' liability to Deduction Class members pursuant to
his second cause of action, for the period between December 13,
2007 and December 30, 2012. Judge O'Neill denied defendants'
motion for summary judgment as to the same issue and denied
defendants' motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff's third,
fourth and fifth causes of action.

A copy of Judge O'Neill's memorandum decision and order dated
January 6, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/jnu6Ptfrom
Leagle.com.

Troy M. Lindell, On Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Trudrung Taylor, Lang,
Richert & Patch, Darin Daniel Ranahan, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman
& Wasow LLP, Michael Victor Caesar, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee &
Jackson,Ana I. de Alba, Lang Richert and Patch & Catha Worthman,
Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP

Mark Pope, Plaintiff, represented by Ana I. de Alba, Lang Richert
and Patch & Michael Victor Caesar, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee & Jackson

Synthes USA, Defendant, represented by Colleen A Carolan, Blank
Rome LLP, Harrison Lee, Blank Rome LLP, Howard M. Knee, Blank Rome
LLP, Michael S. Helsley, Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Oliver W.
Wanger, Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Anthony B. Haller, Blank Rome
LLP, Kathy PourSanae, CBRE, Inc. & Larry R. Wood, Blank Rome LLP

Synthes USA Sales LLC, Defendant, represented by Harrison Lee,
Blank Rome LLP, Howard M. Knee, Blank Rome LLP, Michael S.
Helsley, Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Oliver W. Wanger, Wanger Jones
Helsley PC, Anthony B. Haller, Blank Rome LLP, Colleen A Carolan,
Blank Rome LLP, Kathy PourSanae, CBRE, Inc. & Larry R. Wood, Blank
Rome LLP

Synthes Spine Company, LP, Defendant, represented by Colleen A
Carolan, Blank Rome LLP, Harrison Lee, Blank Rome LLP, Howard M.
Knee, Blank Rome LLP, Michael S. Helsley, Wanger Jones Helsley PC,
Oliver W. Wanger, Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Anthony B. Haller,
Blank Rome LLP, Kathy PourSanae, CBRE, Inc. & Larry R. Wood, Blank
Rome LLP

Synthes Spine Company, LP, Counter Claimant, represented by Oliver
W. Wanger, Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Anthony B. Haller, Blank Rome
LLP, Colleen A Carolan, Blank Rome LLP, Howard M. Knee, Blank Rome
LLP, Larry R. Wood, Blank Rome LLP & Michael S. Helsley, Wanger
Jones Helsley PC

Synthes USA Sales LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Oliver W.
Wanger, Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Anthony B. Haller, Blank Rome
LLP, Colleen A Carolan, Blank Rome LLP, Howard M. Knee, Blank Rome
LLP, Larry R. Wood, Blank Rome LLP & Michael S. Helsley, Wanger
Jones Helsley PC

Synthes USA, Counter Claimant, represented by Colleen A Carolan,
Blank Rome LLP, Howard M. Knee, Blank Rome LLP, Michael S.
Helsley, Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Oliver W. Wanger, Wanger Jones
Helsley PC, Anthony B. Haller, Blank Rome LLP & Larry R. Wood,
Blank Rome LLP

Troy M. Lindell, On Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly
Situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Charles Trudrung
Taylor, Lang, Richert & Patch, Michael Victor Caesar, Lewis,
Feinberg, Lee & Jackson, Ana I. de Alba, Lang Richert and Patch &
Catha Worthman, Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP

Synthes USA, Counter Claimant, represented by Colleen A Carolan,
Blank Rome LLP, Harrison Lee, Blank Rome LLP, Howard M. Knee,
Blank Rome LLP, Michael S. Helsley, Wanger Jones Helsley PC,
Oliver W. Wanger, Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Anthony B. Haller,
Blank Rome LLP & Larry R. Wood, Blank Rome LLP

Synthes USA Sales LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Harrison
Lee, Blank Rome LLP, Howard M. Knee, Blank Rome LLP, Michael S.
Helsley, Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Oliver W. Wanger, Wanger Jones
Helsley PC, Anthony B. Haller, Blank Rome LLP, Colleen A Carolan,
Blank Rome LLP & Larry R. Wood, Blank Rome LLP

Synthes Spine Company, LP, Counter Claimant, represented by
Colleen A Carolan, Blank Rome LLP, Harrison Lee, Blank Rome LLP,
Howard M. Knee, Blank Rome LLP, Kathy PourSanae, CBRE, Inc.,
Michael S. Helsley, Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Oliver W. Wanger,
Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Anthony B. Haller, Blank Rome LLP & Larry
R. Wood, Blank Rome LLP

Troy M. Lindell, On Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly
Situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Charles Trudrung
Taylor, Lang, Richert & Patch,Michael Victor Caesar, Lewis,
Feinberg, Lee & Jackson,Ana I. de Alba, Lang Richert and Patch &
Catha Worthman, Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP

Mark Pope, Counter Defendant, represented by Michael Victor
Caesar, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee & Jackson


TARGET CORP: "Bowen" Suit Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aisha Bowen, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Target Corporation, a Minnesota
corporation and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC602994 (Cal. Super. Los Angeles County, December 7, 2015), seeks
compensatory damages, restitution, meal and rest period
compensation pursuant to California Labor Code Sec. 226.7,
liquidated damages pursuant to California Labor Code Sec. 1194.2
and 1197.1, declaratory, preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief in violation of the California Labor Code, waiting time
penalties pursuant to California Labor Code Sec. 203, statutory
and civil penalties authorized by the California Labor Code Sec.
226(e) and 2698-2699.5, interest on the unpaid wages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Target Corporation is a Minnesota corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Emma Steiner, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Tel: (310) 531-1900
      Fax: (310) 531-1901


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Terraform Global, Inc., et al., Case
No. cv-536468 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 3, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects in the Registration Statement for the
Company's initial public offering.

Terraform Global, Inc. operates a renewable energy company that
owns long-term contracted wind, solar, and hydro-electric power
plants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      George C. Aguilar, Esq.
      Jay N. Razzouk, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail brobbins@robbinsaiToyo.com
             gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com
             jrazzouk@robbinsarroyo.com


TOTAL GAS & POWER: "Anastasio" Suit Hits Natural Gas Bids
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Anastasio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Total Gas & Power North America, Inc. and
John Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-09689 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 10, 2015), seeks damages, relief and attorneys' fees in
violation of the Commodity Exchange Act and Section 2 of the
Sherman Act.

Total allegedly engaged in manipulating bid-week prices to
advantage their derivative natural gas positions resulting in
artificial prices and price trends.

Plaintiff transacts in natural gas physical, financial and related
derivative contracts.

Total Gas & Power North America, Inc. is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Kovel, Esq.
      Lauren Wagner Pederson, Esq.
      Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
      KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
      825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 371-6600
      Fax: (212) 751-2540
      Email: dkovel@kmllp.com
             lpederson@kmllp.com
             telrod@kmllp.com


TRADER JOE'S: Under-Fills Tuna Cans, New York Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Suzy Strutner, writing for The Huffington Post, reported that
Trader Joe's is being accused in court of under-filling cans of
tuna after tests revealed that most of their 5-ounce cans actually
contained less than 3 ounces of tuna, as first reported by the New
York Post.

The class action lawsuit, filed in New York state, says tests
conducted by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration found that "nearly every single can" of Trader
Joe's 5-ounce tuna tested contained between 2.43 and 2.87 ounces
of tuna.

According to government standards, a 5-ounce can of tuna must
contain at least 3.23 ounces of meat (or 2.84 ounces, in the case
of skipjack tuna). But Trader Joe's canned tuna fell an average of
roughly 17 percent below the federally mandated minimums across
six tested store brand varieties.

Trader Joe's does not "comment on pending litigation," national
public relations director Alison Mochizuki told The Huffington
Post.

This scuffle could turn sweet in the end: StarKist handed out $50
tuna vouchers after settling a similar class action lawsuit, Grub
Street notes.


TRINET GROUP: Robbins Geller Named Lead Counsel in "Welgus" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted plaintiff's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of counsel
in the case HOWARD WELGUS, Plaintiff, v. TRINET GROUP, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-03625-BLF (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Howard Welgus filed a putative securities class action
lawsuit against Defendants TriNet Group, Inc. (TriNet), Burton M.
Goldfield, and William Porter for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired TriNet common stock. Welgus alleges that, from
May 5, 2014 to August 3, 2015 (class period), defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements and concealed material
adverse facts regarding TriNet's financial condition and growth
prospects. Welgus alleges that, as a result of the
misrepresentations and omissions, TriNet common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the class period, reaching a
high of $37.88 per share on March 3, 2015. Welgus alleges that,
after the misrepresentations and omissions became apparent, the
prices fell precipitously, reaching a low of $16.33 per share on
August 4, 2015.

On October 6, 2015, Welgus filed a motion seeking appointment as
lead plaintiff and approval of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as
lead counsel for the class. No other plaintiffs have sought to be
named lead plaintiff, and no other law firms have sought to be
named lead counsel.

Judge Freeman granted plaintiff's motion for appointment as lead
counsel and approval of selection of counsel.

A copy of Judge Freeman's order dated December 3, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/FFgKy9from Leagle.com.

Howard Welgus, Plaintiff, represented by Brian O. O'Mara --
bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Daniel Jacob Pfefferbaum --
dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com -- Shawn A. Williams --
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

Defendants, represented by Richard L. Gallagher --
Richard.Gallagher@ropesgray.com -- Anne Johnson Palmer --
Anne.JohnsonPalmer@ropesgray.com --  Matthew Austen Tolve --
Matthew.Tolve@ropesgray.com -- at Ropes & Gray LLP


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: "Nemky" Suit Goes from E.D. to N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Nemky v. Trinity Industries, Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00732, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The
Dallas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-03537-N to
the proceeding.

According to the complaint, Defendants allegedly failed to
disclose material adverse facts that were likely to negatively
impact the Company's financial condition and business prospect.
The Plaintiffs seek to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Trinity Industries owns a variety of businesses which provide
product and services to the industrial, energy, transportation and
construction sectors, and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund has business in
specialty finance industry, and is based in Alexandia, Virginia.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George L McWilliams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE L MCWILLIAMS PC
          PO Box 58
          Texarkana, TX 75504
          Telephone: (903) 277 0098

               - and -

          John C Goodson, Esq.
          KEIL & GOODSON
          611 Pecan Street
          PO Box 618
          Texarkana, AR 75504
          Telephone: (501) 772 4113

               - and -

          Matt Keil, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MATT KEIL
          PO Box 618
          611 Pecan Street
          Texarkana, TX 75504
          Telephone: (501) 722 4113

               - and -

          Naumon A Amjed, Esq.
          Ryan T Degnan, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667 7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667 7056

               - and -

          David T Moran, Esq.
          George L McWilliams, Esq.
          Charles L Babcock, Esq.
          David Folsom, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER LLP
          2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 953 6051
          Facsimile: (214) 661 6677
          E-mail: dmoran@jw.com
                  cbabcock@jw.com
                  dfolsom@jw.com

               - and -

          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Gerald H Silk, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN
          1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554 1400
          E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com
                  jerry@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Michael B Himmel, Esq.
          Michael T.G. Long, Esq.
          LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, LLP
          6 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 597 2500
          Facsimile: (973) 597 2400
          E-mail: mhimmel@lowenstein.com
                  mlong@lowenstein.com

               - and -

          Tom Hill Crawford , III, Seq.
          GRUBER ELROD HURST JOHANSEN HAIL SHANK LLP
          1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 855 6866
          Facsimile: (214) 855 6808
          E-mail: tcrawford@ghjhlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Yvette Ostolaza, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 981 3401
          Facsimile: (214) 981 3400
          E-mail: yvette.ostolaza@sidley.com

               - and -

          James Mark Mann, Esq.
          MANN TINDEL & THOMPSON
          300 W Main
          Henderson, TX 75652
          Telephone: (903) 657 8540
          Facsimile: (903) 657 6003
          E-mail: mark@themannfirm.com

               - and -

          Elton Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP LLP
          3232 McKinney, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744 3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744 3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com


UBER TECH: Limo Drivers in Philadelphia File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Alison Burdo, writing for Philadelphia Business Journal, reported
that a group of Philadelphia limousine drivers have filed a class
action lawsuit against Uber, alleging the ride-sharing company is
cutting into its business by promoting the illegally operating
UberX system and purposefully preventing customers from accessing
Uber Black drivers, and has failed to compensate them the proper
hourly minimum wage and overtime pay.

Dozens of Uber Black drivers -- who are subject to Uber
requirements like operating specific luxury vehicles and must
comply with Philadelphia Parking Authority regulations --
demonstrated outside Uber's South Philadelphia offices to draw
attention to what they say are manipulative practices the company
employs to boost UberX.

UberX drivers, who can cart passengers in any type of car, are
operating illegally in the city as all taxi and limousine services
are supposed to be monitored by the PPA. To be an Uber Black
driver, one must be certified with the PPA and have a certain type
of insurance, along with other requirements. UberX drivers are not
subject to the same regulations.

"How are law abiding drivers supposed to compete with them?" asked
Ali Razek, president of the Philadelphia Limo Association, and one
of the plaintiffs listed in the class action lawsuit. "It's not
possible."

Razek, an Uber Black driver for the past two years, said the ride-
sharing app stopped giving its users the option to order Uber
Black several weeks ago, although UberX cars still showed.
"If you don't see any of the black cars, it says to the rider no
Uber Black cars are available," said Razek, who questioned that
choice considering UberX drivers are not in compliance with city
laws.

Along with the lawsuit's claims that the company didn't pay
overtime and the applicable hourly wages, Razek said a hacking
issue with the app has resulted in some drivers footing the
expenses for trips without receiving any compensation.
Some tech saavy passengers fraudulently accessed other users'
accounts, he said -- which the Black drivers who shuttled them to
their destination had no way of knowing.

"Then Uber refused to pay because it is a fraudulent account,"
Razek said. "If the problem is with security, that is with them
not me."

The ride-sharing company, however, said these allegations are
untrue.

"Uber absorbs the full cost of fraudulent trips and drivers
receive full compensation," according to a company statement.
The company also said it has taken steps to promote its higher end
service, although it did not address the allegations the app is
misrepresenting the number of available Uber Black vehicles.
Uber said it is advertising the Black service at 30th Street
Station, and has notified customers through email and an in-app
message that appears while at Philadelphia International Airport
to promote the service.

"While we understand that many limousine drivers are frustrated,
Philadelphia has shown enormous appetite for more affordable
options like UberX," the company said.


UNITED CONTINENTAL: "David" Suit Over Inflight Service Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the District of New Jersey
ruled on the parties' motion in the case CARY M. DAVID, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED
CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC. and UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01926-SDW-LDW (D.N.J.)

United Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc.
(United) are incorporated under Delaware law, with headquarters in
Chicago, Illinois. United operates a major airline, United
Airlines, which flies domestically and internationally.

Plaintiff Cary M. David is a citizen of the state of New Jersey.
On February 21, 2015, David purchased in-flight DirecTV from
United while on-board United Flight 1142 from San Juan, Puerto
Rico to Newark, New Jersey. Plaintiff alleges that throughout the
representative flight, United advertised to passengers via the TV
screen to "SWIPE NOW" to receive over 100 channels of DirecTV.
According to plaintiff, at no time before or during the process of
purchasing DirecTV service was Plaintiff informed that the DirecTV
service plaintiff purchased would not work during the flight. For
a flight of over 4 hours, substantially all of which was over
water, plaintiff was able to use DirecTV for approximately 10
minutes. Plaintiff alleges that United sold DirecTV access to
Plaintiff despite the fact, known to United and not to plaintiff
that DirecTV would not work. According to plaintiff, United's
failure to disclose to on-board consumers that DirecTV and/or WiFi
would work only over the continental United States is a deceptive
commercial practice meant to induce passengers to swipe their
credit card in-flight, knowing that the services passengers
thought they were purchasing were unavailable.

On March 13, 2015, plaintiff filed a four-count class action
complaint against United alleging consumer fraud, breach of
contract, unjust enrichment and violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA), N.J.S.A. Section 56:8-1 et seq. United
filed a motion to dismiss all counts of plaintiff's complaint
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). On June 10, 2015, plaintiff
filed opposition to United's motion to dismiss and a dotion to
strike the declarations of David Cronin and Craig Norwood.

Judge Wigenton granted United's motion to dismiss and denied
plaintiff's motion to strike.

A copy of Judge Wigenton's opinion dated November 24, 2015 is
available at http://goo.gl/hr7mO6from Leagle.com.

CARY M. DAVID, Plaintiff, represented by JENNIFER SARNELLI --
jsarnelli@gardylaw.com -- MARK C. GARDY -- mgardy@gardylaw.com --
at GARDY & NOTIS, LLP

UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC. and UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant, represented by DOUGLAS HARRY AMSTER --
douglas.amster@leclairryan.com -- GENE KYLE KASKIW --
gene.kaskiw@leclairryan.com -- PETER B. VAN DEVENTER, JR. --
peter.vandeventer@leclairryan.com -- at LECLAIRRYAN


UNITED STATES: OPM Sued in D.C. Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
William Fleishell III and Chad Kappers on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. United States Office of Personnel
Management, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02089-ABJ (D. Col., December
2, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to protect,
highly-personal private information of millions of present, former
and prospective public servants, along with the information of
their families.

United States Office of Personnel Management is a federal agency
that handles many aspects of the federal employee recruitment
process, including managing federal job announcements, conducting
background investigations and security clearances, overseeing
federal merit systems, managing personal retirement and health
benefits, providing training and development programs, and
developing government personnel policies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Miller, Esq.
      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street NE
      Washington, D.C. 20002
      Telephone: 202 789 3960
      Facsimile: 202 789 1813
      E-mail: mmille@coneolaw.com
              charlesl@coneolaw.com
         - and -

      Mark R. Rosen, Esq.
      Beth T. Seltzer, Esq.
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      3300 Two Commerce Square
      2001 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 963-0600
      Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
      E-mail: mrosen@barrack.com
              bseltzer@barrack.com

         - and -

      Steven R. Basser, Esq.
      Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      One America Plaza
      600 West Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0800
      Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
      E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
              sward@barrack.com

         - and -

      John G. Emerson
      EMERSON SCOTT, LLP
      Emerson Scott, LLP
      830 Apollo Lane
      Houston, TX 77058
      Telephone: (281) 488-8854
      Facsimile: (281) 488-8867
      E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

         - and -

      David G. Scott, Esq.
      1301 Scott Street
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 907-2555
      Facsimile: (501) 907-2556
      E-mail: dscott@emersonfirm.com


VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE: "Tiller" Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Robert Tiller, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Valleycrest Landscape Maintanance, Inc., Case No. 15-CA-010200,
was removed from the Hillsborough County Court to the U.S.
District Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-02776-RAL-EAJ to the
proceeding.

The case asserts claims for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

ValleyCrest Landscape Maintenance, Inc. provides landscape
maintenance and horticultural services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher James Saba, Esq.
      Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      Suite 300, 1110 N Florida Ave
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Telephone: (813) 321-4086
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: csaba@wfclaw.com
              lcabassa@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esq.
      THOMPSON, SIZEMORE, GONZALEZ & HEARING
      201 N Franklin St-Ste 1600, PO Box 639
      Tampa, FL 33601-0639
      Telephone: (813) 273-0050
      Facsimile: (813) 273-0072
      E-mail: tgonzalez@tsghlaw.com


VITAL THERAPIES: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick A. Griggs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Vital Therapies, Inc., Terry Winters, and
Michael V. Swanson, Case No. 3:15-cv-02700-JLS-NLS (S.D. Cal.,
December 2, 2015) alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Vital Therapies, Inc. is a biotherapeutic company focused on
developing a cell-based system for the treatment of liver failure.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam C. McCall, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      445 S. Figueroa St., 31st Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 985-7290
      E-mail: amccall@zlk.com

         - and -

      Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
      Adam M. Apton, Esq.
      Julia Sun, Esq.
      Michael B. Ershowsky, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
      E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com
              aapton@zlk.com
              jsun@zlk.com
              mershowsky@zlk.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Abdy" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iraj Abdy, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated
v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-
02705-JAH-NLS (S.D. Cal., December 2, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged installation of defeat devices in
approximately 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles
manufactured and sold and leased in the United States since 2009,
to switch engines to a cleaner mode during official emissions
testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARPENTER LAW GROUP
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 347-3517
      Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
      E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com

         - and -

      Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
              glynch@carlsonlynch.com

         - and -

      Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
      Stephen B. Murray Sr., Esq.
      Stephen B. Murray Jr., Esq.
      Jessica W. Hayes, Esq.
      Robin Myers Primeau, Esq.
      MURRAY LAW FIRM
      650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 525-8100
      Facsimile: (504) 584-5242
      E-mail: info@murray-lawfirm.com


XBIOTECH INC: Faces "Tran" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linh Tran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Xbiotech Inc., John Simard, and Queena Han, Case No.
1:15-cv-01083 (W.D. Tex., December 2, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Xbiotech Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, which
engages in the discovering and development of True Human
monoclonal antibodies for treating various diseases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew L. Payne, Esq.
      R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
      PAYNE MITCHELL LAW GROUP
      2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1400
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 252-1888
      Facsimile: (214) 252 1889
      E-mail: andy@paynemitchell.com
              dean@paynemitchell.com

         - and -

      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
              lrosen@rosenlegal.com


* KCC Expands New York Class Action Practice
--------------------------------------------
KCC, a Computershare company and premier provider of
administrative-support services for the legal and financial
industries, is marking several milestones for its class action
practice. The company was recently recognized as the 2015 Best
Claims Administrator by The National Law Journal and is also
celebrating the administration of its 6,000th class action
settlement.

The company's successes of the past year have included the
addition of top industry talents, including Justin Hughes and
Robert Cormio. They both bring extensive securities class action
administration experience. The firm is actively looking to grow
its east coast practice and interested persons should apply at
kccllc.com.

The company also announced the relocation of Jenny Trang, a
director in the company's business development department, to New
York.

"Our class action settlement administration practice has achieved
notable successes through the expertise, technology and client
service model that we've built over the last five years," said
Bryan Butvick, chief executive officer, KCC. "Bringing top talent
to KCC and expanding our practice in New York will provide
additional resources to law firms engaged in securities and
antitrust matters."

KCC has been settlement administrator for some of the largest
securities and antitrust litigations. Some of KCC's largest
securities matters include: Enron Securities Litigation (S.D.
Tex.); Xerox Securities Litigation (D. Conn.); In Re Charles
Schwab Corp Securities Litigation (N.D. Cal.); and Harborview MBS
(S.D.N.Y.). KCC's antitrust administration experience includes: In
re U.S. Foodservice, Inc. Pricing Litigation (D. Conn); In re
Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.); In re Titanium
Dioxide Antitrust Litigation (D. Md.); and In re Ethylene
Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litigation (D. Conn).

KCC -- http://www.kccllc.com/-- provides administrative-support
services that help legal professionals realize time and cost
efficiencies. With an integrated suite of corporate restructuring,
class action, mass tort, strategic communication and legal
document management solutions, KCC alleviates the administrative
challenges of today's legal processes and procedures. KCC has
gained client and industry recognition for its industry expertise,
professional-level client service and proprietary technologies.

Computershare (ASX: CPU) -- http://www.computershare.com/-- is a
global market leader in transfer agency and share registration,
employee equity plans, proxy solicitation and stakeholder
communications. We also specialize in corporate trust, mortgage,
bankruptcy, class action and utility administration, and a range
of other diversified financial and governance services.

Founded in 1978, Computershare is renowned for its expertise in
high integrity data management, high volume transaction processing
and reconciliations, payments and stakeholder engagement. Many of
the world's leading organizations use us to streamline and
maximize the value of relationships with their investors,
employees, creditors and customers.

Computershare is represented in all major financial markets and
has over 15,000 employees worldwide.

For more information, contact:

     Kerry Anderson
     Computershare
     424-236-7206
     Kerry.Anderson@computershare.com


* Obama Administration to Veto H.R. 1927
----------------------------------------
Martine Powers, writing for Politico.com, reported that the Office
of Management and Budget came out with a statement saying the
Obama administration "strongly opposes" a bill that would modify
class-action lawsuits (H.R. 1927), and the president will likely
veto the measure if it reaches his desk.

"It would impair the enforcement of important federal laws," the
administration says, and "constrain access to the courts."

The apparent intention of the proposed legislation is to cut down
on frivolous litigation, dividing the victims in class-action
lawsuits into smaller groups based on the type and seriousness of
their injury. But OMB says H.R. 1927 isn't the right solution:
"Class-action lawsuits allow groups of individuals with similar
injuries to vindicate their rights efficiently and effectively.
Courts already have ample authority under the existing rules
governing class actions to screen out frivolous and baseless
lawsuits." The legislation would almost certainly have an impact
on civil suits related to automobile defects. OMB: "this new
requirement would narrow the availability of class actions."

The House was expected to vote on the bill by the end of last
week.

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Suit Bill Faces Steep Senate Hurdle
----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, Perry Cooper and Stephanie Cumings, writing for
Bloomberg Brief -- Distress & Bankruptcy, reported that a bill to
limit class actions and restrict illegitimate asbestos bankruptcy
trust claims is predicted to sail through the House but is
unlikely to muster sufficient votes in the Senate, according to
sources.

The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act (H.R. 1927), which
includes the Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act (formerly
H.R. 526), is scheduled for a floor vote Jan. 7 or Jan. 8.  Then
it's on to the Senate, where the bill is expected to stall.

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

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

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

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

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

"Asbestos plaintiff lawyers are especially politically active,
well-funded, and influential within the American Association for
Justice, the trial bar's lobbying organization," he said.  But
even if the bill fails to pass the Senate or get presidential
approval, it may serve other ends.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House Judiciary Committee approved the bill in June.

The measure targets class actions in which, defendants say, not
all class members are injured. One such example is the moldy
washing machine product liability litigation, where not everyone's
defective washers grew mold.

Other examples involve cases for statutory damages where,
defendants say, no "concrete" injury has been suffered.

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

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

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

For example, the class action bill could affect pending consumer
actions against Volkswagen over the use of emissions cheating
software in the company's diesel engine vehicle fleet, plaintiffs'
attorney Jonathan D. Selbin, of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP in New York, told Bloomberg BNA in a Jan. 6 e-mail.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRC Has Fibro Reinsurance Deals with AIG, et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Transatlantic Reinsurance Company, an indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of Alleghany Corporation, has entered into a
commutation agreement with AIG Property Casualty, Inc., National
Indemnity Company and Resolute Management, Inc., with respect to
certain reinsurance contracts covering asbestos-related illness
and environmental liabilities, according to the Company's Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on
November 30, 2015.

On November 30, 2015, Transatlantic Reinsurance Company ("TRC"),
an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Alleghany Corporation
("Alleghany"), entered into a commutation and release agreement
with AIG Property Casualty, Inc., National Indemnity Company and
Resolute Management, Inc. with respect to certain reinsurance
contracts (the "Commutation Agreement"), including contracts
covering asbestos-related illness and environmental liabilities
for 1986 and prior years (the "Commuted A&E Liabilities").
Pursuant to the Commutation Agreement, TRC will make a settlement
payment of $400 million in the 2015 fourth quarter to terminate
certain TRC liabilities and obligations, including for the
Commuted A&E Liabilities. Based on a preliminary analysis of its
asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment ("A&E") loss
and loss adjustment expense reserves, TRC estimates that this
settlement payment will eliminate approximately 90 percent of its
liabilities for A&E losses occurring in 1986 and prior years.

Alleghany Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
various insurance services in the United States. Alleghany
Corporation was founded in 1929 and is based in New York, New
York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSC Continues to Indemnify DyCorp Units
--------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation and its subsidiary, Computer
Sciences GS Business, continue to retain indemnities for insured
litigation associated with dormant suits by former employees of
DynCorp subsidiaries alleging exposure to asbestos, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended October 2,
2015.

In connection with CSC's acquisition of DynCorp in 2003 and its
divestiture of substantially all of that business in two separate
transactions (in 2005 to The Veritas Capital Fund II L.P, and DI
Acquisition Corp. and in 2013 to Pacific Architects and Engineers,
Incorporated (collectively, the "DynCorp Divestitures")), CSC
assumed and Computer Sciences GS Business will retain various
environmental indemnities of DynCorp and its former subsidiaries
arising from environmental representations and warranties under
which DynCorp agreed to indemnify the purchasers of its
subsidiaries DynAir Tech and DynAir Services by Sabreliner
Corporation and ALPHA Airports Group PLC, respectively. As part of
the DynCorp Divestitures, CSC also assumed and Computer Sciences
GS Business will also retain indemnities for insured litigation
associated with dormant suits by former employees of DynCorp
subsidiaries alleging exposure to asbestos and other substances;
other indemnities related to a 2001 case arising from counter-
narcotics spraying in Colombia under a U.S. Department of State
contract and the associated coverage litigation involving the
aviation insurance underwriters; and an environmental remediation
case involving HRI, a former wholly-owned subsidiary of DynCorp,
in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. Computer Sciences GS Business does
not anticipate any material adverse effect on its financial
position, results of operations and cash flows from these
indemnities.

CSRA Inc. delivers a range of IT solutions and professional
services to help its U.S. government customers modernize their
legacy systems, protect their networks and assets, and improve the
mission-critical functions for warfighters and citizens.  CSRA
Inc. was incorporated in 2015 and is headquartered in Falls
Church, Virginia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FedEx Continues to Defend Fibro-related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation continues to face a potential criminal case by
the U.S. Department of Justice for asbestos-related regulatory
violations associated with the removal of roof materials from a
hangar in Puerto Rico, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended November 30, 2015.

The Compay states "On January 14, 2014, the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") issued a Grand Jury Subpoena to FedEx Express
relating to an asbestos matter previously investigated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. On May 1, 2014, the DOJ informed
us that it had determined to continue to pursue the matter as a
criminal case, citing seven asbestos-related regulatory violations
associated with removal of roof materials from a hangar in Puerto
Rico during cleaning and repair activity, as well as violation of
waste disposal requirements. Loss is reasonably possible; however,
the amount of any loss is expected to be immaterial."

FedEx Corporation provides transportation, e-commerce, and
business services in the United States and internationally. The
company was founded in 1971 and is based in Memphis, Tennessee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Continues to Defend Fibro Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Company remains a defendant to approximately 796 lawsuits
for asbestos-related injury litigations, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015.

The Company states "As with numerous other large industrial
companies, we have been named a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation. Typically, these suits also name many
other corporate defendants. To date, the costs resulting from the
litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant.
As of September 30, 2015, there were approximately 796 lawsuits.
We believe that we have substantial insurance coverage, subject to
applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos
claims. We have valid defenses to these claims and intend to
continue to defend them vigorously. Should the volume of
litigation grow substantially, it is possible that we could incur
significant costs resolving these cases. We believe that the
resolution of pending litigation and proceedings is not expected
to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
condition or liquidity. In any given period or periods, however,
it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a material
effect on the results of operations."

WestRock Company manufactures and sells paper and packaging
solutions for the consumer and corrugated markets in North
America, South America, Europe, and Asia. WestRock Company is
based in Richmond, Virginia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review Stay of Allstate Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance Company filed a petition seeking an order
compelling A.O. Smith Corporation to arbitrate a dispute regarding
a Settlement/Coverage-in Place Agreement.  The Court granted
A.O.'s motion to stay the case.  Allstate has now moved the Court
to reconsider that decision.

Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied Allstate's
motion to reconsider.

"Allstate argues that the Court erroneously held that Allstate's
action is parallel to the Wisconsin action.  Allstate describes
the Court's errors as errors of apprehension.  But Allstate does
not raise any facts or law of which the Court was unaware in
finding that the Wisconsin action is parallel to Allstate's action
in this Court. Instead, Allstate questions the Court's reasoning
in reaching its decision. Thus, Allstate has not raised any basis
for the Court to reconsider that finding," Judge Durkin held.

The case is ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH
CORPORATION, Defendant, No. 15 C 6574 (N.D. Ill.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
December 11, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/2H8wOTfrom
Leagle.com.

Allstate Insurance Company, Petitioner, represented by James
Richard Murray, Esq. -- jmurray@tresslerllp.com  -- TRESSLER,
SODERSTROM, MALONEY & PRIESS, Heather Colleen Sullivan, Esq. --
hcolleen@tresslerllp.com --TRESSLER LLP & Kathryn Ann Formeller,
Esq. -- kformeller@tresslerllp.com  -- TRESSLER LLP.

A.O. Smith Corporation, Respondent, represented by Jeffrey O.
Davis, Esq. -- jeffrey.davis@quarles.com  -- QUARLES & BRADY,
Patrick J Murphy, Esq. -- Patrick.murphy@quarles.com -- QUARLES &
BRADY, Jacob M. Mihm, Esq. -- jmihm@hokellc.com  -- HOKE LLC &
Stephen M. Hoke, Esq. -- shoke@hokellc.com -- HOKE ATTORNEYS AT
LAW LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Custodian Loses Summary Judgment Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Ely filed suit against her employer and her supervisors
Dearborn Heights School District No. 7, Todd Thieken, and Jeffrey
L. Bartold, after they disciplined her for speaking out about
possible asbestos contamination at a school where she worked as a
part-time custodian.  She alleges that the defendants unlawfully
restrained her right to speak and retaliated against her in
violation of the First Amendment.  Both sides filed motions for
summary judgment.

The defendants contend that the plaintiff has failed to advance
any viable claim that can be supported by the record now before
the Court, and the individual defendants argue that they are
entitled to qualified immunity.

The plaintiff contends that no fact question remains for trial on
her claims and the Court should grant judgment as a matter of law
in her favor and award compensatory and exemplary damages.

Judge David M. Lawson of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part
and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment and
denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Judge Lawson ruled that the plaintiff has not offered evidence
that establishes a claim against the municipal defendant.
However, she has offered sufficient evidence to create jury-
submissible claims against the individual defendants.  And she has
shown that those defendants violated her constitutional rights
that were clearly established at the time.  The existence of fact
questions preclude summary judgment as a matter of law for the
plaintiff and the individual defendants alike.

It is further ordered that the Amended Complaint is dismissed with
prejudice as to defendant Dearborn Heights School District Number
7, only.

The case is THERESA ELY, Plaintiff, v. DEARBORN HEIGHTS SCHOOL
DISTRICT NO. 7, TODD THIEKEN, and JEFFREY L. BARTOLD, Defendants,
Case No. 14-14500.

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated December 14, 2015
is available at http://is.gd/4oyY6efrom Leagle.com.

Theresa Ely, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Michael Taub, Esq. --
MILLER COHEN P.L.C. & Robert D. Fetter, Esq. -- MILLER COHEN
P.L.C.

Todd Thieken, Defendant, represented by John L. Miller, Esq. --
jmiller@gmhlaw.com -- GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON, P.C & Timothy
J. Mullins, Esq. -- tmullins@gmhlaw.com -- GIARMARCO, MULLINS &
HORTON, P.C..

Jeffrey Bartold, Defendant, represented by John L. Miller, Esq. --
GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON, P.C. & Timothy J. Mullins, Esq. --
GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON, P.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Summary Judgment Favoring Fluor
--------------------------------------------------------------

Kenneth and Dorothy Evans sued Fluor Corporation along with a host
of other defendants, alleging that Kenneth Evans developed
asbestosis from his exposure to asbestos when he helped to
demolish a gas cooling tower over a two to three week period in
the 1950s.  The trial court granted Fluor's motion for summary
judgment, concluding that plaintiffs failed to establish a triable
issue of fact that Evans was exposed to asbestos from any Fluor
products.

Fluor moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary
adjudication.  In its motion, Fluor relied on Evans' written
discovery responses and deposition testimony to argue that Evans
lacked, and would be unable to discover, evidence to show he was
exposed to asbestos from any products or services provided by
Fluor at any time during his employment.

The Plaintiffs contend that, even if Fluor met its initial burden,
they produced sufficient evidence in opposition to summary
judgment to raise a triable issue as to causation.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, disagree with the Plaintiffs' contention and affirms the
trial court's decision granting Flour's bid for summary judgment.

The case is KENNETH EVANS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents,
No. B257665.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated December 15, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/AmSefCfrom Leagle.com.
Plaintiffs and Appellants are represented by Simona A. Farrise,
Esq. -- info@farriselaw.com -- FARRISE FIRM, Sharon J. Arkin, Esq.
-- info@farriselaw.com -- THE ARKIN LAW FIRM

Defendants and Respondents are represented by Thomas J. Tarkoff,
Esq. -- ttarkoff@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD, Cynthia
Y. Chan, Esq. -- cchan@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD,
Orly Degani, Esq. -- orly@deganigalston.com  -- DEGANI & GALSTON


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fed. Cir. Dismisses Veteran's Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
Johnny R. Williams seeks review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the decision of the Board of
Veterans' Appeals.

The United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, dismissed
William's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Federal Circuit ruled that the Veterans Court's decision on
appeal was limited to a determination of whether the Board had
substantially complied with the Veterans Court's February 2014
remand order, in view of the fact that Williams declined the
opportunity for a hearing in the first instance.  Though Williams
does not specify his grounds for appeal, he appears to argue that
the Veterans Court should have found that the Board, in declining
to provide Williams a hearing once he changed his mind with
respect to his desire for one, failed to comply with its
obligations.  This issue, however, is directed to the application
of law to the facts of a particular case, and is thus outside the
scope of the court's review, the Federal Circuit further ruled.

The case is JOHNNY R. WILLIAMS, Claimant-Appellant v. ROBERT A.
McDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee, No.
2015-7105.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated December 15, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/whAcJzfrom Leagle.com.

Johnny R. Williams, Mansura, La, Pro Se.

Sosun Bae, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United
States Department Of Justice, Washington, Dc, For Respondent-
Appellee. Also Represented By Scott D. Austin, Robert E.
Kirschman, Jr., Benjamin C. Mizer; Y. Ken Lee, Jonathan Elliott
Taylor, Office Of General Counsel, United States Department Of
Veterans Affairs, Washington, Dc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dale Farm Fined Over Cookstown Fibro Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that Dale Farm has been fined GBP30,000 plus
costs of GBP2,500 after two ventilation engineers were exposed to
asbestos fibres.

The incident happened during extension work at Dunmanbridge
Creamery, Cookstown, on 13 March 2013.

The company pleaded guilty to breaches of health and safety
legislation.

The case was brought by the Health and Safety Executive for
Northern Ireland (HSENI).

Dungannon Crown Court was told that the two engineers had not been
provided with important information on the location of asbestos
containing materials at the site before work began.

An investigation by HSENI found that Dale Farm had an asbestos
management survey carried out 10 years prior to the incident.

However, an asbestos management plan had not been developed in the
intervening time, nor had a refurbishment/demolition survey been
undertaken before the extension work began.

Dale Farm had also failed to update their asbestos register to
take account of asbestos insulation board discovered in 2007 in
the area where the incident took place.

After the hearing, HSENI inspector Jonathan Knox said: Asbestos
exposure is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in
Northern Ireland.

"Although the supply of asbestos containing materials was
prohibited in 1999 many buildings in Northern Ireland still
contain such products.

"Those in charge of non-domestic premises have a duty to manage
the risks presented by asbestos containing materials."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stobbs Denies Ford's Bid to Junk Fibro Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison Record, reports
that Madison County Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs denied a motion
to dismiss an asbestos case filed by Ford Motor Company, relying
on a statement made by Ford to the Illinois Supreme Court
expressing its substantial contacts with the state.

Stobbs, who presides over the Madison County asbestos docket,
filed the order denying Ford's motion to dismiss for lack of
personam jurisdiction on Nov. 6.

In his order, Stobbs noted a recently filed brief with the
Illinois Supreme Court in Folta v Ferro Engineering, which stated:

"Ford is one of the world's leading automotive manufacturers. Ford
manufactures and assembles automobiles across six continents and
provides related products and services. Ford conducts substantial
business in Illinois and operates as assembly plant in Chicago
that manufactures several vehicles, including the Taurus, MKS,
Police Interceptor, and Explorer. Ford employs over 4,000 people
at the Chicago Assembly Plant. In the past five years, Ford has
invested over half a billion dollars in its business operations in
Illinois."

As a result, Stobbs concluded that Ford "has availed itself of the
protection of the Illinois Courts and the benefits of Illinois law
and by its own admission conducts substantial, not de minimus,
business in Illinois.

"Ford's contacts with the State of Illinois are substantial,
therefore significantly more than the minimum contacts required by
federal due process standards."

In fact, Ford has a town, Ford Heights, named after it in
Illinois.

Irene Jeffs, individually and as special administrator of the
estate of Dale Jeffs, filed the lawsuit. He alleges the decedent
was exposed to various asbestos-containing products while working
as a union insulator for various contractors at various sites from
1968-1995.

During the course of his employment, Jeffs alleges the decedent
worked at Ford's plant in Michigan, where he was allegedly exposed
to asbestos.

As a result, the decedent eventually developed mesothelioma and
other asbestos-related diseases.

Ford filed its motion to dismiss, arguing that there is no alleged
Illinois exposure occurring during the decedent's time working for
Ford.

Ford cites the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Daimler case,
arguing that there is no basis to exercise general personal
jurisdiction in Illinois for the case at hand.

In Daimler, the court held that "'a court may assert jurisdiction
over a foreign corporation to hear any and all claims against [it]
only when the corporation's affiliations with the State in which
suit is brought are so constant and pervasive as to render [it]
essentially 'at home' in that forum State.'"

Ford's principal place of business is in Michigan and its State of
incorporation is Delaware.

Ford also argues that the plaintiff's reliance on personal
jurisdiction by consent, pursuant to the Illinois Business
Corporation Act, is misplaced.

"The Defendant argues that the Act's requirement that foreign
corporations doing business in this State, register with the
Secretary of State and appoint a resident agent for service of
process cannot be construed as imposing consent to general
personal jurisdiction in this State over a foreign corporation,"
the order explains.

Stobbs was unconvinced.

He held that while Ford's corporate offices are in Michigan, it
has a certificate of authority to conduct business in Illinois,
owns property in Illinois, has authorized dealers in Illinois,
employs people in Illinois and maintains a registered agent to
accept service of process in Illinois.

He wrote that Ford voluntarily conducts regular business in
Illinois and has done so since 1922. The defendant has also
litigated numerous cases in this state, including other asbestos
cases in Madison County, without objecting to personal
jurisdiction.

"Considering all the factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
met her burden of establishing jurisdiction over this Defendant
and that the exercise of jurisdiction, in this case, is not
inconsistent with notions of fair play and substantial justice,
the fundamental consideration in finding constitutional
jurisdiction," Stobbs concluded.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 15-L-533


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Postpones Fibro Hearing
------------------------------------------------
Rubber & Plastics News reports that Garlock Sealing Technologies
has agreed to postpone an Asbestos Claims Resolution Process
hearing, scheduled for Jan. 6, until late February.

A subsidiary of EnPro Industries Inc., GST reached the agreement
with the court-appointed legal representative of future asbestos
claimants and a committee representing current claimants to delay
the hearing pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of North Carolina.

GST also requested similar deferrals of other court calendared
events -- including the confirmation hearing on GST's second
amended plan of reorganization originally scheduled for June 2016
-- related to the ACRP.

It said the bankruptcy court has approved the postponement of the
hearing date to a date to be set by the court.

The delays were requested after the representative of the future
asbestos claim claimants and the current claimants committee
advised GST that they have hare negotiating to resolve the terms
co claims resolution procedures that would be an integral part of
any potential consensual settlement of the ACRP and requested the
postponement to continue those talks and to include GST in the
sessions, the company said.

GST said it agreed to the request because it continues to believe
that a settlement with both the future and current claimants would
provide the best path to finalize the ACRP, save significant
costs, and lead to faster completion of the case.

However, the company cautioned, there's no assurance that the
negotiations will result in a settlement, noting that prior
negotiations have not resulted in an agreement acceptable to all
parties involved.

GST has been dealing with thousands of asbestos claims for more
than a decade. It previously produced gaskets, valves, pipe joints
and other items that contained non-friable asbestos encapsulated
in the products. The firm stopped making them in the U.S. in 2000
and in Mexico in 2001.

Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said non-
friable asbestos isn't likely to release asbestos fibers into the
air, the company still faced claims charging exposure to asbestos
in gasket sealing products over a 35-year period.

GST said it has processed hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims
to conclusion--including judgments, settlements and dismissals. It
has shelled out in excess of at least $1 billion in settlements,
judgments, fees and expenses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Names 70 Companies in Fibro Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a
couple is suing 70 companies they claim are responsible for an
August mesothelioma diagnosis.

John Lewis Lafferty was diagnosed with incurable and asbestos-
related malignant mesothelioma on Aug. 25, according to a
complaint filed in Marshall Circuit Court.

Lafferty and his wife, Dorothy Lafferty, claim the only medically
known cause for mesothelioma in America is exposure to asbestos
dust and, over the course of his lifetime, John Lafferty was
exposed to asbestos dust while working as a supply person at
various job sites in West Virginia.

The defendants' manufacture, sale, distribution, use,
specification, disturbance and/or installation of asbestos-
containing products exposed John Lafferty to asbestos, resulting
in asbestos-caused disease, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim exposure to and the inhalation of asbestos
dust was a direct and proximate cause of his development of
asbestos-related malignancy.

Over the course of John Lafferty's life, he was exposed to and
worked with and/or around products containing asbestos and/or
other harmful minerals manufactured, supplied, sold, distributed,
installed, used, specified, removed and/or required by the
defendants, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claims the defendants failed to warn them of the
dangers of the products and failed to take reasonable precautions
to warn them of the dangers John Lafferty was exposed to when they
knew or should have known of the dangers.

The defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to warn John
Lafferty of the danger to which he was exposed by use of the
asbestos-containing products and failed to inform him of what
would be safe and sufficient apparel for a person who was exposed
to or used the product or products, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants were negligent and caused
damages and injuries.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages with
pre- and post-judgment interest. They are being represented by
Leslie Ann James of Hartley & O'Brien PLLC.

Marshall Circuit Court case number: 15-C-193


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olivetti Fibro Trial Gets Underway
---------------------------------------------------
The Local reports that 17 ex-managers at the electronics firm,
Olivetti, are due to stand trial over allegations that asbestos
exposure at a factory in the Piedmont town of Ivrea caused 14
deaths.

Italian town shuts down Wi-Fi over health fears (08 Jan 16)
Italy's 'orange battle' becomes computer game (05 Jan 16)
Buffon blew EUR20 million in bid to save Italian jobs (31 Dec 15)
The group, which includes Franco De Benedetti, the current chief
of scooter manufacturer Piaggio, worked for the company between
the late 1970s and 2000.

De Benedetti was president of Olivetti between 1978 and 1996.

If found guilty they face charges of manslaughter over 14
confirmed asbestos-related deaths which all occurred since 2005.

"Olivetti knew about the risks posed to workers for years, but did
not respond until it was too late," prosecuting magistrate Laura
Longo told La Stampa.

The prosecution team has amassed some 36,000 pages of evidence,
which spans 50 years of the iconic brand's history and includes
oral testimonies from employees working across a number of
departments.

The first hearing will take place on Monday, after which one
hearing will be scheduled each week until a ruling is reached.

Given the large number of those involved in the case, including
the families of the deceased, trade unions who represent them and
city hall representatives, the sessions are being heard in the
hall of Gramsci secondary school as Ivrea's courtrooms are not
large enough.

Olivetti, a producer of computers, typewriters, fax machines and
calculators, was founded in 1908 and became Italy's largest
electronics manufacturing company, renowned for its innovative
design.

The company was acquired by Telecom Italia in 2003.

The case against Olivetti has been mounting since 2005, when
retired employee Lucia Delaurenti, who worked for the company
between 1965 and 1980, died of malignant mesothelioma, a form of
cancer linked to asbestos exposure.

This is not the only recent inquiry into asbestos-related deaths
embroiling a giant of Italian industry. In July 2015, eleven
former managers at the tyre manufacturer, Pirelli, were convicted
of manslaughter after 24 workers died due to asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-related Deaths of Steelworkers Probed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Star reports that two former Sheffield steelworkers who died
from an asbestos-related cancer could have been exposed to the
deadly dust in their former workplace.

The families of Basil Laycock and Keith Guite have called in
specialist lawyers to find out if they were exposed to asbestos
while working at Stocksbridge Works British Steel, known as Samuel
Fox's.

Mr Laycock died aged 81 in January 2015 from mesothelioma, a
terminal cancer of the lining of the lung, caused by exposure to
asbestos dust decades ago. Mr Guite died aged 81 in April 2013
from the same disease.

Both men worked for the firm for more than 35 years.

Former work colleagues are being urged to come forward with
information about the presence of potential asbestos at the steel
site.

Basil's daughter Gillian Sharpe, 50, from Sandygate, Sheffield,
said: "My dad loved life and his death has really hit the family
hard.

"It was awful watching him deteriorate so quickly and now, as a
family, we need to know how he came to develop this terrible
condition.

"Hopefully, those who worked alongside my Dad and Keith at the
Stocksbridge Works will remember them and come forward with the
information we need to help us understand why their deaths
occurred."

Keith's wife Carol, 75, said: "Keith and I were married for 51
years, and the manner of his death was devastating to watch for
myself and our three children.

"Their deaths raise many unanswered questions. I sincerely hope
answers will be forthcoming."

Adrian Budgen, of law firm Irwin Mitchell, said: "We would urge
anyone who worked with Basil and Keith to get in touch with us.
They might be able to provide vital information that may assist
with our investigations so that we can achieve justice for his
family."

Anyone with any information about the working conditions at the
steel firm from the 1940s to 1980s should contact Kerry Ford at
Irwin Mitchell on 0370 1500 100.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Blames Cos. for Exposing Her, Father
--------------------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison Record, reports that a
Toledo, Illinois, woman is suing more than 50 companies, alleging
she developed a serious medical condition from inhaling asbestos
fibers her father worked around, and brought home on his clothing
and person.

Charity Johnson filed a lawsuit Dec. 9 in St. Clair County Circuit
Court against Aurora Pump Company, General Electric Company, Ford
Motor Company, Honeywell International and more than 50 other
companies, alleging negligence, conspiracy and willful and wanton
misconduct.

According to the complaint, Johnson's father was employed as a
welder, an auto mechanic and in construction throughout his
working life, many times around asbestos. Dust created by working
around asbestos-containing products permeated his clothing and
Johnson's father world carry this dust home with him, repeatedly
exposing the plaintiff to the dust, the suit says.

On Dec. 12, 2013, the plaintiff discovered that she had developed
mesothelioma, caused by the inhalation of asbestos dust, the
lawsuit states. Not only does she expect a premature death because
of the condition, she has spent large sums of money for medical
care, has experienced pain and mental anguish, has been hindered
in her normal course of employment and her family will continue to
be deprived of her means of support, the suit says.

The plaintiff seeks at least $50,000 from each defendant. She is
represented by attorneys Ethan A. Flint, Carson C. Menges and Laci
M. Whitley of Flint Law Firm in Glen Carbon.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 15-L-693


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hundred of Hoo Academy Fined GBP35K Over Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hunter, writing for Kent Online, reported that an academy
trust has been fined GBP35,000 for failing to manage asbestos and
ensure the safety of builders working at a Medway school.

Representatives from the Williamson Trust pleaded guilty at Medway
Magistrates Court -- where it was heard asbestos had been
uncovered during work at the Hundred of Hoo Academy, one of the
trust's schools, in 2012.

Facing the same charge was Mark Tucker, 51, director of MT & Sons
Ltd, the firm contracted to carry out the work, who also pleaded
guilty and was fined GBP17,000.

Exposure to asbestos can cause the deadly disease mesotheliomia,
of which there is a high incident rate in Medway, due mainly to
its industrial past.

The court heard how a "last minute change of plan" during work had
led builders to remove some panels around a series of skylights in
the English, humanities and media block during school holidays.

It was only the next day they realised that the panels were
asbestos, and closed the building.

Barrister Mike Forster, representing the trust, said there was a
failure of management on the part of the school caretaker.

"He should have said 'this is a change of plan, we need to find
out what's in these panels' but he didn't. The work continued and
the panels were removed."

Mr Forster added: "He had training in 2005 so he should have
realised. Why he didn't think to stop the work is a mystery.

"It's regrettable, it won't happen again and the trust are very
sorry that it has happened."

However he pointed to evidence from an expert witness Martin
Steer, who said the risk of harmful exposure in the case was very
low.

In mitigation he pointed out it was one isolated incident, no one
had been injured and the period of risk had been short.

John Roberts, representing Mr Tucker, echoed much of the
mitigation, and said his client had had an excellent safety record
over 40 years.

Magistrates said they found the trust's culpability was greater
than Mr Tucker's, and fined both parties accordingly.

A spokesman for the Williamson Trust said it regretted the
incident, but added: "An expert's report presented to the court
said the risk of exposure to the small number of people on site at
the time was very low to insignificant.

"It's regrettable, it won't happen again and the trust are very
sorry that it has happened" -- Mike Forster
"It is also important to point out this work was carried out
during school holidays when no children and teaching staff were at
school.

"We have learned from this experience and as well as co-operating
fully with the Health and Safety Executive during this case, have
improved, robust and effective safety procedures in place to
ensure this isolated incident is not repeated.

"The school spent a considerable sum in 2012 to ensure the
affected area was cleared."

The Williamson Trust was founded by Sir Joseph Williamson's
Mathematical School, Rochester, in 2011.

As well as the Math School and Hundred of Hoo, the trust manages
four primary schools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dust Exposure Leads Rise in Construction Deaths
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Bailey, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that deaths of
B.C. construction workers jumped 40 per cent in 2015, an increase
fuelled by the number of workers who have died after being exposed
to asbestos while on their jobs decades ago.

Al Johnson, WorkSafeBC's prevention service vice-president, said
the situation may be worse than originally thought. He said
actuarial tables estimated asbestos-related fatalities would peak
between 2015 and 2020, but instead, WorkSafe is now expecting the
high number of deaths to go on longer.

"We think it's because there have been more exposures and more
workers working with asbestos than originally had been anticipated
in industry," Mr. Johnson said.

In 2015, in British Columbia, 44 construction workers died, 26 of
them from exposure and 18 from trauma. In 2014, 31 construction
workers died -- 19 from exposures and 12 from trauma.

Asbestos -- once widely used because of its resistance to fire and
heat -- is now considered a leading workplace killer in Canada,
and is linked to about 5,000 deaths since 1996. Health issues
caused by the silicate mineral include mesothelioma, asbestosis
and lung cancer.

On Thursday, the asbestos issue lingered in the background at the
annual memorial ceremony to mark one of B.C.'s most dramatic
workplace disasters.

Thirty-five years ago Thursday, four carpenters fell 36 floors to
their deaths from Tower IV of the Bentall Centre while working on
the structure. Family, members of the legislature, labour figures,
city councillors and others attended a ceremony to honour the
Tower IV victims -- Gunther Couvreux, Donald Davis, Yrjo Mitrunen
and Brian Stevenson.

The occasion also honoured the 44 construction workers killed in
B.C. in 2015, with mourners laying 44 roses on a plaque
remembering the accident. To make a point, 18 roses were red for
workers who died of trauma; 26 were white for workers who died
from exposure to substances -- basically asbestos.

WorkSafeBC has recently concluded that in 2009, disease first
exceeded traumatic injuries as the leading cause of work-related
deaths in the province.

The agency said traumatic injuries causing death have decreased 68
per cent since 1990, while the number of occupational disease-
connected deaths -- largely linked to asbestos exposure -- has
increased.

Tom Sigurdson, executive director of the BC Building Trades
Council, told the ceremony earlier that he expects the number of
exposure deaths to rise in coming years -- "a consequence of
workers having worked with asbestos."

"We have known for the last century that asbestos has been
hazardous, but it has only been in the last few years that we have
actually used protective equipment when we work with asbestos," he
said.

He said WorkSafe BC is now diligent about processing the files of
workers facing health issues due to exposure, which leads to some
level of monetary compensation.

But to protect today's workers, he called for vigilance to weed
out contractors who do not see to the safety of employees as they
do renovation and remediation of buildings where asbestos is
present. He suggested enhanced provincial inspections of the well-
known "troublemakers."

Mr. Johnson, who spoke at the memorial, noted WorkSafeBC has a
dedicated team of inspection officers, recently bolstered,
monitoring issues around asbestos linked to demolition and small
commercial renovation.

"That's where we're seeing the exposures today," he said. "If we
can prevent those exposures today, theoretically this disease can
be eradicated in future."

He said he did not have a dollar figure on compensation that
WorkSafeBC is paying for those now suffering from asbestos-related
disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. SC Bars Workers' Compensation Fibro Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vimbai Chikomo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that the
Illinois Supreme Court ruled against a plaintiff in a mesothelioma
case, stating that the claim did not meet the time limitations
established in the Workers' Compensation Act and the Workers'
Occupational Disease Act.

The plaintiff's diagnosis came 16 years after the time limitations
had expired under these acts.

"I think this is a surprising decision, in that the appellate
court had ruled that the plaintiff could move forward with his
claims, because of the latency of the disease. The Illinois
Supreme Court reversed the appellate court decision," said David
J. Scriven-Young, Senior Counsel at Peckar & Abramson PC.

"On the other hand, the plain language of the statute of repose
actually is pretty clear that these claims should be cut off after
a certain period of time."

On Nov. 4, the Illinois Supreme Court barred Ellen Folta, special
administrator of James Folta's estate, from bringing action
against Ferro Engineering for a mesothelioma diagnosis after
alleged exposure to asbestos while he was employed as a shipping
clerk and product tester for the company from 1966 to 1970.

James was diagnosed with the asbestos-related disease 41 years
later and sued his employer and 14 other defendants in a civil
lawsuit in Cook County one month later, seeking to recover damages
for the disease.

The Illinois Workers' Occupational Diseases Act states in section
6(c) that "unless application for compensation is filed with the
Commission within 25 years after the employee was so exposed, the
right to file such application shall be barred."

Ferro Engineering filed a motion to dismiss the complaint arguing
that Folta's claims were barred "by the exclusive remedy
provisions" of the Workers' Compensation Act and the Workers'
Occupational Diseases Act.

Folta maintained that since his disease didn't manifest until 41-
years after his last exposure to asbestos, any asbestos-related
compensation claim was barred before he had any knowledge of his
disease, therefore, his claim "fell outside the exclusive remedy
provisions because his claims were not 'compensable' under the
acts."

The court held that the plain language of the statutes barred
Folta's right to bring a claim after 25 years, and found that the
25-year time limit imposed by the Workers' Occupational Diseases
Act "acts as a statute of repose and creates an absolute bar on
the right to bring a claim," and that the purpose of the repose
period is to "terminate the possibility of liability after a
defined period of time."

"Although this may not necessarily be fair to individuals who get
the disease and receive a late diagnosis, the intent of the
statutes is to allow companies to not face litigation for
something that took place decades ago," Scriven-Young explained.

Scriven-Young stated that the court's decision is consistent with
what happened previously -- it was actually the appellate court
that seemed to change the rules a bit, he said.

"So I think employers are breathing a sigh of relief at this point
that there will not be a flood of new litigation and an expansion
of their liability," he said.

In its ruling, the court stated that it was "cognizant of the
harsh result in this case," but asserted that the decision on
whether to create a "different balance" under the acts given the
current knowledge of asbestos exposure and mesothelioma is "a
question more appropriately addressed to the legislature."

Scriven-Young explained that many companies have taken a big hit
financially due to asbestos claims.

"In general, asbestos litigation has threatened the financial
well-being of many companies," he said. "It is hard to tell
exactly how many folks out there are time-barred by the statute
(and now by this new court decision), but the opposite result
might have tipped some employers over the edge into bankruptcy."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Mortality Rates Exceed Nat'l Average
-----------------------------------------------------------
Deaths attributed to asbestos-related diseases are alarmingly high
in eight East Texas counties, reports the mesothelioma law firm of
Baron & Budd. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) recently
released an analysis of mortality rates in the Beaumont, Orange
and Port Arthur areas, which the EWG dubbed "Asbestos Alley."
According to the EWG, asbestos death rates in portions of the area
are more than four times the national average.

The organization reports that in Orange County, the mortality rate
is nearly 24 deaths per 100,000 people, and the mortality rate in
Sabine County is nearly 23 per 100,000. The national mortality
rate is 4.9 per 100,000 and the Texas rate is 3.3 per 100,000.

According to the EWG, these are the asbestos-related mortality
rates in the region, known as the "Golden Triangle":

   Orange -- 23.9
   Sabine -- 22.7
   Jasper -- 16.8
   Trinity -- 16.3
   Jefferson -- 14.8
   Newton -- 13.2
   Hardin -- 12.8
   Polk -- 11.8

Despite these numbers, not only does asbestos remain legal in the
U.S., the EWG reports that approximately 8 million pounds of the
deadly material has been imported into U.S. ports since 2006. In
addition, Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX) has sponsored a piece of
legislation that would make it far more difficult for asbestos
victims to obtain compensation for their medical expenses and
other costs associated with their illnesses.

The bill, known as the FACT (Furthering Asbestos Claim
Transparency) Act, would require plaintiffs in asbestos lawsuits
to fill out burdensome, expensive reports. If made into law, the
act would not only significantly slow the processing of claims, it
would also very likely dissuade many asbestos victims from
pursuing legal action. According to the EWG, Koch Industries,
Allstate, Nationwide and Honeywell are just some of the major
corporations that support the bill, which might be up for a House
vote.

"We are incredulous that Rep. Farenthold would sponsor such a
terrible piece of legislation, especially since he is no doubt
aware of the toll asbestos is taking -- basically in his own
backyard," said Russell Budd, president and managing shareholder
of the mesothelioma law firm of Baron & Budd. "We strongly urge
citizens to make their displeasure with the FACT Act known by
contacting their State Representatives and Senators."

The mesothelioma law firm of Baron & Budd may be able to help if
you or a loved one has been diagnosed with an asbestos-related
disease.

                  ABOUT BARON & BUDD, P.C.

The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., with offices in Dallas, Baton
Rouge, New Orleans, Austin and Los Angeles, is a nationally
recognized law firm with a nearly 40-year history of "Protecting
What's Right" for people, communities and businesses harmed by
negligence. Baron & Budd's size and resources enable the firm to
take on large and complex cases. The firm represents individuals
and government and business entities in areas as diverse as
dangerous pharmaceuticals and medical devices, environmental
contamination, the Gulf oil spill, financial fraud, overtime
violations, deceptive advertising, automotive defects, trucking
accidents, nursing home abuse, and asbestos-related illnesses such
as mesothelioma.

Contacts
Baron & Budd, P.C.
Bradley Bowen, 214-523-6633


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Says Ex-Employers Caused Husband's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing  for Madison Record, reports that an
Illinois woman is suing nearly 40 companies and Metropolitan Life,
alleging negligence in her husband's asbestos-related lung cancer
and subsequent death.

Bethi D. Dates, administrator of the estate of Roosevelt Dates
Jr., filed a lawsuit Oct. 27 in St. Clair County Circuit Court
against CBS Corporation, American Standard Inc., Union Carbide
Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad and many other listed
defendants, plus Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

According to the complaint, Roosevelt Dates Jr. began working in
1951 and continued working until 1992. The suit says at various
times during his employment, the deceased was exposed to, inhaled,
ingested or absorbed large amounts of asbestos fibers emanating
from products he worked with and that were manufactured, sold,
distributed or installed by the defendants.

On April 28, 2015, the lawsuit states, Dates' family learned he
had developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, which
caused his death Oct. 18, 2014. Before he died, the suit says, he
paid large sums of money for medical services, experienced great
physical pain and mental anguish, and was prevented from pursuing
his normal course of employment, leading to losses of income.

The complaint says Dates' family has been deprived of his means of
support and lost the society of the deceased, and the estate spent
substantial sums of money for his funeral and burial.

Bethi Dates seeks more than $50,000 from each of the defendants.

The count against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company alleges
conspiracy. The suit says Met Life conspired to discredit and
terminate the studies and experiments of scientists who were
developing data about the dangers of asbestos. The suit further
states Met Life actively suppressed publication of articles about
asbestosis in Asbestos Magazine, a source of information to the
public and to users of asbestos products. As a result, Bethi Dates
seeks more than $50,000 from Met Life.

She is represented by attorneys Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of
Gori, Julian & Associates PC of Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 15-L-610


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two Companies Fined GBP165K for Fibro Failings
---------------------------------------------------------------
North West Place reported that a food company and its Manchester-
based contractor have been fined after asbestos was disturbed
during building work and only identified by chance when an
asbestos removal contractor attended site.

Stafford Crown Court heard no asbestos survey had been carried out
by Mizkan Euro, headqartered in London, D H Welton & Co, based in
Failsworth, and either company could have commissioned a
refurbishment or demolition before the work commenced.

An investigation by the Health & Safety Executive found Mizkan
Euro was undertaking a project to remove tanks from a factory
which required the demolition of an external wall. It failed to
provide an asbestos survey to enable contractor DH Welton to quote
and plan appropriately for the work to be undertaken. However, HSE
also found DH Welton could have commissioned a survey when it
discovered that Mizkan only had access to a management survey for
the building.

When the wall was demolished asbestos insulation board at the top
of the wall was unknowingly broken up. A skip of demolition debris
was found to contain asbestos insulation board, which had been
identified by an asbestos contractor who had been called to site.
For the work to be undertaken correctly, a licensed asbestos
removal contractor should have been appointed to remove the
asbestos under controlled conditions prior to the wall being
demolished.

Mizkan Euro Ltd of Chiswick Park, Chiswick High Road, Chiswick,
London pleaded guilty to breaching sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the
Health & Safety at Work Act after failing to plan and manage the
work carried out under its control without ensuring that risks to
health and safety are prevented. It was fined œ60,000 for each
charge, totalling œ120,000, and ordered to pay costs of œ13,589.

D H Welton & Co Ltd of Corn Street, Failsworth, Manchester
admitted breaching Section 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health & Safety at
Work Act and regulation 5(1)(a) Control of Asbestos Regulations
2012 after failing to carry out a suitable and sufficient
assessment as to whether asbestos was present or liable to be
present during the removal of a wall. It was fined œ15,000 for
each charge, totalling œ45,000 plus costs of œ4,529.

Mizkan and DH Welton were both unavailable for comment at the time
of publication.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wateringen Residents Exposed to Deadly Dust
------------------------------------------------------------
Janene Pieters, writing for NLTimes, reported that a very critical
report on the asbestos cleanup in Wateringen after a large fire in
January in 2014, was leaked.

The investigators concluded that the the municipality of Westland
unnecessarily exposed residents to severe health risks by not
cleaning up the asbestos properly after the fire. One investigator
even calls it "a deadly health risk", RTL Nieuws reports.

According to the report, despite two rounds of cleanup by the
municipality after the fire in 2015, the area is still not clean.
"The municipality Westland seriously and culpably neglects its
public task to clean up the public spaces and thereby risk the
lives of its people unnecessarily", asbestos jurist Yvonne
Waterman, who did the investigation, writes. The whole report can
be read here in Dutch.

According to RTL, the province of Zuid-Holland planned to keep the
report secret for the time being, but finally relented under
public pressure and released it.

In a reaction to the report, Mayor Sjaak van der Tak said that the
image the report creates "does not correspond to reality". A
spokesperson for the municipality stated that the municipality did
more than the Ministry requires when cleaning up the asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Security Guard Dies of Fibro-related Cancer
------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Fitzgerald, writing for Manchester Evening News, reports that
Stuart Packard died in December of mesothelioma after helping out
in the city centre following the 1996 blast

A security guard who worked in Manchester in the wake of the IRA
bombing has died of asbestos-related cancer 20 years after he is
believed to have been exposed to carcinogenic dust in the
aftermath of the blast.

Stuart Packard, spent three weeks working in the city centre as an
emergency security guard at the Arndale Centre helping deal with
the devastation following the attack in June 1996.

He died aged 40 of mesothelioma -- a cancer caused by asbestos.

It is thought he came into contact with carcinogenic dust caused
by demolition work following the attack, which injured more than
200 people and caused œ1.5bn-worth of damage.

Buildings in a half-mile radius of the blast were destroyed. The
clean up, which took months, was made more complicated by the fact
that scores of the buildings affected contained asbestos.

Archive images show workmen in protective clothing and masks.

But Mr Packard's family believe he was not properly protected --
and have tasked law firm Fieldfisher with investigating the
potential for a civil claim for compensation.

His wife Julie Barrett, from Essex, said: "Stuart is so badly
missed, he was so young. If the bomb hadn't happened, he would
likely still be alive.

"This disease just came back to get him so many years later. We
all live with the threat of terrorism now every day -- and it was
terrorism all those years ago that caused his tragic death."

Mr Packard leaves behind two children, aged four and nine. He went
on to work as a health and safety officer for the Ministry of
Defence.

Mr Packard only found out he was ill in March after he started
losing weight and felt tired and out of breath. Medics were
shocked to discover he was suffering from mesothelioma.

The condition has a long incubation period and it can take years
to develop any symptoms.

Father-in-law Rod Barrett said: "He said he remembered the
demolition ball knocking down buildings right behind him and there
being dust and rubble everywhere.

"When he was diagnosed with the disease, he thought back to when
he could have been exposed to asbestos dust and it all fell into
place."

Solicitors at Fieldfisher are appealing for anyone who also worked
in the area in the aftermath of the bombing, who may be able to
provide information about protective clothing and masks.

Specialist mesothelioma and asbestos solicitor Peter Williams
said: "Mesothelioma usually attacks people at retirement age, but
Mr Packard was only 40 when he died, which makes this case even
more tragic."

Wythenshawe and Sale MP Mike Kane raised the issue of asbestos-
relation cancer -- and a lack of funding for research into the
condition -- in the House of Commons.

He claimed a lack of cash for work around mesothelioma could
'endanger potential life-changing, even life-saving
breakthroughs'.

Introducing a Ten Minute Rule Motion on the issue, Mr Kane said
the UK has the highest rate of the disease in the world and
mortality rates are increasing, having more than quadrupled over
the last 30 years.

It is estimated that more than 2,500 people will die of the
disease in the UK and an estimated 60,000 people will die over the
next 30 years unless new treatments are found.

Citing Mr Packard's case, Mr Kane called for research funding to
be guaranteed by law.

Mr Kane said: "Unless a change is introduced into the way
mesothelioma research is funded, we risk stagnation and endanger
potential life-changing, even life-saving breakthroughs.

"Currently, research relies on ad-hoc contributions from insurers,
charitable donations and modest funding from the government.

"This unreliable approach to funding jeopardises ongoing research,
impacting not only on the British research industry but on
Mesothelioma mortality in the UK.

"This is why statutory funding must be secured for the research."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Bill Would Expose Victims' Personal Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
SC Magazine reports that privacy and public interest organizations
are petitioning against a bill that attempts to prevent fraud in
asbestos lawsuits.

A group of privacy and public interest organizations are
petitioning against a bill that attempts to prevent fraud in
asbestos lawsuits.

The groups say the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT)
Act would cause an increase incidents of identity theft targeting
asbestos victims.

The draft legislation could receive a House vote Thursday. The
bill would establish trusts tasked with creating quarterly public
reports "listing the name and exposure history of those who have
filed a claim with such trust and any payments made to claimants
and the basis for such payments."

The campaign is led by Washington, DC-based Environmental Working
Group (EWG) Action Fund, which sent a letter signed by a coalition
that includes Essential Information, Government Accountability
Project, Patient Privacy Rights, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse,
Privacy Times, TURN-The Utility Reform Network and World Privacy
Forum to the cyber caucus.

The bill would "force the online disclosure of sensitive personal
information of sick and dying asbestos victims seeking
compensation for their illnesses," the letter stated. "Disclosure
would include the last four digits of their Social Security
numbers, work and medical histories, full name and birth year,
among other details, on a publicly accessible website anyone with
access to a computer can view and download."

Last June American Veterans (AMVETS) and the Association of the
U.S. Navy wrote to Congressional leaders opposing the bill, and
last October, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the
National Educational Association and AFSCME sent a letter to
Congress opposing the legislation.

The proposed FACT Act, sponsored by Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX),
was approved by the Judiciary Committee in November 2015.


                            *********

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  * * *