CAR_Public/160121.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, January 21, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 14


                            Headlines


AXA LIFE INSURANCE: "O'Donnell" Suit Moved from Conn. to S.D.N.Y.
BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement Reached in CDS Antitrust Litigation
BORDER PATROL: Suit Over Border Facilities to Proceed, Court Says
BUFFALO BILLS: Ex-Cheerleaders Win Class Status in Wage Suit
CARMEL, IN: Faces Potential Class Suit From Ticketed Drivers

CASE DETECTIVE: Accused of Not Paying Proper Wages and Overtime
CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING COUNCIL: "Chan" Suit Moved to S.D.N.Y.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces "Ong" Shareholder Class Suit in New York
CRITTENDEN HOSPITAL: Suit Can Proceed as Class Action, Court Says
DIPP: "Carlson" Suit Moved to Massachusetts Dist. Court

EXPERIAN INFO: "Wicklund" Suit Moved from S.D. Ill. to C.D. Cal.
FITBIT INC: Goldberg Law Files Securities Suit for Shareholders
FITBIT INC: Levi & Korsinsky Commences Securities Suit in Cal.
FITBIT INC: Stocks Trade Below IPO Price Due to PurePulse, Blaze
FITBIT INC: Two Models Don't Truly Track Heart Rates, Suit Claims

FRIEND OF A FARMER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
G2 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT: "McLaughlin" Suit to E.D. Tenn.
GENERAL MOTORS: Trial on Ignition Switch Suits Begins in New York
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Zgurski" Suit Transferred to Boston Court
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Dixon" Suit in Ala. Over Zofran(R) Drugs

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Brosseau" Suit Transferred from Kansas to Mass.
HERTZ LOCAL EDITION: "Fernando" Suit Moved from C.D. to S.D. Cal.
HOAG MEMORIAL: Doesn't Properly Compensate Employees, Suit Says
HSBC BANK: Jura and Hanes Can't Intervene in Class Suit
IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bazelais" Suit Says

INDIANA: Sued by Pendleton Prisoners Over Tuberculosis Cases
J CHOO: Sued in Fla. Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS: "Hays" Suit Removed to Boston Court
JOHN GOODSON: Gets Show-Cause Order Over Court-Shopping Issues
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued in Cal. Over Junior Mortgage Debt Policy

KEYCORP: Faces "Lassoff" Suit Over Proposed First Acquisition
KLX INC: Brower Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. Florida
KLX INC: Rigrodsky Law Firm Files Securities Suit in Florida
KLX INC: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Suit in S.D. Florida
LAYNE ENERGY: Supreme Court Refuses to Review CAFA Dismissal Suit

LTD FINANCIAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Cathedral City Man Upset About Bad Flooring
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Guei" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Hreha" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Huffman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Seiler" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MEASURABLE SOLUTIONS: Sued in S.C. Over Debt Collection Policies
MICHAEL STORES: Court Dismisses "Whalen" Data Breach Class Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT: "Sam" Suit Moved from S.D. to N.D.N.Y.
NATIONAL SPECIALTY: Sued in Fla. Over Medical Care Reimbursement

NEW YORK ONE: Faces "Alves" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid on Jan. 22
PCH COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Espinosa" Suit Over Termination Notice
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION: "Luster" Suit Moved to N.D. Ga.
POLAR AIR: Settles $100 Million Cargo Cartel Class Action in U.S.

PREMIER CRU: Customers Hope to Join Class to Get Credit Refunds
PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT: Sued Over Undisclosed Compensation
QUALITY NATURE: Falsely Marketed Dietary Supplements, Suit Says
QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Class Suit Should Be Settled Out of Court
QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Counsel Re-Mapped Brisbane Flood Levels

RITE AID: Faces Sachs Suit in Del. Over Proposed Walgreens Merger
RJ REYNOLDS: To Give Camel Cash Reward to Settle Promotion Suit
ROBERT LOPEZ: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
SEVERN TRENT SERVICES: "Lowrimore" Suit Moved to E.D. Oklahoma
SHUTTERFLY INC: Suit Alleging Biometric Privacy Abuses Continues

SIENTRA INC: OPPRS Suit Moved from Superior Court to N.D. Cal.
SIENTRA INC: "Kleiman" Suit Moved from Superior Court to N.D. Cal
SIENTRA INC: "Albano" Suit Moved from Superior Court to N.D. Cal.
SPOTIFY AB: Faces "Ferrick" Suit Seeking $200-Mil. in Damages
SPOTIFY AB: Faces New Class Suit Over Improper Licensing of Songs

SUBWAY SANDWICH: MDL Settlement Puts an End on Short Footlongs
SUNEDISON INC: Faces Securities Class Suit in E.D. Missouri
SYNGENTA CORP: Elijah Farms Suit Moved to N.D. Iowa
SYNGENTA CORP: "Fleisher" Suit Transferred from Ohio to Kansas
TOM'S OF MAINE: Consumers May File Claims Even Without Receipts

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Rules on Discovery Rift in "Lathrop"
UNITED COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Freilich" Suit Says
UNITED STATES: Judiciary Accused of Overbilling for PACER Records
UNITED STATES: Retroactive Food Stamps Provided After Class Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Swarce" Suit Moved to Mass. District Court

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Bill to Limit Classes to People With Same Model
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: New CEO to Present Remedies for Emission Issues
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Geldman" Suit Over Defeat Devices
WALGREENS SPECIALTY: "Garcia" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
WELLS FARGO BANK: "Nixon" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. Georgia

WOODLAWN ELECTRICAL: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
WORKSAFE BC: Sued by Workers Over Fatal B.C. Mill Explosions
XPO LOGISTICS: Subsidiaries Sued for Misclassifying Drivers
ZYNGA INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Moved to Feb. 11

* Effort to Overhaul Class Actions Heads to Senate
* Quinn Emanuel Named Class Action Group of the Year by Law360


                            *********


AXA LIFE INSURANCE: "O'Donnell" Suit Moved from Conn. to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled O'Donnell v. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Co., Case No. 3:15-cv-01347, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-09488-UA to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly represented a
material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered
security.

AXA Equitable Life Insurance, together with its subsidiaries,
provides financial advisory, insurance, and investment management
products and services in the United States. It operates in two
segments, Insurance and Investment Management. The company is
based in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Slossberg, Esq.
          David L. Belt, Esq.
          David C. Shufrin, Esq.
          HURWITZ SAGARIN SLOSSBERG & KNUFF LLC
          147 North Broad St., PO Box 112
          Milford, CT 06460-0112
          Telephone: (203) 877 8000
          Facsimile: (203) 878 9800
          E-mail: dslossberg@hssklaw.com
                  DBelt@hssklaw.com
                  dshufrin@hssklaw.com

               - and -

          James Gerard Flynn, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 935 7400
          Facsimile: (212) 753 3630
          E-mail: jflynn@hfesq.com

               - and -

          Joel C. Feffer, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 935 7400
          Facsimile: (212) 753 3630
          E-mail: jcfeffer@hfesq.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
          Kurt William Hemr, Esq.
          Maura Barry Grinalds, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP (NYC)
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735 3000
          Facsimile: (212) 735 2000
          E-mail: jkasner@skadden.com
                  kurt.hemr@skadden.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement Reached in CDS Antitrust Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
This statement is being issued by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP and Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP regarding the In
re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation:

"CDS" means any and all types of credit default swap(s) and CDS-
based products, including, without limitation, single-name CDS,
CDS on corporate, sovereign and municipal reference entities,
tranche CDS, basket CDS, index CDS, and CDS futures.  A "CDS
Transaction" means (i) any purchase, sale, trade, assignment,
novation, unwind, termination, or other exercise of rights or
options with respect to any CDS, whether executed over-the counter
or via inter-dealer brokers, a centralized clearinghouse, a
central limit order book, an exchange, a swap execution facility,
or any other platform or trading facility; or (ii) any decision to
withhold a bid or offer on, or to decline to purchase, sell,
trade, assign, novate, unwind, terminate or otherwise exercise any
rights or options with respect to any CDS.

This notice is to alert you to settlements reached with defendants
Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A.; Barclays
Bank PLC; BNP Paribas; Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., and
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Credit Suisse AG; Deutsche Bank AG;
Goldman, Sachs & Co.; HSBC Bank PLC and HSBC Bank USA, N.A.;
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Morgan Stanley
& Co. LLC; Royal Bank of Scotland PLC and Royal Bank of Scotland
N.V.; UBS AG and UBS Securities LLC (collectively, "Dealer
Defendants"); International Swaps and Derivatives Association;
Markit Group Holdings Ltd. and Markit Group Ltd. (along with the
Dealer Defendants, collectively "Defendants") in a class action.
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants engaged in anticompetitive
acts that affected the price of CDS in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, principally by conspiring to
prevent the creation of exchange trading platforms for CDS which,
if established, would have reduced the spreads paid on each CDS
transaction.  The lawsuit further alleges that Defendants were
unjustly enriched under common law by their anticompetitive acts.
The lawsuit was brought by, and on behalf of, purchasers and
sellers of CDS.  The Defendants deny they did anything wrong.

Settlements have been reached with all Defendants. Defendants have
collectively agreed to pay $1,864,650,000 ("Settlement Fund").
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York ("Court") authorized this notice. Before any money is paid,
the Court will have a hearing to decide whether to approve the
settlements.  Approval of these settlements by the Court will
resolve this lawsuit in its entirety.

WHO IS A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER?

Subject to certain exceptions, the Settlement Class includes all
persons or entities (together, "Persons") who, during the period
of January 1, 2008, through September 25, 2015, purchased CDS from
or sold CDS to the Dealer Defendants, their respective affiliates,
or any purported co-conspirator, in any Covered Transaction.  A
purchase or sale of CDS shall be deemed to be a "Covered
Transaction" in each of the following circumstances: (i) if the
purchase or sale was by or on behalf of a Person either domiciled
or located (e.g., had a principal place of business) in the United
States or its territories at the time of such purchase or sale;
(ii) if the Person was domiciled and located outside the United
States and its territories at the time of any such purchase or
sale, where such purchase or sale was in United States commerce;
or (iii) where such purchase or sale otherwise falls within the
scope of the U.S. antitrust laws.

If you are not sure if you are included in the Settlement Class,
you can get more information, including a detailed notice, at
http://www.CDSAntitrustSettlement.comor by calling toll free 1-
888-744-0531.

WILL I GET A PAYMENT?

If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not opt out of the
Settlement Class, you will be eligible to file a proof of claim
form.  The amount of your payment will be determined by a Plan of
Distribution.  Details about the Plan of Distribution are
available at http://www.CDSAntitrustSettlement.com. A date for
distribution of the Settlement Fund has not been set.  Proof of
claim forms must be postmarked by May 27, 2016, or electronically,
through http://www.CDSAntitrustSettlement.com,on or before 11:59
p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, May 27, 2016.

WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS AS A CLASS MEMBER?

If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not opt out, you will
release certain legal rights against the Defendants and the
Released Parties, as explained in the detailed notice and
settlement agreements, which are available at
http://www.CDSAntitrustSettlement.com. If you do not want to take
part in the proposed settlements, you must opt out by February 29,
2016.

You may, but do not have to, comment on or object to the proposed
settlements, the Plan of Distribution, or class counsel's
application to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees,
expenses, and incentive awards to the plaintiffs for representing
the Settlement Class.  To do so, you must submit your comments or
objections by February 29, 2016.

Information on how to opt out or submit comments or objections is
contained in the detailed notice and at
http://www.CDSAntitrustSettlement.com.

WHEN IS THE FAIRNESS HEARING?

The Court will hold a hearing on April 15, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., at
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, New York 10007 to consider whether to approve
the proposed settlements, the Plan of Distribution, and class
counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees, expenses,
and incentive awards to the plaintiffs.  You or your lawyer may
ask to appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense, but
you do not have to.  If you wish to appear, you must file a notice
of intention to appear by February 29, 2016.

For more information, call 1-888-744-0531 or visit
http://www.CDSAntitrustSettlement.com.


BORDER PATROL: Suit Over Border Facilities to Proceed, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saying there's evidence to support their claims, a federal judge
on January 11 agreed to allow a class-action lawsuit against the
Border Patrol over alleged "inhumane and punitive conditions" at
its facilities in Arizona, according to Howard Fischer Capitol
Media Services.

Judge David Bury denied a request by the federal agency to throw
out the case, saying the challengers have made sufficient
allegations to support their claims that those detained by the
Border Patrol are denied adequate sleep, sanitary conditions,
medical care, food and water, and warmth at holding centers.

He said it will take a trial to determine whether the fact the
limited length any individual is subject to those conditions --
sometimes several days -- is illegal.

But in a separate ruling, the judge said affidavits from those who
had been locked up in the holding centers provided "sufficient
evidence . . . to plausibly support each of the asserted
deficiencies."  And Bury said the conditions about which migrants
are complaining appear to be fairly widespread.

What that means, Bury said, is he will consider not just the
specific complaints of the three people who sued but what could be
hundreds of thousands of others who pass through Border Patrol
holding cells, both in the past and in the future.

More to the point, if Bury finds their claims to be valid, he
could order the federal agency to make extensive changes.

"It's a huge victory because the court validated what thousands of
detainees and advocates have been saying for years about the
deplorable conditions in the short-term detention facilities,"
said Nora Preciado, an attorney with the National Immigration Law
Center.  "The conditions there are inhumane."

Preciado acknowledged that January 11's order is not a finding by
Bury that the Border Patrol has done anything illegal but only
that the claims of unconstitutional conditions can go to trial.

"While there is no finding on the merits at this point, there was
a very careful weighing of the evidence," Preciado said.

There was no immediate response from the Border Patrol.

The lawsuit filed last year names three individuals -- one Tucson
man and two women who are not identified -- who attorneys say were
denied food, adequate clothing and sleep.


BUFFALO BILLS: Ex-Cheerleaders Win Class Status in Wage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Stashenko, writing for Law.com, reports that a judge has
granted class status to former cheerleaders suing the Buffalo
Bills for allegedly paying them below minimum wage.

Considering the matter as a class action "would be a far more
efficient means of litigation as opposed to a multitude of
individual lawsuits," Erie County Supreme Court ruled in Ferrari
v. Mateczun, 804125-2014.

The former Buffalo "Jills" claim they received just 20 or 30 cents
an hour when rehearsal time, public appearances and other duties
were factored in, far below the state's average $8 hourly minimum
wage.

Class status was given to Jills who worked for the team starting
in April 2008 and for all or part of the six seasons ending in
2013.  The Bills have acknowledged issuing security credentials to
134 individuals believed to have been on the squad during that
period, Drury said.

The team argued that it contracted out responsibility for the
cheerleading squad to Citadel Communications Co., later Stejon
Productions Corp., and that the team neither paid the cheerleaders
nor set the terms of their employment.

Drury gave the team 21 days to provide more information about the
individuals who may qualify as class members.

Christopher Marlborough of Melville and partners Sean Cooney,
Frank Dolce and Marc Panepinto of Dolce Panepinto in Buffalo are
among the attorneys representing the cheerleaders.

Stephanie Mateczun, supervisor of the cheerleading squad, is
represented by Dennis Vacco, the former state attorney general who
is partner at Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman in Buffalo.

Partner Jeffrey Reina of Lipsitz Green Schime Cambria in Buffalo
is representing the Bills and Steven Hurd, a partner at Proskauer
Rose, is representing the National Football League.


CARMEL, IN: Faces Potential Class Suit From Ticketed Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Sikich, writing for Indy Star, reports that a court's
decision to throw out a speeding ticket issued in Carmel in
December could have significant repercussions for the city.

Jason J. Maraman of Indianapolis was ticketed for driving 30 mph
in a 20 mph zone last year, but in December he successfully argued
that Carmel's traffic ordinance is invalid under state law.  Now,
the city faces a potential class-action lawsuit from other
motorists who received tickets under the ordinance.

Maraman alleged that Carmel's traffic ordinance 8-2 was invalid
because it simply copied the state code governing traffic.

The problem?  The state's Home Rule Act says local governments
can't simply duplicate a state statue, Maraman argued in court.
If local governments adopt a traffic ordinance, he argued that
under the Home Rule Act they have to write a local statute
detailing their specific interests.

The state Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with Maraman and
tossed the ticket in December.  Maraman could not be reached for
comment.

Carmel officials told The Indianapolis Star that the city will
appeal the ruling to the Indiana Supreme Court.

"The City will appeal the court's decision," officials said in a
news release issued by spokesman Dan McFeely.  "We believe our
Code of Ordinances complies with Indiana law and incorporating
certain state law violations into City Code is permissible under
Home Rule and other applicable state law.  Pending traffic cases
are being reviewed.  In no event will justice be denied or traffic
violators be relieved of their obligation to atone for their
actions as a result of this decision."

But Carmel now faces a broader legal challenge. After reviewing
the Court of Appeals' decision, Indianapolis attorney Edward G.
Bielski filed a class-action lawsuit Dec. 30 against the ordinance
in federal court.  The court has not yet decided whether to give
the case class-action status.

Bielski called Carmel's ordinance a gross abuse of the legal
process and a systemic problem.

He has two clients who were ticketed under the ordinance:
Lawrence B. Lennon of Greenwood, on a count of speeding and Robert
Sanford of Fishers, on a count of passing on the left.  Bielski
plans to add clients in the coming weeks and months.

Bielski is seeking the return of the fines for his clients, plus
other monetary relief that includes attorney fees, court costs,
rising insurance costs and damages due to infringed driving
records for anyone who joins the lawsuit.  He also is asking the
court to force Carmel to stop using ordinance 8-2.

At this point he thinks the statute of limitations limits
potential plaintiffs to only those motorists ticketed under the
ordinance in the past two years, but he said he is exploring
options to see whether he can challenge tickets going back
further.  He thinks thousands of tickets have been issued under
the ordinance.

Bielski said cities do sometimes write their own traffic codes to
enforce a specific interest.  For instance, he said, a local
ordinance might identify a speed limit along a specific stretch of
road in a school zone.

"There is nothing wrong with writing an ordinance and enforcing an
ordinance," Bielski said.  "The problem is Carmel is playing by
its own rules.  I think they need to show a specific city interest
in order to have an enforceable ordinance."

Carmel's interest may be monetary.  Bielski is investigating
whether Carmel is citing traffic offenders under a local ordinance
rather than a state statute to keep a larger share of money from
fines, which typically are divided among entities that can include
the local city, county and state.

Discovery has yet to begin, and Bielski expects to learn more over
time.

If you have received a traffic violation under code 8-2 in 2014 or
2015, you can contact Bielski at (317) 631-6866 or
ed@edbielski.com.


CASE DETECTIVE: Accused of Not Paying Proper Wages and Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Barbara-based law firm Anticouni & Associates filed a Class
Action lawsuit on behalf of former and current employees at Case
Detective Agency, according to KEYT KCOY KKFX.

The complaint alleges that employees were not paid for all hours
worked, not paid overtime, and were often paid in cash, which the
law firm says deprived them of Case's obligation to pay into
Social Security and Unemployment Disability benefits.

It is further alleged that Case Detective Agency failed to keep
proper payroll records and provide proper wage statements, as well
as not provide their employees with timely meal periods.

"We project damages will exceed $1 million," said Bruce Anticouni
on behalf of the law firm.


CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING COUNCIL: "Chan" Suit Moved to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Chan et al. v. Chinese-American
Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc., Case No. 650737-15,
was removed from New York State Court Supreme, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
09605-KBF to the proceeding.

Plaintiffs seek redress for Defendant's pay policies that resulted
in systematic and class-wide underpayment of minimum wages and
overtime pay and for unjust enrichment.

Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program operates
as non-profit organization. It provides personal care services to
medically disabled, aged, and physically handicapped people. The
company is based in New York, New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Liane Fisher, Esq.
          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          SERRINS FISHER LLP
          233 Broadway, Suite 2340
          New York, NY 10279
          Telephone: (212) 571 0700
          Facsimile: (212) 233 3801
          E-mail: liane@serrinsfisher.com
          michael@serrinsfisher.com

               - and -

          Carmela Huang, Esq.
          David Andrew Colodny, Esq.
          URBAN JUSTICE CENTER
          123 William Street,16th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (646) 602 5600
          Facsimile: (212) 533 4598
          E-mail: chuang@urbanjustice.org
                  dcolodny@urbanjustice.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kenneth Harold Kirschner, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          875 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 918 3000
          Facsimile: (212) 918 3100
          E-mail: kenneth.kirschner@hoganlovells.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces "Ong" Shareholder Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denver-based Chipotle Mexican Grill is facing a class-action
lawsuit, claiming the company misled shareholders about measures
it was taking to make its food safe, reports John Daley, writing
for the Colorado Public Radio.

An investor named Susie Ong filed the suit in New York.  It claims
top company executives made misleading statements or failed to
disclose its quality controls were not in compliance with consumer
and work place safety regulations.

It also claims those measures were inadequate to safeguard the
health of consumers and employees.

Chipotle has been hit by food borne illnesses in several states.
It's seen a sharp drop in its share price since those outbreaks
were first reported.


CRITTENDEN HOSPITAL: Suit Can Proceed as Class Action, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Business reports that a U.S. District Court judge ruled
that part of a lawsuit against the bankrupt Crittenden Hospital
Association Inc. can proceed as a class action.

Yolanda Goodman of Memphis sued the West Memphis hospital in 2014
on behalf of approximately 600 former employees who participated
in the company's self-sponsored health plan from January 2012
until the hospital filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 12, 2014,
according to her lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in
Jonesboro.

"The Hospital began diverting its share of Plan contributions in
2012 when money got tight," U.S. District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr.
said in his Dec. 10 order. "In 2014 the Plan, and then the
Hospital, went under. Goodman was left with unpaid medical bills;
others were too."

The total amount of unpaid medical claims? $6.6 million, according
to a filing by Frank Watson III, of Watson Burns PLLC of Memphis,
who is an attorney representing Goodman.

Some of the unpaid claims date back to 2013. As a result of the
medical bills not being paid, "the Plan participants are now
personally responsible for these claims," Watson wrote.

Goodman filed the lawsuit against the hospital, its officers and
directors, accusing them of violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act. Cigna Health & Life Insurance Co. also was
named as a defendant because it was a third-party administrator
for the plan.

"Cigna doesn't dispute that many claims were denied for lack of
money, rather than lack of coverage," Marshall wrote.

Denny Sumpter, an attorney with Fogleman Rogers & Coe of West
Memphis, who also is representing Goodman, said the total damages
are to be determined. "We believe it's pretty straightforward," he
said.


DIPP: "Carlson" Suit Moved to Massachusetts Dist. Court
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Carlson et al. v. Dipp et al.,
Case No. 15-03087-BLS2, was removed from Suffolk Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
14032-WGY to the proceeding.

J.P. Morgan Securities offers security brokerage services. The
firm provides cash and wealth management; stock and options
management; and education and retirement planning services.
Additionally, it offers margin and non-purpose loans and letters
of credit. The firm is based in New York, New York. J.P. Morgan
Securities operates as a subsidiary of J.P. Morgan Broker-Dealer
Holdings Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
          HUTCHINGS, BARSAMIAN, CROSS AND MANDELCORN, LLP
          110 Cedar Street
          Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
          Telephone: (781) 431 2231
          Facsimile: (781) 431 8726
          E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John F. Sylvia, Esq.
          Matthew D. Levitt, Esq.
          MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, PC
          One Financial Center
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 542 6000
          Facsimile: (617) 542 2241
          E-mail: jfsylvia@mintz.com
                  mdlevitt@mintz.com

               - and -

          David S. Clancy, Esq.
          James R. Carroll, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          500 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 573 4800
          Facsimile: (617) 573 4822
          E-mail: david.clancy@skadden.com
                  James.Carroll@skadden.com


EXPERIAN INFO: "Wicklund" Suit Moved from S.D. Ill. to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled James S. Wicklund et al. v.
Experian Information Solutions Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01109, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The Central
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-02037-AG-DFM to the
proceeding.

Experian Information Solutions 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.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angelica Wells Wawrzynek, Esq.
          HEFNER, EBERSPACHER ET AL.
          P.O. Box 627
          Mattoon, IL 61938
          Telephone: (217) 639 7800
          Facsimile: (217) 639 7810
          E-mail: wawrzynek@tapellalaw.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Adam W Wiers, Esq.
          Richard Joseph Grabowski, Esq.
          John A Vogt, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          77 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60643
          Telephone: (312) 782 3939
          Facsimile: (312) 782 8585
          E-mail: awwiers@jonesday.com
                  rgrabowski@jonesday.com
                  javogt@jonesday.com


FITBIT INC: Goldberg Law Files Securities Suit for Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Fitbit Inc.  Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between June 18, 2015 and January 6, 2016, (the
"Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm in advance of
the March 11, 2016, lead plaintiff motion deadline.

The Firm advised shareholders, who suffered a loss during the
Class Period, to contact Michael Goldberg, Esq., or Brian Schall,
Esq., of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404,
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss the
shareholders' rights without cost to them.  The Firm may also be
reached through its Web site at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or
by e-mail at info@goldberglawpc.com.

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, shareholders are not represented by an
attorney.  If shareholders choose to take no action, they can
remain an absent class member.

According to the complaint, the Company failed to disclose that:
(i) Fitbit's heart rate monitoring technology was inaccurate and
did not consistently deliver accurate heart rate readings during
exercise; and (ii) the inaccuracy of Fitbit's heart rate
monitoring technology posed serious health risks to users of
Fitbit's products.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.

The Firm may be contacted at:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Brian Schall, Esq.
          Goldberg Law PC
          13650 Marina Pointe Dr., Suite 1404
          Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
          Telephone: (800) 977-7401
          Facsimile: (800) 536-0065
          E-mail: mmgoldberglaw@gmail.com
                  b_schall@u.pacific.edu


FITBIT INC: Levi & Korsinsky Commences Securities Suit in Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP issued the following statement:

     To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Fitbit, Inc. ("Fitbit") between June 18,
2015, and January 6, 2016.

     You are hereby notified that a securities class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Northern District
of California.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired Fitbit
securities between June 18, 2015, and January 6, 2016, your rights
may be affected by this action. To get more information go to:
http://zlk.9nl.com/fitbitor contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either
via e-mail at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500,
toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

     The complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) Fitbit's heart rate monitoring technology
was inaccurate and did not consistently deliver accurate heart
rate readings during exercise; (ii) the inaccuracy of Fitbit's
heart rate monitoring technology posed serious health risks to
users of Fitbit's products; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, Fitbit's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

     On January 5, 2016, a consumer class action lawsuit was filed
against Fitbit in the USDC for the Northern District of
California, alleging that the heart rate monitoring systems on the
Company's Charge HR and Surge devices were dangerously inaccurate
and posed serious health risks.

     If you suffered a loss in Fitbit you have until March 11,
2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.

     Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C.  The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation
involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the
nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits.  Attorney
advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.


FITBIT INC: Stocks Trade Below IPO Price Due to PurePulse, Blaze
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Cipriani, writing for Fortune, reports that Fitbit's rough
week continues as the company's shares are now trading below its
$20 IPO pricing for the first time since going public in June.

On January 5, Fitbit dropped 18% and continued to fall throughout
the rest of the week.

On January 11, Fitbit shares were down 13% at one point during
mid-day trading hitting an all-time low of $18.50.

The decline can be attributed to two factors: First, the
announcement of Fitbit newest product, the Blaze.  The Blaze is
Fitbit's answer to the Apple Watch.  Only, instead of focusing on
duplicating advanced features found on competing smartwatches --
such as the ability to install and run third-party applications --
Fitbit opted to focus on fitness.

Framing the Blaze as a fitness-focused smartwatch, the wrist-worn
gadget includes all of the staples expected in a Fitbit device:
sleep tracking, step counting, heart rate monitoring, and exercise
tracking.  To provide the watch with its smarts, Fitbit added
call, text, and calendar notifications along with GPS tracking
when a smartphone connection is present.

Additionally, leveraging the company's acquisition of FitStar, the
Blaze is capable of guiding users through workouts.

Fitbit's $199 smartwatch may be priced more competitively than the
starting price $350 for the Apple Watch, but it lacks features
such as the ability to send text messages and emails, or store and
stream music to wireless headphones.  On paper, it appears the
Blaze is a mediocre competitor when compared to more advanced
smartwatches, but until its March release there's no way to know
just how well it will compete.

According to Fitbit CEO James Park, the Blaze was purposely
designed to lack more advanced features as he claims current
smartwatch offerings do too much, and end up confusing users.

The second factor playing into Fitbit's stock free fall is a
class-action lawsuit that was filed against the company Jan. 5.
The suit claims Fitbit advertised its heart rate tracking
technology -- called PurePulse -- as an accurate method for
constantly tracking heart rate, when in fact PurePulse is flawed
and fails to provide consistent, accurate results.

Three complainants are cited in the suit, each one claiming
Fitbit's advertisements regarding heart rate tracking lead to
their respective purchases.  Shortly after, each one claims the
tracker failed to prove accurate heart rate measurements.

Fitbit's decline may be short lived, however, as it appears the
company had an impressive holiday season.  As reported by Qz,
Fitbit's iOS app quickly claimed the top spot as the number one
free app in Apple's App Store on the afternoon of Dec. 25.

The significance here is that users are required to link a Fitbit
tracker to a smartphone or computer, using the company's apps.
Fitbit's iOS app's popularity indicates the fitness tracker was a
popular gift this holiday season.

Fitbit isn't alone in its struggles after the first week of 2016.
GoPro and Twitter are also trading at all-time lows.


FITBIT INC: Two Models Don't Truly Track Heart Rates, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILX reports that they were among the hottest gifts for the
holidays, but now the makers of Fitbit are being sued for
inaccurate results.

The class-action lawsuit alleges two Fitbit models, the Charge HR
and the Surge do not accurately track heart rates during exercise.

The lawsuit also claims the company's advertising of "Every Beat
Counts" is also misleading.

Fitbit has fired back, with a spokesperson saying the company
stands behind its heart rate technology, and that it will
vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Fitbit says its gadgets are not meant to be scientific or medical
devices.


FRIEND OF A FARMER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Basurto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Friend of a Farmer Corp. d/b/a Friend of a Farmer,
Carrie Morabito, and Terry Morabito, Case No. 1:15-cv-09704-PGG
(S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2015) is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 77 Irvings
Place, New York, New York 10003.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


G2 ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT: "McLaughlin" Suit to E.D. Tenn.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled McLaughlin v. G2 Engineering &
Management, Inc. et al. (TV2), Case No. 2:15-cv-02547, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee (Knoxville). The Eastern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00537-TAV-CCS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks from Defendants unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

G2 Engineering & Management headquartered in Knoxville, Tennessee,
with a satellite office in Denver, Colorado. It delivers
insightful professional staffing and management services to
government and commercial clients that focus on customer
satisfaction and quality performance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan Williams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUAN WILLIAMS
          P.O. Box 578
          Southaven, MS 38671
          Telephone: (901) 213 6318
          Facsimile: (901) 271 7168

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dean Thomas Howell, Esq.
          J. Keith Coates , Jr., Esq.
          WOOLF, MCCLANE, BRIGHT, ALLEN & CARPENTER, PLLC
          P O Box 900
          900 S. Gay Street
          Knoxville, TN 37901
          Telephone: (865) 215 1000
          Facsimile: (865) 215 1015
          E-mail: dhowell@wmbac.com
                  kcoates@wmbac.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Trial on Ignition Switch Suits Begins in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the first trial of its kind, a Manhattan jury listened Jan. 12
as a lawyer for an Oklahoma man blamed his client's injuries in a
2014 crash on a General Motors' faulty ignition switch before a GM
attorney countered that the switch was not to blame, reports Larry
Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press.

The crash of Robert S. Scheuer's 2003 Saturn Ion on a rural road
is the focus of a civil trial designed to define legal boundaries
for the resolution of hundreds of other lawsuits stemming from the
automaker's failure to recall millions of faulty ignition switches
for over a decade.  Five more trials are scheduled to occur this
year in federal court.

Since early 2014, GM has issued recalls affecting over 30 million
vehicles.  The recalls came long after GM learned of the ignition
switch defect in Chevy Cobalts and other small cars.  The switches
can slip out of the "on" position, causing the cars to stall,
knocking out power steering and turning off air bags.

Attorney Bob Hilliard introduced Scheuer, his wife Lisa, and their
smiling daughters, ages 5 and 11, who clutched dolls as the family
stood before the jury.

"Where else can a mailman from Oklahoma go toe-to-toe with a car
company called General Motors and have his day in court?" Hilliard
asked.

He recounted numerous people killed in accidents blamed on
defective switches and blamed GM for its slow response.

"There was plenty of notice and opportunity for General Motors to
make what was a 25-cent fix," he said.

In his opening, GM attorney Mike Brock insisted General Motors was
not to blame for Scheuer's accident and suggested the Tulsa,
Oklahoma, resident was not honest.

He said Scheuer claimed he was knocked unconscious for three hours
after the May 28, 2014 accident and yet cellphone records
reflected two calls to his voicemail during the span.

"I don't know where Mr. Scheuer was, but I don't think he was
unconscious," Brock said.

He said some investigators questioned Scheuer's claim he was run
off the road by another car before his ignition switch
malfunctioned, causing air bags to fail to deploy when he struck
two trees.

Brock said the investigators concluded his car veered off the road
gradually rather than abruptly, the way it would if he fell
asleep.

The lawyer said Scheuer had a two-decade history of surgeries and
pain medication prescriptions for spinal issues.

Brock said the car's air bags were not designed to inflate in
Scheuer's accident, which featured a 3 1/2-foot-vertical drop.  He
said air bags deploy only in the most serious accidents.

Brock cautioned jurors that the trial pertained to Scheuer's
claims alone. He noted the company was compensating victims and
had boosted safety programs.

"GM does not come to court today to tell you that we were
perfect," he said.  "There were mistakes and errors in judgment."

In September, GM announced it had reached a deal to settle 1,385
death and injury cases for $275 million and a class-action
shareholders' lawsuit for $300 million.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Zgurski" Suit Transferred to Boston Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Zgurski et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline
LLC et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-05098, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-14038-FDS
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, equitable
relief, and such other relief deemed just and proper arising from
the injuries of the Plaintiff as a result of Mrs. Zgurski's
prenatal exposures to the prescription drug Zofran (ondansetron
hydrochloride), also marketed in its generic form as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea
imaginable.  The victims allegedly suffered injuries as a result
of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline, a Delaware corporation, is based in Wilmington,
Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling for
Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarah Robin London, Esq.
          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Sarah R. London , Esq.
          Wendy R. Fleishman, Esq.
          Paulina Amaral, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, Ca 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          E-mail: slondon@lchb.com
                  ecabraser@lchb.com
                  slondon@lchb.com
                  wfleishman@lchb.com
                  pdoamaral@lchb.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Dixon" Suit in Ala. Over Zofran(R) Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Dixon and Alshea Dixon, each individually and on Behalf of
E.D., their minor child v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00542-CG-M (S.D. Ala., October 27, 2015) is an action for damages
as a result of her prenatal exposures to the generic bioequivalent
form of the prescription drug Zofran(R), also known as
ondansetron.

Zofran is a prescription drug that is used to treat patients who
were afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable -- that
suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in
cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC operates a pharmaceutical company located at 5
Crescent Dr., Philadelphia, PA 19112.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Brosseau" Suit Transferred from Kansas to Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Brosseau v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-09481, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Boston). The Massachusetts District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-14026-FDS to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages, equitable relief, and such other relief deemed just and
proper arising from the injuries to their minor child as a result
of her prenatal exposures to the prescription drug Zofran or
Zofran's generic bioequivalent form, also known as
ondansetron.

GlaxoSmithKline, a Delaware corporation, is based in Wilmington,
Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling for
Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley D. Honnold, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD, LLC
          11150 Overbrook, Ste. 250
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 451 3433
          Facsimile: (913) 273 0509
          E-mail: bhonnold@gohonlaw.com

               - and -

          Michelle L. Marvel, Esq.
          BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON & GOZA, P.C.
          11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 266 2300
          Facsimile: (913) 266 2366
          E-mail: mmarvel@bflawfirm.com


HERTZ LOCAL EDITION: "Fernando" Suit Moved from C.D. to S.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Trevine Fernando v. Hertz Local
Edition Corporation et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08510, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-02732-WQH-KSC to the proceeding.

Hertz Local Edition is a Delaware Corporation based in Park Ridge,
New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory E. Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387 7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387 6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Oswald B Cousins, Esq.
          Seth L. Neulight, Esq.
          Robert A Dolinko, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          1 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3600
          Telephone: (415) 984 8200
          Facsimile: (866) 906 6453
          E-mail: ocousins@nixonpeabody.com
                  sneulight@nixonpeabody.com
                  rdolinko@nixonpeabody.com

HOAG MEMORIAL: Doesn't Properly Compensate Employees, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Dotson v. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian and Does 1-
10, Inclusive, Case No. 30-2105-00823689-CU-WT-CXC (Cal. Super.
Ct., December 8, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to comply with California Labor Code, specifically by
failure to provide to its employees, uninterrupted off-duty meal
and rest periods, minimum and overtime wages, accurate wage
statements, and accurate payroll records of daily hours worked.

Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian is a not-for-profit regional
health care delivery network in Orange County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James B. Hardin, Esq.
      Ward J. Lott, Esq.
      HARDIN & ASSOCIATES, APC
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 337-4810
      Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
      E-mail: jhardin@hardinemploymentlaw.com
              wlott@hardinemploymentlaw.com


HSBC BANK: Jura and Hanes Can't Intervene in Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, upheld an order by the Supreme Court, New York County
(Eileen Bransten, J.), entered September 17, 2015, which denied
Darek Jura and Leah Hanes' motion to intervene in a class action
against HSBC Bank.

The case is, IN RE HSBC BANK U.S.A., ETC. OFRA LEVIN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Respondents, HSBC BANK USA, N.A., ET AL., Defendants-
Respondents, DAREK JURA, ET AL., Proposed Intervenors-Appellants,
16660N, 650562/11 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).

A copy of the Jan. 14 Slip Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/hFaVBFfrom Leagle.com.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., (Timothy J. MacFall of counsel), and Cohen
Law Group, P.C., (Brian S. Cohen of counsel), for appellants.

Turk & Davidoff PLLC (Adam Seth Turk of counsel), for Ofra Levin,
33 Seminary, LLC Binghousing Inc. and Michael Park, respondents.

Stroock & Stoock & Lavan LLP (James L. Bernard of counsel), for
HSBC Bank USA respondents.


IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bazelais" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fabrice A. Bazelais, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-06116 (E.D.N.Y., October 26, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. operates a credit reporting agency
in New York.

Fabrice A. Bazelais is a pro se plaintiff.


INDIANA: Sued by Pendleton Prisoners Over Tuberculosis Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Dozens of inmates at Pendleton Correctional Facility in central
Indiana are suing the state after cases of tuberculosis at the
prison, according to a report from wane.com.

An inmate at the facility was moved into isolation at another
prison in June 2014 after testing positive for active
tuberculosis, and state officials said that he received a standard
four-drug treatment.  State Department of Health spokesman Ken
Severson said an outbreak believed to have started with the inmate
resulted in three active tuberculosis cases and 75 latent
infections among Pendleton inmates.

The prisoners' class-action lawsuit was filed in May against the
Indiana Department of Correction and seeks unspecific damages, The
Anderson Herald Bulletin reported.  The lawsuit accuses prison
officials of failing to properly screen, diagnosis and treat the
initial patient, and as a result was allowed to remain in the
general population at the facility longer.

The prisoners in the lawsuit claim about 400 inmates were exposed
to bacteria causing tuberculosis.

The legal response filed on the Department of Correction's behalf
denies prisoners' allegations.  Pendleton Correctional Facility
Superintendent Dushan Zatecky and Department of Correction
spokesman Douglas S. Garrison declined to comment on the
tuberculosis cases or the lawsuit.

"We are very constrained in what we can say once a matter has
entered litigation," Garrison said.

Zatecky provided the newspaper with a statement from Corizon
Health Inc., which is the State Department of Health's contracted
health care provider.  The St. Louis-based company's statement
says it has "an active screening program and response protocol for
a number of transmittable infections," including tuberculosis.

"When a potential TB exposure was identified at the Pendleton
facility, we worked closely with the Department of Health to
monitor and follow those protocols as necessary," the company's
statement says.

The State Department of Health hasn't gotten any reports of
tuberculosis at the Pendleton facility since June 2014, Severson
said.


J CHOO: Sued in Fla. Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kerri C. Wood, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. J. Choo USA, Inc., Case No. 9:15-cv-81487-KLR (S.D.
Fla., October 27, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

J. Choo USA, Inc. is a high fashion house specializing in shoes,
handbags, accessories and fragrances.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bret Leon Lusskin Jr., Esq.
      BRET LUSSKIN, P.A.
      20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (954) 454-5841
      Facsimile: (954) 454-5844
      E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com

         - and -

      Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
      FARMER JAFFE WEISSING EDWARDS FISTOS & LEHRMAN PL
      425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 524-2820
      Facsimile: 524-2822
      E-mail: steve@pathtojustice.com

         - and -

      Scott David Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Telephone: (954) 589-0588
      Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
      E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS: "Hays" Suit Removed to Boston Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hays v. Jefferson Capital Systems,
LLC, Case No. 15-03098, was removed from Suffolk Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
14025-GAO to the proceeding.

Jefferson Capital Systems operates as a debt solutions provider of
recovery services for consumer charged-off accounts, credit
grantors, and accounts receivable portfolio owners. The company
offers services, such as balance transfer credit card and pre-paid
debit card programs; and purchasing and servicing of secured and
unsecured bankruptcies, as well as traditional purchasing of
distressed portfolios. The company is based in St. Cloud,
Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
          QUAT LAW OFFICES
          929 Worcester Road
          Framingham, MA 01701
          Telephone: (508) 872 1261
          E-mail: kquat@quatlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer L. Markowski, Esq.
          PEABODY & ARNOLD LLP
          Federal Reserve Plaza
          600 Atlantic Avenue
          Boston, MA 02210-2261
          Telephone: (617) 951 2010
          Facsimile: (617) 235 3555
          E-mail: jmarkowski@peabodyarnold.com


JOHN GOODSON: Gets Show-Cause Order Over Court-Shopping Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texarkana attorney John Goodson and more than a dozen other
lawyers have been ordered to appear before a federal judge in Fort
Smith to answer allegations that they shopped for court venues to
benefit themselves, reports Lisa Hammersly, writing for
ArkansasOnline.

Chief U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes III on January 11 set the
hearing for 10 a.m. Feb. 19 at the federal courthouse in Fort
Smith.

Goodson, husband of Arkansas Supreme Court Associate Justice
Courtney Goodson, has specialized in the kind of lawsuit at issue,
known as a class action because the plaintiffs seek to represent a
larger group of people called a "class."

Holmes filed a show-cause order on Dec. 21 requiring attorneys on
both sides of a multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuit, Adams v.
United Services Automobile Association, to "show cause as to why a
non-monetary sanction should not be imposed."

Holmes wants Goodson and the other attorneys from Arkansas, Texas,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Connecticut to show they did not file
federal court documents in the lawsuit "for any improper purpose."

Specifically, Holmes' show-cause order cites filings that removed
the case from Polk County Circuit Court in Mena to federal court
in Fort Smith before re-filing the case in Polk County for a
settlement.

The judge's order also wants the attorneys to explain whether
they:

   * Forum-shopped for a court "that counsel believed would best
     suit their own interests at any given time (to the detriment
     of [plaintiff] class members)."

   * Wasted "government resources expended in adjudicating and
     monitoring this matter over 17 months only so counsel could
     gain leverage in settlement negotiations."

   * Waged "generally inappropriate procedural gamesmanship" in
     federal court with "no intent to actually litigate claims in
     good faith."

John Goodson, other attorneys and Holmes late January 11 did not
immediately return calls and emails seeking comment.

Holmes' December order came seven days after an Arkansas Business
article on Dec. 14 reported that a Little Rock attorney, Robert
Trammell, had challenged a $5 million-plus settlement in the Adams
case in Polk County Circuit Court in Mena.  Holmes' order cited
the article in a footnote.

The case revolved around whether the insurer illegally depreciated
the cost of labor in claims for a certain type of property
insurance policy known as "actual cash value," according to
federal court records.

Adams v. United Services Automobile Association was one of about
20 similar class actions over the issue filed against numerous
insurance companies in state and federal courts in Arkansas by
John Goodson's Keil & Goodson firm in Texarkana and several co-
counsels that often work together on class-action cases.

The Adams case was originally filed in Polk County on Dec. 5,
2013, then moved to federal court Jan. 15, 2014.

After more than two dozen filings and stays pending settlement
negotiations in federal court, Holmes on May 5, 2015, set a jury
trial date.

About a month later, on June 19, the Adams plaintiffs and their
lawyers, including John Goodson, filed a stipulation for
dismissal. Holmes dismissed the case June 22.

The next day, according to Arkansas Business, "a nearly identical
complaint was filed in Polk County Circuit Court along with a
stipulation of class-action settlement."

"The clear inference to be drawn" from the dismissal in federal
court and quick refiling in state court, Holmes wrote in his
order, "is that counsel wished to evade the federally-mandated
review of the class and the proposed settlement by this court in
particular."

Federal court rules require a judge to approve class-action
settlements only if the agreement is "fair, reasonable, and
adequate," he wrote.

The United Services Automobile Association insurance company,
whose clients are military service members and their families, was
required in the Polk County settlement to set aside $3.4 million
for class members who were underpaid in their actual cash value
claims.

The plaintiffs' attorneys would receive up to $1.85 million in
fees and expenses.

In a Nov. 16 filing in Polk County, Trammell said the proposed
settlement wasn't fair to class members, while favoring their
attorneys.

Trammell, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.,
said January 11 that several retired military officers had
received notifications about the settlement.

"Most observed that the notice made it difficult to understand,"
Trammell wrote in a January 11 e-mail. Several decided to object,
and Trammell appeared on their behalf.

"This was a pre-packaged deal filed in Mena, with something for
everyone -- but the class members," Trammell wrote in response to
questions from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

The notice to the class was a "complicated 10-page, single-space
notice to class members" that contained a short deadline for
filers, Trammell wrote:"Most importantly, USAA will keep all the
money put up, not claimed by Feb. 1."

Besides the Keil and Goodson firm, federal court documents list
law firms for the Adams plaintiffs that include: The Roselius Law
Firm in Oklahoma City; Crowley Norman LLP in Houston, Texas;
Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP in Radnor, Pa.; Taylor Law
Partners in Fayetteville; Murphy, Thompson, Arnold, Skinner &
Castleberry in Batesville; and Stephen Engstrom Law Office in
Little Rock.

Law firms for the insurance company include Mitchell, Williams,
Selig, Gates & Woodyard of Little Rock, and Robinson Cole LLP in
Hartford, Conn.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued in Cal. Over Junior Mortgage Debt Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Pacheo, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. d/b/a Chase, Case No. 3:15-
cv-05689 (N.D. Cal., December 11, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's practice and policy of routinely continuing to collect
on former junior mortgage debts that are not legally enforceable
because it foreclosed on senior mortgage debts on the same
property.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a National Banking Association doing
business throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Fredman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN PC
      125 University Ave, Suite 102
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Telephone: (510) 868-2626
      Facsimile: (510) 868-2627
      E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com

         - and -

      Tiffany R. Norman, Esq.
      TRN LAW ASSOCIATES
      654 Sacramento Street, Second Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 823-4566
      Facsimile: (415) 762-5490
      E-mail: tiffany@trnlaw.com


KEYCORP: Faces "Lassoff" Suit Over Proposed First Acquisition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Irving Lassoff v. KeyCorp, et al., Case No. cv-15855210 (Ohio
Cmmw. Ct., December 4, 2015) seeks to enjoin the Defendants'
proposed acquisition of First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. in a
cash-and-stock transaction, pending full disclosure of material
facts in the preliminary proxy statement.

Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, KeyCorp is bank-based financial
services company.

First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. is an insured regional banking
corporation headquartered in the Larkin Terminal Warehouse in
Buffalo, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas A. Andrews, Esq.
      DOUG ANDREWS LAW OFFICE
      614 W. Superior Ave., Suite 1300
      Cleveland. OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 363-3992
      Facsimile: (216) 664-6999
      E-mail: daa@dandrewslaw.com

         - and -

      Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
      Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
      Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street Suite 400
      Boston, MA 0211 0
      Telephone: (617) 398-5600
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: Jason@blockesq.com


KLX INC: Brower Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of KLX Inc.
(Nasdaq:KLXI) ("KLX" or the "Company") securities during the
period between March 9, 2015, and November 11, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  Investors who wish to become proactively
involved in the litigation have until March 7, 2015 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you have suffered a loss from investment in KLX securities
purchased on or after March 9, 2015 and held through the
revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the
Class Period, and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and
your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or
obligation to you, please visit our Web site at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
e-mail at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-
6616.  No class has yet been certified in the above action.
Members of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Company securities during the Class Period.  Brower
Piven also encourages anyone with information regarding the
Company's conduct during the period in question to contact the
firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and
others.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the value of the
Company's identifiable intangible assets and goodwill associated
with KLX's Energy Services Group ("ESG"), as well as its policies
and methodology related to the calculation of risk, goodwill, and
asset impairment were misrepresented.

According to the complaint, following the Company's disclosure on
November 12, 2015, that it expects to recognize an impairment
charge of approximately $435 million related to ESG, the value of
KLX shares declined significantly.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.


KLX INC: Rigrodsky Law Firm Files Securities Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the
common stock of KLX Inc. ("KLX" or the "Company") between
March 9, 2015 and November 11, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the
"Complaint").

If you purchased shares of KLX during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold KLX, and
wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J.
MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2
Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969-
4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com; or at:
http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/klx-inc-klxi.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  As a result of defendants' alleged false and
misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on November 12, 2015, before the
market opened, KLX announced preliminary financial results for the
quarter ended October 31, 2015.  In the press release, the Company
disclosed that "[d]uring the third quarter of 2015, the Company
performed an interim asset impairment test."  Based on that asset
impairment test, KLX stated, "the company expects to recognize a
non-cash, after-tax asset impairment charge of approximately $435
million" related to its Energy Services Group.

On this news, shares of KLX dropped over 17%, closing at $32.11
per share on November 12, 2015, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 7, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed 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.


KLX INC: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against KLX, Inc. ("KLX" or the "Company"), and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of Florida, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased KLX securities
between March 9, 2015, and November 11, 2015, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased KLX securities during the
Class Period, you have until March 7, 2016 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

KLX is the world's leading provider of aerospace fasteners,
consumables, and logistics services globally as KLX Aerospace
Solutions. It also provides oilfield services and associated
rental equipment across North America as KLX's Energy Services
Group ("ESG").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
and certain of KLX current and former executive officers and
directors have materially misrepresented the value of the
Company's identifiable intangible assets and goodwill associated
with KLX's Energy Services Group ("ESG"), as well as its policies
and methodology related to the calculation of risk, goodwill, and
asset impairment.

On November 12, 2015, before the stock market opened, KLX
announced preliminary financial results for the quarter ended
November 30, 2015. In the press release, the Company disclosed
that "[d]uring the third quarter of 2015, the Company performed an
interim asset impairment test." Based on that asset impairment
test, KLX stated, "the company expects to recognize a non-cash,
after-tax asset impairment charge of approximately $435 million
related to its Energy Services Group."

As a result of the news, the trading price of KLX's common stock
plunged from a closing price of $39.00 on November 11, 2015 to
close at $32.11 on November 12, 2015, a single-day loss of
approximately 16%.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


LAYNE ENERGY: Supreme Court Refuses to Review CAFA Dismissal Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court on January 11 let stand a federal court's
decision not to dismiss a class action that was removed from state
court under the Class Action Fairness Act even though the suit is
doomed to fail in the state court as well, deepening a pronounced
circuit split on the issue, according to Keith Goldberg, writing
for Law360.

Layne Energy Inc. had urged the high court to overturn a Tenth
Circuit ruling that upheld a district judge's refusal to dismiss
the suit over alleged oil and gas leasing collusion, even though
the judge determined the named plaintiff lacked standing to bring
the suit.

The appeals court's ruling conflicts with rulings from the First,
Fifth and Ninth circuits, which have recognized the authority of
district court to dismiss suits that would be futile to remand to
state court, Layne and the other defendant companies argued in
their Nov. 23 petition for writ of certiorari.  The Tenth
Circuit's decision sides with decisions in the Third, Fourth,
Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh circuits, setting up a classic circuit
split that the Supreme Court should settle, the petitioners said.

"Under the status quo, the right of a removing defendant to have
its case dismissed after a finding by the district court that
results in neither it nor the state court having jurisdiction
depends not on the merits of the case, but rather on where the
case arises," their petition stated.  "The issue presented by this
petition potentially affects the rights of all parties seeking a
federal forum through removal, which rights are necessarily
divested upon remand."

The suit, which accused Layne and other energy companies of
colluding to allocate the Kansas mineral leasing market in
violation of state antitrust law, was transferred from state court
to federal court in 2013, according to the petition.

In June, U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia ruled that landowner
and named plaintiff Richard Catron lacked standing to bring claims
in the suit because he inked his lease agreements before the
alleged anti-competitive agreement was struck, after Catron
admitted he lacked standing, according to the petition.

Catron's admission would make a remand to state court futile
because the state court would reject the suit on similar grounds.
Yet Judge Murguia said under Tenth Circuit precedent, once a
federal court determines it doesn't have jurisdiction over a suit
transferred from state court under CAFA, the case must be remanded
back to state court.

The Tenth Circuit denied the energy companies' appeal bid in July
and an en banc rehearing request in August.

In letting the lower court ruling stand, the Tenth Circuit has
"condoned a rule requiring remand regardless of the futility of
such action, forcing defendants with statutory rights to federal
forums to relitigate previously decided, dispositive issues in
state court," Layne argued in its Supreme Court petition.

Counsel for Layne declined comment January 11.  Counsel for the
respondents couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

The Supreme Court hasn't been shy about weighing in on CAFA-
related removal issues. In December 2014, the high court ruled
that class action defendants don't have to provide additional
evidence to support their bids to transfer cases from state to
federal court, siding with an energy company that had
unsuccessfully fought to transfer a multimillion-dollar royalty
dispute to federal court.

A 5-4 majority concluded that the Tenth Circuit abused its
discretion in refusing to review a district court's erroneous
conclusion that Dart Energy Corp. hadn't provided enough evidence
to support its bid to transfer a class action over oil and gas
royalties to federal court and couldn't cure the defect by
submitting evidence later on.

The petitioners are represented by Matthew J. Salzman, Christina
D. Arnone and David E. Bengston of Stinson Leonard Street LLP.

The respondents are represented by Rex A. Sharp of Gunderson Sharp
LLP.

The case is Layne Energy Inc. et al. v. Catron, case number 15-690
in the U.S. Supreme Court.


LTD FINANCIAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Kornitzer, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. LTD Financial Services, LP, Case No. 1:15-
cv-06154-RRM-RER (E.D.N.Y., October 27, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

LTD Financial Services, LP operates a debt collection firm in New
York.

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Cathedral City Man Upset About Bad Flooring
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Tucker, writing for CBS Local 2, reports that a Cathedral City
man is upset over bad flooring he purchased from Lumber
Liquidators, and the problems he is having with the product could
be impacting a number of homeowners around the valley.

At quick glance, the new bamboo flooring at his home in Cathedral
City looks great and appears problem free.

But the man who purchased the product from Lumber Liquidators in
Palm Desert says the looks are deceiving.

"As a customer I feel like I am being left out to dry with $9,000
dollars worth of defective wood," said Jamie Tarascio.

Tarascio says he and his wife bought the "Morning Star" bamboo
flooring last August.

After following the manufacturers recommendations of allowing the
flooring to "acclimate" in the house for 45 days, the couple hired
a licensed contractor who installed it in mid-September.

But a short time later, the father of two says he started noticing
problems.

"We've had cracking in the wood, we've had shrinkage of the wood,
we've had peeling of the bamboo parts, and we've had excessive
splitting of the wood," said Tarascio.

Tarascio says he contacted Lumber Liquidators, and after a lot of
back and forth, they told him to ship a piece of the bamboo
flooring back to the company so they could inspect it.

A company representative informed Tarascio the bamboo flooring was
defective and told him to get rid of it.

But, with the flooring still in place, and not satisfied with
offers from Lumber Liquidators to make things right, Tarascio
asked CBS Local 2 to get involved.

"Words can't even describe how upset and sad I am for my family
and for us, for the community to have a company like this that
doesn't want to stand behind their products," said Tarascio.

We went to the Lumber Liquidators store on Dinah Shore Drive in
Palm Desert to speak with the manager on Jamie's behalf.

The manager said because of "some of the details involving his
experience with the customer", he preferred not to talk on camera,
and directed us to contact his corporate office.

A spokesperson provided this written statement:

"Customer care is our highest priority and we have tried, on
numerous occasions, to resolve this matter.  Though under no legal
obligation to do so, we have even offered Mr. Tarascio a full
refund of his purchase price -- an offer that remains open today."

But to accept the offer, Tarascio has to agree not to publicize
his troubles.

Also, more than just the purchase price of about $5,400, Tarascio
says he wants an additional $3,600 to cover the cost of
installation and shipping.

"I tried everything to go ahead and rectify the situation and road
blocks kept on being put up in front of me," said Tarascio.

He is not alone in his troubles with bamboo flooring purchased at
Lumber Liquidators.

Plaintiffs from at least four states have filed a class action
lawsuit seeking damages after purchasing the product.

Jamie says he might consider joining the class action suit, or sue
the company on his own.

If you have this same bamboo flooring installed anywhere in your
home, you should know, the warranty on the product could be
invalidated if the temperature in your house exceeds 80 degrees,
which could easily happen here in the desert, especially during
the summer months.

Lumber Liquidators has also been sued over high levels of
formaldehyde used in their laminate flooring.


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Guei" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Guei v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02538 (N.D. Ohio, December 8, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., is a Maryland corporation which,
through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home
personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of
conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home
health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Hreha" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Hreha v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 5:15-
cv-02546-SL (N.D. Ohio, December 9, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., is a Maryland corporation which,
through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home
personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of
conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home
health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Huffman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christy Huffman v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 4:15-
cv-02545-BYP (N.D. Ohio, December 9, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., is a Maryland corporation which,
through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home
personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of
conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home
health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Seiler" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Seiler v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-02534-JGC (N.D. Ohio, December 8, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., is a Maryland corporation which,
through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home
personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of
conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home
health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com


MEASURABLE SOLUTIONS: Sued in S.C. Over Debt Collection Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Manheim d/b/a Plantation Plaza Therapy Center, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v.
Measurable Solutions Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04353 (D.S.C., October
26, 2015) seeks to put an end to the Defendant's practice of
making unsolicited calls to consumers' wireless telephone.

Measurable Solutions Inc. operates a business training and
consulting company in South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Clarke Newton, Esq.
      John Shannon Nichols, Esq.
      BLUESTEIN NICHOLS THOMPSON AND DELGADO
      PO Box 7965
      Columbia, SC 29202
      Telephone: (803) 779-7599
      E-mail: cnewton@bntdlaw.com
              jsnichols@bntdlaw.com


MICHAEL STORES: Court Dismisses "Whalen" Data Breach Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Oldshue at LowCards.com reports that a federal court has
dismissed a class-action lawsuit stemming from a data breach that
took place at Michaels in 2013 and 2014.  The case sought damages
for customers who were at risk of fraudulent card activity after
the breach.

But District Court Judge Joanna Seybert said there was not enough
proof of "substantial risk that the harm will occur."

In early 2014, Michaels reported that up to 2.6 million customers
could have been affected by a potential data breach occurring
between May 8, 2013, and January 27, 2014.  Customers were
originally notified of the potential breach in January, followed
by an official confirmation of the data compromise in April.
Michaels said hackers were able to get into the company's payment
card system, but there was no evidence they took any personal
data, such as PINs, addresses or names.

The plaintiff in the case, Mary Jane Whalen, cancelled her credit
card shortly after the breach and had not experienced any
fraudulent charges.  Even if she had not cancelled her card,
Seybert said the credit card company would have absorbed the costs
of the fraudulent charges.  Whalen would not have incurred any
financial loss.


MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT: "Sam" Suit Moved from S.D. to N.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sam v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03222, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York (Buffalo). The
Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01029-JTC
to the proceeding.

Midland Credit Management provides debt collections and
information management services. It collects on credit cards,
automobiles, unsecured consumer debts, and telecom accounts. The
company is based in San Diego, California and operates as a
subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq
          775 Park Avenue, Suite 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 629 7709
          Facsimile: (631) 824 9328
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew Brady Johnson, Esq.
          MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          Wall Street Plaza
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005-1801
          Telephone: (212) 376 6433
          Facsimile: (212) 376 6490


NATIONAL SPECIALTY: Sued in Fla. Over Medical Care Reimbursement
----------------------------------------------------------------
MSPA Claims 1, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, as
assignee of Florida Healthcare Plus, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated Medicare Advantage Organizations in the
State of Florida v. National Specialty Insurance Company, Case No.
35195201 (Fla. 11th Ct., December 4, 2015) is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to properly
reimburse the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's assignors as a
secondary payer, for all sums on a fee-for-service basis that was
billed for medical care and treatment.

National Specialty Insurance Company is a Foreign for Profit
Corporation that issues general liability insurance policies in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John H. Ruiz, Esq.
      Frank C. Quesada, Esq.
      Rebecca Rubin del Rio, Esq.
      Christine M. Lugo, Esq.
      Gustavo Losa, Esq.
      Gino Moreno, Esq.
      Brian Cournoyer, Esq.
      Timothy Van Name, Esq.
      Eric Fresco, Esq.
      Justin Tolley, Esq.
      Arlenys Perdomo, Esq.
      MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
      5000 S.W. 75th Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33 155
      Telephone: (305) 614-2239
      E-mail: serve@msprecoveiy.com


NEW YORK ONE: Faces "Alves" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Alves, on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v.
New York One LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08438 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 27, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

New York One LLC operates a wholesale service company located at
349 W 37th St, New York, NY 10018.

Jimmy Alves is a pro se plaintiff.


OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid on Jan. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
January 22, 2016 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Osiris
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Osiris" or the "Company") securities between
May 12, 2014, and November 20, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  Investors who suffered losses on their investment in
Osiris securities are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights.

On November 16, 2015, the Company announced that it has
"determined to correct the revenue recognition for three contracts
which will result in a decrease in product revenues of $1.8
million in the first quarter of 2015."  On this news shares of
Osiris fell over 21% to close at $10.97 per share on Nov. 17,
2015.  Then on December 17, 2015, the Company disclosed that the
Company's independent auditor BDO USA, LLP had resigned on
December 14, 2015.  On this news shares of Osiris fell a further
10% per share, thereby injuring investors.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company overstated revenues from several contracts and failed
to follow GAAP standards, fixing its financial statements only a
year and half later and causing millions in losses to the Company
and Investors; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, Osiris's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

If you purchased Osiris shares, you may move the Court no later
than January 22, 2016, to request appointment as lead plaintiff.
To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices
of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by e-mail to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our Web site at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.


PCH COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Espinosa" Suit Over Termination Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Espinosa, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. PCH Communications, LLC d/b/a Commonground/MGS, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-24561-KMW (S.D. Fla., December 11, 2015) arises from the
Defendant's decision to terminate substantially its entire
workforce without a single day's notice.

PCH Communications, LLC operates a nationwide advertising and
communications firm, with offices in Miami, New York, Chicago and
other cities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian W. Chaiken, Esq.
      D. Porpoise Evans, Esq.
      PERLMAN, BAJANDAS, YEVOLI & ALBRIGHT, P.L.
      283 Catalonia Ave., 2nd Floor
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305)377.0086
      Facsimile: (305)377.0181
      E-mail: bchaiken@pbyalaw.com
              pevans@pbyalaw.com


PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION: "Luster" Suit Moved to N.D. Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Luster v. Pennsylvania Higher
Education Assistance Agency (Inc.), Case No. 15A57508-3, was
removed from State Court of DeKalb County, Georgia, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-04223-TCB to the
proceeding.

The Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA)
headquartered in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with regional offices
throughout the state, is the quasi-governmental agency that
administers several State higher education student financial aid
programs. Created in 1963 by the Pennsylvania General Assembly.
Today, PHEAA is a national provider of student financial aid
services, serving millions of students and thousands of schools
through its loan guaranty, loan servicing, financial aid
processing, outreach and other student aid programs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifton Dorsen, Esq.
          James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
          Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
          Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR AND FEAGLE, LLP
          2374 Main Street, Suite B
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Telephone: (404) 373 1978
          E-mail: cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
                  jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
                  jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                  krisskaar@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Derin Bronson Dickerson, Esq.
          Gerald Lamar Mize, Jr., Esq.
          Tejas Patel, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          One Atlantic Center
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: (404) 881 7000
          E-mail: derin.dickerson@alston.com
                  gmize@alston.com
                  tejas.patel@alston.com


POLAR AIR: Settles $100 Million Cargo Cartel Class Action in U.S.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Polar Air Cargo, along with Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. and
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., disclosed they have entered
into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) concerning their involvement in a previously disclosed
antitrust class action lawsuit in the United States.

Under the settlement agreement, Polar Air has agreed to pay a
total of USD100 million payable in three annual installments the
first of which is due on or before January 15, 2016, with the last
due on or before January 15, 2018. The payments are expected to be
funded from cash available on hand.

The settlement agreement, which is subject to approval and
acceptance by the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, resolves all claims against the firms by
participating members in the suit.  The industry-wide litigation
arose from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of
air cargo carriers on routes to and from the United States from
January 2000 through September 2006.

"The Companies continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability, and
there is no admission of any wrongdoing or liability in the
settlement agreement," the firms said in a joint statement.

The cartel has generated lawsuits across the world with plaintiffs
claiming the conspiracy increased global shipping prices, costing
businesses and individuals that ship goods by air billions of
dollars in losses.  To date, nineteen carriers have pled guilty to
price-fixing in the United States, resulting in the Antitrust
Division of the DOJ issuing fines of over USD1.7 billion.


PREMIER CRU: Customers Hope to Join Class to Get Credit Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthias Gafni, writing for the San Jose Mercury News, reports
that a high-end wine business that customers claimed would take
money for wine futures but never deliver the product has filed for
bankruptcy.

Premier Cru, a Berkeley wine company that sold "wine futures,"
filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy January 8 and claimed the company
owed more than $70 million but had only $7 million in assets.  The
filing listed almost 1,000 names of customers owed large and small
amounts of wine or money, and estimates it has between 5,000 and
10,000 creditors.

According to the filing, after administrative expenses are paid,
"no funds will be available to unsecured creditors," which are the
customers.

"I wish I was in California and had a baseball bat, and you can
let your imagination go after that," said Ron Talocka, a 49-year-
old Florida resident who says he's owed more than $50,000 in
undelivered wine.  "I'm just beside myself. It's just
unbelievable."

The company's downfall has been staggering since this newspaper
reported that there had been at least 13 lawsuits filed by
customers totaling more than $5 million, claiming owner John Fox
was running a wine pyramid scheme.  The customers all shared
similar stories of buying wine in advance, never receiving the
merchandise years later, and then receiving a litany of excuses
and false promises.

Before Christmas, the University Avenue store closed its doors,
announcing it would only continue with online sales.  Dozens of
perturbed customers called this newspaper from all over the world
desperately looking for advice on how to collect their outstanding
wine orders or refunds.  Some said they got credit card refunds,
but most had little success, with many hoping to join a class-
action lawsuit.

According to the bankruptcy documents, almost all of Premier Cru's
assets are wine inventory valued at $6.8 million.

The extravagant 29,000-square-foot Berkeley building complex, on
which Fox owes more than $270,000 in delinquent property taxes, is
still listed on a real estate brokerage site for $6.8 million.
However, Fox had taken out $7.8 million in loans on the property,
so it's unclear if he would make any profit from a sale.  It's
also unclear how much principal was left on those loans, but in
the bankruptcy filing the building is not listed as an asset.

The filing said Premier Cru owes $936,000 to creditors with claims
secured by the building and another $175,000 in priority claims,
but the bulk of the debt -- $69.2 million -- is for unsecured
claims.

In another filing, Premier Cru claims it earned a gross revenue of
$19 million.

As for Talocka, he's not holding his breath.

"I'm screwed," he said.  "Credit cards will not do anything."

Talocka said he has bought wine from Premier Cru since 2011.  The
in-stock purchases always went through, he said, but not the wine
futures -- vintages still aging and not yet bottled, and bought at
inexpensive prices.

He planned to flip the wine and took out a second mortgage to pay
for the Premier Cru wine.

In March, Talocka said he was promised all of his 2010 wines by
May 1, but he just kept getting excuses.

"I heard everything.  'They're on a container ship in port right
off San Francisco right now, but there's a strike that's going on,
and the boats can't come in.'  Then I'd call months later ,and
they would say the strike ended, but the wine wasn't on the ship
after all.  It was ridiculous," Talocka said.

He said he doesn't know where to turn now.

"I have no clue," Talocka said.  "I told my wife, 'What do I do?'"


PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT: Sued Over Undisclosed Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
Leonard D. Wood II and Maya Shaw, by their attorneys, on behalf of
the KeHe Distributors, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Savings Non-Union
Plan, and the EXCO Resources, Inc. 401(k) Plan, respectively, and
all other similarly situated ERISA-covered employee pension
benefit plans v. Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity
Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-01785 (D. Conn., December 3, 2015)
arises out of the Defendants unlawful practice of collecting tens
of millions of dollars annually in undisclosed compensation from
the retirement plans and participants to whom it owes the highest
duties known to the law.

Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company is a legal
reserve insurance company authorized under the insurance laws of
Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Izard, Esq.
      Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
      IZARD NOBEL LLP
      29 South Main Street, Suite 305
      West Hartford, CT 06107
      Telephone: (860) 493-6292
      Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
      E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com
              mkindall@izardnobel.com

         - and -

      Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
      Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 463-2101
      Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
      E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
              rjenny@baileyglasser.com


QUALITY NATURE: Falsely Marketed Dietary Supplements, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Kassin, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Quality Nature, Inc., Case No. 514761/2015
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., December 4, 2015) is brought on behalf of all
consumers throughout the State of New York who purchased the
Defendant's Garcinia Cambogia 80%, 95% or 60% Hydroxycitric Acid
dietary supplements, that were falsely labeled as "100% Natural",
when in fact the Products contain synthetic ingredients.

Quality Nature, Inc. distributes various dietary supplements
through retailers and online throughout the country, including New
York State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      Joseph Lipari, Esq.
      Jean M. Sedlak, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
      85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
      Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
      Telephone: (845) 483-7100
      Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
      E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Class Suit Should Be Settled Out of Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for The Queensland Times, Joel Gould reports that it is
time for state government, Sunwater and Seqwater to do the right
thing by flood victims and settle a billion dollar flood class
action out of court.

That is the call from Cr Paul Tully on the fifth anniversary of
the 2011 flood on behalf of 5000 flood victims in south-east
Queensland.

The class action, commenced by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers in 2014,
is set to be heard in the NSW Supreme Court in 2017.

But Cr Tully said that the only real winners in any delay would be
the lawyers, and that any appeal to the High Court could see flood
victims waiting until 2021 for a resolution.

"It has been a long five years and a lot of people who weren't
insured or who were under insured are still waiting for the court
case to be finalised.

"I said at the time that it could take a number of years but now
even if you had a hearing in 2017 you are not likely to get a
decision before 2018 and it could go on appeal to the NSW Court of
Appeal and then to the High Court of Australia by the losing
party.

"It is the largest class action launched in Australia."

Cr Tully went to a time capsule ceremony on the eve of the fifth
anniversary of the flood in Goodna where pictures, poems and
memorabilia were buried.

The time capsule is set to be opened in 2036 on the 25th
anniversary of the flood.

"Even a bottle of wine that survived the flood was buried so it is
going to be a fantastic bottle of wine in 20 years' time or very
ordinary," Cr Tully grinned.

The residents involved in the time capsule project, of Hillsdon
Ct, are all signed up for the class action.

"Every few months everyone in the class action gets an e-mail from
Maurice Blackburn," Cr Tully said.

"We all got one at the end of December, but it is all grinding
ahead so very slowly."

Cr Tully, who lost his family home in the 2011 floods and has
signed up for the class action, has called on the state and
Seqwater to honour their word given in 2012.  He said that when
the report of the Floods Commission of Inquiry was handed down,
the government and opposition said they would act as model
litigants in the event of a class action.

"Flood victims deserve a prompt settlement of their claims without
the need for expensive courtroom litigation where the only real
winners will be lawyers," he said.

"The battlers who lost everything in the flood don't care about
self-serving claims of innocence by Seqwater or technical legal
defences by their lawyers.

"All they want is a fair go with proper compensation so they can
finally move on with their lives."

Royal Mail publican Andrew Cafe, of Goodna, is one of the
thousands who signed up for the class action and is also hoping
for a positive outcome for the sake of residents and the economy.

"I am looking forward to the result of the class action.  It will
be good for that to be resolved in the long term, just because of
the all the development that is going to occur in this area," Mr
Cafe said.

"After (the flood of) 1974 it was pretty stagnant for a while."

Class actions principal at Maurice Blackburn, Rebecca Gilsenan,
said that Maurice Blackburn would be exploring all avenues to
achieve an early resolution for group members in the class action.

"The class action mechanism is the fairest and most efficient way
for the thousands of people affected by this disaster to hold
these large organisations accountable for their actions," Ms
Gilsenan said.

"Without having an important enforcement mechanism such as class
actions available in Australia, and without expert lawyers who
know how to run and win these cases, it would be almost impossible
for individuals to pursue defendants on their own.

"This case really highlights the importance of having the right
legal structure to ensure appropriate access to justice not only
for Queenslanders, but for all Australians."


QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Counsel Re-Mapped Brisbane Flood Levels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Moore of the Brisbane Times reports that all of Brisbane has
been re-mapped to show where 2011 flood levels would have gone if
Wivenhoe and Somerset dams had been differently managed, 2011
floods class action lawyer Rebecca Gilsenan said on January 11.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn lodged a class action representing
4,000 flood-affected Queenslanders with the New South Wales
Supreme Court in July 2014.

By January 2016 that number of 4,000 people has swollen to 5,500
people being part of the class action, making it Australia's
second largest ever class action behind the 10,000 involved in the
Victorian bushfires class action.

Brisbane floods class action timeline

   * July 2014 to December 2015 -- Maurice Blackburn maps
     alternate flood levels in Brisbane Valley.

   * March to July 2016 -- Seqwater and Sunwater to lodge
     counter- evidence.

   * Late 2016 -- Maurice Blackburn responds to Seqwater and
     Sunwater.

   * Late 2016 - early 2017 -- First attempt at mediation.

   * Mid 2017 -- If mediation unsuccessful, trial to begin.

In July 2014, Victorian bushfire survivors secured a $500 million
payout in Australia's largest-ever class action payout, five years
after the February 7, 2009, bushfires which claimed 119 lives.

Maurice Blackburn is taking the class action against Seqwater,
Sunwater and the State of Queensland.

Seqwater, managers of Wivenhoe and Somerset dams, have
consistently defended their management of the two dams upstream of
Brisbane and Ipswich.

In August 2012, the Crime and Misconduct Commission dismissed
charges of official misconduct against the three Wivenhoe Dam
engineers.

Ms Gilsenan acknowledged it had been a long time since the
southeast Queensland floods of 2011, but said taking a class
action was very complex.

She said Maurice Blackburn lodged all their evidence with the New
South Wales Supreme Court by the end of 2015, including mapping
the entire Brisbane flood plain.

"Our modelling is based on what would have been different for
every 10 metres squared -- that is 10 square metres -- of the
flood affected area," Ms Gilsenan said.


"So it is a huge exercise.  Obviously a flood does not affect
everybody equally," she said.

Seqwater, the state government-owned body that manages Wivenhoe
and Somerset dams, is defending the class action along with
Sunwater and the State of Queensland.

"The exercise has been to gather evidence for every 10 metres
square of the flood-affected areas," she said.

"So now the state government and Seqwater and Sunwater are
reviewing all of that and their experts are looking at it.

"And they will put in their evidence in reply."

Ms Gilsenan said she believed the evidence from Seqwater, Sunwater
and the state government to the class action would be lodged
progressively between March 2016 and July 2017.

Mauruice Blackburn would reply to Seqwater and Sunwater's evidence
in the second half of 2016.

She said mediation between the parties -- requested by Ipswich
councillor Paul Tully, who is a 2011 flood victim -- would happen
later in the second half of 2016.

"So we will have a mediation either late this year, or early next
year at the latest.

"And we will have an attempt to negotiate a settlement.

"At the moment it is scheduled for February 2017, but we might be
in a position to do it sooner."

On January 11, Ipswich councillor Paul Tully, whose Goodna home
was badly-flooded in January 2011, said it was time for Maurice
Blackburn to seek a settlement for flood victims.

In 2011, the flood peaked at 16.4 metres above sea level in
Goodna, just below the 1974 flood peak of 17 metres.

"The battlers who lost everything in the flood don't care about
self-serving claims of innocence by Seqwater or technical legal
defences by their lawyers," Cr Tully said.

"All they want is a fair go with proper compensation so they can
finally move on with their lives."

In August 2012, the Crime and Misconduct Commission found the
three dam engineers had followed a "conflicting" and at times
"badly drafted" Wivenhoe Dam manual.

It exonerated the engineers of conspiring to write a misleading
final report after the January 2011 floods.


RITE AID: Faces Sachs Suit in Del. Over Proposed Walgreens Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sachs Investment Group, Maurice Cohen and Steven Krol, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Rite Aid
Corporation, et al., Case No. 11771 (Del. Ch. Ct., December 4,
2015) is brought on behalf of all the holders of the common stock
of Rite Aid Corporation, to enjoin the proposed merger of Rite Aid
with Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., pursuant to an unfair
process, for an unfair price, and lacking material disclosures.

Headquartered in East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, Rite Aid Corporation operates a drugstore chain
throughout the United States.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates a pharmaceutical
manufacturing, wholesale and distribution company located at 108
Wilmot Road, Deerfield, Illinois 60015.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike
      Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 504-4967
      Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
      E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
              cspringer@andrewsspringer.com


RJ REYNOLDS: To Give Camel Cash Reward to Settle Promotion Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver at Winston-Salem Journal reports that R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. will provide 23 nontobacco Camel Cash reward items to
help settle a 6-year-old legal dispute over the promotion.

The company has agreed to reopen the promotion for six months --
for California consumers only -- who collected certificates, also
known as "C-notes," in cigarette packages from 1991 to Oct. 1,
2006.

Redemption would begin two months after the settlement receives
final approval from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The plaintiffs have accused Reynolds of breach of contract, unfair
competition and deceptive practices.  Judge Christina Snyder ruled
in December 2014 that 10 plaintiffs, led by Amanda Sateriale,
could resume pursuing the class-action lawsuit they filed in
November 2009.

Registered participants will be able to redeem the certificates
for Reynolds products, as well as merchandise that included ash
trays, pool tables, NASCAR trading cards, apparel, computers and
pinball machines.

Seven named plaintiffs will receive between $10,000 and $15,000 in
incentive awards, and Reynolds has agreed to pay $4.75 million in
attorney fees and expenses.

The number of California class-action members has not been
determined.  Those members will be able to redeem up to 3,000
original C-notes if they have them in possession, or up to 1,125
C-notes if they attest to possession as of Oct. 1, 2006, and meet
other settlement requirements.

The plaintiffs recommended that the C-notes be valued at 20 cents
each. Snyder accepted the recommendation, saying "there is not a
realistic alternative."

How much each reward item requires in C-notes will be based on the
value of those items in the Camel Cash offers.  Reynolds will hire
a vendor to create and maintain a website for redeeming the C-
notes.

The promotion is credited for playing a role in Camel's U.S.
market share jumping from 4 percent in 1991 to 7.4 percent when it
ended on March 31, 2007.

By comparison, Camel's market share was 8.3 percent on Sept. 30 --
making it the No. 3 U.S. brand.

When Reynolds notified qualified participants in October 2006 that
the promotion was ending, it cautioned that "supplies will be
limited, so it won't hurt to get there before the rush."  The
company stopped printing and issuing merchandise catalogs.

The plaintiffs said Reynolds "failed to make available limited
amounts of merchandise for redemption" during the final six
months, but instead only offered Reynolds products or coupons.
They said Reynolds should have been required to "maintain a
reasonable inventory of merchandise redeemable for Camel Cash"
since they participated in the promotion foremost for the
merchandise.

Reynolds said the promotion did not establish a contract or a
bargain between the company and customers, including the need for
carrying extended inventory.  It said it honored the intent by
offering cigarette products and coupons.

In January 2011, Snyder ruled in favor of Reynolds' dismissal
request.  In July 2012, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals sent the dismissals of the breach of
contract and promissory estoppel back to the lower court.

Plaintiffs claim there could be 600,000 participants in a
potential national class-action lawsuit based on a Reynolds'
database listing that that many individuals had redeemed C-notes
during the promotion and were notified of its ending.

Snyder, however, agreed with Reynolds that a nationwide class-
action lawsuit "cannot be certified because the laws of the states
vary with regard to unilateral contract formation, the statute of
limitations, the admissibility of extrinsic evidence and the
implied covenant of good faith."


ROBERT LOPEZ: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Julia Torres Gallego v. Robert Lopez, Angie Lopez, Case No.
1:15-cv-24520-DLG (S.D. Fla., December 8, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a domestic live-in
housekeeper and babysitter at the Defendants' residence.

The Defendants reside in and regularly transact business within
Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEVERN TRENT SERVICES: "Lowrimore" Suit Moved to E.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lowrimore v. Severn Trent
Environmental Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-CJ-53,
was removed from Choctaw County District Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma (Muskogee).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-00475-SPS to
the proceeding.

Severn Trent Services provides water and waste water treatment
systems. The company offers operating services to utilities,
municipalities, and commercial customers worldwide. It offers
community and municipal management services, including services to
development districts and associations in Florida, Georgia, and
Texas; provides property management services; and operates as a
management consultant and operations agent for master-planned
communities, planned residential developments, and commercial
associations throughout the Houston and Austin metropolitan areas
and their surrounding counties. The company is based in Fort
Washington, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon M. Williford, Esq.
          GRIFFIN REYNOLDS & ASSOCIATES
          210 SE 89th St.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73149
          Telephone: (405) 721 9500
          Facsimile: (405) 721 9503
          E-mail: jon@jonwillifordlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timila S. Rother, Esq.
          CROWE & DUNLEVY (OKC)
          324 N Robinson Ave, Ste 100
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235 7700
          Facsimile: (405) 239 6651
          E-mail: timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com


SHUTTERFLY INC: Suit Alleging Biometric Privacy Abuses Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the first ruling in the nation to interpret a state biometric
privacy statute, a federal judge in Chicago handed a victory to a
putative class that alleged the photo-sharing and storage company
Shutterfly Inc. abused consumers' privacy in violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), the plaintiffs'
counsel in the matter said Jan. 7, reports Michael J. Bologna at
Bloomberg BNA.

U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Norgle of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois Dec. 29 denied a
motion to dismiss a BIPA action brought against Shutterfly and its
subsidiary ThisLife Inc. (Norberg v. Shutterfly Inc., N.D. Ill.,
15-cv-5351, 12/29/15).

Norgle said that the court had personal jurisdiction in the first-
of-its-kind action and that the plaintiff, Brian Norberg, had met
the minimum threshold for stating a claim for which relief may be
granted.

Norgle said that the court was unaware of any previous judicial
interpretation of the 2008 statute.  Only Illinois and Texas have
enacted statutes addressing biometric data.  Illinois' law is
unique because it authorizes a private right of action and
statutory damages.  Enforcement actions under the Texas biometric
data law are reserved for the attorney general.

David P. Milian, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said the ruling
is a milestone for consumers seeking to preserve their digital
privacy rights.

"There are serious privacy concerns related to the unauthorized
capture and storage of biometric data by these companies and
currently Illinois is the only state to allow private citizens to
sue," said Milian, a partner with the law firm Carey Rodriguez
Milian Gonya LLP, said in a statement.  "The data privacy concerns
are enormous.  You can always change your password or get a new
credit card or social security number if these websites are
hacked, but you can't change your facial geometry."

                 Allegations Against Shutterfly

Norberg's original action, filed June 2015, alleged photograph
storing site Shutterfly consistently violated the BIPA by
collecting and scanning face geometry in photos uploaded to its
various websites without gaining the consent of individuals
featured in the images.  The court ruled Norberg had made adequate
allegations to survive a motion to dismiss.

"Here, plaintiff alleges that defendants are using his personal
face pattern to recognize and identify plaintiff in photographs
posted to websites.  Plaintiff avers that he is not now nor has he
ever been a user of websites, and that he was not presented with a
written biometrics policy nor has he consented to have his
biometric identifiers used by defendants," the court said.  "As a
result, the court finds that plaintiff has plausibly stated a
claim for relief under the BIPA."

Norgle offered no specific views on Shutterfly's argument that its
websites are beyond the scope of the BIPA.  Shutterfly has
asserted that the BIPA specifically excludes biometric identifiers
derived from photographs.  The statute defines biometric
identifiers as "retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or
scan of hand or face geometry."  The statute excludes writing
samples, signatures, photographs, biological samples, demographic
data, tattoos, or physical descriptions.

The ruling raises questions about Facebook Inc.'s ability to
prevail in a similar putative class action in federal court in
Chicago alleging that the social media giant's use of biometric
identification technology violates BIPA.  Facebook articulated a
similar defence in a motion dismiss filed with the court in
November, asserting the BIPA excludes biometric identifiers
derived from photographs (14 PVLR 2199, 12/7/15).

Counsel for Shutterfly couldn't be immediately reached for
comment.  The company is represented by Marc J. Zwillinger and
Robert Huff of ZwillGen PLLC.


SIENTRA INC: OPPRS Suit Moved from Superior Court to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Oklahoma Police Pension &
Retirement System v. Sientra, Inc. et al., Case No. CIV536013,
was removed from San Mateo County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-05549-EJD to
the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly violated
sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 with respect
to covered securities.

Sientra is a medical aesthetics company based in Santa Barbara,
California. It develops and sells medical aesthetics products to
plastic surgeons in the United States. The company offers silicone
gel breast implants for use in breast augmentation and breast
reconstruction procedures; and breast tissue expanders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Conrad Walton, Esq.
          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          Dennis J. Herman, Esq.
          Matthew Seth Melamed, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com
                  shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
                  dennish@rgrdlaw.com
                  mmelamed@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Kaban, Esq.
          Jeffrey Michael Walker, Esq.
          Ryan Edward Blair, Esq.
          COOLEY, LLP
          Five Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 843 5222
          Facsimile: (650) 857 0663
          E-mail: kabanjm@cooley.com
                  jwalker@cooley.com
                  rblair@cooley.com

               - and -

          Koji Francis Fukumura, Esq.
          COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-9109
          Telephone: (858) 550 6000
          Facsimile: (858) 550 6420
          E-mail: kfukumura@cooley.com

               - and -

          Charlene Sachi Shimada, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          Spear Street Tower
          One Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442 1001
          E-mail: charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com


SIENTRA INC: "Kleiman" Suit Moved from Superior Court to N.D. Cal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Howard Kleiman v. Sientra, Inc. et
al., Case No. CIV536313, was removed from Mateo County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:15-cv-05553-HSG to the proceeding.

Sientra is a medical aesthetics company based in Santa Barbara,
California. It develops and sells medical aesthetics products to
plastic surgeons in the United States. The company offers silicone
gel breast implants for use in breast augmentation and breast
reconstruction procedures; and breast tissue expanders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian David Berg, Esq.
          Takeo A Kellar, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 764 2580
          Facsimile: (858) 764 2582
          E-mail: iberg@aftlaw.com
                  tkellar@aftlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Kaban, Esq.
          Jeffrey Michael Walker, Esq.
          Ryan Edward Blair, Esq.
          COOLEY, LLP
          Five Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 843 5222
          Facsimile: (650) 857 0663
          E-mail: kabanjm@cooley.com
                  jwalker@cooley.com
                  rblair@cooley.com

               - and -

          Koji Francis Fukumura, Esq.
          COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-9109
          Telephone: (858) 550 6000
          Facsimile: (858) 550 6420
          E-mail: kfukumura@cooley.com

               - and -

          Charlene Sachi Shimada, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market Street
          Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442 1001
          E-mail: charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com


SIENTRA INC: "Albano" Suit Moved from Superior Court to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Albano et al. v. Sientra, Inc. et
al., Case No. CIV536138, was removed from Mateo County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:15-cv-05550-WHO to the proceeding.

Sientra is a medical aesthetics company based in Santa Barbara,
California. It develops and sells medical aesthetics products to
plastic surgeons in the United States. The company offers silicone
gel breast implants for use in breast augmentation and breast
reconstruction procedures; and breast tissue expanders.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frank James Johnson, Esq.
          Landon Lerner, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230 0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255 1856
          E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com
                  landon1@johnsonweaver.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Koji Francis Fukumura, Esq.
          COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-9109
          Telephone: (858) 550 6000
          Facsimile: (858) 550 6420
          E-mail: kfukumura@cooley.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Michael Kaban, Esq.
          Jeffrey Michael Walker, Esq.
          Ryan Edward Blair, Esq.
          COOLEY, LLP
          Five Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 843 5222
          Facsimile: (650) 857 0663
          E-mail: kabanjm@cooley.com
                  jwalker@cooley.com
                  rblair@cooley.com

               - and -

          Charlene Sachi Shimada, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          Spear Street Tower
          One Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442 1001
          E-mail: charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com


SPOTIFY AB: Faces "Ferrick" Suit Seeking $200-Mil. in Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kristofer Wouk of Digital Trends reports that if Spotify was
hoping for a quiet start to 2016 on the legal front, it's going to
be disappointed.  Just two weeks after musician David Lowery filed
a $150 class action suit against the company, it's facing another
separate class action suit -- this time for $200 million.

On January 8, the Los Angeles law firm Gradstein & Marzano filed a
complaint on behalf of the artist Melissa Ferrick, accusing
Spotify of "wholesale copyright infringement," the Los Angeles
Times reports.  The suit alleges that Spotify did not contact
Ferrick for permission before making her compositions available
for streaming on its service.

Ferrick is seeking class-action status for the suit, alleging that
Spotify has failed to properly license songs on several occasions.
The complaint states that Ferrick's songs alone have been streamed
"approximately one million times" without a license.  Spotify
isn't the only company that has seen these types of complaints --
Rhapsody and Google Play Music have both been accused of paying
far too little, for example -- but as the most popular, it's
currently the biggest target.

The lawsuit filed by Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker frontman
David Lowery makes similar accusations to Ferrick's.  The earlier
suit claims that Spotify knowingly distributes music for which it
has not obtained licenses, which Spotify has all but confirmed.
"When one of our listeners in the U.S. streams a track for which
the rightsholder is not immediately clear, we set aside the
royalties we owe until we are able to confirm the identity of the
rightsholder," the company wrote in a blog post shortly before the
first lawsuit was filed.  "When we confirm the rightsholder, we
pay those royalties as soon as possible."

Spotify, valued at $8 billion, says that so far it has paid out
over $3 million in total royalties.  The company has also set
aside an estimated $17 million to $25 million for the purpose of
paying royalties to rightsholders who haven't yet been confirmed.
Spotify says it is working with its "partners and friends in the
industry" to work out a better way to pay artists, but as the
lawsuits show, this isn't enough for artists who feel they're
being wronged.


SPOTIFY AB: Faces New Class Suit Over Improper Licensing of Songs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Eede, writing for The Quietus, reports that Spotify has
been hit with its second class action lawsuit in as many weeks
with Massachusetts-based songwriter Melissa Ferrick accusing the
streaming service of uploading her music to the platform without
correctly licensing her work.  She is seeking $200 million from
the company for the alleged oversight.

As the Los Angeles Times reports, Ferrick is seeking the money on
behalf of all songwriters whose copyright has apparently been
infringed by Spotify.  The lawsuit comes after a similar action
was taken by Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven frontman David
Lowery.  Ferrick's complaint says that her songs have been
streamed "approximately one million times" since they were made
available on Spotify.


SUBWAY SANDWICH: MDL Settlement Puts an End on Short Footlongs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that Subway fast-food
restaurants will use bread-measuring tools that ensure their so-
called six-inch and footlong sandwiches don't come up short,
settling a multidistrict class action in Wisconsin federal court
that accused Subway of defrauding its customers, according to a
January 4 filing.

According to a memorandum supporting plaintiffs' unopposed motion
for final approval of class action settlement, Subway's parent
company, Doctor's Associates Inc., will be required to conduct
monthly compliance inspections making sure that the restaurants'
bread is the size as marketed.

Subway knew its sandwiches were not 12 inches long, the plaintiffs
said, because it sets precise standards for producing the
sandwiches at a corporate level.  The suit alleged the standards
were handed down to Subway's franchisees, and that the company was
aware its specifications produced footlong sandwiches that only
measured between 11 and 11.5 inches.

The settlement provides injunctive relief but doesn't force Subway
customers to release any claims that they might have, as
individuals or a class, for money damages, according to January
4's memorandum.

It said Subway will be required to use the new measure tool for at
least four years and make other changes "as best practicable
accepting the realities of baking bread."

Subway started the "footlong" branding of its five-dollar
sandwiches around January 2007, according to court papers.

The litigation followed a social media post that spread virally
after an Australian Subway customer measured his sandwich at 11
inches and posted a picture of his sandwich alongside a tape
measure on Facebook.  Subway has sued before to protect the
"footlong" trademark, which it applied for but was never
officially granted.

One of the suits alleged that "The loss of 8.3% of a $5 sandwich
is far too small to warrant individual litigation by an individual
consumer.  Yet while the individual loss to any one class member
is small, the aggregate effect of Subway's misconduct is large."

Subway spokesman Les Winograd said in a January 2013 statement
that Subway "freshly bake[s] our bread throughout the day in our
more than 38,000 restaurants in 100 countries worldwide, and we
have redoubled our efforts to ensure consistency and correct
length in every sandwich we serve."

According to January 4's filing, the class consists of all persons
in the U.S. who bought a six-inch or footlong sandwich at a Subway
restaurant between Jan. 1, 2003, and Oct. 2, 2015, when the deal
was preliminarily approved. The settlement was reached following
negotiations before a retired magistrate judge and its terms were
finalized with a district court judge.

Plaintiffs' attorneys will receive approximately $481,000 in fees,
according to January 4's memorandum.

Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr. of Zimmerman Law Offices PC, which is
representing the plaintiffs and the class, told Law360 on Jan. 5
that the deal is "a very good outcome for the class because it
will ensure that, going forward, they're going to be getting
everything that they're paying for."

Adam E. Schulman of Competitive Enterprise Institute -- who is
representing an objector to the settlement, Theodore H. Frank --
told Law360 that the settlement provides nothing for the actual
class members who were allegedly harmed by Subway's practices.

"Right after the controversy erupted in 2013, Subway voluntarily
modified its practices to ensure its sandwiches would be full
length," Schulman said.  "From all appearances the settlement here
doesn't get class members anything on top of those modifications
that are already in place.  It's a completely fee-driven deal, as
evidenced by the fact that the fees took nearly twice as long to
negotiate as the so-called class relief."

January 4's filing called Frank "an outspoken anti-class action
and tort reform advocate . . . who has been described by several
federal courts as a 'professional objector.'"

Attorneys and representatives for Subway didn't immediately
respond to requests for comment late January 5.

The plaintiffs and the class are represented by interim co-lead
counsel Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq., of DeNittis Osefchen PC --
sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- and Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq., of
Zimmerman Law Offices PC.

Subway is represented by Bethany L. Appleby, Esq. --
bappleby@wiggin.com -- and John M. Doroghazi, Esq. --
jdoroghazi@wiggin.com -- of Wiggin and Dana LLP.

The case is In Re: Subway Footlong Sandwich Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, case number 2:13-md-02439, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.


SUNEDISON INC: Faces Securities Class Suit in E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Gardy & Notis, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Case No. 15-cv-1769, on behalf of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of SunEdison, Inc.
("SunEdison" or the "Company") from June 16, 2015, through October
6, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The action alleges that
SunEdison and certain of its executive officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (the "Exchange
Act").

If you are a stockholder who purchased SunEdison securities during
the Class Period, you have until February 1, 2016 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the Class.  If you have
questions about the case or would like to get a copy of the
complaint please contact Mark C. Gardy or Jennifer Sarnelli at
Gardy & Notis, LLP, 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY
10022, Telephone: 212-905-0509, Fax: 212-905-0508, e-mail:
mgardy@gardylaw.com or jsarnelli@gardylaw.com.

The lawsuit alleges that SunEdison and certain corporate insiders
made materially misleading misrepresentations and omissions
regarding SunEdison's business and operations.  Among other
things, the lawsuit alleges that defendants misrepresented and
failed to disclose that SunEdison did not have the financial
resources to sustain its acquisition binge.  On October 5, 2015,
the truth about the Company's financial soundness was revealed
when the Company announced it was laying off 15% of its workforce.
SunEdison's stock dropped to $8.69, from a high of $30.96 at the
start of the Class Period on June 16, 2015 -- a 72% drop.

Plaintiff seeks to recover money damages on behalf of all
purchasers of SunEdison securities during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Gardy & Notis, LLP, which has
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.  Gardy & Notis,
LLP has investigated the facts of this action and filed the first
complaint on behalf of SunEdison stockholders.


SYNGENTA CORP: Elijah Farms Suit Moved to N.D. Iowa
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Elijah Farms, Inc. et al. v.
Syngenta AG et al., Case No. LACV035629, was removed from
Iowa District Court for Cedar County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa (Cedar Rapids). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00140-LRR to the proceeding.

Syngenta is a global Swiss agribusiness that produces
agrochemicals and seeds. As a biotechnology company, it conducts
genomic research. It was formed in 2000 by the merger of Novartis
Agribusiness and Zeneca Agrochemicals. As of 2014 Syngenta was the
world's largest crop chemical producer, strongest in Europe

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jerry A Soper,Esq.
          SOPER LEDDIN LAW FIRM, PC
          5108 Jersy Ridge Road
          Davenport, IA 52807
          Telephone: (563) 441 1616
          Facsimile: (563) 441 1622

The Defendants are represented by:

          Randall D Armentrout, Esq.
          Ryan Gene Koopmans, Esq.
          NYEMASTER, GOODE, WEST, HANSELL & O'BRIEN
          700 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Des Moines, IA 50309-3899
          Telephone: (515) 283 3100
          Facsimile: (515) 283 8045
          E-mail: rdarmentrout@nyemaster.com
                  rkoopmans@nyemaster.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "Fleisher" Suit Transferred from Ohio to Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Fleisher et al. v. Syngenta
Corporation et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00704, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09894-JWL-JPO
to the proceeding.

The case involves manufacturing, marketing and sale of genetically
modified corn seed in a reckless and negligent manner that caused
the depression of U.S. corn prices resulting in over $1.4 Billion
in damages to U.S. corn market and over $145,635,600 of damages to
Ohio corn farmers.

Syngenta is a global Swiss agribusiness that produces
agrochemicals and seeds. As a biotechnology company, it conducts
genomic research. It was formed in 2000 by the merger of Novartis
Agribusiness and Zeneca Agrochemicals. As of 2014 Syngenta was the
world's largest crop chemical producer, strongest in Europe

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian T Giles, Esq.
          1018 Delta Ave., Suite 202
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 815 3853

               - and -

          Bryce A Lenox, Esq.
          GILES & LENOX LLC
          1018 Delta Avenue, Suite 202
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 520 9829


TOM'S OF MAINE: Consumers May File Claims Even Without Receipts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Moritz, writing for KSAT.com, reports that if you bought
certain toothpaste, deodorant, granola bars or tween clothing, you
may have cash coming your way as the result of some class action
lawsuit settlements.  However, you have to file your claim in
time.

Kashi, with its granola bars and cereals, is known for its natural
products.  But a class action lawsuit alleges certain foods
labeled as "all natural," "100 percent natural" or "nothing
artificial" actually contained GMOs, or genetically modified
organisms.

That means consumers who bought certain Kashi products covered in
the lawsuit between May 3, 2009, and Sept. 4, 2015, can be
reimbursed.  Even without receipts, consumers can get up to
$27.50.

The deadline to file a claim is January 19.

Kashi also agreed to remove the "all natural" claims from products
containing GMOs challenged in the lawsuit.

Tom's of Maine also settled a false advertising class action
lawsuit that alleged certain products labeled as natural actually
contained chemicals.

Consumers who bought one of the products between March 25, 2009,
and Sept. 23, 2015, can get up to $28 even without receipts.
Claims need to be filed by May 7.

Tom's of Maine denies wrongdoing.

Customers of Justice, a popular store for tween girls, may also be
able to claim some cash.

Tween Brands Inc. and Ascena Retail Group, which operate Justice
stores, settled a class action lawsuit alleging deceptive
advertising and fake sales.  The suit claims that items marked 40
percent off were actually the regular price.

Consumers who bought Justice merchandise between Jan. 1, 2012, and
Feb. 28, 2015, may be entitled to as much as $20 cash or a store
voucher. Receipts are not required but may mean more payout.

The deadline to submit a claim is April 4.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Rules on Discovery Rift in "Lathrop"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In JAMES LATHROP, JULIE MCKINNEY, JONATHAN GRINDELL, SANDEEP PAL,
JENNIFER REILLY, and JUSTIN BARTOLET on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC. Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-cv-05678-JST (N.D. Cal.), the
parties submitted a joint letter outlining the parties' current
discovery disputes.  The parties disagree about whether the Court
should require Uber to appear for at least two 7-hour Rule
30(b)(6) depositions.

The District Court heard argument from the parties on January 7,
2016, on the issues in the joint letter and ordered the Plaintiffs
to submit a Proposed Order regarding the scheduling of a Rule
30(b)(6) deposition of Uber.

In a Jan. 13 ruling, available at http://is.gd/SENropfrom
Leagle.com, District Judge Jon S. Tigar in San Francisco, Calif.,
held that:

     1. Given the complexity and scope of this putative class
action, Plaintiffs are entitled to more than one Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(b)(6) deposition of Uber in this case.

     2. Plaintiffs are permitted to take a Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(b)(6) deposition of Uber related to discovery issues. The
deposition will take place on January 25, 2016.

     3. Plaintiffs are permitted to take at least one additional
Fed. R. Civ. P 30(b)(6) deposition of Uber related to substantive
issues, to be conducted on a separate date(s).

     4. The Court defers ruling on whether Uber must produce: (1)
logs of text messages sent to putative class members; and (2)
additional screen flows from its mobile application and mobile and
desktop websites. Should the parties' dispute as to these issues
remain following the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition of Uber
related to discovery issues, the parties shall submit an
additional letter brief outlining the remaining dispute to the
Court within one week following the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on
discovery.


UNITED COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Freilich" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Freilich, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-06139 (E.D.N.Y., October 26, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

United Collection Bureau, Inc. operates a debt collection firm in
New York.

Rachel Freilich is a pro se plaintiff.


UNITED STATES: Judiciary Accused of Overbilling for PACER Records
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for The National Law Journal, Zoe Tillman reports that the
federal judiciary has long faced criticism for charging fees for
online access to public court records.  A new class action claims
a computer error caused the system to overcharge users.

The Public Access to Court Electronic Records, or PACER, system
charges 10 cents per page to view documents.  The system's users -
- lawyers, litigants, reporters (The National Law Journal uses
PACER) and the public -- also pay 10 cents per page to view case
dockets that list the documents and other case information.  The
system uses a formula based on the amount of data in the docket to
calculate the equivalent number of pages.

Plaintiff Bryndon Fisher, a Washington state resident represented
by lawyers from Terrell Marshall Law Group in Seattle and Schubert
Jonckheer & Kolbe in San Francisco, claims that a computer error
causes the system to overcount certain information in the docket--
specifically, the section of the page that lists the name and
number of the case, the parties, and the lawyers involved.

By overcounting that information, Fisher says, the system adds at
least one additional 10-cent charge.  Those extra dimes can add
up, according to Fisher, who claimed that over the past two years
he's paid $37 in overcharges.

A spokesman for the federal judiciary declined to comment on
January 11.

Noah Schubert of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe said in an interview
that they hired "experts with advanced degrees in computer
science" to analyze PACER's billing system after hearing reports
of overcharging.  Those experts created models that showed that
the system was incorrectly billing users, he said.

"The statutes indicate that they're only allowed to charge what is
reasonably necessary to the public and so while there's certainly
a lot of debate about whether there should be charges to the
public for using the system in the first place, we believe at the
very least they should charge what they say they charge," Schubert
said.

In two largely identical lawsuits filed on Dec. 28 and 29 in the
U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Fisher said he pulled up 184 case
docket reports over the past two years and paid $109.40 for that
access. He claims that if the judiciary had properly calculated
the data in those reports, he should have only owed $72.40.

The judiciary has a process for users to seek refunds if they
believe they've overpaid.  Schubert said he did not believe that
Fisher sought any refunds.

The judiciary has for years faced complaints that PACER fees are
too high.  There are some exceptions to those fees.  The system
doesn't charge users who access less than $15 worth of records per
quarter, and there is a maximum charge of $3 per document.
Litigants and their lawyers get one free electronic copy of
documents filed in their case. The system doesn't charge for
judicial opinions.

Some critics have attempted to find work-arounds to the fees.  In
2009, the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton
University launched RECAP The Law, an online program that archives
federal court records and makes them available at no cost.

In 2014, the nonprofit Think Computer Foundation, the Think
Computer Corp. and their founder Aaron Greenspan sued the federal
judiciary in San Jose, California, federal district court over
PACER fees.  The plaintiffs said Congress authorized the judiciary
to collect fees to the "extent necessary," and that the court
system had overstepped that authority.  PACER had become "a highly
profitable crutch to prop up the courts' budget," the plaintiff's
argued.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller dismissed the case in December
2014, finding that the complaint suffered from a series of
procedural defects.

The judiciary also came under fire in 2014 for removing years of
federal appeals court records from PACER.  Officials restored
access after lawyers, reporters, transparency advocates and Sen.
Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, then the chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, protested.

The case is Bryndon Fisher, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. James C. Duff, in His Official
Capacity as the Director of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts, Administrative Office of the United States
Courts, and The United States of America, Case No. 3:15-cv-05944-
BHS, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington at Tacoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 N 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
          Miranda P. Kolbe, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Ctr., Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4018
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
                  nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
                  mkolbe@schubertlawfirm.com


UNITED STATES: Retroactive Food Stamps Provided After Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael King of WXIA reports that based on a condition of a class
action lawsuit settlement, the Department of Family and Children
Services is providing retroactive food stamp benefits to certain
eligible households.

According to DFCS, entitlement notices were mailed to eligible
families on January 8, 2016, and an electronic version made
available to those same households through their online "My
COMPASS Account."

In order to assist individuals to determine if they were among
those affected, DFCS has established a toll-free telephone number
(855-632-9035) and a dedicated Web page
(http://www.dhs.georgia.gov/office-inspector-general). Both
systems will require that the Client Identification (ID) number or
Food Stamp Assistance Unit (AU) number be provided or entered.
This information can be found on any recent food stamp
correspondence sent to the household.

Local DFCS offices and the regular DFCS call center will not be
able to confirm eligibility, so any potentially entitled should
use the dedicated web page or toll free number no later than
January 31.

The one-time retroactive benefits are being provided as a result
of a provision in the settlement of a class action lawsuit against
the Georgia Department of Human Services in early 2014, that said
applications and renewals for food stamps were not processed in a
timely manner resulting in applicants being incorrectly denied.

The US District Court in August 2015 approved the settlement,
which was agreed upon by DHS and the National Center for Law and
Economic Justice, representing the settlement class.  During the
period under the scope of the lawsuit -- from October 2013 through
December 2014, DFCS issued a total of over $3.5 billion in SNAP
benefits to an average of 842,000 households per month.  The
lawsuit will affect 47,760 households, who will receive an average
of $463 per household.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Swarce" Suit Moved to Mass. District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Swarce et al. v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-03309, was removed from
Suffolk County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-14058-FDS to the proceeding.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Thornton, Esq.
          THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
          100 Summer Street, 30th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 720 1333
          E-mail: mthornton@tenlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew R Levin, Esq.
          David A. Barry, Esq.
          SUGARMAN, ROGERS, BARSHAK & COHEN, PC
          101 Merrimac Street, 9th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 227 3030
          Facsimile: (617) 523 4001
          E-mail: levin@srbc.com
                  barry@srbc.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Bill to Limit Classes to People With Same Model
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Jan Schakowsky, from the floor, said that: "In the case of
VW, the bill would limit classes to people with the same vehicle
model, the same emissions-cheating device and the same emissions
system.  Even though all clean-diesel customers were defrauded in
the same way, it would shrink the class sizes and make it easier
for VW to defeat or settle claims.  Why would we make it easier
for VW to avoid responsibility by making it harder for Americans
to pursue justice?  It's shameful that congressional Republicans
are trying to do Volkswagen's bidding by weakening the rights
their constituents currently have," Rep. Jan Schakowsky added,
according to a report from Politico LLC.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: New CEO to Present Remedies for Emission Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Volkswagen's new chief executive plans to present remedies for
fixing diesel engines that cheat on emissions tests when he meets
with the top U.S. environmental regulator.

CEO Matthias Mueller said that as of now VW has only given
technical data to the Environmental Protection Agency and the
California Air Resources Board.  But he hopes to reach agreement
with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on January 13 in Washington
when he presents her with solutions.  VW requested the meeting.

Mueller's trip comes as the German automaker and U.S. regulators
are at an apparent impasse over how to proceed with the expected
recall of nearly 600,000 "clean diesel" vehicles sold with secret
software designed to make their engines pass federal emissions
standards while undergoing laboratory testing.  The vehicles then
switch off those measures in real-world driving conditions,
spewing harmful nitrogen oxide at up to 40 times what is allowed
under federal environmental standards.

The cars include Jetta, Golf and other popular models dating to
the 2009 model year.  About 11 million cars have similar software
worldwide.  McCarthy said that the agency hasn't reached any
agreement with VW after three months of discussions, and that
she's anxious to bring VW into compliance with the Clean Air Act.

But Mueller continued to describe the discussions as productive.
"It is my point of view, I tell you we are working together with
the EPA and also with the CARB for three months, and from our
point of view we did huge progress.  And now we will talk to Ms.
McCarthy and we'll see how the reaction will be."

He wouldn't talk about what solutions the company will propose,
but analysts say they will almost certainly be expensive and
involve major modifications to the exhaust systems or the addition
of a chemical treatment system to turn nitrogen oxide into
harmless nitrogen and oxygen.

Mueller wouldn't say if the company plans to buy back any of the
cars.

The U.S. Justice Department, representing EPA, filed a civil
lawsuit that could potentially expose VW to more than $20 billion
in fines under the Clean Air Act.  VW could incur additional civil
penalties based on facts determined at trial.

A separate criminal investigation is underway, and numerous
private class-action lawsuits filed by angry VW owners are
pending.

The company also faces investigations by multiple state attorneys
general, some of whom have complained that VW isn't turning over
documents that have been requested.  Mueller said the source of
the dispute is variations between German and U.S. laws governing
corporate documents.  "There is German law in terms of tighter
protection, and that is not compatible to the American.  And that
has to be clarified," he said.

VW first admitted in September that the suspect software was
installed in cars with its popular 2.0-liter diesel engines.  The
company has thus far denied findings by U.S. regulators a smaller
number of diesel vehicles with 3.0-liter engines contain similar
software.

Mueller apologized again on January 11 for the scandal and said
the company's most important task in 2016 will be to win back its
customers' trust.  He has suggested a small number of software
developers in Germany are to blame for the suspect computer code.

The company has hired a U.S.-based law firm to conduct an internal
investigation.  The findings of that review have not yet been made
public.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Geldman" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Geldman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen of America Group, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-05679-CRB (N.D. Cal., December 14, 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:

      Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
      Patrick B. Clayton, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
      456 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 788-7210
      Facsimile: (415) 788-0706
      E-mail: fos@scarpullalaw.com
              pbc@scarpullalaw.com

         - and -

      Mark F. Anderson, Esq.
      ANDERSON, OGILVIE & BREWER
      235 Montgomery Street, Suite 914
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 651-1951
      Facsimile: (415) 500-8300
      E-mail: mark@aoblawyers.com


WALGREENS SPECIALTY: "Garcia" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Garcia v. Walgreens Specialty
Pharmacy, LLC, Case No. 15-025409-CA-01, 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 District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-24468-DPG to
the proceeding.

Plaintiff asserted a claim for unpaid overtime and/or minimum
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy offers specialty pharmacy services in
the United States and Puerto Rico. The company distributes
specialty medications and supplies, including injectable
medications and specialty biotech therapies that are used to treat
chronic, life-threatening, or rare conditions, such as cancer,
Crohn's disease, growth hormone disorders, multiple sclerosis,
psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and others. The company is based
in Carnegie, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Derek Jon Dilberian, Esq.
          Sharon Ann Lisitzky, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          Wachovia Financial Center
          200 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 5300
          Miami, FL 33131-2339
          E-mail: ddilberian@morganlewis.com
                  slisitzky@morganlewis.com


WELLS FARGO BANK: "Nixon" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Nixon et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. et al., Case No. 15A2187-1, was removed from State Court of
Cobb County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-04231-CAP to the proceeding.

Wells Fargo Bank provides commercial banking services such as
deposits accounts and loans. The Bank is based in Salt Lake City,
Utah.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729 5288
          E-mail: ABurke@Burkelawllc.com

               - and -

          Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASHER, HEIMAN & BERNSTEIN, LLP-NY
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355 9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355 9592

               - and -

          Douglas J. Campion, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION, APC
          17150 Via Del Campo, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (619) 299 2091
          Facsimile: (619) 858 0034

               - and -

          James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
          Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
          Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR AND FEAGLE, LLP
          2374 Main Street, Suite B
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Telehone: (404) 373 1970
          Facsimile: (404) 6011855
          E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
                  jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                  krisskaar@aol.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          DAVID P. MEYER & ASSOCIATES CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224 6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224 6066
          E-mail: mwilson@dmlaws.com

               - and -

          Michael Joseph Boyle, Jr., Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224 6000
          E-mail: mboyle@meyerwilson.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Chad R. Fuller, Esq.
          David M. Gettings, Esq.
          John C. Lynch, Esq.
          Stephen William Riddell, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP-CA
          11682 El Camino Real
          San Diego, CA 92130, Suite 400
          Telephone: (858) 509 6056
          Facsimile: (858) 509 6040
          E-mail: chad.fuller@troutmansanders.com
                  david.gettings@troutmansanders.com
                  john.lynch@troutmansanders.com
                  stephen.riddell@troutmansanders.com


WOODLAWN ELECTRICAL: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Antonio Aguilar Ramirez and Juan Ramirez-Tello, on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Woodlawn Electrical Supply
Inc., et al., Case No. 7:15-cv-08440 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Woodlawn Electrical Supply Inc. operates an electrical supply
store located at 772 McLean Ave, Yonkers, NY 10704.

Marco Antonio Aguilar Ramirez and Juan Ramirez-Tello are pro se
Plaintiffs.


WORKSAFE BC: Sued by Workers Over Fatal B.C. Mill Explosions
------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby Thom, writing for CKNW 980AM, reports that workers involved
in the two fatal sawmill blasts in B.C. in 2012 have filed a claim
for a class-action lawsuit against WorkSafe BC and the provincial
government.

Separate explosions at the Babine Forest Products Mill in Burns
Lake and the Lakeland Mill in Prince George killed a total of four
workers and injured more than 40.

                       Negligence alleged

The suit, filed in BC Supreme Court, alleges WorkSafe BC was
negligent in failing to issue any orders or penalties after
investigations turned up combustible wood dust at both sites
before the explosions.

"As WorkSafe knew or ought to have known, these failures would and
in fact did cause the Class Members to suffer physical harm and/or
acute and prolonged psychiatric harm."

                     Investigation targeted

The suit also claims the investigation that followed the
explosions was botched, resulting in no criminal charges being
laid in the disaster.

"WorkSafe failed or refused to adequately consider the possibility
that a criminal negligence charge against either or both of hte
respective companies may have been warranted.  As a result,
Worksafe failed or refused to gather evidence of possible criminal
wrongdoing adequately or at all."

                        Charter question

Workers in B.C. are legally blocked form suing an employer if hurt
on the job, with WorkSafe BC instead given the job of protecting
workers, while investigating and adjudicating disputes.

The suit claims that because of this, WorkSafe has a special duty
to workers, which was breached in the aftermath of the explosions
violating workers charter rights to life, liberty, and security of
the person.

None of the allegations has been proven in court.


XPO LOGISTICS: Subsidiaries Sued for Misclassifying Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Writing for The Wall Street Journal, Erica E. Phillips reports
that three trucking company subsidiaries of XPO Logistics Inc.
were sued in California on January 11 for allegedly misclassifying
their drivers as independent contractors.

The lawsuit seeking class-action status, filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court, argues that drivers for XPO subsidiaries Pacer
Cartage Inc., Harbor Rail Transport and PDS Transportation Inc.
failed to pay minimum wage, provide meal breaks and rest breaks
and reimburse business expenses, among other allegations.

In an emailed statement, XPO Chief Operating Officer Troy Cooper
said, "We believe this case is without merit and plan to litigate
it vigorously.  We are in constant dialogue with our independent-
contractor carriers and believe the vast majority of them value
the significant benefits that operating independently can bring."

The trucking companies facing litigation perform what's known as
drayage trucking services, hauling goods the short distance
between seaports and nearby rail yards and warehouses, a major
link in the national supply chain.  Within the domestic drayage
market, estimated by research firm FTR Transportation Intelligence
as generating $12 billion in annual revenue, the independent
owner-operator model is common.

But that model has increasingly come under legal scrutiny, in
drayage as well as other sectors of the transportation industry.
Alleged misclassification of workers has led to high-profile
lawsuits against Uber Technologies Inc. and FedEx Corp., among
others.  FedEx settled a case in California last year for $228
million.  In December, a California judge ruled to expand a class-
action suit brought against Uber by three drivers who claim they
are employees, not contractors, and deserve benefits such as
workers' compensation.

Workers in the lawsuit filed on January 11 are being represented
by the Los Angeles law firm Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, which has
previously brought similar claims against several drayage trucking
companies, including Pacer.  A $4.25 million settlement with
Pacer, which they reached last May, is awaiting a judge's
approval.


ZYNGA INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Moved to Feb. 11
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in San Francisco, Calif.,
signed off on a stipulation among Lead Plaintiff David Fee and
Defendants Zynga Inc., Mark Pincus, David M. Wehner and John
Schappert, which seeks modification of the schedule for Settlement
Class Members to submit claim forms, request exclusion from the
Settlement, or object to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or
request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation
expenses and rescheduling the Final Approval Hearing.

They agree to these deadlines:

     Deadline to submit request for            January 29, 2016
     exclusion or objection for Settlement
     Class Members impacted by delay

     Lead Plaintiffs' reply brief in support   February 8, 2016
     of final approval and response to any
     objections and proof of notice compliance


     Final Approval Hearing                    February 11, 2016,
                                               at 9:00 a.m.

     Deadline to submit Proof of Claim         March 11, 2016
     for Settlement Class Members impacted
     by delay

     Update to settlement website to reflect   Upon Court Order
     revised deadlines and Final Approval
     Hearing date

A copy of the Jan. 14 Stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/qdEcbmfrom Leagle.com.

The case is, In Re Zygna Inc. Securities Litigation, Nos. 12-cv-
4048-JSC, 12-cv-4059-JSC, 12-cv-4064-JSC, 12-cv-4066-JSC, 12-cv-
4133-JSC, 12-cv-4250-JSC (N.D. Cal.).

Zynga is a provider of social video game services founded in July
2007 and headquartered in San Francisco, California.


* Effort to Overhaul Class Actions Heads to Senate
--------------------------------------------------
Politico LLC reports that the Republican-backed effort to overhaul
class-action lawsuits (H.R. 1927) now heads to the Senate, after
the House moved January 8 to approve the measure in a 211-188
vote.  That tight margin means there's little chance of overriding
the veto that the Obama administration has promised.  The bill
aims to divide victims in class-action lawsuits into smaller
groups, based on the type or severity of their injury -- an
attempt, some lawmakers say, to limit frivolous lawsuits tacked on
to class-action legislation.  That change that could have
implications for car manufacturers sued for covering up vehicle
defects.


* Quinn Emanuel Named Class Action Group of the Year by Law360
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP scored major class action successes on
both the plaintiff and defense sides in the past year, from a
nearly $2 billion settlement in antitrust litigation against
investment banks to defenses on behalf of Coca-Cola, Colgate-
Palmolive and Hyundai, earning selection as one of Law360's Class
Action Practice Groups of the Year.

The Los Angeles-based litigation's switch-hitting approach has led
it get involved "on both sides of the 'v,' " as it puts it,
defending major corporations from class actions but also being a
leader on the plaintiffs' side in several major and cutting-edge
litigation.

While doing so imposes some limits on what cases the firm can pick
up from would-be plaintiffs, partner Shon Morgan, chair of the
firm's national class action practice group, said that can serve
as a benefit, as the firm tends to focus instead on high-exposure
cases with carefully weighed business risks.

"Home run cases as opposed to hitting a lot singles," he described
the approach.

A prime example came this past year as Quinn Emanuel secured a
$1.86 billion settlement agreement reached on behalf of a class in
an antitrust suit against 15 of the largest investment banks over
credit default swaps.  It was one of the largest antitrust class
action recoveries ever, and the deal also included injunctive
relief to increase competition in multitrillion-dollar CDS market,
the firm noted.

"This was one of the finest examples of efficient and effective
lawyers that I have ever witnessed," a retired New York judge
noted in a sworn statement of support of the deal, which gained
preliminary approval in New York federal court in October.

Morgan said the case also provided an example of a case that
smaller plaintiffs' firms would not be able to take on single-
handedly.

"We're uniquely positioned because of our resources to get into
fights that other plaintiffs' firms can't," he said.

The firm has also been a leader in litigation resulting from the
recently exposed Volkswagen emissions scandal.  It filed the first
action on behalf of affected Volkswagen customers that had
representatives from all 50 states and also filed the only class
action on behalf of 120,000 South Korean buyers and said it was
working on filing a related class action in Australia.

Another notable plaintiffs representations included securing more
than $430 million in settlements from nine defendants while
serving as court-appointed co-lead counsel for direct purchaser
plaintiffs in antitrust litigation in Ohio over flexible
polyurethane foam.

The firm also achieved class counsel roles in a multi-district
litigation against 14 banks accused of manipulating an interest
rate benchmark known ISDAfix -- with the claims stemming from
research by Quinn Emanuel with expert economists -- and in another
class action regarding manipulation of a benchmark for gold prices
known as the "London Fix."

Defense of major corporations in class actions remains a major
part of Quinn Emanuel's class action work, which in the past year
covered more than 100 cases in more than 20 states.

The firm obtain approval of a nationwide settlement in a
multidistrict litigation over overstated mileage-per-gallon
figures for more than 900,000 vehicles made by Hyundai Motor
America.  The case had to be handled against the backdrop of an
Environmental Protection Agency investigation, Hyundai's voluntary
reimbursement program and the automakers' public relations
efforts.

Quinn Emanuel attorneys guided Coca-Cola and Colgate-Palmolive to
injunctive relief settlements in cases over product benefit claims
pertaining to Coca-Cola's Vitaminwater brand of drinks and
Colgate-Palmolive's Softsoap antibacterial soap, respectively.

Persuading conservative corporations to enter into these types of
settlements, which bring financial benefits but not without their
assuming some risk, represents a sea change for companies of their
size, Morgan said.

The relationships arising from handling both sides of class
actions can also play an important role in smoothing the path to
quick resolutions, Morgan said.

"If you have a degree of trust from either working together or
even on opposite sides on other cases, that can translate into
tremendous cost savings for our clients," he said.  "We create as
much value from what we don't litigate."

Without formal practice groups, Quinn Emanuel also has an
incredibly deep bench upon which it can quickly draw talent and
experience to litigate in almost any field. About half of its
U.S.-based attorneys regularly participate in class action work,
Morgan said.



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *