CAR_Public/160128.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, January 28, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 19


                            Headlines


AAA SOUTHERN: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss "Casperson"
ABBVIE INC: "Hillman" Class Suit Remains Pending
ABBVIE INC: Still Defending Medical Mutual Class Suit
ABBVIE INC: 90% of Depakote(R) Claims Pending in S.D. Ill.
ABBVIE INC: Class Suits Over Shire plc Deal Ongoing

ABM INDUSTRIES: Must Defend "Brown" Class Suit
AIRSTREAM: Recalls Motorhome 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
ALCATRAZ MF: Faces Suit Over Health and Safety Code Violation
ALLIANCE SECURITY: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Says
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Enters $1,500 Judgment in "Franco" Suit

ALTEVA INC: Ruling on Motion to Certify Plaintiff Class Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Merchants' Bid to Modify Scheduling Order Nixed
APOLLO EDUCATION: University of Phoenix Directed to Produce Docs
APPLE INC: Bid to Certify Suit Over AppleCare+ Denied
APPLE INC: Bids for Summary Judgment in "Backhaut" Case Granted

BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement in "Brawner" Suit Okayed
BAXALTA: Shareholders Sue Over Merger with Shire
BEDESSEE IMPORT: Recalls Cereal Product Due to Insects
BECKMAN COULTER: Recalls Cellular Analysis System
BENEFICIAL KENTUCKY: Judge Certifies Class of Chapter 7 Debtors

BENLAN INC: Recalls Med-RX Feeding Tubes Due to Mislabeling
BIOMERIEUX INC: Recalls ETest Antimicrobial Testers
BLUE BUFFALO: Eyes $32-Mil. Settlement in Pet Food Class Actions
BORDERFREE INC: Recalls Ceramic Chicken Roasters Due to Burn Risk
BRANAM HOLDINGS: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Suit Claims

BULLSEYE ENERGY: Oklahoma Class Suits Consolidated
BUMBLE BEE: Dismissal Bid in "McMahon" Case Denied
BUMBLE BEE: U.S. Intervenes in Packaged Seafood Antitrust Suit
C-TWO GROUP: Court Grants Class Certification in "Mendez"
CAFEPRESS INC: Court Entered Final Approval of Settlement

CAMBRIDGE CAPITAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Stockholder Case
CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Set for Apr. 6
CHARLESBANK COOPERATIVE: Suit Alleges Violation of AHR
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: 3rd Cir. Affirms Ruling on Arbitration
CHINA ELECTRIC MOTOR: 9th Cir. Vacates Attorney Fee Award

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Court to Dismiss "Gallagher" Suit over GMO
CHRYSLER: Recalls RAM Promaster 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk
COACHING BY CORAL: Runs Ponzi Scam, Class Suit Says
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Court Grants Conditional Certification
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Tosses Suit over Slave Labor

CREDENCE RESOURCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Damstra" Suit Claims
CUSTOM COOKIES: "Yupangui" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CVS HEALTH: Sued Over Acetaminophen & Ibuprofen Product Packaging
D.C. METRO: Class Suit Filed over Subway Smoke
DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Wage & Hour Suit Resolved for Immaterial Sum

DELMART MANAGEMENT: "Lemus" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
DIAGEO-GUINNESS: Falsely Marketed Extra Stout Products, Suit Says
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Professional Liability Suits Still Open
DYNAMIC SPORTS: Court Denies Bid for Two-Part Discovery
ECOLAB INC: "Cancilla" Settlement Wins Final Approval

EL POLLO: Defending Calif. Class Action Filed by Former Employee
EL POLLO: Defending "Turocy" and "Huston" Securities Fraud Cases
EOS PRODUCTS: Faces Class Suit in C.D. Cal. over Lip Balm
FACEBOOK INC: Approval of Settlement in Fraley et al. Suit Upheld
FARMERS GROUP: Court Grants Conditional Certification in "Coates"

FIA CARD: "Olmos" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
FIALOVA INC: Faces "Williams" Suit for Labor Code Violations
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Inflated Share Price, Class Suit Alleges
FORD MOTOR: 9th Cir. Revives Claims in "Daniel" Class Suit
FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls Baby Spinach Products Due to Tree Nut

GALARDI SOUTH: Can't Compel Arbitration in "Espinoza" Case
GARDA CL: Faces "Oliver" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GENCO SHIPPING: Motion to Dismiss Baltic Shareholder Suit Pending
GENERAL NUTRITION: Court Denies Conditionally Bid to Decertify
GIANT EAGLE: Recalls New Year's Pretzel Products Due to Walnut

GIANT EAGLE: Recalls New Year's Pretzel Products Due to Walnut
GIANT EAGLE: Recalls New Year's Pretzel Products Due to Walnut
GINN DEVELOPMENT: Approval of Class Action Settlement Affirmed
GLOBAL COLLEGE: Court Grants Default Judgment in "Toler" Case
GOOD EARTH: Recalls Shell Eggs Due to Salmonella

GREENWAY HEALTH: Physicians Healthsource Files Suit Under TCPA
GROWLIFE INC: Court Entered Final Order Resolving Class Action
HANOVER INSURANCE: "Hockenbury" Case Remains in W.D. Okla.
HAYES ROBERTSON: Court Dismisses Lopez as Class Representative
HCSB FINANCIAL: Entered Into Class Action Settlement Agreement

HERITAGE INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Raw Cashew Due to Salmonella
HONDA MOTORS: Car Wiring Attracts Mice, "Dobbs" Suit Says
IBIO INC: Settlement in Securities Case Reached After Mediation
ICONIX BRAND: Three Securities Class Actions Pending in S.D.N.Y.
ING USA ANNUITY: Class Notice in "Abbit" Case Approved

INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL: "Acton" Case Stayed, Pending Motions Tossed
INTERMARK FOODS: "Duran" Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Overtime
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Mihalich" Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
JP MORGAN: "1409 West" Suit Alleges Negligence
L.A. SCHOOL DISTRICT: Sued Over Use of $224MM in Bond Money

LAS VEGAS SANDS: Must Produce Financial Docs in "Fosbre" Suit
LAZ PARKING: Faces "Smith Mendoza" Suit Over Wage Practices
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: All NY Cases over Jefferies Deal Dismissed
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Settlement Underway in "Sykes" Case
LIBERTY SILVER: Court Approved $1-Mil. Pump-and-Dump Settlement

LIFELOCK INC: $68MM Class Action Settlement Approved
LONDON METAL EXCHANGE: Court Dismisses Zinc Antitrust Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: Suit Alleges Municipal Code Violations
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Deal Reached in Suit over Games Black Out
MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Amended Complaint Filed in Investor Lawsuit

MDL 1827: Court Grants Distribution of Residual Settlement Funds
MDL 2084: Patent Litigation Settlement Claims in Discovery
MDL 2460: AbbVie Continues to Defend Niaspan(R) Purchaser Claims
MDL 2545: 1,600 Cases Consolidated for Pre-Trial Purposes
MMA CAPITAL: Court Dismissed Investor Class Suit After Settlement

MORTGAGE INVESTORS: Court Grants Final Approval of "Ott" Deal
MSG HOLDINGS: Class Counsel Named in FlSA Suit; Settlement Tossed
MUGSHOTS.COM: Faces Class Suit in Chicago
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sues Insurers for Litigation Costs
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: 3rd Cir. Tosses Suit over Super Bowl Tickets

NATIONAL PENN: Settlement Reached in Pa. Shareholder Litigation
NEIL JONES FOOD: Court Denies Preliminary Approval of Settlement
NEVADA PROPERTY 1: Wrapping Up $7-Mil. Nev. Wage & Hour Settlement
NEVADA PROPERTY 1: Marching Toward $14.5-Mil. Calif. Settlement
NEW YORK: 2 Runners File Class Suit Over Marathon

NEW YORK: Parents Sue State Education Officials
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Suit Remains in S.D. Cal., Stayed Pending Talks
OCWEN LOAN: 2nd Cir. Revives FDCA Claims in "Garfield" Case
OOMA INC: Faces "Barnett" Suit Over Share Price Drop
PANASONIC CORP: Judge Calls Antitrust Case "A Mess"

PANASONIC CORP: Judge Awards $38MM in Fees in CRT Antitrust Suit
PANDA EXPRESS: Faces Suit in Los Angeles over Labor Violations
PELLA CORP: Wins Summary Judgment in "Dilly" Suit
PEP BOYS-MANNY MOE: Court Denies Class Certification in "Lee"
PLUMROSE USA: "Heuberger" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

PNC FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Sends "Gokhberg" to Pennsylvania
PROMENADE TOWERS: "Taban" Suit Alleges Civil Code Violation
RAMDASDARKE DARKE: Sued Over Defects in Properties for Rent
REDFIN CORP: N.D. Cal. Judge Sends "Galen" Case to Arbitration
ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Appointed as Lead Counsel

RUST-OLEUM: Ill. Judge Narrows Claims in Product Liability Suit
SAN DIEGO, CA: Feb. 11 Hearing in Police Officer's Suit
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: "Kazemzadeh" Class Action Dismissed
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA: Overcharged Water Rate, Suit Claims
SAXON MORTGAGE: Final Accounting Hearing Continued to August 10

SETAUKET CAR WASH: Court Grants Class Certification in FLSA Suit
SNAP-ON TOOLS: Court Denies Motion to Reconsider in "Jacobson"
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Sued Over Natural Gas Storage Wells
SOUTHERN COPPER: Faces Shareholders' Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
ST. JOSEPH COUNTY: "Donovan" Settlement Approved on Final Basis

ST. LOUIS RAMS: Fans Sue Over Transfer to Los Angeles
ST. LOUIS RAMS: Breached Personal Seat License Deals, Suit Says
SUNRUN INC: Involved in Consumer Rights & Labor Class Action Cases
STRATEGIC REALTY TRUST: Court Granted Final Approval of Settlement
SUPERVALU INC: Min. Judge Dismissed Data Breach Suit

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Plaintiffs Must Go to Ariz. for Deposition
TALLGRASS TALENT: Court Grants Motion to Remand
TARGA RESOURCES: Investors Sue to Block Sale to General Partner
TED CRUZ: Not Eligible to Run for President, Suit Claims
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Class Actions Filed in California Related to IPO

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: Law Graduates' Suit Dismissed
TORMUS INC: Court Denies Dismissal of "Palma" Complaint
TROY CONSTRUCTION: Conditional Cert. Bid in "Stone" Case Granted
TWITTER INC: Plaintiff Drops "Raney" Eavesdropping Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Arbitration Bid for Absent Class Members Nixed

UNITED AIRLINES: 9th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Suit over Kiosks
UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit over Defunct Discount Program
UNITED STATES: Detainees' Suit Certified as Class Suit
USA TECHNOLOGIES: "Messner" Class Action Filed in Oct. in E.D. Pa.
VAALCO ENERGY: Vladimir Gusinsky Files Shareholder Suit in Del.

VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation
VECTREN UTILITY: Defending Class Suit by SIGECO Employees
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Bernstein Litowitz Named Lead Atty in MDL 2672
VOLTARI CORPORATION: Oral Argument Before 9th Cir. Set for Apr. 8
W.A. THOMPSON: "Murillo" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Wages

WASH.IO INC: "Bennett" Suit Seeks Damages for Labor Code Breach
WCA WASTE: Bid to Remand or Dismiss Royal American Suit Denied
YAHOO! INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Johnson" Case Granted in Part
ZAFGEN INC: Lead Plaintiffs & Counsel Appointed in "Bessler"
* CFIA Recalls Almond Spread Products Due to Salmonella


                            *********


AAA SOUTHERN: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss "Casperson"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael A. Silverstein of the Superior Court of Rhode Island
granted in part a motion to dismiss the case captioned, WILLIAM
CASPERSON, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. AAA SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND, JOHN
DOE COMPANIES, 1 through 10, inclusive, and JOHN DOES, 1 through
10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. PC2014-6139 (R.I. Super.).

On October 19, 2009, AAA hired Casperson as a part-time tow truck
driver. At the time of his hire, Casperson earned $11.50 per hour
and worked 24 hours per week, including Sundays and holidays. In
June of 2011, Casperson became a permanent, full-time flatbed
driver for AAA. At that time, he earned $12.50 per hour and worked
thirty-nine hours per week, including Sundays and holidays. During
Casperson's tenure with AAA, he was required to work at least
eight hours every Sunday, as well as some holidays. Casperson was
terminated from his position with AAA on March 13, 2014.

On December 15, 2014, Casperson filed this action against AAA
alleging that it violated (i) Title 28, Chapter 14 of the General
Laws of Rhode Island, 1956, entitled the Rhode Island Payment of
Wages Act; and (ii) Title 25, Chapter 3 of the General Laws of
Rhode Island, 1956, entitled Rhode Island Work on Holidays and
Sundays Act.

In the motion, AAA moved to dismiss the action under Super. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Rule 12(b)(6)) arguing that (i) Casperson has
not asserted a claim upon which relief can be granted as he is not
considered an "employee," but instead, is exempt under the Sunday
Pay Act; and (ii) his unjust enrichment claim is preempted by the
Sunday Pay Act.

In the Decision dated December 22, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/h4ysjlfrom Leagle.com, Judge Silverstein granted
motion to dismiss Counts I and III concluding that Casperson's
unjust enrichment claim fails and that he has not asserted a claim
for which relief can be granted under the Wage Act and denied
motion to dismiss Count II finding that Casperson has stated a
claim for relief under the Sunday Pay Act.

William Casperson is represented by:

     V. Edward Formisano, Esq.
     FORMISANO AND COMPANY
     100 Midway Place, Suite 1
     Cranston, RI 02920
     Tel: (401) 203-4605

AAA Southern New England is represented by Robert G. Flanders,
Jr., Esq. -- rflanders@hinckleyallen.com -- HINCKLEY ALLEN


ABBVIE INC: "Hillman" Class Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. continues to defend claims by Sidney Hillman after an
appellate court reinstated those claims on appeal, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.


In August 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Sidney Hillman
Health Center of Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was
filed against AbbVie in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by three healthcare benefit
providers alleging violations of Federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes and state deceptive business
practice and unjust enrichment laws in connection with
reimbursements for certain uses of Depakote(R) from 1998 to 2012.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and/or equitable relief and
attorneys' fees. In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision to
dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice on statute of
limitations grounds. The case has been returned to the district
court for further proceedings.


ABBVIE INC: Still Defending Medical Mutual Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Medical Mutual of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., remains pending,
according to AbbVie in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

In November 2014, a putative class action lawsuit, Medical Mutual
of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against several
manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs),
including AbbVie, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all insurance
companies, health benefit providers, and other third party payors
who paid for TRTs, including AndroGel(R). The claims asserted
include violations of the federal RICO Act and state consumer
fraud and deceptive trade practices laws. The complaint seeks
monetary damages and injunctive relief.

No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q
report.


ABBVIE INC: 90% of Depakote(R) Claims Pending in S.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that product liability cases are
pending in which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie did not
adequately warn about risk of certain injuries, primarily various
birth defects, arising from use of Depakote(R). Over ninety
percent of the approximately 700 claims are pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and
the rest are pending in various other federal and state courts.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.


ABBVIE INC: Class Suits Over Shire plc Deal Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. continues to defend class suits related to a proposed
transaction with Shire plc, AbbVie said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

In November 2014, five individuals filed a putative class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers and sellers of certain Shire plc
(Shire) securities between June 20 and October 14, 2014, against
AbbVie and its chief executive officer in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that
the defendants made and/or are responsible for material
misstatements in violation of federal securities laws in
connection with AbbVie's proposed transaction with Shire. The
complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Must Defend "Brown" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
District Judge Amy J. St. Eve denied Defendants' motion to dismiss
and granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to
strike in the captioned case VERONICA BROWN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ABM
INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.: 15 C 6729, (N.D.
Ill.)

Plaintiff Veronica Brown, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed the present Second Amended Collective
and Class Action Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. (FLSA), and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1, et seq. (IMWL) based on
Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), as well as Defendants'
Rule 12(f) motion to strike.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 1, 2015
available at http://is.gd/R38cAMfrom Leagle.com, Judge St. Eve
denied Defendants' motion to dismiss and granted in part and
denied in part Defendants' motion to strike.  The Court granted
Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.

Defendants' argument that Plaintiff has failed to properly allege
an employer-employee relationship with any of the named Defendants
dovetails into their motion to strike because their employer-
employee argument is based on several inconsistencies in the
Second Amended Complaint, the Court said. Plaintiff, for example,
alleges that she worked for Defendants from 2009 until March 2013,
but also alleges that she worked for Defendants from 2007 until
May 2013. Also, whether Plaintiff included allegations about
another regional subsidiary to give context to her claims or
whether Plaintiff mistakenly added this regional subsidiary as her
employer is a matter of inartful pleading, not standing. The Court
thus grants Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint to
"clean up" these inconsistencies, as well as the extraneous
allegations regarding other lawsuits. According to Plaintiff, ABM
Industries, directly or indirectly with the other named
Defendants, established a policy that forbids payment of overtime
to janitors unless it is pre-approved. Under these facts,
Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendants collectively
constitute a joint employer for purposes of the FLSA.

Glen Joseph Dunn, Jr, Esq. -- gdunn@gjdlaw.com -- Angel Petrov
Bakov, Esq.  and Haig A. Himidian, Esq. -- hhimidian@gjdlaw.com --
of Glen J. Dunn & Associates Thomas Michael Ryan, Esq. of Law
Offices of Thomas Ryan Catherine P. Sons, Esq.  and James X.
Bormes, Esq. of Law Office of James X. Bormes serve as counsel for
Plaintiff Veronica Brown

James J. Oh, Esq. --  joh@littler.com -- Christina A. Andronache,
Esq. -- candronache@littler.com -- Darren Mason Mungerson, Esq. --
dmungerson@littler.com and Lavanga Vusitha Wijekoon, Esq. --
lwijekoon@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson, P.C. serve as
counsel for Defendant ABM Industries, Inc.


AIRSTREAM: Recalls Motorhome 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 7
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015560TC
ID number: 2015560

On certain motorhomes, a high-amperage interior wiring harness may
have loose electrical connections and/or the ground wire could be
located incorrectly. This could result in the wiring overheating
if under a high amperage load condition, which could increase the
risk of a fire and increase the risk of injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will tighten all connections and
relocate the wire harness ground wire to prevent feed of current
in the event of the failure of the main ground wire.

  Make        Model    Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----    ----------------------
  AIRSTREAM            2016, 2016


ALCATRAZ MF: Faces Suit Over Health and Safety Code Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tonesha Jackson and Sir Holman, a minor, by and through his
Guardian ad Litem Jenny King, v. Alcatraz MF Partners, LLC,
Landmark Management & Real Estate Services, LLC, Harbell Guiton,
Nichele Guiton, Teola Sanders and DOES 1-30, Case No: RG15795624
(Cal. Super., for the County of Alameda Unlimited Jurisdiction,
December 7, 2015), alleges that Defendants violated health &
safety codes because Defendants allowed the subject property to
contain hazardous fluids and materials, lack adequate weather
proofing, and to be substandard in every way identified herein and
as defined by the applicable statutes.

The Defendants were the owners and/or property managers or the
agents and/or employees of the owners and/or property managers of
the Plaintiffs' Premises.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew Wolff, Esq.
     Chris Beatty, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
     1970 Broadway, Suite 210
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (510) 834-3300
     Fax: (510) 834-3377
     E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
             chris@awolfflaw.com


ALLIANCE SECURITY: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Chester, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Alliance Security Inc., Case No.
0:15-cv-04231-PAM-BRT (D. Minn., November 25, 2015) is brought
against the Defendant for negligently and intentionally contacting
the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading the
Plaintiff's privacy.

Alliance Security Inc. operates an alarm company providing
security services to both residential and commercial customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter F. Barry, Esq.
      BARRY & HELWIG, LLC
      2701 University Ave SE, Suite 209
      Minneapolis, MN 55414-3236
      Telephone: (612) 379-8800
      Facsimile: (612) 379-8810
      E-mail: pbarry@lawpoint.com


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Enters $1,500 Judgment in "Franco" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Katherine B. Forrest granted the motion to enter
judgment in the captioned case GILBERTO FRANCO, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED
INTERSTATE LLC, Defendant, Case No.: 13-CV-4053 (KBF), (S.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiff brings this action against defendant, a national debt
collection agency, alleging that defendant's collection practices
violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (FDCPA). Plaintiff
alleges that defendant violated FDCPA when it used false,
deceptive, and misleading practices in its attempts to collect
alleged debts from plaintiffs and other consumers in
Massachusetts. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendant's
written communications warned debtors that they may be subject to
wage garnishment of 15% of their pay. Plaintiff claims that
defendant disseminated this communication in violation of Sections
1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA because the law only allows wage
garnishment up to 15% of disposable income.

In her Opinion and Order dated November 30, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/mL9ApVfrom Leagle.com, Judge Forrest directed the
Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of Franco in the amount
of $1,501.00, plus any post-judgment interest, against Allied.
Parties shall confer as to reasonable attorney's fees and costs,
and submit a motion to this Court.

Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.  Thomasson Law, LLC   William Franklin
Horn, Edsq.  of Law Office of William F. Horn and  Craig Thor
Kimmel, Esq.  of Kimmel & Silverman serve as counsel for Plaintiff

Casey Devin Laffey, Esq. -- claffey@reedsmith.com and Nana
Japaridze, Esq. -- njaparidze@reedsmith.com of Reed Smith LLP
serve as counsel for Defendant Allied Interstate LLC serve as
counsel for Defendant Allied Interstate LLC


ALTEVA INC: Ruling on Motion to Certify Plaintiff Class Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alteva, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Missy Hogan and
Jennifer Geiger, as Trustees for the Janice Lynn Livingston
Special Needs Trust U/A 2/17/11 (the "Plaintiff"), filed on
October 8, 2015, a suit in New York state court against Alteva,
Alteva's Board of Directors (Kelly C. Bloss, Brian J. Kelley,
Jeffrey D. Alario, Douglas B. Benedict, and Edward J. Morea,
together with Alteva, Inc. "Alteva Defendants"), MBS Holdings,
Inc. and Arrow Merger Subsidiary, Inc.  Plaintiff has requested
that the court certify the suit as a class action, but the court
has not ruled on the request.

In the lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that Alteva Defendants have
breached their fiduciary duties to the public shareholders of
Alteva by, among other things, failing to take reasonable steps to
obtain and/or ensure that the public shareholders receive adequate
and fair value for their shares in the proposed transaction.
Plaintiff also alleges that MBS Holdings, Inc. and Arrow Merger
Subsidiary, Inc. aided and abetted Alteva Defendants in breaching
their fiduciary duties to the public shareholders of Alteva.

In addition, in a filing dated October 13, 2015, Plaintiff
requested that the court issue an order restraining the November
16, 2015 vote.  On October 19, 2015, the court denied Plaintiff's
request for injunctive relief, but ordered expedited discovery and
a hearing on November 12, 2015 concerning whether a preliminary
injunction should be issued enjoining the November 16, 2015 vote.

At the November 12, 2015 hearing, the court denied Plaintiff's
request for a preliminary injunction.  The underlying case remains
pending in New York state court.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Merchants' Bid to Modify Scheduling Order Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a set of consolidated antitrust actions, Merchant Plaintiffs
challenge under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act the
contracts that they have entered into with Defendants American
Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. and American Express
Company.  Specifically, the MPs challenge Defendants' anti-
steering rules, referred to as the Non-Discrimination Provisions
(NDPs), which are contained in merchant agreements entered into
between Amex and each MP. The MPs seek an order enjoining Amex
from enforcing the NDPs, as well as treble damages for the
injuries the MPs allege they have sustained on account of the
NDPs.

Pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York are the parties' cross-motions for summary
judgment, as well as the MPs' motions for leave to modify the
Scheduling Order and amend the operative pleadings, and motion for
the application of collateral estoppel.

In his Memorandum and Order dated January 7, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/EStuTMfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Nicholas G.
Garaufis ruled that:

     -- the MPs' motion to modify the Scheduling Order and for
        leave to amend is denied without prejudice,

     -- the MPs' motion for the application of collateral
         estoppel is denied without prejudice, and

     -- the MPs' motion for partial summary judgment is denied
        without prejudice.

The court denies Amex's motion for summary judgment with respect
to the no-surcharge rule and Amex's statute of limitations and
laches defenses.  The court reserves judgment on Amex's motion for
summary judgment with respect to the existence of an Amex-only
market.

The case is captioned, IN RE: AMERICAN EXPRESS ANTI-STEERING RULES
ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Document Relates to: All Individual
Merchant Plaintiff Actions 08-CV-2315 (NGG)(RER) 08-CV-2316
(NGG)(RER) 08-CV-2317 (NGG)(RER) 08-CV-2380 (NGG)(RER) 08-CV-2406
(NGG)(RER) 11-CV-0337 (NGG) (RER) 11-CV-0338 (NGG) (RER), Case No.
11-MD-2221-(NGG)(RER) (E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs include Rite Aid Corporation, Walgreen Co, Firefly Air
Solutions, LLC, Plymouth Oil Corparation, Jasa, Inc., Animal Land,
Inc., Rookies, Inc., Lopez-Dejonge, Inc., Italian Colors
Restaurant, Cohen Rese Gallery, Inc., Bar Hama LLC, Meijer, Inc.,
Publix Super Markert, Inc., Raley's, Supervalu Inc., CVS Pharmacy,
Inc., Bi-Lo, LLC, H.E. Butt Grocery Company, The Kroger Co.,
Safeway Inc., Ahold U.S.A. Inc., Albertson's LLC, Hy-Vee, Inc.,
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company Inc., Treehouse, Inc., IL
Forno, Inc., National Supermarkets Association, Inc., and The
Marcus Corporation.

Plaintiffs are represented by David P. Germaine, Esq. --
dgermaine@vaneklaw.com -- VANEK VICKERS & MASINI, P.C., Eric
Bloom, Esq. -- ebloom@hangley.com -- Maureen Smith Lawrence, Esq.
-- msl@hangley.com -- HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN, James
Almon, Esq. & Richard A. Arnold, Esq. --
rarnold@kennynachwalter.com -- KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A.

Defendants are represented by Peter T. Barbur, Esq. --
pbarbur@cravath.com -- Athena N. Cheng, Esq. -- tchen@cravath.com
-- Evan R. Chesler, Esq. -- echesler@cravath.com, Elizabeth L.
Grayer, Esq. -- egrayer@cravath.com & Kevin J. Orsini, Esq. --
jorsini@cravath.com -- CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Daniel Ryan,
Esq. -- dryan@hinshawlaw.com -- David John Hanus, Esq. --
dhanus@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP, Donald L.
Flexner, Esq. -- dflexner@bsfllp.com -- Eric Brenner, Esq. --
abrenner@bsfllp.com -- John Francis LaSalle, Esq. --
jlasalle@bsfllp.com -- Matthew S. Tripolitsiotis, Esq. --
mtripolitsiotis@bsfllp.com -- Philip M. Bowman, Esq. --
pbowman@bsfllp.com -- Philip C. Korologos, Esq. -
pkorologos@bsfllp.com -- Robert M. Cooper, Esq. -
rcooper@bsfllp.com -- William T. Thomas, Esq. --
tthomas@bsfllp.com -- Alanna Rutherford, Esq. --
arutherford@bsfllp.com -- Damien Jerome Marshall, Esq. --
dmarshall@bsfllp.com -- BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP


APOLLO EDUCATION: University of Phoenix Directed to Produce Docs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that a
federal judge in Phoenix, Arizona, ordered the University of
Phoenix and its parent company Apollo Education Group to comply
with civil investigative demands for records in the Federal Trade
Commission's investigation of deceptive advertising at the profit-
seeking university.

Apollo disclosed in an 8-K filing with the SEC that it received
the demands from the FTC on July 28 last year.

The FTC sought documents and information about the University of
Phoenix's "marketing, recruiting, enrollment, financial aid,
tuition and fees, academic programs, academic advising, student
retention, billing and debt collection, complaints, accreditation,
training, military recruitment, and other compliance matters, for
the time period of January 1, 2011 to the present."

Apollo said at the time that it would comply fully with the FTC.
But the FTC filed a petition on Jan. 13, seeking an order
requiring Apollo's compliance. It asked Apollo and Phoenix for
education records containing information directly related to
students.

Universities such as the University of Phoenix risk losing federal
funding under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA) if they disclose education records without written
permission, but "in some circumstances FERPA does not require such
consent," the FTC said. It said its demands qualify as a special
circumstance because it constitutes a "subpoena issued for a law
enforcement purpose."

While Apollo and the University of Phoenix produced some of the
requested documents, the FTC said, they balked by claiming that
full production "would be impractical and complex given the nature
of the responsive material, the number of current and former
students, and the difficulty in locating students or their
families."

The University of Phoenix has about 200,000 students and 900,000
alumni.

The FTC says it will protect student information from public
disclosure.

Apollo and the University of Phoenix did not oppose the petition,
which was granted by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton.

A University of Phoenix representative said the school has
"cooperated from the outset of the FTC's broad, far-reaching
inquiry, and we are committed to providing information for the
federal government's review."

"We are also committed to complying with federal privacy laws
before producing student records. That is precisely why the FTC's
petition for a court order was sought without our objection and
now provides a way for us to produce students' records while
remaining compliant with applicable federal laws protecting those
very students."

The FTC's demand is not the only trouble Apollo has had with the
federal government.

In October, the Department of Defense announced that the
University of Phoenix would be placed on probation and barred from
allowing servicemembers to use federal money to attend. It also
was banned from recruiting on military bases.

"The institution will not be authorized access to DoD
installations for the purposes of participating in any
recruitment-type activities," Dawn Bilodeau, chief of the Defense
Department's Voluntary Education program, said at the time.
"Further, no new or transfer students at the institution will be
permitted to receive DoD tuition assistance."

In an 8-K SEC filing on Oct. 9, 2015, Apollo announced that
students enrolled in the Department of Defense Tuition Assistance
Program would not be affected by Phoenix's probationary status,
but "newly enrolled or transfer students of the university will
not be eligible."

More than 1 million former students of the University of Phoenix
owe $35.5 billion in student debt: more indebted students than any
other college in the United States.

The FTC did not respond to a request for comment.

The University of Phoenix has paid $175 million in fines,
settlements and attorney's fees since 2000 from class action
lawsuits and government enforcement actions, according to publicly
available information. In 2008 it was the nation's largest
receiver of federal aid for education: $2.5 billion. Many of the
more than 2000 lawsuits against it claimed that its primary
motivation was not educating students, but getting the federal
grant money.

The case captioned, Federal Trade Commission, Petitioner, v.
Apollo Education Group, Inc., and The University of Phoenix, Inc.
Respondents. Case No.MC16-00002-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz.)


APPLE INC: Bid to Certify Suit Over AppleCare+ Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California denied Plaintiff's
motion to certify a class and two subclasses of purchasers in the
case captioned, FABRIENNE ENGLISH, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-01619-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

Named plaintiff Fabrienne English accuses defendants Apple Inc.,
AppleCare Service Company Inc., and Apple CSC Inc. of various
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with AppleCare+
("AC+") and AppleCare Protection Plan ("APP"), extended service
plans Apple offers to purchasers of iPhones. English's claims vary
slightly, but her core complaint is that Apple misrepresents to
consumers that replacement iPhones under AC+ and APP will be new,
when in fact many of the replacement devices in Apple's service
stock are "refurbished" or otherwise not new.

English is the only named plaintiff remaining in the case. With
the filing of the second amended complaint on January 17, 2015,
Adkins and Galindo dropped out, while a new named plaintiff, Karen
Lowthert, joined in.  English and Lowthert filed the TAC on March
6, 2015, alleging four causes of action against Apple based on
alleged misrepresentations and omissions in connection with AC+
and APP: (1) violations of the CLRA; (2) violations of the FAL;
(3) violations of the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent prongs of
the UCL; (4) violations of the Secondhand Merchandise Labeling
Law; and (5) fraud. Shortly after the TAC was filed, on March 19,
2015, Lowthert dropped out of the case, leaving English as the
only named plaintiff.

In the motion, Plaintiff moved to certify a class and two
subclasses of purchasers of AC+ and APP asserting claims under
California law for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ,
the False Advertising Law, the Unfair Competition Law and the
Secondhand Merchandize Labeling Law.

In his Order dated January 5, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/zkoV1afrom Leagle.com, Judge Orrick found that none
of her theories of liability support class certification, and she
has not established adequacy of counsel under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a)(4).

Fabrienne English is represented by John R. Parker, Jr., Esq. -
jparker@kcrlegal.com -- Renee Fagan Kennedy, Esq. --
rkennedy@kcrlegal.com -- CURTIS BROOKS CUTTER, KERSHAW, CUTTER &
RATINOFF, LLP

Defendants are represented by Purvi Govindlal Patel, Esq. --
ppatel@mofo.com -- Margaret Elizabeth Mayo, Esq. -- mmayo@mofo.com
-- Penelope Athene Preovolos, Esq. -- pprevolos@mofo.com --
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP


APPLE INC: Bids for Summary Judgment in "Backhaut" Case Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted Defendant's motion for summary
judgment in the captioned case ADAM BACKHAUT and KENNETH MORRIS,
Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-02285-LHK,
(N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Adam Backhaut and Kenneth Morris bring this present
putative class action on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated against Defendant Apple, Inc.  for violations of the
Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510 and California's Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200.

The gravamen of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (FAC) is that
Apple wrongfully intercepts, stores, and otherwise prevents former
Apple device users from receiving text messages sent to them from
current Apple device users.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.

In her Order dated November 30, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/NIFmPHfrom Leagle.com, Judge Koh granted Defendant's
motion for summary judgment. The Court denied as moot Plaintiffs'
motion for leave. The Court concludes that there is insufficient
evidence that Defendant intercepted any messages within the
meaning of the Wiretap Act and insufficient evidence that
Defendant used a device as defined by the Wiretap Act. Because
Defendant has shown an absence of genuine dispute of material fact
on these points, the Court grants Defendant's motion for summary
judgment as to the Wiretap Act claim. Because Plaintiffs' UCL
claim is dependent upon Plaintiffs' Wiretap Act claim, the Court
also grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the UCL
claim. The Court need not address Defendant's other bases for
summary judgment or Plaintiffs' counterarguments thereto. The
Court agrees with Defendant on two grounds: (1) that the
undisputed evidence shows that any acquisition by Defendant did
not occur at the time of transmission as required by the Wiretap
Act, and (2) that the undisputed evidence shows that the "device"
used by Defendant falls within the "ordinary course of business"
exception to Wiretap Act liability.

William M. Audet, Esq. -- waudet@audetlaw.com -- Jonas Palmer
Mann, Esq. -- jmann@audetlaw.com -- Joshua Caleb Ezrin, Esq. --
jezrin@audetlaw.com -- Theodore H. Chase, Esq. --
tchase@audetlaw.com and Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Esq. of Audet
and Partners, LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiff Adam Backhaut

David Michael Walsh, Esq. -- dwalsh@mofo.com -- Kai Shields
Bartolomeo, Esq. -- kbartolomeo@mofo.com and Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
-- tcheung@mofo.com of Morrison & Foerster LLP serve as counsel
for Defendant Apple Inc.


BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement in "Brawner" Suit Okayed
----------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff Zelma Brawner sued her former employer, the
defendant Bank of America, N.A., alleging that the bank
misclassified her and other customer-service representatives as
administrative employees who were exempt from California's
overtime and other labor laws.  She alleged five claims:

     1) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California
        Labor Code Sec. 1194(a);

     2) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in
        violation of California Labor Code Sec. 226(e);

     3) willful failure to pay all wages due within 72 hours
        after separation from employment in violation of
        California Labor Code Sec. 201, 202, and 203;

     4) a resulting violation of California's unfair
        competition law, California Business and Professions Code
        Sec. 17200; and

     5) a violation of the Labor Code Private Attorneys General
        Act ("PAGA"), California Labor Code Sec. 2698 et seq.
        The parties settled the case, and the court granted the
        Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
        the proposed class-action settlement.

The plaintiffs now move for final approval of the settlement,
attorney's fees of $562,500, litigation expenses of $10,537.04,
claims-administration expenses of $9,000, and a $15,000 incentive
award to the named plaintiff; the defendant does not oppose the
motion.

The court held a fairness hearing on January 14, 2016.

The court finds the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable and
approves the final settlement, including fees, costs,
administration expenses, and the incentive award.  The date of the
court's order is January 14.

The case is captioned, ZELMA BRAWNER, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF
AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a business entity, form unknown, and
DOES 1 through 25, Defendants. No. 3:14-cv-02702-LB (N.D. Cal.).


BAXALTA: Shareholders Sue Over Merger with Shire
------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that shareholders filed a court challenge over the $32 billion
acquisition of Baxalta by Shire PLC, a merger which will create a
global leader in rare-disease treatment.

Martin Bertisch filed a class action against Baxalta, its board of
directors, and Shire in Delaware Chancery Court on Jan. 21.

Ireland-based drug maker Shire said it will buy Illinois-based
Baxalta for $47.50 a share in cash and stock, a total valuation of
$32 billion.

The deal offers Baxalta shareholders a 37.5 percent premium on the
company's August 2015 share price, the date of Shire's initial and
rejected all-cash offer. The accepted offer will give Baxalta
shareholders a 34 percent stake in the combined company.

The combination will create a pharmaceutical giant in the market
for treatment of rare diseases, a market that is expected to
account for 65 percent of drug revenues by 2020.

According to the New York Times, "Part of Shire's ability to pay
such a premium for Baxalta is tax savings."

The combined company, headquartered in Ireland, will be subject to
a tax rate of 16 to 17 percent, compared to Baxalta's current rate
of 23 to 24 percent -- which will save it $500 million annually.

However, plaintiff shareholders are unhappy with Shire's offer and
question why Baxalta's board accepted the merger when just five
months ago they rejected a lower offer because "a merger at this
time would be severely disruptive at this very early stage of
Baxalta's existence as a public company."

Baxalta only became an independent company in July 2015, when it
was spun off from Baxalta International.

Plaintiffs say Baxalta's intrinsic value is higher than $32
billion, especially given the additional costs Shire expects the
company will be able to save on taxes and synergies.

Tax considerations also drove the proposed $54 billion sale of
Shire to AbbVie last year, but the deal was dropped when the
Treasury Department adopted new rules against corporate inversions
- the term for when an American company acquires a foreign company
and reincorporates abroad to lower its tax bill.

The class seeks an injunction against the proposed merger and
damages for breach of fiduciary duty.

It is represented by Seth Rigrodsky with Rigrodsky & Long in
Wilmington, Delaware.


BEDESSEE IMPORT: Recalls Cereal Product Due to Insects
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 2, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Bedessee Import Ltd.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10167

  Brand     Common name    Size     Code(s) on   UPC
  name      -----------    -----    product      ---
  ----                              ----------
  Cream     3 Minutes      800 g    16 NO 11     0 72400 01159 7
  of Wheat  Original Hot
            Cereal


BECKMAN COULTER: Recalls Cellular Analysis System
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 1, 2015
Posting date: January 7, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56518

Beckman Coulter determined that the affected software for the DXH
systems allows the creation of multiple orders with the same
specimen identification (ID) but different patient identification
when manually editing pending orders at the system manager. The
issue does not occur for edits of released results or for test
orders requested through host transmission. The issue creates the
potential for sample misidentification and potential of releasing
erroneous results.

Affected products:
A. UNICEL DXH 800 COULTER CELLULAR ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Lot or serial number: All lots.
Model or catalog number: 629029
                         B24802

B. UNICEL DXH SLIDEMAKER STAINER COULTER CELLULAR ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Lot or serial number: All lots.
Model or catalog number: 775222

C. UNICEL DXH 600 COULTER CELLULAR ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Lot or serial number: All lots.
Model or catalog number: B23858

Manufacturer: Beckman Coulter, Inc.
              250 S. Kraemer Blvd.
              Brea
              92821
              California
              UNITED STATES


BENEFICIAL KENTUCKY: Judge Certifies Class of Chapter 7 Debtors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Tracey N. Wise of the United States District
Court for Eastern District of Kentucky granted in part Debtors'
motion for class certification in the case captioned, IN RE
KENNETH L. BIERY, SANDRA K. BIERY, DEBTORS, Case No. 10-23338(E.D.
Ky.).

Debtors Kenneth and Sandra Biery received a Chapter 7 discharge
shortly after filing bankruptcy. That discharge extinguished their
personal liability on their home mortgage, and enjoined Debtors'
mortgagee, Beneficial Kentucky, Inc., and mortgage servicer, HSBC
Mortgage Services, Inc. from collecting the debt as a personal
liability.  The Debtors' bankruptcy did not, however, extinguish
Beneficial's mortgage, or alter Beneficial's in rem right to
foreclose in the event that Debtors defaulted on their discharged
debt. More than a year after the Debtors' discharge, Beneficial
filed a foreclosure action.

Respondents did not confine themselves to pursuing their in rem
rights after the Debtors' discharge. They also sent the Debtors a
series of statements both before and after the filing of the
foreclosure action. Many of these statements contained disclaimers
that acknowledged the discharge of the Debtors' personal
liability, but reminded the Debtors of the continued existence of
Beneficial's lien and advised the Debtors of the amounts of
voluntary payments required to avoid default.

The Debtors believe that both types of statements violate their
discharge injunction and have moved to hold Respondents in
contempt. They further seek to represent two subclasses of
discharged chapter 7 debtors in the District with similar contempt
claims for discharge violations against Respondents: (1) debtors
who received Billing Statements post-discharge, and (2) debtors
who received Informational Statements post-discharge.

In the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 11, 2015,
available at http://is.gd/l89TJ0from Leagle.com, Judge Wise
concluded that class treatment is inappropriate for the claims of
debtors who received Informational Statements, but is appropriate
for the claims of debtors who received regular Billing Statements.

The Court certifies a class under Rule 23(b)(3) of "All persons
with real estate loans administered by Beneficial Kentucky, Inc.,
or HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., who filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy
petition in the Eastern District of Kentucky which resulted in the
entry of a discharge between September 16, 2008 and the present,
and who received a statement substantially similar to the
statements in the record at ECF Nos. 121-8 and 148-1 after the
discharge became effective."

The Court granted appointment of Debtors as class representatives
and Strauss Troy Co. LPA, Matthew Sanning, and Nicholas
Nighswander as class counsel.

A status conference was scheduled on the matter for January 12,
2016 at 11:00 a.m.

Kenneth Leo Biery is represented by Robert R. Sparks, Esq. -
rrsparks@strausstroy.com -- STRAUSS TROY


BENLAN INC: Recalls Med-RX Feeding Tubes Due to Mislabeling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 25, 2015
Posting date: December 23, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56422

There has been a customer complaint indicating that the product
had been packaged with the incorrect tube size, and did not
reflect what was identified on the product label.

Affected products
A. MED-RX FEEDING TUBES
Lot or serial number: 114842
                      116433
                      118251
Model or catalog number: 54-3680R

Manufacturer: Benlan Inc.
              2760 Brighton Road
              Oakville
              L6H 5T4
              CANADA


BIOMERIEUX INC: Recalls ETest Antimicrobial Testers
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 26, 2015
Posting date: January 14, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56596

On October 27th, 2015, a customer reported a low Mic on Etest
Piperacillin/Tazobactam (4 ug/ml) PTC-256 single pack (lot
1004271120). The customer obtained erroneous results (false
susceptible) on Etest with broth-micro dilution reference method.

Affected products
A. ETEST ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING -
PIPERACILLIN/TAZOBACTAM
Lot or serial number: 1002092270
                      1002276210
                      1002375410
                      1002482640
                      1002995820
                      1003105180
                      1003416920
                      1003699550
                      1003980200
                      1004180840
                      1004276460
                      1004398470
Model or catalog number: 521418

Manufacturer: Biomerieux Inc.
              595 Anglum Road
              Hazelwood
              63042
              Missouri
              UNITED STATES

B. ETEST ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING - PIP/TAZO/CON-4
Lot or serial number: 1001936360
                      1002488490
                      1003069230
                      1003276060
                      1003415090
                      1003697470
                      1003977300
                      1004178060
                      1004271120
                      1004331500
Model or catalog number: 412434

Manufacturer: Biomerieux Inc.
              595 Anglum Road
              Hazelwood
              63042
              Missouri
              UNITED STATES


BLUE BUFFALO: Eyes $32-Mil. Settlement in Pet Food Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company has reached a tentative understanding with class action
plaintiffs on a potential settlement value of $32 million.

The Company said, "On May 6, 2014, Nestle Purina Petcare Company
("Nestle Purina") filed a lawsuit against us in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that
we have engaged in false advertising, commercial disparagement,
unfair competition, and unjust enrichment (the "Nestle Purina
litigation"). Nestle Purina asserts that, contrary to our
advertising and labeling claims, certain BLUE products contain
chicken or poultry by-product meals, artificial preservatives
and/or corn and that certain products in the BLUE grain-free lines
contain grains. Nestle Purina also alleges that we have made false
claims that our products (including LifeSource Bits) provide
superior nutrition and health benefits compared to our
competitors' products. In addition, Nestle Purina contends that we
have been unjustly enriched as consumers have paid a premium for
BLUE products in reliance on these alleged false and misleading
statements, at the expense of our competitors. Nestle Purina seeks
an injunction prohibiting us from making these alleged false and
misleading statements, as well as treble damages, restitution and
disgorgement of our profits, among other things. In addition,
Nestle Purina has issued press releases and made other public
announcements, including advertising and promotional
communications through emails and internet and social media
websites that make claims similar to those contained in their
lawsuit. Nestle Purina seeks a declaratory judgment that these
statements are true and do not constitute defamation. Nestle
Purina later amended its complaint a second time to supplement
certain allegations and to add a claim regarding the advertising
for one of our pet treats. On September 25, 2015, Nestle Purina
sought the Court's leave to amend its complaint a third time. The
proposed amendments add a new party-BLUE's wholly owned subsidiary
Great Plains Leasing LLC-new causes of action under Connecticut
and Missouri state law, and seek to update Nestle Purina's factual
allegations. BLUE will oppose Nestle Purina's application."

"On May 14, 2014, we filed a lawsuit against Nestle Purina in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
alleging that Nestle Purina has engaged in false advertising,
unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and defamation. We allege
that the statements made by Nestle Purina advertising the
allegations of their lawsuit are false and misleading, and we deny
that our product formulas contain chicken or poultry by-product
meals, artificial preservatives or corn and we deny that any of
our grain-free products contain grains. We also assert that Nestle
Purina's statements falsely imply that our products are not made
in the United States and are subject to quality control issues. We
allege that Nestle Purina's conduct as described in this lawsuit
is aimed at destroying the reputation and goodwill of the BLUE
brand and may induce consumers to make purchasing decisions based
on Nestle Purina's false and misleading representations about the
composition and sourcing of BLUE products. Our complaint in this
lawsuit seeks, among other things, a preliminary and permanent
injunction prohibiting Nestle Purina from disseminating such false
information, as well as damages (including punitive damages),
restitution and disgorgement of all profits attributable to their
false and deceptive advertising. On June 4, 2014, this lawsuit was
consolidated with the Nestle Purina lawsuit. We have since amended
our pleading to name as additional defendants the two advertising
and public relations agencies that assisted Nestle Purina with its
advertising campaign.

"In the course of pretrial discovery in the consolidated Nestle
Purina lawsuit, beginning in September 2014 documents and
information were revealed that indicate that a facility owned by a
major supplier of ingredients to the pet food industry, including
Blue Buffalo, for a period of time, had mislabeled as "chicken
meal" or "turkey meal" ingredients that contained other poultry-
based ingredients that were inappropriate for inclusion in
"chicken meal" or "turkey meal" under industry standards, and it
appears that this mislabeling was deliberate. This conduct was
undertaken by the supplier without our knowledge, and we have
since ceased purchasing ingredients from this supplier. This
supplier was one of our primary sources of chicken meal and turkey
meal. As a result of the supplier's conduct, our advertising
claims of "no chicken or poultry by-product meals" were inaccurate
as to products containing the mislabeled ingredients. Therefore,
we may be exposed to false advertising liability to Nestle Purina
and others to the extent a claimant can prove they were injured by
our actions. Such liability may be material. We have brought
third-party indemnity and damages claims, with respect to the
Nestle Purina lawsuit, against the supplier that mislabeled the
ingredients, as well as a broker involved in those transactions
for such mislabeled ingredients. The trial court narrowed certain
of our third party claims in response to motions to dismiss filed
by the third parties but allowed numerous claims to proceed. In
addition, we maintain insurance coverage for some of the Nestle
Purina claims. However, we may not be able to fully recover from
such supplier, broker or from our insurance the full amount of any
damages we might incur in these matters.

"On October 15, 2014, we initiated a separate lawsuit against
Nestle Purina in state court in Connecticut. Nestle Purina
subsequently removed the case to the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut, and the Connecticut District
Court then granted Nestle Purina's motion to transfer this matter
to the same court where Nestle Purina's lawsuit against us is
pending. Our complaint in this matter alleges that Nestle Purina
has intentionally engaged in false advertising, unfair trade
practices and unjust enrichment in the promotion and advertisement
of numerous of its products. In particular, our complaint alleges
that Nestle Purina is deceptively advertising that certain high-
quality, wholesome ingredients are present in certain of Nestle
Purina's most popular pet food products in greater amounts, or are
more prevalent in the products in relation to other ingredients,
than is actually the case. In addition, our complaint alleges that
Nestle Purina is deceptively advertising certain of its products
as healthy and nutritious when in fact Nestle Purina knew that
these products were unsafe and were responsible for illness and
even death in many of the dogs that consumed them. And our
complaint alleges that Nestle Purina falsely claims its "Just
Right" brand of dog food is personalized to match each dog's
unique nutritional needs when it consists of only a limited set of
basic ingredient formulas, each of which is substantially similar
to the others. Our complaint seeks an injunction prohibiting
Nestle Purina from continuing these false and misleading
advertisements, as well as damages and disgorgement of profits,
among other things. The matter is in the early stages of
discovery. On July 31, 2015, Nestle Purina filed an amended answer
in this case that also asserted counterclaims against us. Nestle
Purina asserted that our complaint does not state viable claims,
but that if a ruling is entered against it then "in the
alternative" it asserts counterclaims that relate to the
advertising of a variety of our products, which Nestle Purina
contends are misleading or deceptive as to the amounts of certain
ingredients in those products. On August 28, 2015, we amended our
complaint to include allegations that Nestle Purina falsely claims
that its "Bright Mind" dog food is proven to promote alertness,
mental sharpness, memory, trainability, attention, and
interactivity in dogs age seven and older, when in fact such
claims are unsubstantiated and false. In response to Nestle
Purina's amended answer and counterclaims, we filed a motion to
dismiss the counterclaims in their entirety on October 2, 2015.
That motion is pending.

"We believe Nestle Purina's claims are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves. Although we have determined that a
loss contingency with respect to the Nestle Purina litigation is
reasonably possible, such litigation and lawsuits are still in
their early stages and the final outcome is uncertain. In
particular, we have determined that the reasonably possible loss
or range of loss resulting from Nestle Purina proceedings cannot
be reasonably estimated due to the following reasons: (1) the
early stages of the proceedings, (2) the lack of specific damages
sought by the plaintiffs, (3) the uncertainty as to plaintiffs'
support for their damages claim, (4) the uncertainty as to factual
issues and (5) our claims against third party defendants and
counterclaims against Nestle Purina.

"In addition, a number of related putative consumer class action
lawsuits have been filed making allegations similar to Nestle
Purina's and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. We
also have brought damages and indemnity claims against our former
ingredient supplier and broker with respect to the class action
lawsuits. In October 2015, we reached a tentative understanding
with the plaintiffs on a potential settlement value of $32 million
(the "Potential Settlement"). However, at the time of filing, we
have not reached an agreement and no assurance can be given that
an agreement can be reached. This tentative understanding is
subject to further negotiations regarding other critical terms of
the settlement, and the completion of a settlement stipulation by
the parties as well as preliminary and final approval by the
Court.

"We currently estimate that the reasonably possible loss relating
to the Potential Settlement will not exceed the potential
settlement value.  The potential settlement value does not take
into account any potential recovery from insurance or from our
former ingredient supplier or broker, against whom we will
continue to pursue our claims for indemnity and other damages.
Given the uncertainty and the ongoing nature of our settlement
discussions, the ultimate outcome of these class action lawsuits
cannot be predicted as the parties could fail to reach an
agreement in principle with respect to the critical terms, or a
definitive settlement agreement; therefore, a liability, if any,
is not determinable at this time and the ultimate outcome could
differ materially from the current potential settlement value.


BORDERFREE INC: Recalls Ceramic Chicken Roasters Due to Burn Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 3, 2015
Posting date: December 3, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Burn Hazard, Laceration Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56102

This recall involves the CHEFS Flameproof Ceramic Vertical Chicken
Roaster. The affected product is a black roaster consisting of a
round roasting pan with handles and a removable insert. The
roasting pan measures approximately 30 centimetres (11.75 inches)
in diameter on the inside and approximately 6.35 centimetres (2.5
inches) high, and the removable insert measures approximately 19
centimetres (7.5 inches) in diameter at the base and approximately
11.5 centimetres (4.5 inches) high. The underside of the handles
is slightly recessed for grip. The CHEFS logo is at the center of
the rimmed base. The recalled product has UPC 844819023870.

The vertical roasters can break or shatter, posing burn and
laceration hazards.

Neither Borderfree, Inc. nor Health Canada has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these roasters in Canada.

Approximately 6 units were sold in Canada.

The roasters were sold from June 2014 through April 2015 through
online retailers and shipped through Borderfree.

Manufactured in China.

Importer: Borderfree, Inc.
          Toronto
          Ontario
          CANADA

Manufacturer: China Jiangsu Ceramics I & E (Group) Corp. Ltd
              Nanjing
              CHINA

Manufacturer: Chaoan Huimei Porcelain & Ceramic Factory
              Guangdong
              CHINA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled roasters and
contact Borderfree, Inc. to receive a gift card equal to the
purchase price.

For more information, consumers may contact Borderfree, Inc. by
telephone toll-free at 1-866-921-1861 from Monday to Friday,
between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. (EST), or by email.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

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


BRANAM HOLDINGS: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scoma Chiropractic, P.A. a Florida corporation, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Branam Holdings LLC, Branam Oral Health Technologies, Inc. and
John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-00758-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., December
12, 2015) seeks to put an end of the Defendants' practice of
sending unsolicited facsimiles.

The Defendants own and operate an orthodontic company in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: RKelly@andersonwanca.com


BULLSEYE ENERGY: Oklahoma Class Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Terence C. Kern of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma consolidated Case No. 15-CV-
455  with Case No. 12-CV-411 for trial purposes, appointed United
States Magistrate Judge Paul Cleary as the magistrate judge for
the consolidated action, denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a
Class, Defendants' Motions to Strike, to Exclude Expert Report of
John Burritt McArthur and to Dismiss Complaint in the case
captioned, KEVIN JETER, JOE A. JETER, BARBARA LUCAS, JAMES H.
MILLER, SHARON RIGSBY MILLER, LARRY SMITH, JANICE SUE PARKER,
individually and as Class Representatives on Behalf of All
Similarly-Situated Persons, Plaintiffs, v. BULLSEYE ENERGY INC.,
CEP MID-CONTINENT, LLC, KRS&K, an Oklahoma Partnership, GASHOMA,
INC. PURGATORY CREEK GAS, INC., REDBIRD OIL, an Oklahoma
Partnership, WILD WEST GAS, LLC, WHITE HAWK GAS, INC.,
FOUNTAINHEAD, LLC, ROBERT M. KANE, LOUISE KANE ROARK, ANNE KANE
SEIDMAN, MARK KANE, PAMELA BROWN, GARY BROWN, Defendants. and
KEVIN JETER, JOE A. JETER, BARBARA LUCAS, JAMES H. MILLER, SHARON
RIGSBY MILLER, LARRY SMITH, JANICE SUE PARKER, JAMES D. ENLOE,
CAROLYN R. ENLOE, and SCOTT BAILY, individually and as Class
Representatives on Behalf of All Similarly-Situated Persons,
Plaintiffs, v. CEP MID-CONTINENT, LLC, ROBERT M. KANE, LOUISE KANE
ROARK, ANNE KANE SEIDMAN, MARK KANE, PAMELA BROWN, and GARY BROWN,
Defendants, Case Nos. 12-CV-411-TCK-PJC, 15-CV-455-TCK-TLW (N.D.
Okla.).

Before the Court are Joint Status Reports filed in Case No. 12-CV-
411-TCK-PJC (12-CV-411) and Case No. 15-CV-455-TCK-TLW. Based on
review of the Joint Status Reports, the Second Amended Complaint
in 12-CV-411, and the Complaint in 15-CV-455, it is clear that the
cases involve numerous common questions of law and fact. The RICO
claims asserted in 15-CV-455 against CEP Mid-Continent, the Kane
family members, and the Browns are identical or substantially
similar to the newly added RICO claims in 12-CV-411. The only
difference is that the claims in 15-CV-455 are asserted by three
additional named Plaintiffs -- James Enloe, Carolyn Enloe, and
Scott Baily. Because the Court permitted Plaintiffs' proposed
amendment, the new case is essentially subsumed within the
original case.

In his Opinion and Order dated January 5, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/sjElGZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Kern found that there
is no reason for the cases to proceed separately, and
consolidation will further the interest of judicial economy. The
Court rejected Plaintiffs' proposal to hold a preliminary class-
certification hearing on the claims asserted in their original
Complaint in 12-CV-411 and then hold a second class-certification
hearing on the newly asserted RICO claims in 12-CV-411 and
originally asserted in 15-CV-455 finding that all related motions
are moot in light of the Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Charles Loy Richardson, Esq.
     Gary L. Richardson, Esq.
     Jason Charles Messenger, Esq.
     Mbilike Mwafulirwa, Esq.
     RICHARDSON RICHARDSON BOUDREAUX
     7447 S Lewis Ave
     Tulsa, OK 74136
     Tel: (918)492-7674

          - and -

     Charles Robert Burton, IV, Esq.
     BURTON LAW FIRM PC
     3785 Harrison Blvd #1
     Ogden, UT 84403
     Tel: (801)393-1106

          - and -

     Kevin Duane Adams, Esq.
     KEVIN D ADAMS PLLC210 W
     12th Street
     Tulsa, OK 74119
     Tel: (918) 582 1313

Defendants are represented by Bruce Wayne Robinett, Esq. --
dking@robinettking.com -- BREWER WORTEN ROBINETT ET AL, J. Kevin
Hayes, Esq. -- khayes@hallestill.com -- Pamela S. Anderson, Esq.
-- panderson@hallestill.com -- HALL ESTILL HARDWICK GABLE GOLDEN &
NELSON


BUMBLE BEE: Dismissal Bid in "McMahon" Case Denied
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss in the captioned case JOSEPH McMAHON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. BUMBLE
BEE FOODS LLC, Defendant(s), Case No.: 14 C 03346, (N.D. Ill.)

This putative class action seeks recovery from Bumble Bee Foods
LLC under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act (ICFA), 815 ILCS 505/1, the Illinois Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (IFDCA), 410 ILCS 620/1, and a variety of common law
claims, including unjust enrichment.1 The named plaintiff, Joseph
McMahon, alleges that Bumble Bee engaged in deceptive conduct when
it sold various seafood products with labels that indicated they
were an "Excellent Source of Omega 3."

Bumble Bee moves to dismiss McMahon's IFDCA claim on preemption
grounds and contends that McMahon's unjust enrichment claim is not
a viable cause of action under Illinois law. In the alternative,
Bumble Bee moves to have McMahon's case stayed until January 1,
1016, which is when the FDCA's recently adopted rule concerning
Omega-3 nutrients becomes effective.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 2, 2015
available at http://is.gd/qEyLICfrom Leagle.com, Judge Tharp, Jr.
said Bumble Bee's argument is unpersuasive because it rests,
again, on the faulty premise that the plaintiff is seeking to
enforce the regulatory requirements of the new Omega-3 rule. Its
statement that "the court cannot order Bumble Bee to remove all
nutrient content claims concerning omega-3 [(sic) before January
1, 2016 because that would be directly counter to the FDA's Omega-
3 Rule.  If, under the existing regulations, Bumble Bee is not
authorized to include Omega-3 statements on its labels, then the
Court would have the power to enjoin Bumble Bee from selling more
misbranded products. As a practical matter, moreover, it is
unnecessary to stay the case. At issue is Bumble Bee's motion to
dismiss; in ruling on that motion, the Court only assumes the
truth of the allegations in the complaint and cannot provide
affirmative relief to the plaintiff even if the motion to dismiss
is denied. And at this late juncture, it is a certainty that no
injunction relating to Bumble Bee's compliance with current
labeling requirements will be entered before the new Omega-3 Rule
comes into effect on January 1, 2016. Even without a stay, there
is no risk that Bumble Bee will be forced to comply with an
injunction requiring it to remove Omega-3 statements from its
labels before January 1, 2016.

Robert A. Clifford, Esq. -- rac@cliffordlaw.com -- and Shannon
Marie McNulty, Esq. -- smm@cliffordlaw.com -- of Clifford Law
Offices serve as counsel for Plaintiff Joseph McMahon

Forrest A Hainline, III, Esq. -- fhainline@goodwinprocter.com --
and Patrick S Thompson, Esq. -- pthompson@godwinprocter.com -- of
Goodwin Procter, LLC -- Louis David Bernstein, Esq. --
lbernstein@bernsteinlawchicago.com and Michael Thomas Herbst, Esq.
-- mherbst@bernsteinlawchicago.com of The Bernstein Law Firm serve
as counsel for Defendant Bumble Bee Foods, LLC


BUMBLE BEE: U.S. Intervenes in Packaged Seafood Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
an ongoing antitrust case against seafood giants got even bigger
as the federal government has intervened in litigation against the
likes of Bumble Bee, Tri-Union Seafoods, StarKist, and others.

U.S. District Court Judge in San Diego Janis Sammartino held a
status conference on Jan. 20 in a room filled to the brim with
more than 50 lawyers from around the nation, hoping to move the
case forward.

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division filed an
unopposed motion to intervene in the lengthy litigation on Jan.
13. The feds are seeking a limited stay of discovery to aid in an
ongoing federal grand jury investigation in the Northern District
of California, into whether the biggest canned tuna producers
violated the Sherman Act by conspiring to fix prices.

The original class action complaint was filed in San Diego by
Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative on Aug. 3, 2015. Dozens of
lawsuits over price-fixing by the three biggest packed-seafood
companies have since trickled into San Diego Federal Court after
being transferred from other courts across the nation.

The three companies control 73 percent of the U.S. market: Bumble
Bee, 29 percent; StarKist, 25.3 percent; and Tri-Union, 18.4
percent, according to the complaint.

Both Bumble Bee and Tri-Union Seafoods, which makes Chicken of the
Sea brand shelf-stable tuna, are headquartered in San Diego - once
the tuna-fishing capital of the world.

At Jan. 20 status conference, Sammartino heard from plaintiffs'
attorneys on multiple items, with the top concern being how to
divvy up the case so that all interests are properly represented.

Plaintiffs' attorneys want the case to be divided into several
"tracks" including a case for direct-purchaser plaintiffs,
indirect-purchaser plaintiffs, class action plaintiffs and
commercial food preparers. A plaintiff steering committee of lead
attorneys would be established to represent the entire group.

The two purchaser groups could not come to an agreement among
themselves as to who would serve as lead counsel, however, so
Sammartino will decide who will serve on the steering committee
once briefs on the matter have been filed by Feb. 1.

Belinda Lee, representing defendant StarKist, had concerns about
divvying up the litigation into many different tracks. She instead
suggested the court split the massive case into two tracks: direct
and indirect.

"I've given so much thought as to how to structure this and
streamline this," Sammartino said.

"I'd love to see less than four tracks, but that might not happen
because all the interests need to be represented. What is it going
to take to move this large case forward in a way that's
efficient?"

The umbrella litigation will get even larger as more cases are
expected to be filed within one to two weeks.

Both civil and criminal actions filed against the "Big Three"
pertain to claims of collusive conduct among packaged seafood
manufacturers, with allegations of a conspiracy to fix prices, rig
bids or allocate markets.

Plaintiffs also asked defendants at the status conference to
provide all documents produced by the Justice Department connected
to the grand jury before they file a consolidated amended
complaint, which is expected in the next couple months.

Sammartino advised plaintiffs who want to be appointed to
leadership positions on the steering committee to file their
briefs by Feb. 1. Following the appointment of head attorneys by
the judge, the plaintiffs and defendants will meet with the
Justice Department.

Consolidated complaints covering the different tracks will be due
45 days after leaders are established.

Major plaintiffs in the case include Affiliated Foods, Harvesters
Enterprises, Giant Eagle, Associated Grocers, Albertsons Companies
and The Kroger Company among many others.

Sammartino set the next hearing for March 11.


C-TWO GROUP: Court Grants Class Certification in "Mendez"
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States
District Court for Northern District of California granted class
certification in the case captioned, JAMIE MADRIGAL MENDEZ,
Plaintiff, v. C-TWO GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
13-CV-05914-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff filed her initial complaint, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, in San Francisco Superior Court. The
defendants named in that original complaint jointly removed the
action to this Court shortly afterwards.  Plaintiff then filed a
first amended class action complaint, which, on motion, the Court
dismissed for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff filed the operative second amended
class action complaint against Defendants, alleging that they sent
her unsolicited and nonconsensual text messages that sought her
patronage at a nightclub in San Francisco called Infusion Lounge
for over two years. Plaintiff argues that this conduct violated
Section 227 of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which
proscribes, in relevant part, using an automatic telephone dialing
system to contact someone in the United States on their telephone
without prior express consent. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

In the motion, Plaintiff seeks to certify a damages class under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) that includes all
individuals who received a text message from a source associated
with Defendants C & L Associates Incand C-Two Group, Inc. after
entering their contact information on a website for a nightclub.

Defendants contend that: (1) the putative class is not
ascertainable; (2) Plaintiff does not satisfy the Rule 23(a)
requirements because she is not an adequate class representative
and her counsel is not adequate class counsel; (3) common issues
do not predominate over individual issues; and (4) class treatment
is not superior to other methods of adjudication.

In the Order dated December 10, 2015, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/rp2ZYZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gilliam, Jr. found that
Plaintiff and her counsel have satisfied all of the requirements
for Rule 23(a), as well as the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).

The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a
stipulation and proposed order regarding a class notice program
that comports with the requirements of Rule 23(c) by December 22,
2015.

Jaime Madrigal Mendez is represented by:

     Richard David Lambert, Esq.
     Elaine W. Yan, Esq.
     Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
     STONEBARGER LAW, APC
     75 Iron Point Cir # 145,
     Folsom, CA 95630
     Tel: (916)235-7140

          - and -

Prescott Wayne Littlefield, Esq. -- pwl@kearneylittlefield.com --
Thomas Andrew Kearney, Esq. -- tak@kearneylittlefield.com --
KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD LLP

Defendants are represented by:

     Alex F. Pevzner, Esq.
     Laurie Elizabeth Sherwood, Esq.
     WFBM, LLP
     1 City Boulevard West, 5th Floor
     Orange, CA 92868
     Tel: (714) 634-2522


CAFEPRESS INC: Court Entered Final Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
CafePress Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a court in
California has entered a judgement and order granting final
approval of a class action settlement.

On July 10, 2013, a complaint captioned Desmarais v. CafePress
Inc., et al. CIV-522744 was filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Mateo naming the Company as defendants,
along with certain of its directors, its chief executive officer,
its chief financial officer and certain underwriters of our IPO.
The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers
of shares issued in the IPO and generally alleges that the
registration statement for the IPO contained materially false or
misleading statements. The complaint purports to assert claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief. On July 14, 2013 a similar
compliant making substantially identical allegations and captioned
Jinnah v. CafePress Inc., et al. CIV-522976 was filed in the same
court against the same defendants.

On April 10, 2015, the Company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement (the "Settlement"), reflecting the previously disclosed
terms of the settlement of the class action securities lawsuits
that were consolidated under the caption In re CafePress Inc.
Shareholder Litigation , Master File No. CIV522744 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Mateo Cty.). The proposed Settlement calls for a payment
of $8.0 million to the plaintiffs in resolution of all claims
against the Company and its officers and directors.

The Company paid $500,000 in the Settlement; the balance will be
paid by the Company's directors and officers liability insurance.
While the Company and the other defendants continue to deny each
of the plaintiffs' claims and deny any liability, the Company
agreed to the Settlement solely to resolve the disputes, to avoid
the costs and risks of further litigation and to avoid further
distractions to management.

On August 11, 2015 the court entered a judgment and order granting
final approval of the Settlement.


CAMBRIDGE CAPITAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Stockholder Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cambridge Capital Acquisition Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 13, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the plaintiff in a stockholder class action lawsuit has
filed an amended complaint.

On March 24, 2015, the Company, the members of the Company's board
of directors and Parakou were named as defendants in a putative
class action and derivative lawsuit captioned Brian Levy v.
Cambridge Capital Acquisition Corp., et al., No. 2015 CA 003339.
The complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial
Circuit of Palm Beach County, Florida (the "Action") by a person
identifying himself as a stockholder of Cambridge.

The complaint generally alleged, among other things, that the
members of the Cambridge board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Cambridge stockholders by approving the
Parakou Mergers. The complaint also alleged that there were
various conflicts of interest in the transaction and that such
conflicts of interest were not adequately disclosed to
stockholders in the definitive proxy statement/prospectus that the
Company filed with the SEC on March 27, 2015 (the "Proxy
Statement/Prospectus"). The Action sought injunctive relief,
damages and reimbursement of costs, among other remedies.

On April 9, 2015, the plaintiff in the Action filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin temporarily the closing
of the Mergers. On April 15, 2015, the circuit judge set a hearing
date of April 17, 2015 for an emergency hearing on the motion for
preliminary injunction.

The Company, under the advice of legal counsel, believed that the
Action was without merit and that no further disclosure was
required to supplement the Proxy Statement/Prospectus under
applicable laws. However, to eliminate certain burdens, expenses
and uncertainties, on April 16, 2015, defendants in the Action
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the
settlement of claims asserted in the Action and on April 17, 2015,
the plaintiff in the Action filed a notice of withdrawal of its
emergency motion for preliminary injunction and unopposed motion
to cancel the hearing. Shortly thereafter the Company terminated
the Mergers with Parakou and the plaintiff took no further action.

On October 15, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
against Cambridge, Holdco, the members of Cambridge's board of
directors and Ability.  The amended complaint generally alleges,
among other things, that the members of the Cambridge board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cambridge
stockholders by approving the contemplated merger with Ability and
that Ability is aiding and abetting the Cambridge board of
directors in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The
complaint also alleges that Cambridge was obligated to liquidate
on June 23, 2015 and redeem the outstanding public shares from the
funds held in the trust fund and that the efforts to violate
Cambridge's amended and restated certificate of incorporation are
ultra vires and therefore void acts. The complaint further alleges
that Cambridge's directors have various conflicts of interest in
the transaction and that such conflicts of interest are not
adequately disclosed to stockholders in the definitive proxy
statement/prospectus that the Company filed with the SEC on
September 17, 2015 (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus"). The Action
seeks injunctive relief, damages and reimbursement of fees and
costs, among other remedies.

The Company believes that it is reasonably possible that the
Action could result in a material loss. However, the Company is
not able to estimate the amount. At September 30, 2015, no amounts
have been accrued on the Company's condensed consolidated
financial statements in connection with this Action.


CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Set for Apr. 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company's date to answer or move in a class action lawsuit was on
or before January 19, 2016, and a hearing on the anticipated
motion to dismiss has been set for April 6, 2016.

On April 21, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California captioned Bonnano v. Cellular Biomedicine
Group, Inc., 3:15-cv-01795-WHO (N.D. Ca.). The complaint also
names Wei Cao, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Tony
Liu, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, as defendants. The
complaint alleges that during the class period, June 18, 2014,
through April 7, 2015, the Company made material
misrepresentations in its periodic reports filed with the SEC. The
complaint alleges a cause of action under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") against all
defendants and under Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act against the
individual defendants. The complaint does not state the amount of
the damages sought.

On June 3, 2015, defendants were served.  On June 29, 2015, the
Court ordered, as stipulated by the parties, that defendants are
not required to respond to the initial complaint in this action
until such time as a lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been
appointed and a consolidated complaint has been filed.  The
deadline for filing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff
and selection of lead counsel was June 22, 2015.  On that date,
one motion was filed by the Rosen Law Firm on behalf of putative
plaintiff Michelle Jackson.

On August 3, 2015, having received no opposition, the Court
appointed Jackson as lead plaintiff and the Rosen Law Firm as
class counsel.  As stipulated among the parties, Jackson filed an
amended class action complaint on September 17, 2015.  The
Company's date to answer or move is on or before January 19, 2016,
and a hearing on the anticipated motion to dismiss has been set
for April 6, 2016.  Discovery will be stayed pending a decision on
the motion to dismiss.

The amended complaint names ten additional individuals and
entities as defendants ("additional defendants"), none of whom are
affiliated with the Company, and asserts an additional claim under
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder that the
Company purportedly engaged in a scheme with the additional
defendants to promote its securities.  To date, none of the
additional defendants have appeared in the case.  The Company
believes the suit is without merit and filled with patently false
information, and will vigorously defend the Company in the matter.
At this early stage of the proceedings it is not possible to
evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or to estimate
the range of potential loss.


CHARLESBANK COOPERATIVE: Suit Alleges Violation of AHR
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kokernak, and all others similarly situated v. Charlesbank
Cooperative Corporation, Case No. 15-3717F (Mass. Cmmw., December
8, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for breach of contract
by overcharging shareholders of their monthly "Carrying Charge" in
violation of the Affordable Housing Restriction.

The Defendant is engaged in the business of leasing residential
property to "tenants" in Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arthur Hardy-Doubleday, Esq.
      DOUBLEDAY LAW
      45 Prospect St.
      Cambridge, MA 02139
      Tel: (617) 575-2006
      E-mail: arthur@doubledaylaw.com

         - and -

      Neil Berman, Esq.
      COMMONSENSE LEGAL COUNSELING
      403 Highland Avenue, Ste 209
      Somerville, MA 02144
      E-mail: njberman2@juno.com


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: 3rd Cir. Affirms Ruling on Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Robert Cowen of the Court of Appeals, Third Circuit,
affirmed a trial court decision holding that the availability of
class arbitration constitutes a "question of arbitrability" to be
decided by the courts and not the arbitrators unless the parties'
arbitration agreement "clearly and unmistakably" provides
otherwise in the case captioned, CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA, LLC, v.
SCOUT PETROLEUM, LLC; SCOUT PETROLEUM II, LP, Appellants, Case No.
15-1275 (3rd Cir.).

In 2008, Chesapeake entered into various oil and gas leases with
landowners in several northeastern Pennsylvania counties. On March
17, 2014, Scout filed an arbitration demand against Chesapeake on
behalf of itself and similarly situated lessors, alleging that
Chesapeake paid insufficient royalties. In the answering statement
it filed with the AAA, Chesapeake objected to class arbitration on
the grounds that "it did not agree to resolve disputes arising out
of the leases at issue in class arbitration nor did Chesapeake
agree to submit the question of class arbitrability whether
claimants may proceed on a class basis in arbitration to an
arbitrator.

On December 24, 2014, Scout filed a petition for permission to
appeal under Sec. 1292(b). This Court granted its petition on
January 21, 2015. On March 4, 2015, Judge Keeley of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
concluded in Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Suppa, 91 F.Supp.3d 853
that "the court, not an arbitrator, will decide whether the
parties agreed to classwide arbitration in the subject leases," In
another Chesapeake oil and gas lease case, Northern District of
West Virginia Judge Stamp reached the same conclusion.

On appeal, Scout Petroleum, LLC and Scout II, LP appealed from the
orders of the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania granting Chesapeake Appalachia's motions for
summary judgment and for an order vacating a decision by the
arbitrators and denying Scout's own motion to dismiss the
complaint as well its motion for reconsideration. The oil and gas
leases at issue in this appeal state that, in the event of a
disagreement between "Lessor" and "Lessee" concerning "this
Lease," performance "thereunder," or damages caused by "Lessee's"
operations, "all such disputes" shall be resolved by arbitration
"in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration
Association."

In his Opinion dated January 5, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/4I89Ogfrom Leagle.com, Judge Cowen concluded that
the District Court appropriately granted the motion to vacate  and
the Leases do not "clearly and unmistakably" delegate the question
of class arbitrability to the arbitrators.

Scout Petroleum, LLC is represented by:

     Stewart L. Cohen, Esq.
     Michael Coren, Esq.
     Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
     Alessandra C. Phillips, Esq.
     Robert L. Pratter, Esq
     COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH
     2001 Market Street
     Two Commerce Square, Suite 2900
     Philadelphia, PA 19103

          - and -

     Thomas D. Kitch, Esq.
     Daniel E. Lawrence, Esq.
     David G. Seely, Esq.
     Gregory J. Stucky, Esq.
     FLEESON, GOOING COULSON & KITCH
     301 North Main Street
     1900 Epic Center
     Wichita, KS 67202

Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC is represented by:

     Daniel T. Brier, Esq.
     MYERS, BRIER & KELLY
     425 Spruce Street, Suite 200
     Scranton, PA 18503

          - and -

     Daniel T. Donovan, Esq.
     Ragan Naresh, Esq.
     KIRKLAND & ELLIS
     655 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1200
     Washington, DC 20005


CHINA ELECTRIC MOTOR: 9th Cir. Vacates Attorney Fee Award
---------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported
that, calling a federal judge's award of attorneys' fees "a near
total failure," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on
Jan. 15, vacated the award in a securities class action that ended
in a $3.7 million global settlement.

Lead plaintiff Mike McGee appealed the attorneys' fees award,
claiming that the judge's calculation of about $666,000 was
arbitrary, and the Circuit agreed in a per curiam opinion.

The class counsel had requested 25 percent -- about $944,000 -- of
the plaintiff investors' settlement with China Electric Motor, but
the judge instead applied the lodestar calculation method to
determine the attorneys' fees amount. Under the lodestar method,
the court multiplies a reasonable number of hours by a reasonable
hourly rate.

After using the lodestar method, the judge then made a downward
adjustment -- reducing the calculated hours by 30 percent --
stating that a review of the billing records disclosed "numerous
examples of legal tasks being inappropriately [lumped] together."

But the judge did not explain the reasoning, according to the
Ninth Circuit's three-judge panel, and "merely asserted that the
case was 'a very simple case.'"

"While the court noted one or two considerations that might have
supported its decision, it failed to explain how it weighed those
considerations when calculating the final award," the 12-page
opinion said.

"A 30 percent reduction is large enough that the parties were
entitled to a more detailed explanation of the court's reasoning."

The Circuit remanded to the district court for recalculation of
the award.

"We recognize that the district court had a difficult task in
balancing the interests of the class against the need to award a
fee that adequately compensates class counsel for their
representation in this case," the opinion said.

"Yet, this difficulty does not relieve the district court of its
responsibility, not only to consider carefully class counsel's fee
application, but also to explain fully its reasoning in arriving
at its award."

Neither side's lead counsel immediately responded to an email
requesting comment on Jan. 15 morning.

The case is captioned, ROBERT STANGER, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, and MIKE McGEE,
Individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff-
Apellant, v. CHINA ELECTRIC MOTOR, INC.; WESTPARK CAPITAL, INC.;
ROTH CAPITAL PARTNERS,LLC; RICHARD RAPPAPORT; PHILLIP KEMPISTY;
KEMPISTY & COMPANY, CPAS,P,C.; MALONEBAILEY LLP, Defendants-
Appelles. No. 13-56903 (9th Cir.)


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Court to Dismiss "Gallagher" Suit over GMO
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Services, that a federal
judge in San Francisco on Jan. 14, questioned whether a woman
suing Chipotle over the misleading nature of its non-GMO ad
campaign wasn't spoiling her chances at victory with her
definition of genetically modified organisms.

Colleen Gallagher sued Chipotle in August 2015 over its "Food With
Integrity" campaign. Through ads using catchy phrases like "G-M-
Over It," the fast food chain touted itself as the first in the
United States to use ingredients derived from non-genetically
modified sources. According to Gallagher's federal class action,
"among other things, Chipotle serves meat products that come from
animals which feed on GMOs, including corn and soy. Chipotle's
tacos and burritos are also usually served with sour cream and
cheese from dairy farms that feed animals with GMOs. And, Chipotle
also sells Coca-Cola and other soft drinks that are made with corn
syrup -- a GMO."

The complaint defines a GMO as any organism whose genetic material
has been altered using genetic engineering techniques, which is
what troubled U.S. District Judge Gilliam S. Haywood Jr., during
on Chipotle's motion to dismiss.

"Are you saying that the meat and dairy itself has been altered
using genetic engineering techniques? What I'm trying to pin down
is literal falseness," Haywood told Gallagher's attorney Lawrence
King. "Do the ingredients themselves meet the definition of GMO in
the complaint?"

He added, "I'm trying to figure out if you're pleading yourself
out of court by defining GMO this way. You've pled a definition of
what a GMO is that seems inconsistent with these ingredients being
GMOs."

King said the focus should not be on whether the ingredients
themselves are GMO-based, but whether Chipotle deceived its
customers.

"Our contention is that a consumer is likely to be deceived by the
representation in the complaint -- 'We are G-M-Over It,'" King
said. "They are literally dropping the letters G and M to
celebrate the lack of GMOs on the menu, so customers are likely to
be deceived."

Chipotle attorney Charles Cavanagh shot back, "How can she
plausibly allege that any reasonable consumer believes those
animals still contain GMOs?"

Cavanagh argued that a reasonable Chipotle consumer would know the
difference between a genetically engineered animal butchered into
meat for a Chipotle burrito and the genetically-altered corn used
in the feed for that animal.

"A reasonable consumer is capable of deciding what an ingredient
is," he said.

Haywood said he would dismiss the complaint for now to give
Gallagher and her lawyers a chance to address the difference.

In other Chipotle news, the beleaguered chain -- dogged by E.
coli, salmonella and norovirus outbreaks and a 42 percent drop of
its stock price -- has said it would close all its stores for a
few hours on Feb. 8 for a company-wide store meeting about food-
safety practices.

All of the chain's more than 1,900 stores will take part, the
company said.


CHRYSLER: Recalls RAM Promaster 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 25, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 1498
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015572TC
ID number: 2015572
Manufacturer recall number: R64

Certain vehicles may experience an intermittent loss of electrical
contact in the ignition switch electrical contact block. This may
result in loss of motive power and/or partial or complete loss of
function of the following safety systems; Airbag/supplemental
restraint systems (SRS), Anti-Lock Brakes (ABS), Electronic
Stability Control (ESC) and Instrument Panel Cluster. The loss of
motive power, ABS and/or ESC system(s), in conjunction with
traffic and road conditions, and the driver's reactions, may
increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. The loss of airbag/SRS function in a crash that warrants
airbag/SRS function may increase the risk of injury to vehicle
occupants. Correction: Dealers will replace the ignition switch
contact holder block.

  Make       Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----        ----------------------
  RAM        PROMASTER    2015


COACHING BY CORAL: Runs Ponzi Scam, Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------
Ryan Kocian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
"Life coaches" used a string of shell companies to run a Ponzi
scam that raked in $8 million to $20 million, investors claim in a
class action in Austin, Texas.

Named plaintiffs Cheri Lucas and April Fisher sued Coaching by
Coral LLC dba The Secret to Life Coaching and three of its
affiliates or shells; their CEOs Coral Rose Grant fka Coral Rose
Thomas and Gary McGonagle Grant II aka Mac Grant; and their
associate Heather Suzanne Perdue, in Travis County Court.

The defendant companies include The Release LLC, Infinity
Manifestation LLC, and Superdue Inc., all of Colorado.

Lucas and Fisher seek to represent a class of "all persons who
have entered into 'coaching contracts' or 'investor contracts'
with any of the defendants."

The Secret to Life Coaching says on its website that its mission
is to "help people design and live the life of their dreams." CEO
and founder Coral Grant says on the website that she "learned the
secrets to be able to live every day on purpose and manifest her
absolute dream life in every way." She uses coaching, a TV and
radio show, articles, speaking engagements, and writing to teach
people these secrets.

Actually, Lucas says in the complaint: "Coral's fraudulent
tendencies did not come to her fully formed from the ether. She
learned at the feet of her mentor, Kevin Trudeau - a career
fraudster and federal felon. On information and belief, Coral has
visited Trudeau in federal prison to consult with him about her
scheme. Coral's criminal activities seem to have been too much
even for Trudeau, since plaintiffs have been informed that Trudeau
told her to stop.

"In fact, Coral is so close to Kevin Trudeau that she has raised
tens of thousands of dollars for the 'KT Legal Defense Fund.' 'KT'
stands for Kevin Trudeau."

(Trudeau made a fortune through so-called "infomercials" and books
promoting "cures" that "they don't want you to know about."
According to publicly available information, he has been convicted
of larceny and credit card fraud, was fined $37 million by the FTC
for violating a settlement order, and is serving 10 years in
federal prison for contempt of court.)

Mac Grant, Coral Grant's husband, is an instructor for the Men's
Leadership Training Courses in The Secret to Life Coaching
Company. He calls himself a successful entrepreneur, motivational
speaker and master coach.

According to the Jan. 18 lawsuit, Coral Grant has been using her
companies since 2010 to sign up independent coaches under
commission agreements, i.e. "coaching contracts." The coaches are
promised a commission percentage or fee for each life coaching
client signed up, for signing up other coaches, and for teaching
life coaching clients.

The Grants also invited people (coaches, members, clients) to
become "investors," i.e. give them flat sums in exchange for non-
specific future returns, according to the complaint.

But Lucas claims the Grants "engaged in a pattern of pocketing
investors' money instead of using it for any legitimate business
purposes," and also took the commissions and fees owed to the
coaches under their contracts.

In brief, the complaint states: "Coral and Mac Grant are a threat
to the public. They funnel all coach and investor money directly
to themselves, without any regard for legality, corporate
formalities, securities laws, or any semblance of business
judgment or morality. In total, the Grants have stolen over
$8,000,000 -- and possibly more than $20,000,000 -- in money and
services from their coaches and investors through their scheme.

Lucas claims the defendants owe her at least $180,000.

Fisher says they owe her at least $5,000.

"The Grants live a lavish lifestyle with their ill-gotten
gains," the complaint states. "They lease multiple mansions around
the United States, fly around the country in chartered private
jets, and lease or own luxury vehicles (Bentleys, for example).
Put simply, Coral and Mac Grant arc con artists living high on the
hog with the millions they have stolen from their unsuspecting
contractors and investors."

The Grants also violate federal laws by not registering securities
offerings for their companies, by not filing Form Ds for the
offerings, and by filing fraudulent or incomplete tax returns to
cover up their illegal income, according to the complaint.

They continually recruit new coaches, clients, and investors to
make up for the money they take out of the companies, and use new
cash flow to falsely represent that their companies are
successful, profitable, and sustainable, the complaint states.

When Coaching by Coral had trouble obtaining credit due to the
Grants' pilfering of company funds, Coral emailed the coaches and
said that she had to cancel their contracts due to "recent
events," according to the complaint.

Some investors and coaches were told to make payments to Infinity
Manifestation, a shell company controlled by Heather Perdue, while
others were directed to The Release, which is Coral's newest
entity, the plaintiffs say.

The complaint calls Perdue a "high-level employee in the Grants'
criminal enterprise" who at one point ran the day-to-day
operations of Coaching by Coral.

The email about Infinity Manifestation "makes plain that this
arrangement is a continuation of the Grants' Ponzi scheme," the
complaint states.

It continues: "Will the 'investors' be entitled to any of the
profits in the new shell to which their investment contracts were
unilaterally transferred? The Grants' answer to their victims,
from the keyboard of their puppet Heather: 'No, the shareholder
arrangements that were to provide a percentage of profits made by
TSTLC [Coaching by Coral] were not valid, and TSTLC is unable to
make any income due to the financial situation that occurred.' The
'financial situation that occurred,' of course, is that Coral and
Mac Grant pocketed their investors' money to live like royalty."

In that email, Lucas says, Perdue had the brass to tell the
victims: "Hopefully you followed the first rule of investing and
didn't spend money you couldn't afford to lose."

Attempts to reach the defendants for comment through email
addresses listed on the companies' websites were met with an auto-
reply saying The Secret to Life Coaching Company has been
dissolved and that Coral and Mac Grant are continuing their
training through Infinity Manifestation.

Lucas and Fisher seek class certification and at least $10 million
in actual and statutory damages for fraud, theft, racketeering,
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, gross negligence
and deceptive trade, plus $20 million in punitive damages and
$250,000 in attorney's fees.

They are represented by Camden Chancellor in Odessa and Arnaldo
Pereira in Austin.


COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Court Grants Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's motion
for conditional certification for notification purposes and
dismissal of individual plaintiffs Jane LaCap, Tony Trinh and Bill
Chan in the case captioned, JOAN AMBROSIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-02182-RS
(N.D. Cal.).

In the putative class and collective action, Plaintiff Joan
Ambrosio, alongside a host of other salaried employees of
defendant Cogent Communications, Inc., seeks damages and other
relief based on Cogent's alleged failure to pay overtime in
violation of California and federal law. The putative class
consists of all current and former California-based account
managers who were classified as exempt and worked for Cogent
between May 12, 2010 and the date of final judgment.

Plaintiffs moved to certify three state law claims for failure to
pay overtime, failure to pay wages due and owing, and violation of
California's unfair competition law. The putative class consists
of "all persons who were, are, or will be employed by Cogent
throughout California from May 12, 2010 through the date of final
judgment as Regional Account Managers, National Account Managers
or Global Account Managers and were classified by Cogent as exempt
from overtime compensation."

In his Order dated January 4, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/KreFTyfrom Leagle.com, Judge Seeborg found that the
proposed class has meet the requirements pursuant to Rule 23(b)
and dismissed Plaintiffs LaCap, Trinh, and Chan from the action
because they failed to communicate with their counsel, appear for
noticed depositions, or otherwise participate in the litigation.

The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the contents
of a joint notice, and on or before twenty-one (21) days from the
date of the order and submit a proposal to the Court. The Court
scheduled a Case Management Conference shall be held on February
4, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.

Plaintiffs are represented by Thomas E. Duckworth, Esq. --
tom@dplolaw.com -- Mark Christopher Peters, Esq. --
mark@dplolaw.com -- Monique Olivier, Esq. -- Monique@dplolaw.com -
- DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP

          - and -

     Michael Todd Slobin, Esq.
     SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
     1900 West Loop S Suite 1910
     Houston, TX 77027
     Tel: (713)621-2277

Cogent Communications, Inc. is represented by Tamara Irene Devitt,
Esq. -- tamara.devitt@hayesboone.com -- Matthew E. Costello, Esq.
-- matthew.costello@haynesboone.com -- Meghaan Cecilia McElroy,
Esq. -- meghaan.mcelroy@haynesboone.com -- HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Tosses Suit over Slave Labor
----------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Services, that a
federal judge in San Francisco on Jan. 15, dismissed with leave to
amend a class action accusing Costco of selling shrimp harvested
with slave labor in Thailand.

Lead plaintiff Monica Sud sued Costco in August, claiming the
retail giant falsely advertised a policy that prohibits human
rights abuses in its supply chain.

U.S. District Judge Jeffery White granted Costco's motion to
dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction after the retailer
submitted evidence showing the plaintiffs never purchased prawns
sourced from Thailand.

Although Sud has a receipt proving she purchased prawns in March
2015, Costco's records show she never used her member card to buy
farmed prawns. Another class member did purchase farmed prawns but
those were imported from Vietnam and Indonesia, not Thailand,
according to the ruling.

"Based on this record, the court concludes that Sud has not put
forth sufficient evidence to overcome Costco's factual challenge
to Article III standing," White wrote in his 6-page ruling.

However, the judge granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint, finding the class could allege that prawns from other
nations -- like Indonesia and Vietnam -- are harvested with slave
labor.

The judge said the plaintiffs could also add new class members who
did purchase prawns sourced from Thailand to overcome the
challenge of standing.

The plaintiffs must submit an amended complaint by Feb. 19.

Sud is represented by Anne Murphy -- amurphy@cpmlegal.com -- of
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy of Burlingame, Calif.

Costco is represented by Robert Mittelstaedt --
ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day in San Francisco.

The case captioned, MONICA SUD, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, Defendants. Case No. 15-cv-03783-JSW (N.D. Cal.)


CREDENCE RESOURCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Damstra" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Damstra, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Credence Resource Management LLC  and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 2:15-cv-08434 (D.N.J., December 3, 2015) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Credence Resource Management LLC operates a financial service
company located at 6045 Atlantic Blvd, Norcross, GA 30071.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glen H. Chulsky, Esq.
      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      E-mail: g.chulsky@att.net
      jkj@legaljones.com


CUSTOM COOKIES: "Yupangui" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Guaman Yupangui and Erica Usher-Savage, on behalf of
themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. Custom
Cookies, Inc., Case No. cv157127 (E.D.N.Y., December 15, 2015)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Custom Cookies, Inc. operates a custom cookies and cupcakes shop
in Brooklyn, NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CVS HEALTH: Sued Over Acetaminophen & Ibuprofen Product Packaging
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mariel Marte, Josefina Valdez, Lauren Feldman and John Does 1-100,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. CVS
Health Corporation (formerly CVS Caremark Corporation) and CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-09431-JPO (S.D.N.Y., December 20,
2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged business practices
with respect to the packaging of their CVS(R) acetaminophen and
ibuprofen products, specifically by marketing and selling the
products in containers made, formed or filled as to be misleading
and with non-functional slack-fill.

The Defendants operate a retailer and health care company and
operate over 7,700 stores, a pharmacy benefit manager, mail order
and specialty pharmacies, a retail-based health clinic subsidiary,
MinuteClinic(R); and an online pharmacy, CVS.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


D.C. METRO: Class Suit Filed over Subway Smoke
----------------------------------------------
Tim Ryan, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
scores of subway riders whose train was engulfed by smoke outside
a Washington D.C. metro station last year claim in court that
lapses by the transit authority placed their lives at risk and
left them to deal with unknown health consequences.

In a series of lawsuits filed in the District of Columbia Superior
Court, 93 subway riders claim the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority did not properly inspect the electrical
connections to the third rail that powers the cars, and did not
maintain the required signal boosters in the system's tunnels,
delaying emergency personnel from reaching the trapped passengers.

As a result, the plaintiffs say, some improperly constructed parts
of the rail went unnoticed, allowing electrical current to jump
from its power cable to the train tunnel's steel wall, spewing
thick smoke into the train's path.

One person died in the incident, according to the complaints,
which were filed on Jan. 12.

Most of the plaintiffs in the 93 cases were riding in two cars of
a subway train that had just left L 'Enfant Plaza Metro station, a
major hub for Washington's subway system, when it ran into "dense"
smoke in the train tunnel. The train stopped as its cars filled
with smoke, the complaints say.

But the passengers' nightmare didn't end there. It took roughly 45
minutes after the time the train stopped in thick smoke before its
doors opened and passengers were allowed to evacuate.

The plaintiffs contend this occurred because a poor signal
availability in the tunnel prevented first responders from
confirming with the transit authority the third rail was not
running a current.

That left the passengers breathing smoke, the contents of which
they don't know to this day, according to Kim Brooks-Rodney --
kbr@cohenandcohen.net -- an attorney with Washington law firm
Cohen & Cohen, who represents the Metro riders.

Brooks-Rodney said her firm obtained consent from 93 of 103
potential plaintiffs in these cases, a mixture of people who were
on the train and people waiting on the platform. She expects the
remaining 10 riders to sign on soon.

The cases are likely to be grouped together, but do not qualify
for a class action, Brooks-Rodney said.

"They have a wealth of different concerns," Brooks-Rodney said.
"For example, we have one client who was in the first trimester of
pregnancy, so she had a great deal of angst and concern until the
child was delivered."

She expects the transit authority, a "quasi-federal" organization
to move the cases into federal court, where one judge will
consolidate them and set a master discovery schedule.

Brooks-Rodney said her team made settlement overtures to the
transit authority, but Metro's response fell short of
expectations.

"It was obvious Metro does not evaluate these cases the way we
evaluate them because the offers were quite minimal," Brooks-
Rodney said. The transit authority declined comment on the pending
cases, citing organizational policy.


DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Wage & Hour Suit Resolved for Immaterial Sum
---------------------------------------------------------------
Davita Healthcare Partners Inc. has reached a deal to settle the
remaining claims in a wage and hour class action in California,
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015, that

A wage and hour claim, which has been styled as a class action, is
pending against the Company in the Superior Court of California.
The Company was served with the complaint in this lawsuit in April
2008, and it has been amended since that time. The complaint, as
amended, alleges that the Company failed to provide meal periods,
failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing rest or meal
periods, failed to pay overtime, and failed to comply with certain
other California Labor Code requirements.

In September 2011, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. Plaintiffs appealed that decision. In January
2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on
some claims, but remanded the case to the trial court for
clarification of its decision on one of the claims.

The Company reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the
claim that was remanded to the trial court, and that settlement
has been finalized. The amount of the settlement is not material
to the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements.

In June 2015, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
resolve the remainder of the claims in this litigation. The
settlement must be approved by the court, and the parties are in
the process of seeking that approval. The amount of the settlement
is not material to the Company's condensed consolidated financial
statements.


DELMART MANAGEMENT: "Lemus" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Esmeralda Lemus, Ana Cristina Alas, Lester Hernandez, Maricela
Soto, Martha Angelica Gutierrez, Galina Racu, Lorena Tristan,
Angelica Jimenez, Juan Perez Calgua, Nora Ramirez, Sugey Yamileth
Acero, Ana Rodriguez, and all others similarly situated v. Delmart
Management, Inc. dba Pollos Asados La Fonda and dba Taqueria La
Fonda., Francisco Javier De Leon And Margarita Martinez De Leon,
Case No. 4:15-cv-03599 (S.D. Tex., December 10, 2015), seek to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      2030 North Loop West, Ste. 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: (713) 868-3388
      Fax: (713) 683-9940


DIAGEO-GUINNESS: Falsely Marketed Extra Stout Products, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kieran O'Hara, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals v. Diageo-Guinness, USA, Inc. & Diageo North
America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-14139 (D. Mass., December 15,
2015) alleges that the Defendants market, advertise, package and
sell its Guinness(R) product, Guinness(R) Extra Stout, in a manner
which unfairly and deceptively misleads consumers into believing
that all of the Extra Stout sold in the United States is brewed,
sourced, bottled and imported from Dublin, Ireland, when in fact
certain the Extra Stout sold in the United States is brewed and
imported from Canada.

The Defendants operate an alcoholic beverages company that
produces of spirits, beer and wine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin J. McCullough, Esq.
      FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C.
      2 Salem Green, Suite 2
      Salem, MA 01970
      Telephone: (617) 231-7829
      E-mail: kmccullough@forrestlamothe.com


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Professional Liability Suits Still Open
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that some
of the professional liability lawsuits remain pending in Arkansas
state courts and relate to claims arising prior to the cessation
of the Company's operations in that state on September 1, 2013.

On June 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of Arkansas issued a ruling in
a lawsuit against another provider that may impact the pending and
any future lawsuits filed against us in Arkansas. The Arkansas
Supreme Court ruled that a lawsuit against several facilities
formerly operated by Golden Living could proceed as a class
action. The class certified by the Court includes all residents of
defendants' facilities over a several year period, and the class
is certified for a determination of whether the defendants'
facilities were chronically understaffed and, if so, whether this
understaffing violated the residents' admissions agreements and
constituted a violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act.

According to the opinion, if plaintiffs prevail on either legal
theory, then each member of the class will be entitled to a
hearing to determine the amount of damages sustained as a result
of the breach or violation. This decision could impact a purported
class action complaint filed against the Company in 2009 that is
still pending in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, in
which the plaintiff asserts similar claims against a single
facility formerly operated by the Company. This lawsuit remains in
its early stages and has not yet been certified by the court as a
class action.

"The Company currently intends to defend this lawsuit and any
other similar ones vigorously, but this action could be expensive
to defend, and a negative outcome could have a material adverse
impact on our financial position and cash flows," the Company
said.


DYNAMIC SPORTS: Court Denies Bid for Two-Part Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Dynamic Sports
Nutrition's motion for preliminary pre-trial conference and two-
phase discovery in the case captioned, MATTHEW TIGER, Plaintiff,
v. DYNAMIC SPORTS NUTRITION, LLC and PBB TRADEMARK HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 6:15 CV 1701 Orl 41TBS (M.D. Fla.).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants manufacture dietary and
nutritional supplements which they market and sell as powerful,
legal steroids designed to add mass while at the same time, making
the user leaner and stronger. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants'
claims and the manner in which they package, label, and advertise
their products are deceptive, misleading, and false.

Count one of the complaint is a putative class action on behalf of
Plaintiff and all other Floridians who have fallen victim to what
Plaintiff asserts are Defendants' violations of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Count Two is a putative
class action for unjust enrichment brought on behalf of all non-
Floridians located in this country, who have been victims of
Defendants' actions.

In the motion, Defendant moved for Two-Phase Discovery and a
Preliminary Pre-Trial Conference arguing that two-phase discovery
will best serve the interests of fairness and efficiency because
class certification is typically a key and often conclusive step
in class action litigation. Dynamic requests a preliminary pre-
trial conference if the Court deems it necessary to decide the
motion.

In his Order dated December 28, 2015, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ZLIdsdfrom Leagle.com, Judge Smith found that the
parties have also not provided the Court with sufficient
information to make an informed decision concerning how difficult
it would be to establish a bright line between class certification
and merits discovery. The Court is not persuaded that phased
discovery will conserve the resources of the parties or the Court.
This is because the line between `class issues' and `merits
issues' is practically difficult, if not impossible, to determine.

Matthew Tiger is represented by:

     Robert Leslie Vessel, Esq.
     Shyam N.S. Dixit, Jr., Esq.
     DIXIT LAW FIRM, PA
     3030 N Rocky Point Dr W #260,
     Tampa, FL 33607
     Tel: (813)252-3999

Defendants are represented by Frank Mari, Esq. --
FMari@bellroperlaw.com -- Michael J. Roper, Esq. --
MRoper@bellroperlaw.com -- BELL & ROPER, PA, Greg Koush, Esq.
-- gkoush@hicks-thomas.com -- Stewart Hoffer, Esq. --
shoffer@hicks-thomas.com -- HICKS THOMAS, LLP


ECOLAB INC: "Cancilla" Settlement Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Donato of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California ruled on Plaintiffs'
motion for final settlement approval and certification of a
settlement class; and for payment of attorneys' fees and costs,
and class service awards in the case captioned, NICK CANCILLA, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. ECOLAB, INC., Defendant, Case No. 12-CV-03001-
JD (N.D. Cal.).

The plaintiffs are current and former Service Specialists, Select
Segment Service Specialists and Senior Service Specialists in
Ecolab's Pest Elimination Division. Plaintiffs allege that Ecolab
misclassified them as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and consequently "failed to pay them overtime at a rate not less
than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek." The named plaintiffs
also allege various state law violations relating to Ecolab's
compensation practices.

The Court previously granted preliminary approval of a proposed
class action settlement. The parties entered into a settlement
agreement after mediation in May 2015. That settlement agreement
is the operative agreement in the case.  The Court granted
preliminary approval on August 12, 2015, finding that the
agreement was "fair, reasonable, and adequate" under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(e). The proposed class consists of 1,053
individuals, including 580 Service Specialists who opted in to the
previously certified FLSA collective action class and 473
additional putative class members that are Service Specialists in
eight state settlement classes.

Pending before the Court are plaintiffs' unopposed motions for:
(1) final settlement approval and certification of a settlement
class, (2) attorneys' fees and costs, and (3) class representative
service awards.

In his Order dated January 5, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/4I89Ogfrom Leagle.com, Judge Donato found that the
proposed FLSA settlement constituted a "fair and reasonable"
resolution "of a bona fide dispute," and approved it. He confirmed
final appointment of David Beausoleil, Lucio Flores, Robert Birch,
Thomas Jennison, Michael Emanuel, Kenneth Forbes, Frederick Simon,
Brian O'Neil and Patrick Sweeney as the class representatives of
the respective state classes under Rule 23. The Court also found
that the requests for attorneys' fees and costs were adequately-
supported and reasonable and awarded $1,875,000 in attorneys' fees
and $135,601.83 in costs. The incentive payment was granted only
in part because the Court had serious doubts about the propriety
of incentive payments did not amount to an inflexible rule and
approved service awards of $500 to each of the nine named
plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are represented by James M. Finberg, Esq. --
jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com -- Connie K. Chan, Esq. --
cchan@altshulerberzon.com -- ALTSHULER BERZON LLP

          - and -

     John T. Mullan, Esq.
     RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF
     351 California Street, Suite 700
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415)906-2647

Ecolab, Inc. is represented by Jody Ann Landry, Esq. --
jlandry@littler.com -- Lindsey Marie Stevens, Esq. --
lstevens@littelr.com -- Alan Sam Levins, Esq. --
alevins@littler.com -- Andrew J. Voss, Esq. -- avoss@littler.com -
- Dawn Sarah Telthorst Fonseca, Esq. -- dfonseca@littler.com --
Shirley O. Lerner, Esq. -- slerner@littler.com -- LITTLER
MENDELSON


EL POLLO: Defending Calif. Class Action Filed by Former Employee
----------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., said it is vigorously defending a
class action lawsuit filed by a former employee, the Company said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 13, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, against EPL on behalf of all putative class members (all
hourly employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain
violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay
overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest
breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The
putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory
and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No specific amount of
damages sought was specified in the complaint.

While the Company is vigorously defending against this action,
including its class certification, the ultimate outcome of the
case is presently not determinable as it is in a preliminary
phase. Thus, the Company cannot at this time determine the
likelihood of an adverse judgment nor a likely range of damages in
the event of an adverse judgment. Any settlement of, or judgment
with a negative outcome arising from, this lawsuit could have a
material adverse effect.


EL POLLO: Defending "Turocy" and "Huston" Securities Fraud Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted
in the cases, Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings,
Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-01343) filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on August
24, 2015, and Ron Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc.,
et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-01710) filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on October
22, 2015.

Plaintiff Daniel Turocy, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, and Plaintiff Ron Huston, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, each filed separate putative class
action complaints, alleging violations of federal securities laws
in connection with Holdings common stock purchased or otherwise
acquired and, in the Ron Huston case, the purchase of call options
or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and August 13,
2015 (the "Class Period").

In both cases, the named defendants are Holdings; Stephen J.
Sather, Laurance Roberts, and Edward J. Valle (collectively, the
"Individual Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo Partners, L.L.C.,
Trimaran Capital Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. (collectively,
the "Controlling Shareholder Defendants").

Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early
2015, Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor costs in
California and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of such
rising costs, removed a $5 value option from our menu, which
resulted in a decrease in value-conscious store traffic.
Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings
and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false
and misleading statements that concealed the effect that these
factors were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings'
stock continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices. As
a result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class
allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of
Holdings' stock during the Class Period.

In addition, Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants and
Controlling Shareholder Defendants had direct involvement in, and
responsibility over, the operations of Holdings, and are presumed
to have had, among other things, the power to control or influence
the transactions giving rise to the alleged securities law
violations. In both cases, Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount
of damages, as well as costs and expenses (including attorneys'
fees).


EOS PRODUCTS: Faces Class Suit in C.D. Cal. over Lip Balm
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Services, that celebrity-
endorsed EOS lip balm causes blistering, bleeding, skin-cracking
and rashes and the company conceals it from consumers, a
California woman claims in a federal class action in Los Angeles.

Lead plaintiff Rachael Cronin sued New York-based EOS Products,
accusing it of fraudulently concealing adverse side effects
despite ample evidence from consumer complaints.

EOS, an acronym for "evolution of smooth," advertises its lip
balms with "celebrity brand ambassadors" such as Kim Kardashian,
Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, Hillary Duff, and others, Cronin
says.

"The advertisements and marketing by EOS emphasizes that the
product is 'organic' and 'gluten-free,' aligning the product with
popular dietary trends, despite the fact that the lip balm has no
consumable value," Cronin says. And despite claims that the balms
are organic, they contain sodium hyaluronate, ascorbyl palmitate,
tocopherols, and butyrospermum parkii, which the FDA considers a
"major allergen," according to the complaint.

"Potentially in excess of hundreds of thousands of consumers,"
Cronin says, "have experienced devastating adverse reactions to
the product, consisting of mild to severe rashes, dryness,
bleeding, blistering, cracking and loss of pigmentation, lasting
from a few days, to a few months, and some consumers with long
lasting and perhaps permanent symptoms."

EOS is aware of the "serious adverse side effects" of its lip
balms, and has been "flooded" by consumer complaints, including on
its Facebook page, Cronin says. Yet EOS does not provide any
warnings on its product, website or marketing materials, and did
not recall the lip balm or commission a study of the adverse
effects, according to the complaint.

Cronin bought EOS Summer Fruit lip balm on Dec. 4, 2015. Its
packaging claims "EOS keeps your lips moist, soft and
sensationally smooth" and had no warnings about side effects.
Within hours of using the lip balm, Cronin says, her lips became
dry and coarse, so she used more, which caused her lips to crack
severely, flake and bleed, resulting in severe blistering and
rashes that required medical care.

Cronin says she was in "severe shock and pain," the symptoms
lasted for 10 days, and she posted a photo on Facebook that showed
her with boils and blisters on her face.  She says the post "set
off a frenzy of responses from other individuals who shared the
identical experience with EOS," and it became clear that this is a
"massive national health problem."

Cronin seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement,
injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages for fraud,
concealment, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, consumer law
violations and unfair business practices.  She estimates the size
of the class in the millions.

EOS Products is the only named defendant and did not respond to an
email request for comment Jan. 14.

Cronin's attorney Mark Geragos could not be reached for comment by
telephone Jan. 14 night.


FACEBOOK INC: Approval of Settlement in Fraley et al. Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judges W. Fletcher, Berzon and Bea of the Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed district court's approval of a
class action settlement and the court's award of attorney's fees
in the case captioned, ANGEL FRALEY; PAUL WANG; JAMES H. DUVAL, a
minor, by and through James Duval, as Guardian ad Litem; WILLIAM
TAIT, a minor, by and through Russell Tait, as Guardian ad Litem;
SUSAN MAINZER; LUCY FUNES; INSTRAGRAM, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
C.M.D.; T.A.B.; H.E.W.; B.A.W.; A.D.Y.; R.P.Y., Intervenor-
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JO BATMAN, Objector-Appellant, v.
FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ANGEL FRALEY; PAUL WANG; JAMES
H. DUVAL, a minor, by and through James Duval, as Guardian ad
Litem; WILLIAM TAIT, a minor, by and through Russell Tait, as
Guardian ad Litem; SUSAN MAINZER; LUCY FUNES; INSTRAGRAM, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, C.M.D.; T.A.B.; H.E.W.; B.A.W.; A.D.Y.;
R.P.Y., Intervenor-Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JOHN SCHACHTER, on
behalf of himself and his minor son S.M.S.; KIM PARSONS, on behalf
of herself and her minor daughter C.B.P; ANN LEONARD, on behalf of
herself and her minor daughter D.Z.; R.P., through her mother
Margaret Becker; J.C., through his father Michael Carome,
Objectors-Appellants, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ANGEL
FRALEY; PAUL WANG; JAMES H. DUVAL, a minor, by and through James
Duval, as Guardian ad Litem; WILLIAM TAIT, a minor, by and through
Russell Tait, as Guardian ad Litem; SUSAN MAINZER; LUCY FUNES;
INSTRAGRAM, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, C.M.D.; T.A.B.; H.E.W.;
B.A.W.; A.D.Y.; R.P.Y., Intervenor-Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WENDY
LALLY; ALEC GREENHOUSE; JONATHAN BOBAK; ZACHARY COCHRAN,
Objectors-Appellants, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ANGEL
FRALEY; PAUL WANG; JAMES H. DUVAL, a minor, by and through James
Duval, as Guardian ad Litem; WILLIAM TAIT, a minor, by and through
Russell Tait, as Guardian ad Litem; SUSAN MAINZER; LUCY FUNES;
INSTRAGRAM, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, C.M.D.; T.A.B.; H.E.W.;
B.A.W.; A.D.Y.; R.P.Y., Intervenor-Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. K.D.;
C.D., through their father, Michael Depot, Objectors-Appellants,
v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ANGEL FRALEY; PAUL WANG;
JAMES H. DUVAL, a minor, by and through James Duval, as Guardian
ad Litem; WILLIAM TAIT, a minor, by and through Russell Tait, as
Guardian ad Litem; SUSAN MAINZER; LUCY FUNES; INSTRAGRAM, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, C.M.D.; T.A.B.; H.E.W.; B.A.W.; A.D.Y.;
R.P.Y., Intervenor-Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. H.L.S., through her
mother, Sheila L. Shane, Objector-Appellant, v. FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee. ANGEL FRALEY; PAUL WANG; JAMES H. DUVAL, a
minor, by and through James Duval, as Guardian ad Litem; WILLIAM
TAIT, a minor, by and through Russell Tait, as Guardian ad Litem;
SUSAN MAINZER; LUCY FUNES; INSTRAGRAM, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
C.M.D.; T.A.B.; H.E.W.; B.A.W.; A.D.Y.; R.P.Y., Intervenor-
Plaintiffs-Appellees, THOMAS LCOX, Jr.; TRACEY COX KLINGE; KATIE
SIBLEY, Objectors-Appellants, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant-
Appellee. ANGEL FRALEY; PAUL WANG; JAMES H. DUVAL, a minor, by and
through James Duval, as Guardian ad Litem; WILLIAM TAIT, a minor,
by and through Russell Tait, as Guardian ad Litem; SUSAN MAINZER;
LUCY FUNES; INSTRAGRAM, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, C.M.D.; T.A.B.;
H.E.W.; B.A.W.; A.D.Y.; R.P.Y., Intervenor-Plaintiffs-Appellees,
SAM KAZMAN, Objector-Appellant, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant-
Appellee, Case Nos. 13-16819, 13-16919, 13-16936, 13-17028,14-
15595 (9th Cir.).

In the putative class action, the district court approved a class
action settlement which awarded $15 to each claiming class member,
notwithstanding the possibility of a $750 statutory penalty
finding that the monetary award of $15 was reasonable in light of
the minimal (if any) harm suffered by the plaintiffs. The Court
also found that there was no structural conflict of interest
requiring the appointment of separate counsel for the minor
subclass.

On appeal, several objectors challenge the district court's
approval of the settlement and the court's award of attorney's
fees. Objector Kazman appeals the district court's decision to
deny him attorney's fees and an incentive award.

In the Memorandum dated January 6, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/kMZ00sfrom Leagle.com, the Ninth Circuit found that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the
settlement and award of attorney's fees and in denying Objector
Kazman's motion for attorney's fees and an incentive award. Kazman
was also not entitled to attorney's fees for arguing that class
counsel's attorney's fees should be calculated as a percentage of
net recovery because, as the district court found, the associated
reasonable fee for preparing the argument was de minimis.


FARMERS GROUP: Court Grants Conditional Certification in "Coates"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's motion for
conditional collective action certification; and authorized notice
to potential similarly situated class members in the case
captioned, LYNNE COATES, Plaintiff, v. FARMERS GROUP, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-01913-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Lynne Coates and opt-in plaintiffs Sandra Carter,
Chiquita Hartman, Michele Morgan, Serena Neves, Keever Rhodes,
Angela Storey, Stephanie Torigian, and Karen Wasson brought the
instant putative class and collective action against Defendants
Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, and Farmers
Insurance Company, Inc. for alleged violations of the Equal Pay
Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 206(d), and other federal and state laws.

The complaint alleges that Defendants paid the female attorneys in
the Claims Litigation Department less than their male
counterparts, even though the female attorneys performed the same
or substantially equal work to the male attorneys in violations of
the EPA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 2000e, et seq., and violations of various California state
laws. Coates seeks to represent a nationwide collective action
class for the EPA claim; a nationwide class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 for the Title VII claim; and a California class
for the California claims.

On October 15, 2015, Coates filed the instant motion for
conditional certification of the EPA collective action, which
would permit court-authorized notice to be sent to potential opt-
in plaintiffs. Coates seeks to certify a class of "Women employed
by Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, or Farmers
Insurance Company, Inc. (Farmers) in Claims Litigation at any time
since June 8, 2012 in one or more of the following positions:
attorney, workers compensation attorney, associate trial attorney,
trial attorney, senior trial attorney, senior workers compensation
attorney, specialty trial attorney, supervising attorney,
supervising workers compensation attorney, HEAT attorney, or
managing attorney (the Class or Class Members). The Class excludes
individuals working in Farmers Legal Business Administration
(formerly known as Claims Legal Services Management).

In her Order dated December 9, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/A8U0wJfrom Leagle.com, Judge Koh concluded that
Coates has a "reasonable basis" for her claim that female
attorneys in the Claims Litigation Department are a class of
persons similarly situated to Coates because the proposed class
members may also have EPA claims predicated upon the same
compensation and evaluation policies as Coates and that Coates has
met the lenient notice-stage standard for conditional
certification. If, after the close of discovery, it becomes
apparent that the EPA claims should be pursued on an individual
basis, Defendants may move to decertify the class.

The Court approved the requested 90 day opt-in period finding
Coates's proposed Notice clearly and neutrally communicates to
potential class members the rights at stake in the litigation and
their statutory opt-in right.

Lynne Coates is represented by:

     Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
     Lori Erin Andrus, Esq.
     ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
     155 Montgomery St #900,
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415)986-1400

          - and -

     Lori J. Costanzo, Esq.
     COSTANZO LAW FIRM
     111 N Market St #910,
     San Jose, CA 95113
     Tel: (408)993-8493

Defendants are represented by Nancy L. Abell, Esq. --
nancyabell@paulhastings.com -- Heather Ann Morgan, Esq. --
heathermorgan@paulhastings.com -- Meg Kochuba, Esq. --
megkochuba@paulhastings.com -- Neal D. Mollen, Esq. --
nealmollen@paulhastings.com -- Valerie Margaret Marek, Esq. --
valmarek@paulhastings.com -- PAUL HASTINGS LLP


FIA CARD: "Olmos" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------
Tatiana Olmos, and all others similarly situated v. FIA Card
Services, N.A., Case No. 3:15-cv-02786 (S.D. Tex., December 10,
2015), seeks injunction stopping Defendant from sending
unsolicited text messages, and an award of statutory damages under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

FIA, a consumer credit subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A.,
operates over 40 million credit card accounts with over $140
billion worth of outstanding balances.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
      409 Camino Del Rio South, Ste 101B
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Tel: (619) 222-7429
      Fax: (866) 431-3292
      E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


FIALOVA INC: Faces "Williams" Suit for Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robyn Williams, on behalf of herself and in a representative
capacity, v. FIALOVA, Inc., a California corporation; Courtney
Baum, an individual; and DOES 1-20, Inclusive, Case no. 30-2015-
00823996-CU-MT-CXC (Cal. Super., County of Orange, December 8,
2015) was filed on behalf of all other persons who worked as
Family Concierges pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004, and California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Inflated Share Price, Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Flotek Industries directors sold $12.7 million in company
stock before news broke that they inflated the share price with
false data about its oil drilling fluids, a shareholder claims in
Houston, Texas.

Houston-based Flotek makes chemical products that are used for
mining, cleaning products, cosmetics and food and beverages,
including a line of citrus fruit-based fluids that it touts as oil
and gas well production boosters.

To prove how potent its drilling fluids are, Flotek launched a
"FracMax" mobile application in May 2014, lead plaintiff Scott
Chinitz says in a Jan. 19 federal class action lawsuit.

The app is supposed to use oil well production data before and
after the introduction of Flotek's fluids to show the benefits of
using them, the complaint states.

The company gave investors concrete evidence during a Sept. 11,
2015, presentation, in which it showed the fluids' benefits for
four Texas oil wells, using data from the Texas Railroad
Commission, the agency that regulates oil and gas, according to
the lawsuit.

But two months later, the Australian analyst firm Bronte Capital
called out Flotek in a report that stated the data the company
showed didn't match the Texas Railroad Commission's numbers, and a
version of FracMax bought from Apple iTunes didn't work.

"On this news, shares of Flotek fell $3.50 per share or over 19
percent to close at $14.60 per share on Nov. 9, 2015," the
complaint states.

Flotek immediately went into damage-control mode. The day after
Bronte Capital issued its report, Flotek CEO John Chisholm
admitted in a press release that his well production figures were
off in the investor presentation.

"We appreciate the thorough analysis provided in the report and
are using this critique as well as others to improve our FracMax
application to ensure both the validity and reliability of the
underlying data," Chisholm said in a statement.

But at the same time, Chisholm defended Flotek's fluids, stating
they "improved productivity when compared to the neighboring wells
that did not use" them.

Flotek further stated that its FracMax application is for the
internal use of its employees only, and a version that drilling
companies could use was forthcoming.

"A key code as well as other security requirements are necessary
to obtain a working copy of the FracMax(R) application. This has
been a consistent policy since FracMax(R) was introduced in 2014,"
the Nov. 10, 2015, press release states.

Chinitz claims in the lawsuit that Chisholm and other Flotek
directors propped up the share price in 2014 and 2015 with public
statements about the citrus drilling fluids and FracMax app, while
privately they had their doubts.

They expressed these reservations in no uncertain terms by selling
1.2 million company shares for $12.7 million from May 2014 to
October 2015, according to the complaint.

As Chinitz notes, it's illegal for company directors to sell stock
based on non-public information.

Chinitz says the recipient of the biggest windfall was Flotek
board member Carla Hardy, who sold 5.1 million shares for $7.6
million in the months before the Bronte Capital report, and
Flotek's deference to it, dropped the share price by more than $9
to close at $9.04 on Nov. 10, 2015.

Hardy was the only director who made more than Chisholm. He sold
888,668 shares for $4.4 million before the news broke, according
to the complaint.

The Bronte Capital report enraged Flotek investors, who have filed
five federal class actions against the company's directors in
Houston, including the latest from Chinitz. That's in addition to
two class actions brought in Harris County Court this year.

Flotek's stock price was trading at $5.86 on Jan.20. The price has
likely not yet bottomed out because the company announced Jan.19,
that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has launched an
investigation related to the FracMax software and the proprietary
drilling fluids.

Chinitz seeks damages for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment. He also wants the directors who allegedly profited
from insider trading to disgorge those proceeds.

He is represented by John McFarland -- jmcfarland@jmlawyers.com
-- with Joyce & McFarland in Houston.

A Flotek employee said the company will not make anyone available
to answer questions about the lawsuit before brusquely hanging up
the phone on Jan. 20.


FORD MOTOR: 9th Cir. Revives Claims in "Daniel" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Donald Molloy, ruling for the U.S. Court of
Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, reversed a summary judgment ruling
in favor of Ford Motor Co. in the appeal captioned, MARGIE DANIEL;
MARY HAUSER; DONNA GLASS; ANDREA DUARTE, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant-Appellee, No.: 13-16476, (9th Cir.)

The plaintiffs, Margie Daniel, Mary Hauser, Donna Glass, and
Andrea Duarte, brought this class action against Ford, alleging
that Ford breached implied and express warranties and committed
fraud in the sale of model year 2005 to 2011 Ford Focus vehicles
containing rear suspension defects. Plaintiffs purchased their
Ford Focus vehicles from authorized Ford dealerships in
California. With each purchase, Plaintiffs received a New Vehicle
Limited Warranty. Prior to purchase, they did not research the
Focus or view brochures, websites, or advertisements about the
Focus. Nor did they read the warranty, maintenance, or owner's
guides that came with the new vehicles prior to purchasing them.
However, Plaintiffs did speak to authorized Ford dealership sales
representatives about the Focus when they made their purchases.
After purchase, Plaintiffs' Focuses required new rear tires for
the first time between 12,086 and 20,723 miles.

Plaintiffs allege that the Focus has a rear suspension
"alignment/geometry" defect that leads to premature tire wear,
which in turn leads to safety hazards such as decreased control in
handling, steering, stability, and braking, the threat of
catastrophic tire failure, and drifting while driving on wet or
snow-covered roads. Ford allegedly knew or should have known about
the defect through pre-release testing data, consumer complaints
to Ford dealerships, testing conducted in response to those
complaints, aggregate data from Ford's dealerships, and from other
internal sources. Plaintiffs allege Ford had a duty to disclose
the defect but failed to do so at the time of sale. Plaintiffs
further allege that, had they known about the defect, they would
not have purchased the Focus.

Plaintiffs instituted this putative class action against Ford
alleging five claims: (1) violation of California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, Cal Civ. Code Sections 1750-1784; (2)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Sections 17200-17210; (3) breach of implied warranty
under California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ.
Code Sections 1790-1795.8; (4) breach of warranty under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2301-2312; and (5)
breach of express warranty under Cal. Com. Code Section 2313.

Ford moved for summary judgment.  The district court granted
summary judgment on:

     -- Plaintiffs' Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair
Competition Law claims because the court concluded that Plaintiffs
failed to show reliance.

     -- the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claims of
Plaintiffs Hauser, Glass, and Duarte because the court concluded
that they failed to present evidence that their vehicles became
unmerchantable within the duration of the implied warranty.

     -- the breach of express warranty claims of Plaintiffs Daniel
and Duarte because the court concluded that the New Vehicle
Limited Warranty did not cover the alleged design defect.

     -- Plaintiffs' Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims because
those claims depend on Plaintiffs' warranty claims.

The district court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b), the district court entered final judgment.

In his Opinion dated December 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/vh2xKIfrom Leagle.com, Judge Molloy, Senior District
Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana,
sitting by designation, reversed the district court's summary
judgment order and remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.

"In light of our reversal, the Court of Appeals also instructed
the district court to reconsider its denial of Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification," Judge Molloy said, saying Plaintiffs
have offered sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of
material fact as to the second sub-element of reliance -- whether
they would have behaved differently if Ford had disclosed the
alleged defect. A reasonable fact finder could infer that a
vehicle that experiences premature and more frequent tire wear
would pose an unreasonable safety risk, such that it can be
presumed that the nondisclosure of the safety risk impacted
Plaintiffs' purchasing decision. Plaintiffs have put forth
sufficient evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to
them, that the Focus experienced premature and more frequent tire
wear, and that Ford circulated special service messages to its
authorized dealerships informing them that "some 2005-2011 Focus
vehicles may exhibit premature front/rear tire wear and/or a
vehicle drift condition when driving on wet or snow packed roads."
Plaintiffs' experts opined that worn tires can pose a safety
hazard in terms of road and weather conditions and potential
blowouts. Even Ford acknowledges that "it can be dangerous to let
the tires on any vehicle become excessively worn before replacing
them."

Under the terms of Ford's express warranty, Judge Molloy noted,
Plaintiffs needed to return to Ford dealerships to perform
warranty repairs. And it is through its dealership network that
Ford circulated its special service messages and technical service
bulletins when issues arose with the Focus. Based on this
evidence, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that Ford knew
that its consumers depended at least in part on its authorized
dealerships for information about its vehicles and that Ford's
authorized dealerships would have disclosed the alleged rear
suspension defect to consumers if Ford had required it. Since
Plaintiffs have sufficient evidence to establish a plausible
method of disclosure and to establish that they would have been
aware of information disclosed using that method, there is a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether they in fact relied
on Ford's omissions in purchasing the Focus. Because Plaintiffs
have raised a genuine issue of fact as to reliance, the district
court's order granting summary judgment on their Consumers Legal
Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law claims is reversed.

Eric Grant, Esq. --  grant@hicks-thomas.com -- John B. Thomas,
Esq. -- jthomas@hicks-thomas.com -- and Kelsey McDowell, Esq. --
kmcdowell@hicks-thomas.com -- of Hicks Thomas LLP -- J. Allen
Carney, Esq. -- acarney@cauleybowman.com -- and Tiffany Wyatt
Oldham, Esq. of Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC for Plaintiffs-
Appellants

John M. Thomas, Esq. -- jthomas@dykema.com and Krista L. Lenart,
Esq. -- klenart@dykema.com of Dykema Gossett PLLC for Defendant-
Appellee


FRESH EXPRESS: Recalls Baby Spinach Products Due to Tree Nut
------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Express Incorporated is voluntarily issuing a precautionary
recall of 350 cases of 12 oz. Fresh Express Baby Spinach with a
Product Code of G010A17A and Use-By Date of January 24 due to a
possible exposure to a tree nut allergen (almond). Fresh Express
representatives are already coordinating with stores to remove the
recalled product from retail stores where distributed, primarily
in Eastern and Southeastern states. No other Fresh Express
products are included in this recall.

No illnesses are reported.

The recall was necessitated when a portion of a single almond was
inadvertently introduced into the production supply. In order to
safeguard the health and wellbeing of consumers, Fresh Express is
conducting a precautionary recall of product that could have come
into contact with the almond during this isolated incident. In
some individuals the consumption of an undisclosed allergen, such
as tree nuts, could be life-threatening.

Fresh Express takes all matters of food safety very seriously,
including the issue of allergens. Company procedures and programs
stringently follow all mandated regulations and focus on
preventive measures designed to minimize potential risks. Fresh
Express is coordinating closely with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and is conducting a full investigation into this
isolated event.

Consumers in possession of the recalled product should discard it.
A refund is available where purchased or by contacting the Fresh
Express Consumer Response Center toll-free at (800) 242-5472
during the hours of 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern Time.

Fresh Express Baby Spinach - 12 oz. bag
Product Code of G010A17A and Use-By Date of January 24 located in
the upper right hand corner on the front of the bag
UPC Code of 0 71279 27111 8 located on the reverse side of the bag
by the bar code

Fresh Express Precautionary Recall, Baby Spinach - 1/15/16
(No other Fresh Express Salads are included in this recall)
BRAND PRODUCT NAME  SIZE  UPC  PRODUCTION CODE  BEST IF USED BY
DATE  POSSIBLE DISTRIBUTION STATES

Fresh Express Baby Spinach  12 oz.  71279 27111 8  G010A17A  24-
Jan  CT, DE, FL, GA, MA, ME, MD, NC, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VA


GALARDI SOUTH: Can't Compel Arbitration in "Espinoza" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Eva Fedderly, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
a strip club cannot compel its dancers to engage in arbitration
over their claims they are being paid less than minimum wage, a
federal magistrate ruled in Miami.

Exotic dancers at the King of Diamonds Gentlemen's Clubs in Miami
filed a collective Fair Labor Standards Act case against their
employer in April 2014, claiming the club and its affiliates
refused "to pay the minimum wages and overtime compensation to the
dancers-entertainers they employ."

After the class action was filed, the club's owners began
requiring all prospective dancers to sign arbitration agreements
before they would be hired. It also asked current employees to
sign the agreements. Four plaintiffs did so.

Later, King of Diamonds filed a motion to compel arbitration, a
motion the dancers opposed on the grounds that its filing was an
"impermissible attempt to interfere with the proposed class."

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman sided with the dancers,
holding that King of Diamond's arbitration policy, "was clearly
coercive and admittedly designed to undermine this litigation."

In explaining the rationale behind this conclusion, Goodman
pointed out that the defendants "unequivocally" admitted that they
imposed the arbitration requirement after the dancers' lawsuit was
filed, and was done so to "dissuade entertainers from
participating in this civil action."

"Based on the testimony of the witnesses at the evidentiary
hearing . . .  including the confirmation from named Plaintiffs
who refused to sign the agreement that they were, in fact, no
longer provided the opportunity to work . . .  Defendants did in
fact make the signing of the subject arbitration agreement a
condition of continuing employment."

This, Goodman said, did make the defendants' action "coercive" and
"abusive."

Attorney Harlan Miller, who represents the plaintiffs class, told
Courthouse News that Goodman's decision is great news for people
who find themselves with mandatory arbitration agreements.

"It speaks to all people who are fired and face mandatory
arbitration. It's fundamental fairness. The judge did a great job
explaining his rational," Miller said.

A representative of King Of Diamonds declined to comment on the
decision, as did the club's attorney, Dean Fuchs of Schulten, Ward
& Turner in Atlanta.

"Unfortunately I'm not in the habit of commenting on active cases,
particularly before we've had the chance to appeal," Fuchs said.

The case is captioned, JASZMANN ESPINOZA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
GALARDI SOUTH ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-
21244-CIV-GOODMAN (S.D. Fla.)


GARDA CL: Faces "Oliver" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
Christopher Oliver, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, v. Garda CL West, Inc.,
a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No.BC603458 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles - Central
District, December 7, 2015), was filed on behalf of a purported
class of all non-exempt armored Drivers and/or Messengers who have
been employed by Defendants in the State of California at any time
from four years prior to the filing of this complaint until
certification of the class in this lawsuit.

Garda Cl West, Inc.'s line of business includes providing
detective, guard, and armored car services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ronald H. Bae, Esq.
     Olivia D. Scharrer, Esq.
     AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP
     A Professional Law Corporation
     1156 E. Green Street, Suite 200
     Pasadena, CA 91106
     Phone: (213)674-6080
     Fax: (213)674-6081


GENCO SHIPPING: Motion to Dismiss Baltic Shareholder Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Genco Shipping & Trading Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated class action
complaint in its entirety is pending.

In April 2015, six class action complaints were filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, styled
Erol Sarikaya v. Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index No.
651244/2015, filed on April 15, 2015, voluntarily dismissed, and
refiled as Joshua Bourne v. Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index
No. 651429/2015, filed on April 28, 2015, Justin Wilson v. Baltic
Trading Ltd., et al., Index No. 651241/2015, filed on April 15,
2015, Sangeetha Ganesan v. Baltic Trading Limited et al., Index
No. 651279/2015, filed on April 17, 2015, Edward Braunstein v.
Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index No. 651368/2015, filed on
April 23, 2015, Larry Williams v. Baltic Trading Ltd., et al.,
Index No. 651371/2015, filed on April 23, 2015, and Larry
Goldstein and Bernhard Stomporowski v. John C. Wobensmith et al.,
Index No. 651407/2015, filed on April 27, 2015.

All six complaints purport to be brought by and on behalf of the
Baltic Trading's shareholders. The plaintiff in each action
alleges the proposed merger does not fairly compensate Baltic
Trading's shareholders and undervalues Baltic Trading. Each
lawsuit names as defendants some or all of the Company, Baltic
Trading, the individual members of Baltic Trading's board, the
Company's and Baltic Trading's President, and the Company's merger
subsidiary.

The claims generally allege (i) breaches of fiduciary duties of
good faith, due care, disclosure to shareholders, and loyalty,
including for failing to maximize shareholder value, and (ii)
aiding and abetting those breaches. Among other relief, the
complaints seek an injunction against the merger, declaratory
judgments that the individual defendants breached fiduciary
duties, rescission of the merger agreement, and unspecified
damages.

On May 26, 2015, the six actions were consolidated under the
caption In Re Baltic Trading Ltd. Stockholder Litigation, Index
No. 651241/2015, and a consolidated class action complaint was
filed on June 10, 2015 (the "Consolidated Complaint").

On June 30, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety; that motion is pending.

On July 9, 2015, plaintiffs in that action moved to enjoin the
merger vote, scheduled to take place on July 17, 2015.  The motion
was thereafter fully briefed and argued on July 15, 2015.  The
motion to enjoin the vote was denied.  Plaintiffs sought an
emergency injunction and temporary restraining order from the New
York State Appellate Division, First Department the following day,
on July 16, 2015.  The Appellate Division denied the request, and
the vote, and subsequent merger, proceeded as scheduled on July
17, 2015.  Plaintiffs thereafter withdrew the appeal.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Court Denies Conditionally Bid to Decertify
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California denied, on
a conditional basis, Defendant's motion to decertify the class and
granted in part Defendant's motion to exclude Dr. Jeffrey S.
Kane's testimony and evidence of the survey conducted by the
Plaintiffs in the case captioned, CHARLES BREWER, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former
employees of Defendant, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL NUTRITION
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 11 CV 3587 YGR (N.D. Cal.).

The named plaintiffs' off-the-clock claims for uncompensated time
are mainly based on the premise that they were required to work to
complete their duties after they had to log out of the POS system.
Plaintiffs have represented that they will establish liability on
a class-wide basis primarily by offering evidence of:

     (a) GNC's meal and rest break policies;

     (b) GNC's requirement that all employees sign an on-duty
         break waiver;

     (c) evidence that class members' time records show that
         they did not clock out for breaks despite GNC policy
         that requiring them to clock out and in for meal and
         rest breaks (and state regulations requiring employers
         to record all meal breaks); and

     (d) evidence that GNC never made a premium payment for a
         missed meal or rest break to any class member.
         Plaintiffs contend that GNC policy only authorizes
         breaks when "customer flow," "scheduling," and "business
         needs" permit, and that the on-duty break waivers were
         obtained because GNC knows that its policies will
         prevent them from taking breaks.

GNC brought two motions: (1) for Decertification of the class
action; and (2) to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs' expert,
Dr. Kane, as well as any evidence of the survey discussed in his
report.

In her Order dated December 28, 2015, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/0VlX7Ifrom Leagle.com, Judge Rogers found that the
arguments, evidence, and authorities offered by GNC do not change
the Court's evaluation that the class and subclasses, as certified
and as modified by the Court's order on the cross-motions for
summary judgment, is properly certified under the requirements of
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23. The motion to dismiss as to the survey
evidence is granted because it is not relevant to the liability
issues on the meal and rest break claims as certified and denied
dismissal of Dr. Kane's testimony because they go to the weight to
be accorded to the evidence and not its admissibility and
objections to his testimony can point out during cross-
examination.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Chad Avery Pradmore, Esq.
     Leonard Thomas Emma, Esq.
     Michael Robert Hoffman, Esq.
     HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS LLC
     580 California St #1600,
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415)362-1111

          - and -

     Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
     SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
     1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
     Oakland, CA 94612

General Nutrition Corporation is represented by Alan Sam Levins,
Esq. -- alevins@littler.com -- Karin Morgan Cogbill, Esq. --
kcogbill@littler.com -- Sophia Behnia, Esq. -- sbehnia@littler.com
-- Allison Renee Brown, Esq. -- arbrown@littler.com -- Robert
William Pritchard, Esq. -- rpritchard@littler.com -- LITTLER
MENDELSON, PC


GIANT EAGLE: Recalls New Year's Pretzel Products Due to Walnut
--------------------------------------------------------------
All lots of Giant Eagle brand New Year's Pretzels prepared and
sold individually from the Bakery department inside the Niles
Giant Eagle at 48 Vienna Avenue in Niles, Ohio since December 26
have been voluntarily recalled by Giant Eagle due to an undeclared
walnut allergen. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity
to walnuts run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products. The product is safe for
consumption by those who do not have walnut allergies.

Approximately 23,000 potentially affected New Year's Pretzels were
purchased in various transactions in Giant Eagle and Market
District supermarkets in Pennsylvania, with the Niles Giant Eagle
also selling the product. Giant Eagle became aware of the issue
when a Pennsylvania customer who purchased the product reported a
related walnut allergy issue. The product label for the New Year's
Pretzels, which contain walnuts, omitted walnuts as an allergen.

Customers with a walnut allergy who have purchased the affected
product should dispose of it or return it to their local Giant
Eagle or Market District store for a refund. Customers with
questions may call Giant Eagle Customer Care at 1-800-553-2324
Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. EST.

In addition to this public communication regarding this recall,
Giant Eagle initiated its consumer recall telephone notification
process. The consumer recall process uses purchase data and
consumer telephone numbers housed in the Giant Eagle Advantage
Card(R) database to alert those households that purchased the
affected product and have updated telephone contact information in
the database.

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


GIANT EAGLE: Recalls New Year's Pretzel Products Due to Walnut
--------------------------------------------------------------
All lots of Giant Eagle brand New Year's Pretzels prepared and
sold individually from the Bakery department inside the Snow Road
Giant Eagle located at 1825 Snow Road in Parma, Ohio since
December 26 have been voluntarily recalled by Giant Eagle due to
an undeclared walnut allergen. People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to walnuts run the risk of a serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The
product is safe for consumption by those who do not have walnut
allergies.

Approximately 23,000 potentially affected New Year's Pretzels were
purchased in various transactions in Giant Eagle and Market
District supermarkets in Pennsylvania, with the Snow Road Giant
Eagle in Parma, Ohio also selling the product. Giant Eagle became
aware of the issue when a Pennsylvania customer who purchased the
product reported a related walnut allergy issue. The product label
for the New Year's Pretzels, which contain walnuts, omitted
walnuts as an allergen.

Customers with a walnut allergy who have purchased the affected
product should dispose of it or return it to their local Giant
Eagle or Market District store for a refund. Customers with
questions may call Giant Eagle Customer Care at 1-800-553-2324
Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. EST.

In addition to this public communication regarding this recall,
Giant Eagle initiated its consumer recall telephone notification
process. The consumer recall process uses purchase data and
consumer telephone numbers housed in the Giant Eagle Advantage
Card(R) database to alert those households that purchased the
affected product and have updated telephone contact information in
the database.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/E0T0xc


GIANT EAGLE: Recalls New Year's Pretzel Products Due to Walnut
--------------------------------------------------------------
All lots of New Year's Pretzels prepared and sold individually
from the Bakery department inside the Carmel Market District
located at 11505 N Illinois Street in Carmel, Indiana since
December 26 have been voluntarily recalled by Giant Eagle, Inc.
due to an undeclared walnut allergen. People who have an allergy
or severe sensitivity to walnuts run the risk of a serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
The product is safe for consumption by those who do not have
walnut allergies.

Approximately 23,000 potentially affected New Year's Pretzels were
purchased in various transactions in Giant Eagle and Market
District supermarkets in Pennsylvania and Ohio, with the Carmel
Market District also selling the product. Giant Eagle, Inc. became
aware of the issue when a Pennsylvania customer who purchased the
product reported a related walnut allergy issue. The product label
for the New Year's Pretzels, which contain walnuts, omitted
walnuts as an allergen.

Customers with a walnut allergy who have purchased the affected
product should dispose of it or return it to the Carmel Market
District for a refund. Customers with questions may call Market
District Customer Care at 1-866-620-0216 Monday through Friday 9
a.m. to 9 p.m. EST.

In addition to this public communication regarding this recall,
Giant Eagle, Inc. initiated its consumer recall telephone
notification process. The consumer recall process uses purchase
data and consumer telephone numbers housed in the Market District
Advantage Card database to alert those households that purchased
the affected product and have updated telephone contact
information in the database.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/E0T0xc


GINN DEVELOPMENT: Approval of Class Action Settlement Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district
court's approval of a class action settlement in the appeal
captioned case CHRISTOPHER GRECO, Interested Party-Appellant, JOHN
DEMSHECK, PALMETTO PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT, LLC, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. GINN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No.:
14-11443, (11th Cir.)

In his class action complaint, Plaintiff John Demshek, "on behalf
of a class of all persons or entities that purchased real estate
in one of Defendants' residential or resort developments," alleged
that: Defendants Ginn Development Company, LLC and Lubert-Adler
Partners, LP developed, marketed, and sold residential real
estate; Plaintiff and the putative class members had purchased
real estate in Defendants' developments; and Defendants
circumvented the requirements for the sale of such real estate.
Plaintiff also alleged that these actions resulted in losses for
Plaintiff and the putative class members, and profits to
Defendants.

The class action complaint asserted causes of action under 15
U.S.C. Sections 1703 and 1707 (The Interstate Land Sales Full
Disclosure Act (ILSA)) and 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) and (d)
(Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)). Both
Ginn and Lubert-Adler moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court
granted Lubert-Adler's motion, but denied Ginn's motion. The
district court (1) dismissed Plaintiff's ILSA claim under 15
U.S.C. Section 1707 as to both Lubert-Adler and Ginn, with
prejudice; (2) dismissed the ILSA claim under 15 U.S.C. Section
1703 as to Lubert-Adler, with prejudice; and (3) dismissed the
RICO claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) and (d) against
Lubert-Adler, without prejudice. Because Plaintiff did not seek to
amend the pleadings to reassert any claims against Lubert-Adler,
it no longer remained a party to the case.

A lone objecting class member challenges the district court's
approval of a class action settlement. Appellant Christopher Greco
argues that the district court erred in finding that (1) the
settlement was "fair, reasonable and adequate" under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(e), and (2) the class members' right to due
process was not deprived by the manner in which notice of the
proposed settlement was given to the class.

In his Opinion dated December 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Wpz5lLfrom Leagle.com, the Hon. R. David Proctor,
United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama,
sitting by designation, affirmed the district court's findings and
conclusions, and its approval of this present class action
settlement. The district court properly held that the release "is
tailored to prevent the relitigation of settled questions at the
core of this class action." If Greco was displeased with the
consideration provided to him under the settlement in exchange for
this release, he was free (as all other original objectors chose
to do) to opt out of the settlement. He chose not to do so;
therefore, he is bound by the settlement.  The district court
properly applied the correct legal standard, did so in an entirely
appropriate manner, and made no findings of fact that are clearly
erroneous. Therefore, it did not abuse its discretion by approving
the proposed settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable.


GLOBAL COLLEGE: Court Grants Default Judgment in "Toler" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Terrence G. Berg of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted Plaintiff's
motion for default judgment and denied Defendants' oral motion for
leave to answer the complaint in the case captioned, ANITA TOLER,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL COLLEGE OF NATURAL MEDICINE, INC.,
and HEATHER JOHNSTONE, Defendants, Case No.
13-10433 (E.D. Mich.).

On February 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed her class action complaint
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(3) on
behalf of a class defined as: "all individuals who entrusted
tuition in advance to GCNM and were active students in distance
education programs of study through GCNM as of November 2012."
Plaintiff alleged claims of: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2)
negligence; (3) wrongful use or loss of property (bailment); (4)
innocent, negligent and/or fraudulent concealment and omission;
(5) promissory estoppel; (6) unjust enrichment/breach of quasi-
contract; (7) equitable estoppel; and (8) breach of contract.

Defendants, a defunct online college and its owner, have
repeatedly failed to respond to the complaint resulting in the
entry of default and final judgment for over a million dollars in
damages. Defendants have been given numerous chances to avoid this
outcome, but they and their Counsel have chosen not to defend the
lawsuit. After months of silence, Defense Counsel somewhat
unexpectedly appeared at the hearing to contest both liability and
damages. At the hearing, Defense Counsel made an oral motion
requesting that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for default
judgment and grant Defendants leave to finally answer Plaintiff's
complaint, which had been filed almost three years ago.
Defendant's oral motion was unaccompanied by any evidence or legal
authority.

Plaintiff filed her motion for default judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) on October 12, 2015.

In her Opinion and Order dated January 6, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/KlQN8Pfrom Leagle.com, Judge Berg entered judgment
against Defendants in favor of each individual identified on the
Class List attached to the order as Exhibit A in the amount of
tuition and fees specified, plus interest, including any interest
paid on any loans used to pay the tuition and fees. The total
amount of the judgment in favor of the Class will be $1,422,080.05
exclusive of interest.

Anita Toler is represented by Dean M. Googasian, Esq. --
dgoogasian@googasian.com -- Debra S. Janicki, Esq. --
djanicki@googasian.com -- Thomas H. Howlett, Esq. --
thowlett@googasian.com -- GOOGASIAN LAW FIRM

Defendants are represented by Brian Graham, Esq. --
bryan.graham@klgates.com -- K & L GATES


GOOD EARTH: Recalls Shell Eggs Due to Salmonella
------------------------------------------------
Good Earth Egg Company, LLC of Bonne Terre, Missouri has announced
a voluntary recall of its shell eggs because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience
fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e.,
infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The Food and Drug Administration has notified Good Earth Egg that
a link has been established between eggs produced in our facility
to cases of Salmonella illnesses in the state of Missouri.

In light of this investigation, and with an abundance of caution,
Good Earth Egg Company has initiated a voluntary recall of all
shell eggs. Various sizes of shell eggs are packaged in the
following ways: 6-count cartons, 10-count cartons, 12-count
cartons, 18-count cartons, 15 dozen cases, and 30 dozen cases. The
dates and codes on the cartons and cases will include everything
prior to and including date code 006 - Sell By 02/05/2016, under
the brand name Good Earth Egg Company, license number D-01124.

The Good Earth Egg Company recalled products were distributed
throughout the Midwest, including Missouri and Illinois, at the
retail and wholesale level, institutions, and to walk-in
customers. Good Earth eggs are sold at Dierbergs, Shop n' Save,
Straubs, Midtowne Market and Price Chopper in the metropolitan St.
Louis area.

Good Earth Egg Company is working with distributors and retailers
to remove these products from wholesale suppliers and retail
shelves. Consumers do not need to return the product to the store
where it was purchased. Instead, consumers should discard any
product and its container. Good Earth Egg Company will work
directly with each consumer to manage replacement of its product.

Consumers with questions may contact Good Earth Egg Company, LLC
at goodeartheggco@hotmail.com.

Good Earth Egg Company has released the following statement, "We
are taking these steps because consumer safety is our top
priority. As a third-generation family operated farm, we are
solely focused on providing fresh, quality, healthy eggs to local
consumers. Although no Good Earth Egg Company eggs have tested
positive for Salmonella, we feel strongly that issuing a voluntary
recall is the right thing to do. Good Earth Egg Company is working
closely with the FDA to determine the root cause of the potential
contamination."

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


GREENWAY HEALTH: Physicians Healthsource Files Suit Under TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Physicians Healthsource, Inc., an Ohio corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons, v. Greenway Health, LLC f/k/a Sage Software Health Care
a/k/a Vitera Healthcare solutions, (Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois County Department Chancery Division, December 8, 2015),
challenges Defendant's alleged practice of sending facsimiles
without proper notice as required pursuant to the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Greenway Health, LLC, is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Tampa, Florida, and was formerly known as
Sage Software Health Care. Greenway Health, LLC is also currently
known as Vitera Healthcare Solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
     David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
     ANDERSON+ WANCA
     3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
     Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
     Phone: (847)368-1500
     Fax: (847)368-1501


GROWLIFE INC: Court Entered Final Order Resolving Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
GrowLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a California court
has entered a Final Order and Judgment resolving the consolidated
class action litigation in its entirety.

Beginning on April 18, 2014, three class action lawsuits alleging
violations of federal securities laws were filed against the
Company in United States District Court, Central District of
California (the "Court"). At a hearing held on July 21, 2014, the
three class action lawsuits were consolidated into one case with
Lawrence Rosen as the lead plaintiff (the "Consolidated Class
Action," styled Romero et al. vs. GrowLife et al.). On May 15,
2014 and August 4, 2014, respectively two shareholder derivative
lawsuits were filed against the Company with the Court (the
"Derivative Actions").

On October 20, 2014, AmTrust North America, the Company's insurer,
filed a lawsuit contesting insurance coverage on the legal
proceedings. The Company made a general appearance in this action.

On January 20, 2015, the Court ordered all of the actions stayed
pending completion of mediation of the dispute.  On June 1, 2015,
the Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement of the
Derivative Actions pursuant to a proposed stipulated settlement
agreement.

On August 3, 2015, the Court entered a Final Order and Judgment
resolving the Consolidated Class Action litigation in its
entirety.  The Consolidated Class Action was thereby dismissed in
its entirety with prejudice and without costs.

On August 10, 2015, pursuant to a settlement by and between the
Company and AmTrust North America, AmTrust's lawsuit contesting
insurance coverage of the Consolidated Class Action and Derivative
Actions was dismissed in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to a
Stipulation for Dismissal of Entire Action with Prejudice executed
by and between AmTrust and the Company.

On August 17, 2015, the Court entered a Final Order and Judgment
resolving the Derivative Actions in their entirety.  The
Derivative Actions were thereby dismissed in their entirety with
prejudice.

As a result of the foregoing, all litigation is resolved in full
at this time.

The Company expects to issue $2 million in common stock or
approximately 115.1 million shares related to the settlement of
the Consolidated Class Action and Derivative Action lawsuits
alleging violations of federal securities laws that were filed
against the Company in United States District Court, Central
District of California. The shares have not been issued as of
November 13, 2015. The Company accrued $2,081,250 as loss on class
action lawsuits and contingent liabilities as of June 30, 2015.


HANOVER INSURANCE: "Hockenbury" Case Remains in W.D. Okla.
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy D. Degiusti of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied Plaintiff's
motion to remand in the case captioned, MICHAEL HOCKENBURY, an
individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
CIV-15-1003-D (W.D. Okla.).

After his property was damaged by water, Plaintiff Michael
Hockenbury submitted a claim to his insurer, Defendant The Hanover
Insurance Company. Hockenbury contended Hanover, in bad faith and
in violation of the insurance policy, failed to conduct a fair and
reasonable investigation and intentionally underpaid him for the
loss. Hockenbury brought the instant action on behalf of himself
and a putative class of all persons who submitted claims to
Hanover for property damage under homeowners or commercial
policies issued in or covering property in the State of Oklahoma
any time after February 1, 2009.

Hanover timely removed the action on two grounds: (1) diversity
jurisdiction over Hockenbury's individual claim and (2)
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).

In the motion, Hockenbury moved to remand his suit to state court
on the basis that neither claim of jurisdiction meets the
requisite amount in controversy under either jurisdictional
theory. He contended his stipulation that he did not seek damages
excess of $75,000 for himself or $5,000,000 on behalf of the class
should end the Court's inquiry and result in remand. He further
stated Hanover failed to show his damages meet the statutory
minimum, either under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332 or CAFA, even assuming
punitive damages are recovered.

In his Order dated January 5, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/cqjIwYfrom Leagle.com, Judge Degiusti found that
Hanover has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
the amount in controversy, as alleged, more likely than not
exceeds $75,000, or at least such amount is in play. The Court
concluded that Hanover has carried its burden to establish
sufficient facts to warrant the district court's exercise of
diversity jurisdiction over Hockenbury's individual claims.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Paul A. Zebrowski, Esq.
     Thomas A. Biscup, Esq.
     ZEBROWSKI LAW FIRM
     Shelby W Blvd.
     Shelby Charter Township, MI 48315
     Tel: (586)566-7266

          - and -

     J. Drew Houghton, Esq.
     FOSHEE & YAFFE
     12231 S May Ave
     Oklahoma City, OK 73170
     Tel: (405)378-3033

Hanover Insurance Company is represented by Stephen E. Goldman,
Esq. -- sgoldman@rc.com -- Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq. --
wackerman@rc.com -- ROBINSON & COLE

         - and -

     Sarah J. Timberlake, Esq.
     ABOWITZ TIMBERLAKE & DAHNKE PC
     The Hightower Building, Tenth Floor
     105 North Hudson
     Oklahoma City, OK 73102
     Tel: (405) 236-4645


HAYES ROBERTSON: Court Dismisses Lopez as Class Representative
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed Paul Lopez as
a class representative in the case captioned, Paul Lopez, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. Hayes Robertson Group, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 13-10004-CIV-Martinez/Goodman (S.D. Fla.).

Judge Goodman then changed the case caption to Andrea Trdina v.
Hayes Robertson Group, Inc. et al.

In December of 2011, a putative class action was filed against the
present Defendants by 21 of the plaintiffs in the present action.
Magistrate Judge Chris McAliley granted certification of a class
action in the matter as to minimum wage claims under Florida law
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 216(b).

After the FLSA collective action was certified, the parties
stipulated -- during a hearing -- that the action should not
proceed as an FLSA collective action; instead, the parties agreed
to proceed solely as a Rule 23 class action pursuing Florida
claims.

In the motion, Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the individual claims
of Lopez without prejudice, dismiss Lopez as a Class
Representative and to change the caption of the case to reflect
Trdina as the sole named Plaintiff in the case. Plaintiffs sought
to dismiss the individual FLSA claims of Lopez and all other
individual Plaintiffs with the exception of Trdina.

Defendants opposed asserting that the class representation will
ultimately be harmed by the absence of Lopez, but state nothing
specifically beyond vagaries about ensuring continued fair and
adequate representation of the class members.

In his Order dated December 23, 2015, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/0VhnEwfrom Leagle.com, Judges Goodman found
Defendants' argument unpersuasive because Defendants cannot point
to a single specific, tangible harm that the class members would
face because of Lopez's absence. Plaintiffs' request to change the
case caption and remove Lopez individually from the case as a
whole is granted because all of Lopez's individual claims are
already dismissed.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
     782 Northwest 42nd Ave., Suite 350
     Miami, FL 33126

Defendants are represented by:

     Shyam N.S. Dixit, Jr., Esq.
     Robert L. Vessel, Esq.
     DIXIT LAW FIRM, PA
     3030 N Rocky Point Dr W #260,
     Tampa, FL 33607
     Tel: (813)252-3999


HCSB FINANCIAL: Entered Into Class Action Settlement Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
HCSB Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that effective as
of September 16, 2015, the Company, Horry County State Bank (the
"Bank"), and several of its executive officers (collectively, the
"Defendants") entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement
(the "Settlement Agreement") in potential settlement of a putative
class action lawsuit filed by Jan W. Snyder, Acey H. Livingston,
and Mark Josephs, on behalf of themselves and all purchasers of
the Company's subordinated debt notes (collectively, the
"Plaintiffs"). The suit is seeking an unspecified amount of
damages resulting from alleged wrongful conduct associated with
purchases of the Company's subordinated debt notes. On September
16, 2015, the court signed its Preliminary Order of Approval (the
"Preliminary Approval Order") with respect to the proposed
settlement. A final hearing was scheduled for November 23, 2015,
at which the court will be asked to finally approve the settlement
of the class action lawsuit and to enter judgment accordingly. The
Settlement Agreement does not constitute a concession or admission
of wrongdoing or liability by the Defendants. The Defendants have
entered into the Settlement Agreement solely to avoid future
inconvenience and protracted, costly litigation and to help
facilitate a proposed recapitalization of the Bank.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company will
establish a settlement fund of approximately $2.4 million, which
represents 20% of the principal of subordinated debt notes issued
by the Company. Class members will be entitled to receive 20% of
the principal of their notes, which will be paid from the
settlement fund, in exchange for a full and complete release of
all claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in the
lawsuit, including further repayment of principal and interest due
under the notes. The Company will separately pay the approved
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses of class counsel up to an
aggregate of $250 thousand. The settlement is expressly contingent
on the following events occurring before the final hearing by the
court: (1) the signing of an agreement between the Company and
holders of certain trust preferred securities issued by the
Company for the repurchase of such securities by the Company for
an amount not to exceed 10% of the outstanding principal balance
owed thereon, or $619 thousand, plus reimbursement of attorneys'
fees and other expenses incurred by the holders of the trust
preferred securities not to exceed $25 thousand; (2) the signing
of an agreement between the Company and the U.S. Treasury for the
repurchase of the Series T Preferred Stock in an amount not to
exceed 1% of the aggregate initial liquidation preference of the
Series T Preferred Stock, or $129 thousand, plus reimbursement of
attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred by the U.S. Treasury
not to exceed $25 thousand; and (3) the receipt of signed
agreements for an investment in the Company of no less than $30
million through a sale of Company stock to investors or the
execution of a merger agreement with another financial
institution. In addition, the Company and the Bank must receive
the necessary regulatory approvals or non-objections for each of
above transactions before any payments can be made from the
settlement fund, although such approvals do not have to occur
before the final hearing by the court.


HERITAGE INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Raw Cashew Due to Salmonella
------------------------------------------------------------
Heritage International (USA) Inc. of Compton, CA is voluntarily
recalling one lot of Trader Joe's Raw Cashew Pieces with the
following code "BEST BEFORE 07.17.2016TF4" because of potential
contamination with Salmonella. Salmonella is an organism that can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result
in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more
severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected
aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The recall only affects one specific lot of Trader Joe's Raw
Cashew Pieces. The product comes in a 16 ounce, clear, non-
resealable plastic package (with a barcode number of 00505154) and
with the following lot code, "BEST BEFORE 07.17.2016TF4." The
"BEST BEFORE" information can be found on the backside of the
package above the barcode.

The product was distributed only to Trader Joe's stores in
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
Washington D.C. and Wisconsin.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The voluntary recall was initiated by Heritage International (USA)
Inc., after routine testing by an FDA contract laboratory revealed
the presence of Salmonella in one lot of Raw Cashew Pieces. Other
lots tested by the FDA contract laboratory and further testing of
this lot by Trader Joe's resulted in no additional findings of
contamination.

Customers who have purchased the specified lot code (BEST BEFORE
07.17.2016TF4) of Raw Cashew Pieces are urged not to eat the
product, and to dispose of it or return it to any Trader Joe's for
a full refund. Customers may call Trader Joe's Customer Relations
at (626) 599-3817 6:00AM-6:00PM PST, Monday - Friday, with any
questions.

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


HONDA MOTORS: Car Wiring Attracts Mice, "Dobbs" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Honda cars with soy-coated electrical wiring attract mice, rabbits
and squirrels, who munch on the snacks, but Honda refuses to cover
repairs, drivers from three states say in a federal class action
in Los Angeles.

Lead plaintiff Daniel Dobbs, of Wyoming, and car owners from
Arizona and Texas sued Honda on Jan. 21 for breach of warranty.
They claim that the soy-based coatings in 2012-2015 model year
Hondas attract rodents.

Greg Delaney, of Arizona, says he took his 2014 CrossTour to the
dealer because the wiring was "shredded through." The dealer said
repairs were not covered by warranty, but they did find "a live
rabbit still chewing through the wiring in Mr. Delaney's vehicle,
and provided Mr. Delaney with a photograph of the live animal
chewing the wiring in the car. Mr. Delaney was charged and paid
approximately $765 for the repair," he says.

It wasn't a fluke, they say. Plaintiff Sean Rickard, of Texas, had
to pay his $500 deductible from a $1,400 bill after his Accord's
power steering wiring was chewed through. Honda refused to cover
it under warranty. Two days later, he says, he saw "a rabbit
resting underneath the car and chewing the wiring from that
location closest to the ground without breaching the engine
compartment. ... Mr. Rickard noticed that the wiring harness had
been chewed through again at approximately the same spot."

Honda says the soy-based insulation is cheaper and kinder on the
environment because it is biodegradable. "Unbeknownst to
plaintiffs, however, a real and continuous unintended and
undesired consequence of this soy-based insulation material is
that it attracts rodents and other animals that are drawn by the
soy content of the insulation, and proceed to chew through the
insulation and electrical wires that the insulation coats," the
complaint states.

Dobbs got off easy, with a repair bill of only $271.

Several consumer and news reports have noted that rodents
like the soy in the insulation.

Honda knows it too, and "actually sells rodent repellent tape used
to wrap electric wiring in order to deal with the propensity of
having this wiring chewed through by rodents and other animals
attracted to the soy component of the wires," Rickard says in the
complaint.

It cites an auto mechanic who told a Cleveland news station in
August 2013 that rodents are "drawn to" the tasty insulation, and
build nests in the air intakes, for easy snacking.

Dobbs et al. seek class certification, actual and statutory
damages for breach of express warranty and violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and creation of a common fund for
legal costs and fees.

They are represented by Michael Braun of Los Angeles and Roy
Katriel of La Jolla.

Honda could not immediately be reached for comment on Jan. 22.


IBIO INC: Settlement in Securities Case Reached After Mediation
---------------------------------------------------------------
iBio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that the plaintiffs and the
Company have reached an agreement-in-principle to settle a class
action lawsuit after voluntary mediation.

On October 24, 2014, a putative class action captioned Juan Pena,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
iBio, Inc. and Robert B. Kay was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware. The action alleged
that the Company and its Chief Executive Officer made certain
statements in violation of Federal securities laws and sought an
unspecified amount of damages.

On February 23, 2015, the Court issued an order appointing a new
lead plaintiff.

On April 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint in the same matter captioned Vamsi Andavarapu,
Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Situated v. iBio, Inc.,
Robert B. Kay, and Robert Erwin. The action alleged that the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its President made
certain statements in violation of Federal securities laws and
sought an unspecified amount of damages.

On May 6, 2015, the Company, Mr. Kay, and Mr. Erwin filed a motion
to dismiss the amended class action complaint.

On September 15, 2015, after voluntary mediation, the Plaintiffs
and the Company reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the
action.  The terms of the settlement are subject to preliminary
and final approval by the Court.  The Company expects that the
settlement will be approved by the Court and funded by the
Company's insurance carrier.


ICONIX BRAND: Three Securities Class Actions Pending in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that three
securities class actions, respectively captioned Lazaro v. Iconix
Brand Group, Inc. et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-04981-PGG, Niksich v.
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-04860-PGG and
Haverhill Retirement System v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al
Docket No. 1:15-cv-06658, are pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain former officers and one current officer (each,
a "Class Action" and, together, the "Class Actions").

The plaintiffs in the Class Actions purport to represent a class
of purchasers of the Company's securities from February 20, 2013
to August 7, 2015, inclusive, and claim that the Company and
individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making allegedly
false and misleading statements regarding certain aspects of the
Company's business operations and prospects. The Company and the
individual defendants intend to vigorously defend against the
claims.


ING USA ANNUITY: Class Notice in "Abbit" Case Approved
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California granted the parties'
joint motion for entry of scheduling order to approve plan to
disseminate notice of class action in the case captioned, ERNEST
O. ABBIT, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ING USA ANNUITY AND LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, ING U.S., INC., Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-2310-
GPC-WVC (S.D. Cal.).

On November 16, 2015, the Court certified these classes:

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

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

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

The Court directed the parties to meet and confer and submit a
joint proposed notice to the Classes on or before December 14,
2015.

On December 14, 2015, the parties filed a joint stipulation and
motion for entry of scheduling order, to approve plan to
disseminate notice of class action.

In his Order dated January 4, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/XlRW1ffrom Leagle.com, Judge Curiel found that the
notice complies with the Court's Class Certification Order.

The Court directed the parties to submit either a joint proposed
Notice Plan or separate proposed Notice Plans for the Court's
approval and directive to issue notice to the Classes on or by
January 5, 2016.

Ernest O. Abbit is represented by:

     Timothy J. Tatro, Esq.
     TATRO & ZAMOYSKI, LLP
     12760 High Bluff Dr #210
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Tel: (858)244-5032

          - and -

     Andrew W. Hutton, Esq.
     HUTTON LAW GROUP
     12671 High Bluff Dr # 130,
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Tel: (858)793-3500

Defendants are represented by Christopher T. Wright, Esq. --
cwright@knlh.com -- KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE LLP & Clark
Cunningham Johnson, Esq. -- cjohnson@stites.com -- STITES &
HARBISON


INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL: "Acton" Case Stayed, Pending Motions Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joanna Seybert of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York granted the parties' joint
request for a stay of the proceeding and terminated all pending
motions in the case captioned, MATTHEW ACTON and PETER MARCHELOS,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. D/B/A
SMS MASTERMINDS and SPENDSMART NETWORKS, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 15 CV 400 (JS)(AR) (E.D.N.Y.).

On July 8, 2015, Plaintiffs commenced the action against
Defendants, individually and on behalf of an alleged class,
asserting a claim pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the TCPA by
sending commercial text messages to Plaintiffs' and class members'
cell phones without their consent. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification simultaneously with the filing of their
Complaint.

On September 11, 2015, Defendants served Plaintiffs with Offers of
Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. Plaintiff
Peter Marchelos accepted Defendants' Offer of Judgment and the
Court granted his motion for judgment based on settlement.
Plaintiff Matthew Acton did not accept Defendants' Offer of
Judgment.

Pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiffs Matthew Acton and
Peter Marchelos' motion for class certification; (2) defendants
Intellectual Capital Management Inc. d/b/a SMS Masterminds and
Spendsmart Networks, Inc.'s  motion to stay proceedings; (3)
Defendants' request for judicial notice in support of their motion
to stay proceedings; and (4) the parties' Stipulation to Stay
Proceedings.

Defendants filed a sub judice motion to stay proceedings pending
the resolution of certain Supreme Court and District of Columbia
Circuit matters.  Defendants allege that the resolution of three
cases for which the Supreme Court granted certiorari will likely
result in precedent-controlling determinations with respect to the
following issues in this case: (1) whether Defendants' Rule 68
offer of judgment renders this matter moot; (2) whether Acton has
standing to pursue this matter in the absence of actual damages or
injury in fact; and (3) whether Acton may certify a class of
individuals that were not injured.

These cases are Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 768 F.3d 871 (9th
Cir. 2014), cert. granted, 135 S.Ct. 2311 (May 18, 2015); Robins
v. Spokeo, Inc., 742 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. granted, 135
S.Ct. 1892 (Apr. 27, 2015); Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 593
F. App'x 578 (8th Cir. 2014), cert. granted, 135 S.Ct. 2806 (Jun.
8, 2015).

Defendants also allege that appeals filed in the District of
Columbia Circuit challenging the validity of a 2015 TCPA Order
issued by the Federal Communications Commission will similarly
affect the outcome of this litigation to the extent that the D.C.
Circuit clarifies certain definitions within the TCPA.   ACA Int'l
v. FCC, No. 15-1211 (D.C. Cir.), is the lead case in those
consolidated appeals.

Defendants request a stay pending the outcome of the Supreme Court
Cases or, alternatively, a stay pending the disposition of the
D.C. Circuit Appeals.  Acton has not opposed Defendants' motion.

Subsequent to the filing of Defendants' motion, the parties'
counsel executed a Stipulation agreeing to stay this matter
pending the outcome of the Supreme Court Cases and the D.C.
Circuit Appeals.

In her Memorandum and Order dated December 28, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/0nAGqlfrom Leagle.com, Judge Seybert directed the
parties to advise the Court within seven days of the Supreme Court
or District of Columbia Circuit's resolution of each case.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Erik Harald Langeland, Esq.
     ERIK H. LANGELAND, P.C.
     500 5th Ave #1610,
     New York, NY 10110
     Tel: (212)354-6270

Defendants are represented by Harrison Brown, Esq. --
Hbrown@BlankRome.com & Rither Alabre, Esq. --
RAlabare@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME, LLP


INTERMARK FOODS: "Duran" Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aisnel Duran, and all others similarly situated v. Intermark
Foods, Inc. aka Intermark Marketing Services, Inc., and Maria
Epres Ibanez, Case No. 1:15-cv-24549 (S.D. Fla., December 10,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and distribute Hispanic foods in the South
Florida market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Mihalich" Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David R. Herndon of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted dismissal with
leave to amend in the case captioned, BARBARA MIHALICH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-600-DRH-SCW (S.D.
Ill.).

On May 23, 2014, plaintiff Barbara Mihalich filed a putative class
action on behalf of herself and a class of other similarly
situated purchasers of Johnson's(R) Baby Powder alleging that
defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer
Companies, Inc. failed to warn consumers of the risks associated
with the use of Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder for feminine hygiene
purposes in the female perineum.

Plaintiff's complaint alleges a violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) and seeks
injunctive relief resulting from the alleged violation (Count I),
in addition to alleging a claim for unjust enrichment (Count II),
arguing that the proposed class of plaintiffs conferred a monetary
benefit on defendants when purchasing the baby powder product,
while defendants simultaneously failed to sufficiently disclose
its risks of use to consumers.

In the motion, Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer
Companies, Inc. moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and
alternative motion to strike. Specifically, defendants moved for
dismissal of plaintiff's complaint pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(9). Plaintiff opposed
the motion, arguing defendants' motion lacks merit, and that
plaintiff suffered no compensable injury.

In his Memorandum and Order dated December 28, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/OdkA5zfrom Leagle.com, Judge Herndon found that
Mihalich failed to allege the specific misrepresentations she saw,
or how they were communicated to her. She noted multiple
statements or websites of the defendant but does not satisfy Rule
9(b), as applied to her claim and that plaintiff has
insufficiently pled her ICFA claims and the unjust enrichment
claim arising out of the same facts is also subject to dismissal.

The Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or
before January 22, 2016.

Barbara Mihalich is represented by Kevin P. Green, Esq. --
kevin@ghalaw.com -- Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq. -- mark@ghalaw.com
-- Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. -- tom@ghalaw.com -- Ann E. Callis,
Esq. -- acallis@ghalaw.com -- Nathaniel R. Carroll, Esq. --
nathaniel@ghalaw.com -- GOLDENBERG HELLER ANTOGNOLI & ROWLAND, PC
& Timothy G. Blood, Esq. -- tblood@bholaw.com -- BLOOD, HURST &
REARDON LLP

Defendants are represented by Matthew David Powers, Esq. --
mpowers@omm.com -- Richard B. Goetz, Esq. -- rgoetz@omm.com --
Victoria L. Weatherford, Esq. -- vweatherford@omm.com -- O'MELVENY
& MYERS LLP & Dan H. Ball, Esq. -- dhball@bryancave.com -- Timothy
J. Hasken, Esq. -- tjhasken@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE, LLP


JP MORGAN: "1409 West" Suit Alleges Negligence
----------------------------------------------
1409 West Diversey Corporation dba Bellwood Hotel, and all others
similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, Case No. 2015-CH-
17861 (Ill. Cir., December 9, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for alleged negligence in connection with its Mobile
Check Capture service.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant failed to provide
security sufficient to prevent its customers from cashing checks
after those same checks had been deposited via Mobile Check
Capture.

The Defendant is a National Banking Association established
pursuant to federal law, with its principal place of business in
New York and is engaged in the banking business in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward A. Berman, Esq.
      EDWARD A. BERMAN PC
      55 West Monroe, Suite 3550
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 236-2020

         - and -

      Terrence Buehler, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER
      55 W. Wacker Drive, Ste. 1400
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 372-2209


L.A. SCHOOL DISTRICT: Sued Over Use of $224MM in Bond Money
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
Los Angeles School District took $224 million in bond money
earmarked for charter schools without public oversight or
accountability, the California Charter Schools Association claims
in court.

In a Jan. 11 lawsuit in Superior Court, the association claims
LAUSD violated Proposition 39, the Smaller Classes, Safer Schools
and Financial Accountability Act. The 2000 proposition amended the
state constitution to reduce the voter threshold needed to approve
school bonds from two-thirds to 55 percent.

Almost 20 percent of LAUSD school students attend independent
charter schools, and in the past 10 school years enrollment in
charter schools has increased by 400 percent, the association
says. In that time, L.A. public schools decreased by 150,000,
according to the complaint.

The association says charter schools and students desperately need
public funds to stay open and maintain their facilities.

In 2008, California voters approved a $7 billion bond measure that
included $450 million earmarked for charter schools.

"Despite its legal obligations, LAUSD has repeatedly reallocated
and reduced the $450 million charter school share of Measure Q
bond funds," the lawsuit states.

The association says that LAUSD did not publicly release documents
that would should how the money is spent, though the association
made a public records request.

Based on available information it appears the $450 million has
been reduced by almost half, in increments of $48 million, $88
million, and another $88 million, the association says.

"Each of these reductions was done without transparency or
accountability. There was nearly no ability for interested
stakeholders to provide input into LAUSD's actions, nor did LAUSD
provide adequate information to charter schools, CCSA [California
Charter Schools Association], the public, or even LAUSD's own
board to understand the reasons for these major funding
reductions," the complaint states.

The association seeks declaratory judgment, rescission of the
funding cuts, and an injunction ordering the school district to
comply with the Public Records Act.

Defendants include the Board of Education and new superintendent
Michelle King.

The association is represented by James Arnone of Latham &
Watkins.

LAUSD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Must Produce Financial Docs in "Fosbre" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. of the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada granted Plaintiff's sealed motion
to compel production of financial documents in the case captioned,
FRANK J. FOSBRE, JR., Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP., et al.,
Defendants, Case Nos. 2:10-CV-00765-APG-GFW CONSOLIDATED WITH
2:10-CV-01210-APG-GWF (D. Nev.).

Plaintiffs allege in the securities class action lawsuit, brought
on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Las Vegas Sands
Corporation between August 2, 2007 and November 5, 2008, that
Defendants LVS, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner
repeatedly made false and misleading statements to the market that
caused the price of LVS stock to trade at artificially-inflated
prices. Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, Defendants
were well aware that LVS had a severe liquidity crisis and that
due to inadequate funding, LVS was running out of money and would
have to halt construction of projects by the third quarter of
2008.

Plaintiffs allege that by the end of the Class Period Defendants
were forced to reveal to the public that LVS had been facing a
severe liquidity crisis for many months, had run out of money,
would have to halt most of its ongoing construction projects and
needed an emergency infusion of cash to avoid bankruptcy.  As LVS
began to collapse due the liquidity crisis, its stock price
declined precipitously. LVS's stock, which was trading as high as
$140 a share during the Class Period, declined to $10 a share at
the end of the Class Period once investors understood the true
liquidity picture and the reduced earnings ability of LVS.

In the motion, Plaintiffs seek to compel production of financial
documents of Defendant Sheldon Adelson and his family. Defendants
objected to these requests as overbroad, unduly burdensome, not
relevant to the claims or defenses of any party, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.

In her Order dated January 5, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/Y3Ri97from Leagle.com, Judge Foley, Jr. found that
the information sought by Plaintiffs in Request Nos. 21-24 is
relevant to the claims alleged in the case and is reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The
Court also found that the files of Yasmin Lukatz may contain
documents relevant to the claims in the lawsuit and that her files
should therefore be searched for relevant documents.

Frank J. Frosbe, Jr. is represented by Christopher D. Stewart,
Esq. -- cstewart@rgrdlaw.com -- Steven Pepich, Esq. --
stevep@rgrdlaw.com -- Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq. --
spenceb@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

Defendants are represented by Steve L. Morris, Esq. --
smorris@morrislawyers.com -- Raleigh C. Thompson, Esq. --
rthompson@morrislawyers.com -- MORRIS LAW GROUP, Courtney A.
Hoffmann, Esq. -- david.hoffman@sidley.com & Walter C. Carlson,
Esq. -- wcarlson@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

                 CEO Must Product Docs by Jan. 28

Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
U.S. Magistrate Judge George Foley Jr. issued a separate order
granting lead plaintiff Frank J. Fosbre Jr.'s motion to compel
relating to claims for lost EBITDA caused by lawsuits filed in
2006 and arising from a subcontractor's work during construction
of the Palazzo.  Foley's Jan. 14 order granted Fosbre's motion for
in camera review of documents and threatens to appoint a special
master if any irregularities are found.  The judge ordered Sheldon
Adelson, present CEO of Las Vegas Sands, and its former CEO
William Weidner to produce documents they sought to protect under
attorney-client privilege in a securities class action.

"If in camera review of the foregoing documents indicates that
defendants improperly asserted the attorney-client privilege in a
manner that calls into question the reasonableness of their
assertion of attorney-client privilege to the remaining documents,
then the court will consider granting additional in camera review,
which may include the appointment of a special master," Foley
wrote.

Fosbre accuses Adelson et al. of lying to investors about the
financial state of Las Vegas Sands from 2007 to 2008, so that
Adelson could protect his majority ownership of the Sands, while
building the Palazzo casino in Las Vegas and a larger development
in Macau.

He seeks documents that were withheld or redacted due to claims of
attorney-client privilege, but were disclosed to employees of
investment firms Goldman Sachs and Jefferies; documents that did
not involve legal advice; and documents presented during prior
lawsuits with a subcontractor and arising from the construction of
the Palazzo Resort Hotel Casino in 2006.

Fosbre said that documents voluntarily shared with Goldman Sachs
and Jefferies are not protected by attorney-client privilege.

Adelson argued the investment firms' employees were the functional
equivalent of Las Vegas Sands employees, and the communications
are protected.

"It is reasonably clear that Goldman Sachs acted in the role of
financial advisor in the upper echelon of Las Vegas Sands'
management . . . in providing different financing options and
making recommendations to Las Vegas Sands as to which avenues to
pursue," Foley wrote.

Foley said Las Vegas Sands hired Jeffries specifically to
"evaluate and render opinions to the non-management directors of
the board of directors of Las Vegas Sands."

The judge denied Fosbre's motion for documents pertaining to
attorney-client communications involving employees of Goldman
Sachs and Jefferies, but ordered Adelson et al. to submit logs
describing the duties and roles of each Jefferies and Goldman
Sachs employee to determine whether the communications are
privileged and protected.

Foley denied Fosbre's motion to compel production of an Oct. 18,
2008 report on subcontractor lawsuits arising from construction of
the Palazzo.

Foley granted a review of Las Vegas Sands documents from 2007 to
2008, including those relating to attorney Dylan Williams, who
participated in discussions, but not in an attorney's capacity.

Foley gave Adelson et al. until Jan. 28 to produce the documents.

The case captioned, FRANK J. FOSBRE, JR., Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. LAS VEGAS
SANDS CORP.,et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:10-cv-00765-APG-GWF
Consolidated with: Case No. 2:10-cv-01210-APG-GWF (D. Nev.)


LAZ PARKING: Faces "Smith Mendoza" Suit Over Wage Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dudley Smith-Mendoza on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LAZ Parking Limited, LLC; Ultimate Parking, LLC LAZ
Karp Associates LLC; Alan B. Lazowski individually Michael J.
Kuziak, individually; and Jeffrey N. Karp, individually, Case no:
15 3691BLS (Mass. Super., December 7, 2015), alleges that the
defendants caused and/or permitted its service employees to
participate in a tip pool through which these employees remitted a
portion of their tips for distribution to managers/supervisors;
and that Defendants failed to pay their employees an hourly rate
equal to minimum wage for all hours that they worked.

LAZ provides valet parking services to third-party companies at
multiple locations throughout Massachusetts.  Ultimate provides
valet parking services to third-party companies at multiple
locations throughout Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert Messinger, Esq
     Brook S. Lane, Esq.
     John P. Regan, Jr., Esq.
     REGAN, LANE & MESSINGER LLP
     41 Winter Street, Fifth Floor
     Boston, MA 021 08
     Phone: (857) 277-0902
     Fax: (617) 778-9742
     E-mail: rob@reganlanemessinger.com
             blane@reganlanemessinger.com
             john@reganlanemessinger.com


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: All NY Cases over Jefferies Deal Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that as of
November 2, 2015, all of the New York cases related to the
Jefferies Group Inc. Acquisition were finally dismissed.

Seven class-action lawsuits had been filed in New York and
Delaware on behalf of a class consisting of Jefferies Group's
stockholders concerning the transaction through which Jefferies
Group Inc. became our wholly-owned subsidiary.  The class actions
named as defendants the Company, Jefferies Group, certain members
of our board of directors, certain members of Jefferies Group's
board of directors and, in certain of the actions, certain
transaction-related subsidiaries.

On October 31, 2014, the remaining defendants in the Delaware
litigation entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs
in the Delaware litigation. While the defendants continue to deny
each of the plaintiffs' claims and deny any liability, the
defendants entered into the settlement solely to settle and
resolve their disputes, to avoid the costs and risks of further
litigation and to avoid further distractions to our management.
The terms of that settlement agreement provide for an aggregate
payment of $70.0 million to certain former equity holders of
Jefferies Group Inc., other than the defendants and certain of
their affiliates, along with attorneys' fees that were determined
by the court to be $21.5 million. The settlement resolves all of
the class-action claims in Delaware.

As of November 2, 2015, all of the New York cases were finally
dismissed.

"We have made all payments on the $70.0 million aggregate
settlement amount, and our insurers have covered the majority of
the awarded attorneys' fees, all of which have been paid," the
Company said.


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Settlement Underway in "Sykes" Case
------------------------------------------------------
The settlement Leucadia National Corporation reached with
plaintiffs in the case, Sykes v. Mel Harris & Associates, LLC,
remains pending, Leucadia said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

"We and certain of our subsidiaries and officers are named as
defendants in a consumer class action captioned Sykes v. Mel
Harris & Associates, LLC, et al., 9 Civ. 8486 (DC), in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York," the
Company said.  The named defendants also include the Mel Harris
law firm, certain individuals and members associated with the law
firm, and a process server, Samserv, Inc. and certain of its
employees.  The complaint alleges that default judgments obtained
by the law firm against approximately 124,000 individuals in New
York courts with respect to consumer debt purchased by our
subsidiaries violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the New York
General Business Law and the New York Judiciary Law (alleged only
as to the law firm).  The complaint seeks injunctive relief,
declaratory relief and damages on behalf of the named plaintiffs
and others similarly situated.

"We asserted that we were an investor with respect to the subject
purchased consumer debt and were regularly informed of the amounts
received from debt collections, but otherwise had no involvement
in any alleged illegal debt collection activities," the Company
said.

On December 29, 2010, the District Court denied defendants'
motions to dismiss in part (including as to the claims made
against Leucadia and its subsidiaries) and granted them in part
(including as to certain of the claims made against Leucadia
officers).

On March 28, 2013, the Court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class and a
Rule 23(b)(3) class.  On February 10, 2015, the Second Circuit
affirmed the certification of these classes.  None of these
decisions addresses the ultimate merits of the case.

"On March 18, 2015, we and plaintiffs executed a settlement
agreement that provided additional detail regarding the terms of a
settlement set out in a December 14, 2014 binding term sheet
pursuant to which we expensed $3.2 million in the fourth quarter
of 2014," the Company said.  This amount is in addition to the
$20.0 million previously accrued for this matter and the $22.8
million in deferred revenue.  The settlement agreement will be
submitted to the District Court for its approval upon completion
of the drafting of related documents.


LIBERTY SILVER: Court Approved $1-Mil. Pump-and-Dump Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Silver Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida has approved the
settlement of a class action lawsuit and dismissed with prejudice
all claims against Liberty Silver, Geoffrey Browne, and William
Tafuri.

On September 12, 2013, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors (the "Liberty Silver Parties") were
named as defendants in a proposed securities class action lawsuit
filed against Robert Genovese, certain individuals alleged to have
collaborated with Mr. Genovese, and an offshore investment firm
allegedly controlled by Mr. Genovese (the "Action," Case No. 9:13-
cv-80923-KLR, Stanaford v. Genovese et al.). The action alleged
violations of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and rules thereunder relating to anomalous trading activity and
fluctuations in the Company's share price from August through
October 2012.

On December 8, 2014, without in any way acknowledging any fault or
liability, the Company reached a settlement in principle,
providing for a payment of $1 million cash, to be paid by the
Company's D&O insurance carriers. On August 17, 2015, with no
admission of fault or liability by the Liberty Silver Parties, the
Court approved the settlement class and fully and finally
dismissed with prejudice all claims against Liberty Silver,
Geoffrey Browne, and William Tafuri in the litigation. Although
defendants continue to deny plaintiffs' allegations, the Company
believed it was in the best interests of its stockholders to focus
its attention on its business and put the matter behind it.

As described in the Honorable Kenneth L. Ryskamp's Order entered
on Feb. 11, 2015, denying a motion to dismiss, this case involved
claims of a "pump-and-dump" scheme, in violation of Sec. 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b), and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule lOb-S.  Plaintiffs alleged
that Defendants manipulated the common stock of Liberty Silver
Corporation, a silver mining company.  Plaintiff contended,
through confidential witness testimony, that Defendants purchased
millions of shares of Liberty Silver stock, "pumped" the price of
the stock by publically issuing materially false or misleading
statements through corrupt third-party promoters, and then
"dumped" the stock by selling the shares at an artificially
inflated price, which yielded millions in profit.


LIFELOCK INC: $68MM Class Action Settlement Approved
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San
Francisco approved a $68 million settlement, including $10.2
million in attorneys' fees, in a class action accusing Lifelock of
failing to provide the ID theft protection it promised; this comes
on top of a $100 million settlement with the FTC.

The case captioned, NAPOLEON EBARLE, et al. Plaintiffs, v.
LIFELOCK, INC., Defendant. Case No.15-cv-00258-HSG (N.D. Cal.)


LONDON METAL EXCHANGE: Court Dismisses Zinc Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Duncan Galvanizing
Corporation et al. in the case captioned, In Re Zinc Antitrust
Litigation, No. 14-cv-3728 (KBF)(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Duncan Galvanizing Corporation filed the class action
complaint on May 23, 2014, alleging antitrust conspiracy and
monopolization claims against the London Metal Exchange Limited,
LME Holdings Limited, Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing Limited,
Glencore Xstrata PLC, Glencore Ltd., Pacorini Metals USA, LLC, The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Metro International Trade Services LLC,
and JPMorgan Chase & Company. Plaintiffs Oklahoma Steel and Wire
Co., Inc., Iowa Steel and Wire Co., and Southwestern Wire, Inc.,
subsequently filed a complaint on June 13, 2014 and plaintiff
Galvanizers Company filed on July 8, 2014 each making similar
allegations to those made in Duncan Galvanizing's initial
complaint.

The Court held a joint initial pre-trial conference for all three
actions on July 23, 2014, and directed plaintiffs to file a
consolidated amended complaint no later than September 30, 2014.

Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint on June 17,
2015 asserting one cause of action under Section 1 of the Sherman
Act for combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade against
all defendants, and three causes of action under Section 2 of the
Sherman Act -- one claim for conspiracy to monopolize against all
defendants, and claims for monopolization and attempted
monopolization against defendants Glencore Ltd. and Pacorini
Metals USA, LLC.

Plaintiffs define their putative plaintiff class as "All persons
with certain exclusions who, or entities which, purchased LME U.S.
Zinc and paid the Platts Zinc MW SHG Premium or similar price
premium in the United States from a primary zinc producer or a
Defendant from May 24, 2010 to the present."

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint asserting that
plaintiffs are neither direct consumers nor competitors of
defendants, they cannot have experienced a competition reducing
impact of defendants' conduct. But plaintiffs' theory of antitrust
injury depends not on any single act, but rather on the aggregate
impact of the acts.

Defendants also argued that even if plaintiffs are able to allege
injury to the competitive process, they have not alleged
sufficient facts to demonstrate that they are efficient enforcers
of the antitrust laws.

Judge Forrest said defendants' motions to dismiss are granted.
Counts I and II of the Consolidated Amended Complaint are
dismissed with prejudice, while Counts III and IV are dismissed
without prejudice.

In her Opinion and Order dated January 7, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/VCxQgNfrom Leagle.com, Judge Forrest concluded that
Plaintiffs are simply too remote from that market to have
antitrust standing to pursue a Section 2 claim based on
anticompetitive conduct in that market, and thus, based on their
current pleadings. Plaintiffs' allegation on defendants'
involvement in a related aluminum conspiracy carries little weight
without any finding of liability.

The Court also found that plaintiffs have failed to plausibly
allege unlawful concerted action or an anticompetitive agreement.
Plaintiffs may attempt to re-plead Counts III and IV against
Glencore Ltd. and/or Pacorini, but may not assert any amended
claims against any of the other defendants. Should plaintiffs
choose to replead Counts III and IV, they must file any amendment,
redlined against the CAC, within 21 days of the filing of the
Court's Opinion and Order.

Plaintiffs are Duncan Galvanizing Corporation, Galvanizers
Company, Oklahoma Steel and Wire Co., Inc., Iowa Steel and Wire
Co., Southwestern Wire, Inc., Galvanizers Company, and Jasper
Materials, Inc.

Defendants are The London Metal Exchange Limited, Glencore Ltd.,
Pacorini Metals USA LLC., The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Metro
International Trade Services LLC, JPMorgan Chase & Company,
Goldman Sachs International, GS Power Holdings LLC, J.P. Morgan
Ventures Energy Corporation, Mitsi Holdings LLC, JP Morgan
Securities plc f/k/a JP Morgan Securities Ltd., Henry Bath LLC,
and MCEPF Metro I, Inc.

Plaintiffs are represented by Christopher Lovell, Esq. --
CLovell@lshllp.com -- Benjamin Martin Jaccarino, Esq. --
BJaccarino@lshllp.com -- LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP,
Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. -- kjustice@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. --
lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- Bradley J. Demuth, Esq. --
bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com -- NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.

Glencore Ltd., is represented by Chelsea Rebekah McLean, Esq. --
Chelsea.mclean@curtis.com -- Eliot Lauer, Esq. --
eliot.lauer@curtis.com -- Jacques Semmelman, Esq. --
jacques.semmelman@curtis.com -- CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST, COLT AND
MOSLE LLP


LOS ANGELES, CA: Suit Alleges Municipal Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Grigor Changryan, and all others similarly situated v. City of Los
Angeles, Department of Transportation of the City of Los Angeles
and Does 1 through 50, Case No. BC603693 (Cal. Super., December 8,
2015), seeks damages against the Defendants for violations of the
Los Angeles Municipal Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually, and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals who have been charged a
fee for parking vehicles in the metered spaces in the City of Los
Angeles at times when the parking was to be free, because of the
acts and/or omissions of Defendants.

The City of Los Angeles is a municipal corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California and located
within the borders of the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hovanes Margarian, Esq.
      THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM
      801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 210
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 553-1000
      Fax: (818) 553-1005


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Deal Reached in Suit over Games Black Out
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
reaching an 11th hour deal, Major League Baseball reportedly
averted a trial in Manhattan from fans who complained that its
deals with DirecTV and Comcast made them pay more to watch ball
games.

In 2012, Oakland resident Fernanda Garber sued the league in one
of a series of class-action lawsuits filed by baseball and hockey
fans.  Viewers complained in both cases that the leagues conspired
with distributors to black out games, prevent them from watching
their favorite teams, or force them to pay more to watch "out-of-
market" match-ups.

Under the current system, a Yankees fan in Brooklyn would have to
purchase the YES Network to watch local games, whereas a Yankees
fan in Iowa would have to purchase an out-of-market package that
would include all baseball games.

Most out-of-market games are available only via national
broadcasts, or through the out-of-market packages sold through
Comcast and DirectTV.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin certified both cases as class
actions in May 2015.

The case against the National Hockey League settled in September,
but Major League Baseball had been heading for trial this morning
until attorneys announced a settlement, the Associated Press
reported today.

No information about the terms have hit the public docket, and
attorneys for both of the parties have not yet responded to a
request for comment.


MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Amended Complaint Filed in Investor Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action case against Maxpoint Interactive, Inc. is still in
its initial stage and a lead plaintiff has not yet been appointed,
the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

"We, certain of our officers and directors, and certain investment
banking firms who acted as underwriters in connection with our
initial public offering, have been named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed August 31, 2015 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York," the
Company said. "The complaint alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act by not including
information regarding customer concentration, which the complaint
characterizes as a known trend required to be disclosed under Item
303 of Regulation S-K (17 C.F.R. Sec. 229.303), in the
Registration Statement filed in connection with our initial public
offering. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest and
other costs. The case is still in its initial stage and a lead
plaintiff has not yet been appointed. We dispute these claims and
intend to defend this matter vigorously."

The case is Nguyen v. MaxPoint Interactive Inc. et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-06880 (S.D.N.Y.).  The plaintiffs filed their First
Amended Complaint on Jan. 19, 2016.


MDL 1827: Court Grants Distribution of Residual Settlement Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California authorized the distribution of
residual settlement funds in the case captioned, IN RE TFT-LCD
(FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 1827.  This Document
Relates to: Indirect-Purchaser Class Action; State of Missouri, et
al. v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-3619;
State of Florida v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-
cv-3517; and State of New York v. AU Optronics Corporation, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-0711, Case No. 3:07-MD-1827 SI (N.D. Cal.).

Having reviewed the joint status report and recommendation
submitted by Class Counsel for the Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs
and the Attorneys General of the States of Arkansas, California,
Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New York, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin, and good cause appearing, Judge Illston, in her Order
dated January 4, 2016 available at http://is.gd/PTggRLfrom
Leagle.com, ruled that:

     (1) Rust shall make a total additional distribution of
         $2,125,026.74 to timely-filed but underpaid or unpaid
         claims as specified in paragraph 9 of Rust's
         declaration;

     (2) Rust shall distribute payments to the 119 claims with
         claims that were filed between June 7, 2014 and October
         6, 2014 at the pro rata amount of $4.57 per panel
         equivalent;

     (3) Rust shall promptly distribute the remaining shares of
         the uncashed payments to eligible claimants and void all
         uncashed payments 30 days after final re-issuance of
         payments are mailed;

     (4) A total of $506, 634.18 shall be deducted from each
         settling defendant's Settlement Fund to pay Rust's costs
         of claims administration; and

     (5) The remaining balance of funds in the demand-deposit
         account shall be retained for additional costs as they
         are incurred.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Samuel W. Lanham, Jr., Esq.
     LANHAM & BLACKWELL
     133 Broadway
     Bangor, ME 04401
     Tel: (207)942-2898

          - and -

     Ian Otto, Esq.
     STRAUS & BOIES LLP
     559 Pilgrim Dr Ste D
     Foster City, CA 94404
     Tel: (650)781-3162

Defendants are represented by John E. Hall, Esq. -- jhall@cov.com
-- Daniel M. Suleiman, Esq. -- dsuleiman@cov.com -- Elizabeth
Catherine Arens, Esq. -- earens@cov.com -- Jeffrey Michael
Davidson, Esq. -- jdavidson@cov.com -- John Stewart Playforth,
Esq. -- jplayforth@cov.com -- Neil K. Roman, Esq. --
nroman@cov.com -- Robert D. Wick, Esq. -- rwick@cov.com --- Steven
D. Sassaman, Esq. -- ssassaman@cov.com & Timothy C. Hester, Esq.
-- thester@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING & Christopher Alan
Nedeau, Esq. -- cnedeau@nossaman.com -- NOSSAMAN LLP


MDL 2084: Patent Litigation Settlement Claims in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that claims regarding a patent
litigation settlement are proceeding in discovery in district
court.

Several pending lawsuits filed against Unimed Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company Abbott acquired in
February 2010 and now known as AbbVie Products LLC) and others are
consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the Multi-
District Litigation (MDL) Rules as In re: AndroGel Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 2084. These cases, brought by private
plaintiffs and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), generally
allege Solvay's 2006 patent litigation involving AndroGel(R) was
sham litigation and the patent litigation settlement agreement and
related agreements with three generic companies violate federal
and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection and unjust
enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

MDL No. 2084 includes: (a) four individual plaintiff lawsuits; (b)
six purported class actions; and (c) Federal Trade Commission v.
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.

Following the district court's dismissal of all plaintiffs'
claims, appellate proceedings led to the reinstatement of the
claims regarding the patent litigation settlement, which are
proceeding in discovery in the district court. The Attorney
General of the State of Alaska has served AbbVie with a Civil
Investigative Demand, primarily seeking documents that AbbVie
produced in these lawsuits.


MDL 2460: AbbVie Continues to Defend Niaspan(R) Purchaser Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that lawsuits are pending against
AbbVie and others generally alleging that the 2005 patent
litigation settlement involving Niaspan(R) entered into between
Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company acquired by Abbott in 2006
and presently a subsidiary of AbbVie) and a generic company
violates federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and
deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs
generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees. The lawsuits consist of two individual plaintiff
lawsuits and two consolidated purported class actions: one brought
by three named direct purchasers of Niaspan(R) and the other
brought by ten named end-payor purchasers of Niaspan(R). The cases
are consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the
MDL Rules as In re: Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2460.
The office of the Attorney General of the State of Alaska has
served AbbVie with a Civil Investigative Demand, primarily seeking
documents that AbbVie produced in this lawsuit.


MDL 2545: 1,600 Cases Consolidated for Pre-Trial Purposes
---------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that product liability cases are
pending in which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie and other
manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs) did not
adequately warn about risks of certain injuries, primarily heart
attacks, strokes and blood clots. Approximately 1,600 cases are
consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the MDL Rules as
In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2545. Approximately 70 cases are pending in
various state courts. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive
damages.


MMA CAPITAL: Court Dismissed Investor Class Suit After Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MMA Capital Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a Maryland
court has entered an order dismissing a class action case in light
of the parties' settlement.

The Company was a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit
originally filed in 2008.  The plaintiffs claimed to represent a
class of investors in the Company's shares who allegedly were
injured by misstatements in press releases and SEC filings between
May 3, 2004 and January 28, 2008.  The plaintiffs sought
unspecified damages for themselves and the shareholders of the
class they purported to represent.  The class action lawsuit was
brought in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action, and in
June 2012, the Court issued a ruling dismissing all of the counts
alleging any knowing or intentional wrongdoing by the Company or
its affiliates, directors and officers.  The plaintiffs appealed
the Court's ruling and on March 7, 2014, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously affirmed the lower
Court's ruling.  As a result of these rulings, the only counts
remaining in the class action related to the Company's dividend
reinvestment plan.

The parties negotiated a settlement agreement, which was submitted
to the United States District Court for the Districted of Maryland
for approval.  On September 24, 2015, the Court approved the
settlement agreement.  On September 25, 2015, the court entered an
order dismissing the case in light of the settlement.

The settlement provides for a maximum of $826,820 to cover
payments to the class as well as the attorneys for the plaintiffs'
counsel.  The settlement is a claims-made settlement, in which
payments will be made only to those plaintiffs who submit a claim
and whose claim is approved, thus the final settlement amount to
the class could be less than the amount stated.

The Company will not incur any settlement costs, as all costs,
including both class payments and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees,
will be paid directly by its insurance company.  As a result, the
Company released the litigation reserve of $0.5 million during the
first quarter of 2015.


MORTGAGE INVESTORS: Court Grants Final Approval of "Ott" Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart of the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon granted Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for an Award
of Fees and Approval of Service Awards in Connection with the
Settlement in the case captioned, KELLY OTT and BENJAMIN GESLER,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and
NANCY LUEBBEN, Plaintiffs, v. MORTGAGE INVESTORS CORPORATION OF
OHIO, INC., an Ohio corporation also doing business as MORTGAGE
INVESTORS CORPORATION, AMERIGROUP MORTGAGE CORPORATION, VETERANS
INFORMATION DEPARTMENT and VETERANS HOME LOANS, Defendants, Case
No. 3:14-CV-00645 ST (D. Or.).

Plaintiffs filed this class action on April 18, 2014, alleging
violations by defendants of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
by means of a nationwide telemarketing scheme targeted at U.S.
military veterans. In July 2015, plaintiffs sought this court's
preliminary approval of a Settlement Agreement. The Settlement
Agreement requires Mortgage Investors Corporation of Ohio, Inc.
(MIC), to pay $7,483,600 into a Settlement Fund to cover: (1) cash
awards to settlement class members who submit claims; (2) court-
approved attorney fees up to $1,870,900; (3) court-approved
litigation expenses up to $147,063; (4) notice and claims
administration costs of $1,190,000; and (5) incentive awards of
$5,000 each to the two class representatives.

If any amounts remain in the Settlement Fund as a result of
uncashed checks, those funds will be disbursed "cy pres" in equal
parts to: (1) Veterans Airlift Command, a non-profit charitable
organization that provides free air transportation to wounded in
combat and their families for medical and other compassionate
purposes; and (2) Consumer Federation of America, a pro-consumer
advocacy organization. No funds from the settlement will revert to
MIC.

On July 20, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement and set a final approval hearing on November
24, 2015. Plaintiffs then sent a notice of the proposed settlement
to class members and filed a Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement. At the hearing, Class Counsel advised that the
settlement class contains 3,552,434 members, 3,080,000 of whom
received direct notice of the settlement. Of those class members
who received notice, none objected to the settlement, only 52
opted out, and 30,289 had submitted claims. Class Counsel
estimates that each claimant will receive approximately $140.86.

In the motion, Class Counsel seeks an award of attorney fees of
$1,870,900, representing 25% of the Settlement Fund, plus out-of-
pocket expenses up to $147,063, and also seeking service awards of
$5,000 each to plaintiffs Ott and Gesler.

In her Opinion and Order dated January 5, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/eWMZSwfrom Leagle.com, Judge Stewart concluded that
all factors strongly favor final approval of the Settlement
Agreement finding the settlement as a whole, is fair, reasonable
and adequate to all concerned. The Court also concluded that the
requested attorney fee award is not unreasonable.

Plaintiffs are represented by Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. --
bchandler@terrellmarshall.com -- Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. --
sstrauss@terrellmarshall.com -- Beth E. Terrell, Esq. --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
-- jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE
PLLC

Mortgage Investors Corporation is represented by John Huh, Esq.
-- john.huh@dlapiper.com -- Lesli C. Esposito, Esq. --
lesli.esposito@dlapiper.com -- Nicole M. Tadano, Esq. --
nicole.tadano@dlapiper.com -- Stellman Keehnel, Esq. --
stellman.keehnel@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP


MSG HOLDINGS: Class Counsel Named in FlSA Suit; Settlement Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York appointed class counsel and
denied all the remaining motions, including a request for approval
of a settlement agreement, without prejudice in the case
captioned, CHRISTOPHER FRATICELLI, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated who were employed by MSG
HOLDINGS, L.P. and THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN COMPANY and/or any
other entities affiliated with or controlled by MSG HOLDINGS, L.P.
and THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MSG HOLDINGS,
L.P. and THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN COMPANY, and/or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by MSG HOLDINGS, L.P. and
THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 6518 (HBP)
(S.D.N.Y.).

Virginia & Ambinder, LLP and Leeds Brown Law, P.C. are named as
class counsel.

Plaintiffs brought the putative class and collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and 12 New
York Codes, Rules and Regulations, Section 142-2.1, to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages. Plaintiffs worked for
defendants as unpaid interns in various departments; they allege
that they were uniformly misclassified by defendants as exempt
from the federal and state minimum wage and overtime requirements.

The parties thereafter engaged in settlement negotiations for
several months and eventually reached a settlement. The proposed
settlement covers two overlapping groups of plaintiffs: (1)
"individuals who were Interns for MSG Holdings, L.P. during the
period from September 5, 2011 through the date of the Preliminary
Approval Order"; and (2) "individuals who were Interns for MSG
Holdings, L.P. in a location in the State of New York according to
MSG records from September 16, 2007 through the date of the
Preliminary Approval Order."

Plaintiffs moved for (1) preliminary approval of the parties'
proposed settlement agreement; (2) conditional certification
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) of a New York class of interns
who worked for defendants from September 16, 2007 through the date
of the preliminary approval order; (3) appointment of Virginia &
Ambinder, LLP and Leeds Brown Law, P.C. as class counsel; (4)
approval of a proposed notice of (a) class action settlement, (b)
collective action settlement and (c) fairness hearing and (5) an
order directing the distribution of the proposed notice.

In his Opinion and Order dated December 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/KZGUnqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Pitman appointed the
firms of Virginia & Ambinder, LLP and Leeds Brown Law, P.C. as
class counsel because they routinely represent plaintiffs in
employment litigation in the District and have appeared in many
FLSA and state labor law cases. The Court denied all remaining
motions because plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that all of
the relevant factors demonstrate the reasonableness of the
settlement and there is no evidence or reason to believe that
there is any conflict of interest between the named plaintiffs and
the other members of the class.

Plaintiffs are represented by Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq. --
lambinder@vandallp.com -- Charles R. Virginia, Esq. --
cvirginia@vandallp.com -- LaDonna Marie Lusher, Esq. --
llusher@vandallp.com -- Suzanne Brooke Klein, Esq. --
sleeds@vandallp.com -- VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP

          - and -

     Daniel Harris Markowitz, Esq.
     Michael Alexander Tompkins, Esq.
     LEEDS BROWN LAW PC
     5 Penn Plaza, Suite 2320
     New York, NY 10001
     Tel: (800)585-4658

Defendants are represented by Ira G. Rosenstein, Esq. --
irosenstein@morganlewis.com -- Sam Scott Shaulson, Esq. --
sshaulson@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP


MUGSHOTS.COM: Faces Class Suit in Chicago
-----------------------------------------
Lisa Klein, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the
same people at mugshots.com are also behind unpublisharrest.com,
forcing former arrestees to pay up if they want any hope of
rejoining society, a class claims in Chicago court.

Two men paroled in Illinois, Peter Gabiola and Antonio Hammond,
filed the complaint Jan. 21 in Cook County Circuit Court taking
aim at a constellation of businesses they say are "unilaterally
punishing people for years -- or longer -- after an arrest."

Though the Illinois Department of Corrections website is legally
required to remove the information of inmates who are paroled
after completing their sentences, Gabiola and Hammond say the
defendants manage to scrape such information off the website and
then cobble it together for incriminating posts complete with
photos.  This system is designed to "coerce arrestees to pay for
the removal or correction of that information," according to the
complaint.

Former arrestees can allegedly pay a fee to a sister website of
mugshots.com, in the range of $398 to $2,000, to have their record
unpublished, yet guarantees are lacking.

"People desperate to get a job, and unable to do so because of web
search results defendants create, can pay defendants hundreds or
thousands of dollars for only partial relief," the complaint
states.

Mugshots.com posts indicate that the arrestees are still charged,
incarcerated or on parole, after they are released or found not
guilty, and the site "takes little or no action to correct false
or inaccurate information," according to the complaint.

Former arrestees say mugshots.com and its sister websites,
UnpublishArrest.com and UnpublishingPartners.com, "profit by
creating obstacles to the normal lives of everyday people and to
the rehabilitation of ex-arrestees."

Mugshots.com also uses "analytics and search optimization to
ensure that their site is among the first results found" when a
name is entered into a search engine like Google, the parolees
say.

Stuart Clarke -- sclarke@bnrpc.com -- an attorney for the
plaintiffs at Berton N. Ring PC in Chicago, called it "odious"
that these defendants are "trying to take money from people who
are down on their luck."

Their business model is simply "a way to make money off the backs
of people who don't have that money," Clarke added.

Though mugshots.com maintains that it is not affiliated with the
other two sites, the complaint says all three are owned, operated
and staffed by the same people.

An operator for the toll-free number at unpublisharrest.com, the
same number found on mugshots.com, told Courthouse News that the
two were not the same company.

According to the complaint, the companies behind the websites use
IP-masking technology and sham company names to "create the
appearance of separation."

Mugshots.com allegedly says Gabiola is still on parole, though
Gabiola exited parole in July 2012.

Gabiola says he was let go from his job at a sales and marketing
company on the first day after his mug shot and incorrect arrest
information was found on the website. He was passed up for at
least two other jobs after that.

When he called Unpublisharrest.com, an operator told Gabiola it
would cost $15,000 to remove everything about him from
Mugshots.com, with no guarantee that it would all be gone,
according to the complaint.

Mugshots.com meanwhile has five pages about Hammond, the other
named plaintiffs, who says he cannot find work and thus cannot
afford the $1,000 per page he was told it would cost to remove his
information.

Clarke says his firm believes the "entire purpose of the criminal
justice system is rehabilitation," and websites like these are
"essentially a roadblock to that."

The complaint counts 457,000 Illinois residents with entries on
Mugshots.com. Clarke says he "believe this group of websites is
the largest player in the industry."

As part of a settlement agreement in Ohio in January 2014, the
company that runs the similar websites BustedMugshots.com and
MugshotsOnline.com had to stop charging to remove photos from
their sites. It also had to pay $7,500 to those that sued and
remove their pictures from the sites.

Passage of the Mugshots Act three years ago in Illinois made it
unlawful for anyone who publishes criminal record information to
solicit payment to remove or correct the information.
The class is suing for violations of the Illinois Mugshots Act,
the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, the Federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act and consumer fraud.

Jon Smith, a representative of Mugshots.com, said in response to a
request sent through its website that the lawsuit was dismissed
last week.

Clarke noted that the Cook County lawsuit is a refiling of a
federal complaint.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sues Insurers for Litigation Costs
-------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that beset by numerous lawsuits from student-athletes seeking more
compensation for their play, the NCAA is suing its insurers for
litigation costs in Chicago.

In a complaint filed in the Marion Superior Court in Indiana, the
NCAA says its insurers -- the Federal Insurance Company, Illinois
National Insurance Company, Westchester Fire Insurance Company,
and XL Specialty Insurance Company -- have a duty to cover the
costs associated with its various defenses.

The NCAA purchased insurance policies related to pending actions
against it in 2005, and them again in 2012, the lawsuit says.
The association faces a number of pending major lawsuits from
student-athletes who want more compensation for their play.
One involves three certified classes of NCAA student-athletes, and
challenges the association's rules capping the amount of
compensation and benefits the players can earn while enrolled in
college.  The other claims the NCAA and Division I schools violate
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay student-athletes at
least minimum wage.

The NCAA seeks to recover defense costs spent litigating these
lawsuits, but its insurers claim that both suits "are so similar
to allegations made in a previous suit as to be 'related wrongful
acts' as defined under the 2012-2014 policies, and thus coverage
is only provided, if at all, under the 2005-2006 policies."

This previous suit is unnamed in the complaint, but likely refers
to that led by former basketball star Ed O'Bannon, and sought cash
compensation for players, not just tuition coverage.

A divided Ninth Circuit panel ruled for the NCAA last year,
finding that "not paying student-athletes [in cash] is precisely
what makes them amateurs." O'Bannon's motion for en banc rehearing
remains pending.

The association seeks court intervention to clarify the insurer's
obligation to pay the NCAA's defense costs.

It is represented by George Plews with Plew, Shadley, Racher &
Brown LLP in Indianapolis.

Plews declined to comment on the case, and deferred to NCAA
counsel Scott Bearby, who did not immediately respond to a
telephone and emailed request for comment.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: 3rd Cir. Tosses Suit over Super Bowl Tickets
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Thompson, writing for Courthouse News Services, that
calling Super Bowl tickets the ultimate example of an event where
demand far exceeds supply, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit in Philadelphia spiked a fraud class action on Jan. 14.

Josh Finkelman and Ben Hoch-Parker brought the case at hand in New
Jersey after their experience trying to attend Super Bowl XLVIII
in 2014 between the Denver Broncos and Seattle Seahawks.
While Finkelman bought two tickets in the secondary market at
$2,000 each, Hoch-Parker ended up not buying any tickets because
the cheapest seat he could find would have set him back $4,200.

In reporting on the early ticket sales back in 20113, the Wall
Street Journal said the nosebleed seats were going for $500 but
that tickets otherwise saw a massive hike in price. Tickets
averaged that year at $2,646.

Finkelman and Hoch-Parker complained that the NFL made only 1
percent of tickets with a face value of $800 to $1,900 available
to the general public, distributing the rest among NFL franchises
that can distribute them as they wish, including selling them to
secondary markets.

A federal judge wound up dismissing their case, which alleged
violation of a New Jersey law that bars event hosts from
withholding more than 5 percent of their tickets from sale to the
general public.

On July 14, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit affirmed.

"To state the problem succinctly: we have no way of knowing
whether the NFL's withholding of tickets would have had the effect
of increasing or decreasing prices on the secondary market," Judge
Julio Fuentes wrote for the court. "We can only speculate - and
speculation is not enough to sustain Article III standing."

As for the "rarely litigated New Jersey statute" on which the fans
relied, Fuentes said it had apparently only been used once in
state courts since its 2002 passage.

The 39-page opinion notes that both of plaintiffs admitted that
they had not entered the league's lottery to purchase tickets at
face value.

Fuentes likened the situation to concertgoers who sue for inflated
ticket prices without having waited in line.

Hoch-Parker made much ado about a $1,000 limit he did not want to
exceed per ticket, but Fuentes noted that his threshold would have
in reach even if the NFL had released all tickets to the public.

"Thus, while it might be the case that the NFL's withholding
increased ticket prices on the resale market, it might also be the
case that it had no effect on the resale market," Fuentes wrote.

The court called Hoch-Parker's lack of standing particularly
striking, as he bought no tickets and therefore "suffered no more
injury than any of the possibly tens of thousands of people who
thought about purchasing a ticket to the Super Bowl and chose not
to."

The case captioned, JOSH FINKELMAN; BEN HOCH-PARKER On Behalf of
Themselves and the Putative Class, Appellants v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL
LEAGUE; NFL VENTURES, L.P.; NFL PROPERTIES, LLC; NFL VENTURES,
INC.; NFL ENTERPRISES LLC, No. 15-1435 (3rd Cir.)


NATIONAL PENN: Settlement Reached in Pa. Shareholder Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Penn Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015,
that the Company and BB&T Corporation ("BB&T") on November 10,
2015, entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs
regarding the settlement of a putative consolidated class action
captioned In re National Penn Bancshares, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Lead Case No. 2015-C-2807 (the "Actions"), pending
before the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania
(the "Court").

The Actions relate to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of August 17, 2015, by and between BB&T and National Penn.
Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, National Penn and
BB&T agreed to make available additional information to National
Penn shareholders. The additional information is contained in the
supplement (the "Supplement") to the Proxy Statement/Prospectus of
BB&T and National Penn, dated October 23, 2015 and filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on October 23,
2015 (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus") attached as Exhibit 99.1
hereto. The Supplement should be read in conjunction with the
Proxy Statement/Prospectus and the documents incorporated by
reference therein. After reaching agreement on the substantive
terms of the settlement, the parties also agreed that the
plaintiffs may apply to the Court for an award of reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to be paid by National Penn,
its successor in interest and/or its insurer.

National Penn, BB&T, and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations made by plaintiffs in the Actions and believe the
disclosures in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus are adequate under
the law. Nevertheless, National Penn, BB&T, and the other
defendants have agreed to settle the Actions in order to avoid the
costs, disruption, and distraction of further litigation.


NEIL JONES FOOD: Court Denies Preliminary Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California denied
preliminary approval of class settlement in the case captioned,
LUIS VALDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE NEIL JONES FOOD COMPANY,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:13-CV-00519-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal.).

On December 3, 2015, the Court identified three concerns regarding
the parties proposed settlement agreement: (1) the reversion, (2)
the claims process, and (3) that the attorney fee request in this
claims-made settlement is based on the maximum settlement amount.
The Court permitted the parties to submit supplemental briefing to
address those issues. Both parties filed supplemental briefing on
December 17, 2015.

Class counsel has responded to the Court's concerns surrounding
the attorney fee award noting that the fee award requested has
been lowered from 33% to 28%.  Class counsel also contended that
reduction of fees based on the monetary award to the class is
inappropriate in the instance because the reversion to Defendant
benefits the class.

In his Order dated December 24, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/O13txXfrom Leagle.com, Judge Ishii concluded that
the agreement falls outside of the range of possible approval
because the parties' supplemental briefing has done nothing to
quell the Court's concerns that the agreement appears to be a
product of the self-interest of the parties and their
representatives to the detriment of the class members. The Court
disagrees that the reversion proposed by the agreement is
meaningfully different from a typical reversion. The Court will
not consider the reversionary amount as a benefit to the class in
determining the level of success obtained by counsel.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Dennis Patrick Wilson, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS P. WILSON
     3322 W Victory Blvd
     Burbank, CA 91505
     Tel: (818)843-1788

The Neil Jones Food Co. is represented by Andrea Bednarova, Esq.
-- abednarova@fosteremploymentlaw.com -- Michael Eugene Wilbur,
Esq. -- mwilbur@fosteremploymentlaw.com -- FOSTER EMPLOYMENT LAW


NEVADA PROPERTY 1: Wrapping Up $7-Mil. Nev. Wage & Hour Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a final hearing
was set for December 4, 2015, to approve the settlement in a wage
and hour class action lawsuit.

During late 2012, the Company was put on notice and/or served with
two separate purported class action lawsuits related to alleged
unpaid compensation for time incurred by CoStars while on Property
for donning and doffing of the CoStars' required uniform, alleged
improper rounding of time for hours worked and various other
claims related to alleged unpaid compensation. One of the
purported wage and hour class action lawsuits is pending in the
Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada ("Nevada
State Court"), and one is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada.

In early April 2015, the Company commenced arms-length settlement
negotiations leading to an agreement in principle to resolve both
the Nevada State Court and the U.S. District Court lawsuits. The
proposed resolution includes an anticipated total net payment of
approximately $7.0 million inclusive of the opposing counsel fees
and all costs of administering the settlement. After such expenses
are paid, the remaining amount will comprise a settlement fund. Of
this amount the Company will pay out only that portion actually
claimed by putative class members. The proposed settlement is
subject to approval by the courts.

The Company recorded the $7.0 million anticipated net settlement
amount in the consolidated financial statements during the period
ended March 31, 2015. As of September 30, 2015, a settlement
agreement is in place.  A final approval hearing was set for
December 4, 2015.


NEVADA PROPERTY 1: Marching Toward $14.5-Mil. Calif. Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a California court
has scheduled a final fairness hearing for January 4, 2016, in the
class action related to alleged unlawful taping/recording.

In September 2012, a purported class action lawsuit against the
Company was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, claiming violation of the California Penal Code
regarding the alleged unlawful taping or recording of telephone
calls to and from the Company. On August 31, 2012, the Company
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California. Subsequently, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to strike the class
allegations. On July 15, 2013, the U.S. District Court issued an
order denying these motions.

The Company continues to deny all liability to the putative class
members but, at a mediation held on February 20, 2015, the Company
agreed to settle all of the claims against it in this matter for a
total payment of $14.5 million recorded in the period ended
December 31, 2014. The amount is inclusive of all attorneys' fees
to the putative class counsel and all costs of administering the
settlement.

The Company, the plaintiff and the putative class counsel have
reached a settlement agreement and presented their settlement
agreement for preliminary approval by the U.S. District Court.

On August 24, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and ordered the parties to provide notice to the class.
Notice went out on September 23, 2015. Class members had until
November 23, 2015 to submit claims, lodge objections or exclude
themselves from the settlement. The Court scheduled a final
fairness hearing for January 4, 2016, at which time the Court was
expected to review whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate and whether judgment should be entered.


NEW YORK: 2 Runners File Class Suit Over Marathon
-------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
charging tens of thousands of runners a nonrefundable $11 fee for
a chance to conquer the New York City Marathon is "inherently
unfair," two would-be racers claim in court in Manhattan.

Countless runners have cursed a rejected application to enter the
New York City Marathon over the course of its 45-year history.

Utah residents Charles Konopa and Matthew Clark filed a $10.5
million federal class action.  Together, the men have been denied
a chance to fly into New York to participate in three races
between 2011 and 2015.

The winners of the lottery still have to pay between $216 and $347
for the opportunity to hoof it 26.2 miles from the foot of the
Verrazano Bridge at Staten Island across all five boroughs to the
finish line at Central Park.

The New York Road Runners offers the losers a range of options for
guaranteed entry, including running through a charity, scoring a
qualifying time in another race or participating in a set number
of the club's other events.

The lawsuit does not challenge these other options, but it attacks
the lottery for promoting "public health and economic problems."

"The institutions that run them receive a guaranteed windfall at
the expense of thousands of individuals," the complaint states.

Of the 80,080 applicants for last year's race, only 14,326
applicants won a spot to race, Runners World reported.

The lawsuit estimates that fewer than 18 percent of lottery
applicants got the green light in between 2010 and 2015.

This violates the New York state Constitution's prohibition on the
"lottery or sale of lottery tickets, pool-selling, book-making, or
any other kind of gambling, except lotteries operated by the
state," according to the complaint.

Nancy Kaboolian, an attorney with Abbey Spanier, argues that the
penalty for violations of this statute is double the cost of
entry.

The lawsuit says that the small fees add up to more than
$10,560,000 in damages over that six-year period.

New York Road Runners spokesman Chris Weiller said it would be
"premature" to comment on the pending litigation, though he
emphasized that the nonprofit "helps and inspires people through
running."

He added that the organization "serves over 400,000 people of all
ages and abilities annually, including free running programs and
initiatives for over 200,000 students throughout New York City and
across the nation."

Runners undeterred by the slim odds of winning have until Feb. 21
to apply for the next New York City Marathon.


NEW YORK: Parents Sue State Education Officials
-----------------------------------------------
Marlene Kennedy, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a trio of Rockland County, N.Y., parents made good on their
threat and sued state education officials for denying their
children a "sound, basic education."

The parents say Article XI of the New York Constitution, dubbed
the "education article," ensures a public education to all
students, but the New York State Education Department and Board of
Regents are not doing enough to protect that right.

The parents contend that, despite detailed reports of "ongoing
mismanagement and neglect" by the Board of Education of the East
Ramapo Central School District, the state has failed to intercede
to stop staff and program cuts that have affected student
performance.

"Because the state, through respondents, has extensively
documented and acknowledged such failures by its agents in East
Ramapo, it has an affirmative, non-discretionary duty to intervene
and correct the board's failures," the parents say in a lawsuit
filed last week in Albany County Supreme Court.

Lead plaintiff David Curry, who has two children in East Ramapo
schools, wants the court to order the Education Department and
Board of Regents -- which oversee K-12 and university-level
education in the state -- to take action.

The East Ramapo district, located about 45 minutes northwest of
New York City, has 33,000 students, but only 9,000 of them attend
its schools, according to the complaint. The other 24,000 attend
private school, nearly all of them in yeshivas, or Orthodox Jewish
schools. Several Hasidic villages and hamlets are within the
district's borders.

The public school population is 91 percent African-American,
Latino and Haitian, reflecting the diversity of the surrounding
communities. The parents' lawsuit points to the village of Spring
Valley, where the district's two high schools are located, whose
residents comprise 100 different nationalities. 66 percent of them
speak a language other than English at home, the complaint states.

Among the district's students, 83 percent are economically
disadvantaged and 20 percent have disabilities. In addition, 27
percent are classified as "English language learners," meaning
they cannot communicate fluently or learn effectively in English,
according to data footnoted in the complaint.

But Curry says services to many of these students have been cut,
along with teachers and programs, ever since the local Orthodox
Jewish community secured a majority of the seats on the district's
board of education in 2005.

Instead, money has been channeled to the transportation and
special education needs of students attending some 50 yeshivas,
Curry claims.

The lawsuit cites a 2014 report prepared for the Education
Department by Henry Greenberg, a former federal prosecutor and
adviser to the state attorney general, who was asked to look into
how the board operated.

Greenberg found favoritism by the board toward the yeshiva
students, an "inexcusable" lack of transparency, and "abysmal"
budget management that put the district "on the precipice of
fiscal disaster," according to the Jan. 14 complaint.

He also found that the district had operated at a deficit in seven
of the past 10 years, and that the board "has rarely addressed
budget gaps with long-term solutions, preferring 'one-shot' salvos
to durable fixes," the complaint states.

Curry cites other reports also prepared at the state's behest,
including one late last year by three "monitors" -- outside
education experts -- who "confirmed yet again that 'the East
Ramapo Board of Education has persistently failed to act in the
best interests of public school students.'"

Like the Greenberg report, Curry says, the monitors found not only
educational and operational faults but "total breakdown" in
community trust.

Curry says the parents wrote to the Education Department and Board
of Regents last summer to remind them of their constitutional
duty, in partnership with local school boards, to provide a sound,
basic education for students.

The letter said that, if the East Ramapo board did not demonstrate
a willingness to change by taking to heart the recommendations in
the reports "and the state fails to intervene directly, we will
have no alternative but to take legal action to compel such
intervention."

Besides Curry, the litigating parents include Luis Nivelo and
Romel Alvarez.

They are represented by Gary Svirsky, Brad Elias and Matthew
Schock of O'Melveny & Myers in Manhattan, along with Wendy Lecker
of the Education Law Center in Newark, N.J.

In addition to the New York State Education Department and Board
of Regents, the heads of those agencies -- Education Commissioner
MaryEllen Elia and Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch -- are named as
defendants.

Gannett's Journal News in the lower Hudson Valley reported Jan. 21
that the Education Department and East Ramapo school board
declined comment on the lawsuit.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Suit Remains in S.D. Cal., Stayed Pending Talks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Q. Hayes of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California denied a motion to
transfer venue, dismissed Plaintiff's first through fifth putative
class and class claims, and stayed litigation pending arbitration
in the case captioned, ANH BUI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS
CORP., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-1397-WHQ-
WVG (S.D. Cal.).

On April 14, 2015, Plaintiff Anh Bui commenced the action by
filing the Class Action Complaint in San Diego County Superior
Court. On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Class
Action Complaint which is the operative complaint in the instant
case. The FAC asserts: (1) four state-law wage and hour claims
arising from Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, (2) a claim
for violation of California Business & Professions Code section
17200, et seq., and (3) a claim for violation of California's
Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004, seeking civil penalties
for Defendant's alleged wage and hour violations.

On June 25, 2015, Defendant removed the action to the Court
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1332(d), 1453.

The matters before the Court are (1) the Motion to Transfer Venue
filed by Defendant Northrop Grumman; (2) the Motion to Compel
Bilateral Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, or, Alternatively, to
Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) filed
by Defendant; and (3) the Motion to Stay filed by Defendant.

In his Order dated December 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/2yH8SOfrom Leagle.com, Judge Hayes concluded that
the interest of justice does not favor transfer because neither
Zinzow nor Milstein are currently pending in the Central District.
Plaintiff's first through fifth putative class and class claims
are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Plaintiff's request.

The Court directed the parties to proceed to arbitration in
accordance with the terms of the Arbitration Agreement with
respect to all of Plaintiff's remaining claims and shall file a
joint status report on June 10, 2016.

Anh Bui is represented by:

     Gregory E. Mauro, Esq.
     James R. Hawkins, Esq.
     JAMES HAWKINS APLC
     9880 Research Dr #200,
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Tel: (949)387-7200

Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. is represented by Jesse A. Cripps,
Jr., Esq. -- jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP


OCWEN LOAN: 2nd Cir. Revives FDCA Claims in "Garfield" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Jon O. Newman of the Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit, reversed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's
claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in the case
captioned, DONNA GARFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 15-527 (2nd Cir.).

Garfield obtained a mortgage from Ocwen's predecessor-in-interest,
Litton Loan Servicing L.P. and became personally obligated on a
mortgage loan. Garfield failed to make payments on the mortgage
loan and filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York. During the
bankruptcy proceedings, Ocwen acquired Garfield's mortgage loan.
Under her bankruptcy plan, Garfield paid the arrears on her
mortgage loan through monthly payments of $938 made during the
bankruptcy proceeding to prevent foreclosure of the mortgaged
property. Garfield concedes that she made only one monthly payment
after her bankruptcy discharge and that by March 2014 the arrears
on her monthly obligation totaled $6,672.34. In February 2014
Ocwen contacted Garfield and demanded that she pay $21,825.15 or
face foreclosure on her home. Ocwen sent a delinquency notice in
April 2014 for $22,684.36.

In July 2014, Garfield filed her FDCPA complaint against Ocwen in
the United States District Court for the Western District of New
York. She alleged that Ocwen's attempt to collect the arrears on
her mortgage loan, which had been discharged, violated several
provisions of the FDCPA. Garfield also alleged that Ocwen violated
the FDCPA in the manner it attempted to collect the post-
bankruptcy monthly mortgage payments that she concedes she owes.
Specifically, she alleges (1) that Ocwen violated subsection
1692e(11), which requires a so-called "mini-Miranda warning,"
during conversations with a debtor, and (2) that Ocwen failed to
send within five days of its initial communications a 30-day
notice of a debtor's right to dispute a debt, as required by
subsection 1692g(a)(3). The District Court dismissed Garfield's
complaint holding that the Bankruptcy Code provides the exclusive
remedy for Garfield's claim that Ocwen attempted to collect an
allegedly discharged debt. The Court also stated that, even if the
Code does not broadly preclude all FDCPA claims for conduct that
violates the discharge injunction, Garfield's particular FDCPA
claims conflict with the Code's remedies and were therefore
precluded.

On appeal, Garfield argued that the district erred by granting
dismissal to her FDCPA claims.

In his Decision dated January 4, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/jyxXtKfrom Leagle.com, Judge Newman concluded that
the Bankruptcy Code does not broadly repeal the FDCPA for purposes
of FDCPA claims based on conduct that would constitute alleged
violations of the discharge injunction and none of Garfield's
individual FDCPA claims conflicts with the discharge injunction
under the Bankruptcy Code.

The Court remanded the action with instruction to reinstate
Garfield's FDCPA claims against Ocwen.

Donna Garfield is represented by:

     Kenneth R. Hiller, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH HILLER, PLLC
     6000 N Bailey Ave #1a,
     Buffalo, NY 14226
     Tel: (877)236-7366

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC is represented by Gary Neal Smith, Esq.
-- gsmith@houser-law.com -- HOUSER & ALISON, APC


OOMA INC: Faces "Barnett" Suit Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Services reported that Ooma's share value has
dropped because the cloud-based provider of voice-over-Internet
protocol used misleading statements to raise $65 million in its
initial public offering, investors claim in San Mateo County
Superior Court.

The plaintiff is Michael Barnett.  The defendants are Ooma Inc.;
Worldview Capital IV; Credit Suisse Securities; and Merrill Lynch.


PANASONIC CORP: Judge Calls Antitrust Case "A Mess"
---------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported
that a frustrated federal judge in San Francisco told the parties
in an antitrust class action against major tech firms that the
case could not move forward until their attorneys sit down and
determine the case's contours.

"Right now, nobody's on the same page," U.S. District Judge James
Donato said. "This thing is a mess."

The consolidated class action involves in part a 2014 complaint
filed by lead plaintiff Chip-Tech accusing a host of corporations
-- including Panasonic and Samsung -- of conspiring to fix the
prices of capacitors, a common component of most electronic
devices.

Donato structured Jan. 13 hearing of motions for summary judgment
by ticking through the situational categories of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, asking the parties to decide within which
categories the case would proceed.  In one example, he challenged
the plaintiffs on whether goods both bought and resold overseas
constituted "import commerce" under the Sherman Act.  The
plaintiffs contended that where the goods are resold does not
figure into the case at all, but Donato stopped the argument.

"I take seriously, as I must, that the Sherman Act focuses on the
U.S., U.S. markets, U.S. consumers and U.S. parties," he said. "We
cannot be a global competition policeperson. We don't do that. And
you're dangerously close to gutting that limitation."

Donato also told the parties that "you all can't even make
agreements about who shipped what to where."  He added, "I was
sort of tempted to say that you all are just so far apart in
genuine material facts that I'm not going to spend any time on it.
But I'm now going to undertake what has been described as the
backbreaking labor of what the content is, not just the general
descriptions. We're actually going to cut to the facts."

And class certification "is going to be a nightmare in this case
unless we start defining now who the plaintiffs are," he said.

He also scolded the parties for disrespecting proper legal
procedure.

"You send me 38 pages over whether discovery was done correctly
and at the same time you ask me to enter summary judgment," he
said. "How is that possible? I'll answer it for you -- it's not
possible."

Donato gave the parties two weeks to "sit down and figure it out
in person" before he would give the case further consideration.

"Send me data that I can track," he said. "It will not take me a
huge amount of time once I get that data. The data is missing.


PANASONIC CORP: Judge Awards $38MM in Fees in CRT Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge awarded $38 million in fees to attorneys for
36 firms who represented direct purchasers of cathode ray tubes in
an eight-year-long antitrust lawsuit in San Francisco against
electronics giants.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar called the fee award -- 30 percent
of the $127 million settlement fund -- fair and reasonable.

Cathode ray tubes, or CRTs, are vacuum tubes that shoot rays onto
screens to form images, as in classic televisions. They became
obsolete as new technology paved the way for flat screen
televisions and other devices.

More than 30 complaints were filed against CRT manufacturers
within six months of the Nov. 8, 2007, announcement from the
European Commission of a worldwide antitrust investigation of CRT
pricing.

Direct purchasers of the CRTs accused several large companies --
including Samsung, Toshiba and LG -- of conspiring to fix prices
in the CRT industry when it was worth $19 billion between 1995 and
2007.

The companies have separately settled claims against them for
varying amounts:

     Chunghwa for $10 million;
     Philips for $15 million;
     Panasonic for $17.5 million;
     LG for $25 million;
     Toshiba for $13.5 million; and
     Hitachi for $13.5 million; and
     Samsung SDI $33 million.

Attorneys for the direct purchasers sought $38.2 million in fees,
split among 36 law firms.

Although the Ninth Circuit's benchmark percentage for attorney
fees in a class action is 25 percent, such a benchmark "is of
little use" in a settlement of this size, Tigar said. He said the
record in this case supports the heightened award.

"First, counsel here has expanded far more work -- over 95,000
hours -- and taken upon themselves more risk -- spanning eight
years of litigation -- than is present in a normal class action
suit," Tigar wrote in his Jan. 14 order.

No class member has objected to the proposed settlement or fee
award, and a fee award of this size is consistent with decisions
in a similar multidistrict litigation case, the judge said.

A cross-check of the 30 percent award against the attorneys'
anticipated lodestar calculation of $43.3 million also supports
the amount, Tigar said.

Tigar granted the attorneys $2.86 million in expenses -- already
paid from the settlement fund -- but reduced their request for an
additional $1.92 million by nearly $500,000.

The reduction was for what Tigar called inappropriate travel and
meal costs, including first-class flights, expensive meals and
wine, drinks with co-counsel, and hotel rooms costing more than
$3,500 per night.

"The court expressed its unwillingness to approve these expenses,
which one plaintiff's lawyer correctly described as 'pure
nonsense.' The court further noted its reluctance to again spend
time poring over now-largely suspect meal and travel requests and
gave counsel an opportunity to submit a revised request," Tigar
wrote.

The attorneys withdrew their request for the meal and travel
expenses, leaving them with an additional cost award of $1.53
million.

The case captioned, IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION MDL No. 1917 Case No. C-07-5944-JST (N.D. Cal.).


PANDA EXPRESS: Faces Suit in Los Angeles over Labor Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Target and Panda Express are
accused of overtime and Labor Code violations, in separate class
actions in L.A. Superior Court.


PELLA CORP: Wins Summary Judgment in "Dilly" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge David C. Norton of the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina granted in part Plaintiffs'
motion for final settlement approval and certification of a
settlement class and attorneys' fees and costs and granted in part
class service awards in the case captioned, DOUG DILLY, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PELLA
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case Nos. 2:14-MN-00001-DCN, 2:14-CV-
03307-DCN (D.S.C.).

In early 2006, plaintiff Doug Dilly contracted with Frye
Construction to construct his home. In March 2006, another
contractor working on the home purchased Pella windows to be
installed in Dilly's home from Heartland Pella, an independent
sales distributor for Pella products. Dilly paid Heartland Pella
directly for the windows. Paella provide warranty of ten years
from the date of purchase of its non-glass components of its
Covered Pella Products including the Pella Endura Hardware
collection. The installed windows suffered from leaking issues
that on or about August 27, 2008, Heartland Pella made its last
service call to Dilly's home.  After that date, Dilly never made
another service request or warranty claim relating to the windows.

On July 30, 2014, Dilly filed a class action complaint against
Pella in the United States District Court for the District of
Nebraska, alleging jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
The complaint brings the following eleven causes of action: (1)
violation of the Nebraska Uniform Deceptive Uniform Trade
Practices Act (NUDTPA); (2) negligence; (3) negligent
misrepresentation; (4) breach of implied warranty of
merchantability; (5) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose; (6) breach of express warranty; (7) fraudulent
misrepresentation; (8) fraudulent concealment; (9) unjust
enrichment; (10) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
("MMWA"); and (11) declaratory relief.

Dilly contended that the windows are defective in that water
permeates the windows through "four common leakage paths: (a) the
glazing pocket; (b) the aluminum cladding and wood; (c) the crank
hardware and fasteners; and (d) the frame to sash joint." Dilly
further alleges that Pella knew, or but for its negligence should
have been aware, of the defect when it sold the windows."

Pella argued that all of Dilly's claims are barred by the
applicable statutes of limitations. Dilly contended that he first
discovered the defective condition of the windows in 2013 when
they were removed from his home. Thus, under the discovery rule,
Dilly claimed that the applicable statute of limitations did not
accrue until 2013 and that his claims are therefore timely.
Alternatively, Dilly argued that the respective statutes of
limitations are tolled by the doctrines of fraudulent concealment
and equitable estoppel.

In his Order dated January 4, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/iO9Jvlfrom Leagle.com, Judge Norton found that there
is no genuine issue of material fact that the doctrine of
fraudulent concealment does not toll the statute of limitations.
Because the court dismissed all of Dilly's other claims against
Pella as barred by the statute of limitations and because Dilly's
claim for declaratory relief repeats the allegations alleged in
his other substantive claims, the court granted Pella's motion for
summary judgment as to Dilly's declaratory judgment claim.

Doug Dilly is represented by Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. --
dan@wbmllp.com -- Matthew E. Lee, Esq. -- matt@wbmllp.com --
WHITFIELD BRYSON AND MASON, Scott A. George, Esq. --
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS & Timothy J. O'Brien, Esq.
-- tobrien@omahapersonalinjury.com -- HAUPTMAN, O'BRIEN LAW FIRM

Pella Corporation is represented by John P. Mandler, Esq. --
john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- Kevin L. Morrow, Esq. --
kevin.morrow@FaegreBD.com -- Mark J. Winebrenner, Esq. --
mark.winebrenner@FaegreBD.com -- Shane A. Anderson, Esq. --
shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS


PEP BOYS-MANNY MOE: Court Denies Class Certification in "Lee"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States
District Court for Northern District of California denied
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case captioned,
ANDREW LEE, Plaintiff, v. THE PEP BOYS-MANNY MOE & JACK OF
CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 12-CV-05064-JSC (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiff Andrew Lee filed the instant putative class action
arising out of the attempted collection of monies incurred as a
result of his alleged misuse of his employee discount and for
changing the oil on his car while at work at Defendant The Pep
Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California. Plaintiff alleged that the
settlement demand letters that Defendant Palmer Reifler &
Associates sent to Plaintiff and others violated various
provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and
the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec.
17200.

Plaintiff sought to recover actual and statutory damages on behalf
of himself and a putative nationwide class of individuals who
received settlement demands from Palmer under federal law, and
statutory restitution and injunctive relief under California law
for a class of all individuals in California who received written
settlement demands from Palmer seeking in excess of $500 citing
California Penal Code Section 490.5.

In the motion, Plaintiff sought to certify a class of all
"internal" individuals who received written communications sent by
or on behalf of Palmer at any time from August 20, 2008 to the
present, in which a demand for payment and/or an offer of
"settlement" is made for alleged debts, civil liabilities,
penalties, and damages.

In her Order dated December 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/P2esAEfrom Leagle.com, Judge Corley found that the
Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the Rule 23(a) requirements for
his UCL claim, the Court need not address whether he has met the
requirements of Rule 23(b).

Andrew Lee is represented by:

     Larry W. Lee, Esq.
     Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang, Esq.
     Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
     DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
     550 S. Hope St., Suite 2655
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Tel: (213) 488-6555

Defendants are represented by Dennis Justin Kelly, Esq. --
djk@dillinghammurphy.com -- John Norman Dahlberg, Esq. --
jnd@dillinghammurphy.com -- DILLINGHAM & MURPHY


PLUMROSE USA: "Heuberger" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Heuberger, and all others similarly situated v. Plumrose
USA, Inc. and Forge Industrial Staffing, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00586 (N.D. Ind., December 10, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages under Fair Labor Standards Act and Indiana's
Minimum Wage Law of 1965.

Forge Industrial Staffing, Inc. provides employee recruitment
services to the manufacturing and industrial sectors.

Plumrose USA, Inc. produces and sells meat products to food
distributors, retailers, and wholesalers in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Blvd., Ste 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Tel: (314) 997-9150
      Fax: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

         - and -

      Kathleen M. Sweeney, Esq.
      SWEENEY HAYES LLC
      141 E. Washington Street, Ste 225
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Tel: (317) 491-1050
      Fax: (317) 491-1043
      E-mail: ksween@gmail.com


PNC FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Sends "Gokhberg" to Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendants'
motion to transfer venue in the case captioned, MARAT GOKHBERG,
YURY GOKHBERG, DAVID JAFFE, SUREKHA BASSI, and MARC FRANCHI,
Plaintiffs, v. THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., and PNC
BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 15 CV 6001-LTS (S.D.N.Y.).

On July 30, 2015, Plaintiffs Marat Gokhberg, Yury Gokhberg, David
Jaffe, Surekha Bassi, and Marc Franchi filed the instant putative
collective action against Defendants, alleging violations of the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Minimum Wage
Act. Plaintiffs are all mortgage loan officers who worked for
Defendants and who allege that they were not properly paid
overtime, minimum wage, or spread-of-hours pay under applicable
federal and state law. Only a few days after Plaintiffs filed
their action, a different set of plaintiffs filed a complaint in
the Western District of Pennsylvania asserting materially
identical federal causes of action based on materially identical
facts. According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs Marat and Yury
Gokhberg, Surekha Bassi, and Marc Franchi worked for Defendants
solely at locations in the Eastern District of New York, and
Plaintiff David Jaffe worked for Defendants in the Eastern
District of New York for three years followed by one year spent
working in the Southern District of New York.

Upon review of the Complaint, the Court issued an Order to Show
Cause sua sponte, ordering Plaintiffs to show cause why this
action should not be transferred to the Eastern District of New
York, where the vast majority of Plaintiffs' actual employment
occurred. Plaintiffs responded to the Court's Order on September
1, 2015.

In the motion, Defendants filed the motion seeking transfer of the
action to the Western District of Pennsylvania, where it could be
heard alongside the Bland litigation that is currently proceeding
in that district.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 21, 2015
available at http://is.gd/2vnHGEfrom Leagle.com, Judge Swain
concluded that the location of relevant documents and the locus of
operative facts weigh in favor of transfer to Pennsylvania,
because Plaintiffs allege a common pattern and practice by
Defendants of failing to properly classify and pay all of PNC's
MLOs which would involve documents and facts drawn from PNC's
headquarters, where such decisions would have been made. The venue
also serves the convenience of the witnesses and parties is
neutral, as Plaintiffs are located in New York and Defendants are
located in Pittsburgh.

Plaintiffs are represented by Hope Allison Pordy, Esq. --
hpordy@spivaklipton.com -- SPIVAK LIPTON WATANABE SPIVAK & MOSS
LLP

          - and -

     Gregory Keith McGillivary, Esq.
     Sarah Michelle Block, Esq.
     WOODLEY & MCGILLIVARY
     1101 Vermont Ave NW #1000,
     Washington, DC 20005
     Tel: (202)833-8855

Defendants are represented by Melissa D. Hill, Esq. --
melissa.hill@morganlewis.com -- Sarah E. Bouchard, Esq. --
sbouchard@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS


PROMENADE TOWERS: "Taban" Suit Alleges Civil Code Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lily Taban, and all others similarly situated v. Promenade Towers,
Ltd. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. BC603410 (Cal. Super.,
December 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation
of the California Civil Code, breach of implied warranty of
habitability, violation of Business and Professions Code,
negligence, tortuous breach of the warranty of habitability,
breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and nuisance.

The Plaintiff alleged that throughout her tenancy at the Promenade
Towers, her apartment unit has been infested with cockroaches.

The Defendant is the owner and lessor of Promenade Towers located
in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George S. Azadian, Esq.
      AZADIAN LAW GROUP, PC
      790 E. Colorado Blvd., 9th Floor
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Tel: (626) 449-4944
      Fax: (626) 628-1722
      E-mail: george@azadianlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Desiree Meguerditchian, Esq.
      FOOTHILL LAW GROUP
      230 East Foothill Blvd. #C
      Arcadia, CA 91106
      Tel: (626) 239-6135
      Fax: (626) 628-1722
      E-mail: foothill.lg@gmail.com


RAMDASDARKE DARKE: Sued Over Defects in Properties for Rent
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marcellus Toney, v. Ramdasdarke Darke, Mangal Darke, Mukesh Darke,
Ranjit Darke, Shekhar Darke and DOES 1-30, Case No.RG15795S39
(Cal. Super., County of Alameda Unlimited Jurisdiction, December
7, 2015), alleges that Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress,
physical injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses
as a result of habitability defects and other acts and/or
omissions committed by Defendants.

The Defendants were the owners and/or property managers or the
agents and/or employees of the owners and/or property managers of
the Subject Premises.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew Wolff, Esq.
     Chris Beatty, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
     1970 Broadway, Suite 210
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (510) 834-3300
     Fax: (510) 834-3377
     E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
             chris@awolfflaw.com


REDFIN CORP: N.D. Cal. Judge Sends "Galen" Case to Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson granted Defendant's motions to
compel arbitration in the captioned case SCOTT GALEN, Plaintiff,
v. REDFIN CORPORATION, Defendant. IVONNETH CRUZ, Plaintiff, v.
REDFIN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case Nos.: 14-CV-05229-TEH, 14-CV-
05234-TEH, (N.D. Cal.)

Galen filed his case in Alameda County Superior Court on January
16, 2013.  Galen worked as a Field Agent for Defendant Redfin.
Galen claims that he was misclassified as an independent
contractor and accordingly denied employment benefits while he
worked for Redfin. Galen signed a Field Agent Independent
Contractor Agreement to work as a Field Agent for Redfin on August
26, 2009.  The Agreement contained a binding arbitration clause.

Redfin moved to compel arbitration, while Plaintiff moves to
enforce law of the case.

In his Order dated December 1, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/1tQlaqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Henderson denied
Plaintiff's motion to enforce law of the case and granted
Defendant's motions to compel arbitration. Galen's motion to
enforce the law of the case is denied due to the procedural
posture of the case and the changed circumstances following the
Superior Court's decision. Redfin's motions to compel arbitration
are granted in both cases because the parties clearly and
unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability to the
arbitrator, any unconscionable provisions regarding that
delegation are severable, and Refin's motion to compel is not
wholly groundless. The Court therefore severs the Agreements' fee-
shifting, forum selection, and choice of law clauses. The question
of arbitrability is delegated to an arbitrator in the San
Francisco Bay Area applying the 2009 era AAA Labor and Employment
Rules. The parties shall file a joint statement within ten days of
the arbitrator's decision on arbitrability, or by March 7, 2016,
whichever is sooner.

Laura L. Ho, Esq. -- lho@gbdhlegal.com -- and James Kan, Esq. --
jkan@gbdhlegal.com -- of Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Scott Galen

Ronald D. Arena, Esq. -- rarena@arenahoffman.com -- Michael A.
Hoffman, III, Esq. -- mhoffman@arenahoffman.com and Kathryn
Macomber Weeks, Esq.  of Arena Hoffman LLP serve as counsel for
Defendant Redfin Corporation


ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Appointed as Lead Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Root9b Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
and three senior executives of the Company are named as defendants
in a class action proceeding filed on June 23, 2015, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

On September 24, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted a motion to transfer the lawsuit to
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.  On
October 14, 2015, the Court appointed David Hampton as Lead
Plaintiff and approved Hampton's selection of the law firm Levi &
Korsinsky LLP as Lead Counsel.

The Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint violations of the federal
securities laws on behalf of a class of persons who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock between December 1, 2014 and
June 15, 2015.  In general, the complaint alleges that false or
misleading statements were made or that there was a failure to
make appropriate disclosures concerning the Company's cyber
security business and products.

"We cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit; however, the
Company believes that the claims lack merit and intends to defend
against the lawsuit vigorously," the Company said.


RUST-OLEUM: Ill. Judge Narrows Claims in Product Liability Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Amy J. St. Eve of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part, granted in
part without prejudice, and denied in part Rust-Oleum's motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, In Re Rust-Oleum Restore Marketing,
Sales Practices And Products Liability Litigation, No. 15 C 1364,
MDL No. 2602 (N.D. Ill.).

In the consolidated, multi-district litigation (MDL), Plaintiffs
are purchasers and users of a paint product called "Deck &
Concrete Restore" or "Restore 10X" manufactured by Defendant Rust-
Oleum Corporation. Plaintiffs allege that Restore contains latent
defects that result in premature degradation upon application.
Plaintiffs contend that Rust-Oleum knew that Restore was defective
prior to and during its marketing, selling, and warranting the
product to Plaintiffs.

On April 7, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint naming 40 Plaintiffs from 27 states
alleging that sometime between 2010 and 2015 they each purchased
and applied to a deck or other surface, a paint product called
"Deck & Concrete Restore" or "Restore 10X" that Rust-Oleum has
manufactured since September 2012. Based on these allegations,
Plaintiffs bring a putative class action against Rust-Oleum on
behalf of all individuals and entities that purchased Restore, not
for resale, "in the territories of the United States." Plaintiffs'
ten-count Complaint asserts various claims under the laws of all
50 states and the District of Columbia in addition to individual
state law claims. Count I seeks declaratory, injunctive, or
equitable relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Count II
alleges a failure to comply with obligations under written and
implied warranties, in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act. Count III alleges breach of express warranties under the laws
of every state. Counts IV and V allege breaches of the implied
warranty of merchantability and the implied warranty of fitness
for a particular purpose under the laws of every state. Count VI
asserts violations of various state consumer-fraud statutes. Count
VII claims violations of the false-advertising statutes of four
states. Count VIII claims a violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act. Count IX alleges negligent misrepresentation.
Lastly, Count X claims fraudulent concealment.

In the motion, Rust-Oleum argues that Plaintiffs' Complaint fails
to state a claim for relief under each of the alleged bases and
that dismissal of each claim asserted by each Plaintiff is
warranted.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 7, 2016
available at http://is.gd/CRnlpIfrom Leagle.com, Judge St. Eve
denied Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Count I through III and
Counts VI through IX, granted in part Count IV and granted Count
V.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     William M. Audet, Esq.
     AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
     221 Main St #1460
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Tel: (415)982-1776

          - and -

     Jean S. Martin, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON MARTIN PLLC
     2018 Eastwood Rd Suite 225,
     Wilmington, NC 28403
     Tel: (910)292-6676

          - and -

     Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
     RHINE MARTIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
     1612 Military Cutoff Rd,
     Wilmington, NC 28403
     Tel: (910)772-9960

Defendants are represented by Abigail Marie Bartine, Esq. --
abartine@mayerbrown.com -- Chad Matthew Clamage, Esq. --
cclamage@mayerbrown.com -- Dana S. Douglas, Esq. --
ddouglas@mayerbrown.com -- Joshua D. Yount, Esq. --
jyount@mayerbrown.com -- Lori E. Lightfoot, Esq. --
llightfoot@mayerbrown.com -- Reginald Goeke, Esq. --
rgoeke@mayerbrown.com -- Richard Edward Nowak, Esq. --
rnowak@mayerbrown.com -- Stephen J. Kane, Esq. --
skane@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP


SAN DIEGO, CA: Feb. 11 Hearing in Police Officer's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
a class action brought by a San Diego police officer who claims
the city stiffs unmarried employees of benefits given to married
workers is moving forward, although in whose courtroom in San
Diego has yet to be decided.

San Diego Superior Court Judge John Meyer heard Jan. 19 from
plaintiff Deborah Ganley as to why the case should be transferred
to another San Diego judge, Richard Strauss.

The class action filed by Ganley on Jan. 6 claims marital status
discrimination by the city via the pension retirement program that
city employees pay into.

Ganley says employees who are married the day they retire receive
a special "surviving spouse benefit," while unmarried employees
like her receive a substitute benefit. The benefit given to
unmarried employees is essentially a life insurance policy, while
a spouse who outlives a city employee will continue to receive 50
percent of the deceased's pension.

But Ganley claims the substitute benefit she has been paid is
worth at least $50,000 less than the surviving spouse benefit
received by married employees. She retired in 2015.

Ganley also claims the city subsidizes the surviving spouse
benefit because the rate at which current employees pay into the
pension system can't cover the cost of it. The substitute benefit
received by unmarried city employees is not subsidized and its
rate was last adjusted in 1979, according to Ganley.

In 2001 and again in 2011, a study found unmarried retirees
collectively received about $1.5 million less per year than
married retirees, Ganley claims.

Michael Conger, Ganley's attorney, said the current value of the
subsidy is $130 million.

Conger represented a similar case that was settled in 2015 on the
eve of the trial. Strauss presided over Wood vs. the City of San
Diego for over four years, understands the ins and outs of San
Diego's pension system and should be the judge to oversee the
latest case filed against the city, Conger said.

"If you don't fully fund your pension, it's always at risk,"
Conger said. "There's no good reason for the government to pay
married people more than unmarried people. I would ask the city
instead of embracing discrimination, to fix it."

City Attorney Joe Cordileone said the city decided to settle the
Wood case because it would have cost three to four times more to
go to trial. But he said issues brought in the Ganley case "are
not quite as simple" as Conger made them out to be.

The city does not want the case transferred to Strauss and has
filed an opposition.

Meanwhile, the San Diego City Council will not be able to review
the case and direct Cordileone on a course of action until Jan.
26, the city attorney said. He said neither he nor any of his
colleagues will be able to represent the city as the case moves
through court due to a conflict of interest, as they also receive
pension benefits as city employees.

"It's ridiculous to ask the city to just roll over without having
the chance for the council to consult with their lawyers,"
Cordileone said.

"[Conger] makes it sound like a simple open and shut case. We're
not talking comparing apples to oranges, we're talking about
comparing apples to orangutans. He's completely wrong. The city
has done nothing wrong."

In a letter sent this past month to Mayor Kevin Faulconer and city
councilmembers, Conger suggested a way to rectify what his client
claims is the pension disparity in benefits received by employees
based on their marital status: requiring employees to pay the full
cost of the surviving spouse benefit as originally intended when
the benefit was created in 1971, rather than subsidize the cost.

Conger also suggested in the letter the city pay out $10 million
to resolve the claims rather than go through litigation.

The attorney said the Ganley case makes exactly the same claims as
the Wood case settled by the city in 2015, where the plaintiff was
awarded $68,000.

In a letter responding to Conger, Cordileone noted "no decision
dealing with tens of millions of taxpayer dollars can be made
without the city council and mayor being fully apprised of all of
the issues."

Meyer will consider whether to transfer the case over to Strauss.
A hearing has been set for Feb. 11.


SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS: "Kazemzadeh" Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco dismissed with prejudice an
antitrust class action accusing the San Francisco 49ers and
Ticketmaster of conspiring to monopolize the market for reselling
season tickets.

Lead plaintiff Amir Kazemzadeh sued the 49ers and Ticketmaster in
August 2015, claiming they blocked season ticketholders from
access to their tickets until 72 hours before a game last year.

In previous seasons, Kazemzadeh, said he could print his tickets
in advance and give them as gifts or post them for sale on
websites such as stubhub.

Under the new policy, season ticketholders must resell their
tickets through Ticketmaster's NFL Ticket Exchange website up
until three days before a game. The NFL Ticket Exchange charges
high fees and conceals its floor price for resold tickets,
according to the lawsuit. Kazemzadeh said the two companies were
stifling competition in the secondary ticket market by reducing
the number of 49ers tickets for sale on competing websites and
maximizing the number for sale on the NFL Ticket Exchange.

The NFL Ticket Exchange charges buyers 15 percent extra, with a 10
percent surcharge for season ticketholders and a 15 percent
service fee, according to estimates cited in the complaint.

Tickemaster and the 49ers both filed motions to dismiss in
December, saying the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege harm
to competition or "clearly identify what 'market' has been
allegedly restrained.'

On Jan. 11, Kazemzadeh's attorney informed the court that his
client decided to voluntarily dismiss the case with prejudice .

Class attorney Naomi Spector of Hyde & Swigart in San Diego said
she had no comment and was not permitted to speak about the
matter, suggesting that a confidential settlement agreement was
reached between the parties.

San Francisco 49ers attorney Derek Ludwin of Washington, D.C. and
Ticketmaster attorney Andrew Gass of Latham & Watkins in San
Francisco did not return phone calls seeking comment Jan. 12,
afternoon.

A phone call and email seeking comment from the 49ers also went
unanswered Jan. 12.

A Ticketmaster spokeswoman declined to comment.


SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA: Overcharged Water Rate, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
San Juan Capistrano overcharged residents millions of dollars for
water and when it was caught at it, offered refunds of only 20
percent of the overcharges, a class action claims in state court
in Santa Ana.

Lead plaintiff Hootan Daneshmand sued the City of San Juan
Capistrano on Jan. 15, in Orange County Superior Court, claiming
the city's refund program offers less than 20 percent of the
overcharges.

Daneshmand says an Orange County court and a California appeals
court found that San Juan Capistrano had illegally created a
tiered rate system that did not account for customers' water use
or actual cost of consumption.  He says the random increase of
water rates violated Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes
Act, a constitutional amendment passed by California voters in
1996.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal in California concluded the
city had violated the state constitution by sending customers
inflated bills for more than five years between 2010 and 2015,
according to the complaint.

But the city has kept its overcharges and interest on the
overcharges, Daneshmand says.

Though San Juan Capistrano promised it would pay refunds in July
2015, its program was "nothing more than a continuance of its
illegal conduct," according to the complaint.

San Juan Capistrano "failed to disclose that its water rates were
charged in violation of state law and failed to disclose that the
'refund' it was offering included less than 20 percent of the
overcharges," the lawsuit states.

It claims that thousands of residents did not receive a refund
notice, and that the city told the 11,000 who did that if they
accepted the refund they would have to sign a release
relinquishing the right to collect the hidden overcharges.

The city's "attempt to escape the consequences of its illegal
conduct by accounting sleight of hand should be rejected," the
complaints states, adding that the city has "doubled down on its
illicit conduct."

The residents seek refunds with interest and damages for breach of
contract, breach of faith, money had and received, and negligence.
They are represented by Niall McCarthy -- nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com
-- of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy in Burlingame.

San Juan Capistrano did not immediately respond to an emailed
request for comment on Jan. 11.


SAXON MORTGAGE: Final Accounting Hearing Continued to August 10
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted the stipulation
and request of the parties to withdraw litigation pending
compliance of CAFA Notice requirements in the case captioned,
MARIE GAUDIN, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC. a Texas
corporation, and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. C 11 1663 JST
(N.D. Cal.).

On November 25, 2015, the Court issued Judgment Granting Final
Approval to Class Action Settlement in the action. The Settlement
was governed by the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) which
required Defendant to provide notice of the settlement to
government officials. The Settlement Agreement and Release of
Claims shifted the duty to provide CAFA Notice to the Plaintiff
who inadvertently failed to provide such CAFA Notice.

In the motion, the parties stipulate and request that the Court
order that the Judgment in the instant action is withdrawn pending
compliance with CAFA Notice requirements and for Plaintiff to
serve the requisite CAFA Notice on the appropriate Federal and/or
State officials by December 18, 2015.

In his Stipulation and Proposed Order dated December 11, 2015
available at http://is.gd/3CKsASfrom Leagle.com, Judge Tigar
granted the motion of the parties to withdraw action pending
compliance with CAFA Notice requirements.

The Court scheduled the continuation of Final Accounting Hearing
from April 20, 2016 to August 10, 2016.

Marie Gaudin is represented by Daniel Joseph Mulligan, Esq. --
dan@jmglawoffices.com -- JENKINS MULLIGAN & GABRIEL LLP

          - and -

     Peter B. Fredman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN
     125 University Ave #102
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Tel: (510)868-2626

Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. is represented by Erik Wayne Kemp,
Esq. -- ek@severson.com -- SEVERSON & WERSON, Regina Jill
McClendon, Esq. -- rmccledon@lockelord.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP &
Stephen Scotch-Marmo, Esq. -- stephen.scotch-marmo@morganlewis.com
-- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP


SETAUKET CAR WASH: Court Grants Class Certification in FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Leonard D. Wexler of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the case captioned, ANCELMO
SIMEON MENDEZ LOPEZ SANTOS NATIVIDAD CALI ZAMBRANO on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SETAUKET CAR WASH & DETAIL CENTER TLCW, INC., KARP ENTERPRISES,
INC., STEVEN SAVIANO, and MARK CHAIT, Defendants, Case No. CV-12-
6324 (E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs are car wash attendants formerly employed by the
Defendants. They claim that Defendants violated the FLSA and the
NYLL by not paying overtime, minimum wage or the "spread of hours"
required under New York law. Amongst other things, Plaintiffs
claim that in calculating their wages, Defendants took a tip
credit that failed to meet the requirements of New York law, NYCRR
Sec. 142-2.5(b). In addition, Plaintiffs allege that improper
calculation of the tip credit led to an improper calculation of
overtime wages.

Defendant's oral motion was unaccompanied by any evidence or legal
authority.

In the motion, Plaintiffs seek class certification of the claims
under Fed.R.Civ.P Rule 23.

In his Memorandum and Order dated January 6, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/BLLeI5from Leagle.com, Judge Wexler found that Rule
23 (a) and (b) is satisfied on Plaintiffs claims under New York
law. The Court also found that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' counsel
are adequate to permit certification.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Alyssa T. Marino, Esq.
     Neil Frank, Esq.
     Jennifer Eileen Muller, Esq.
     FRANK & ASSOCIATES
     500 Bi County Blvd #465,
     Farmingdale, NY 11735
     Tel: (631)756-0400

Defendants are represented by Saul D. Zabell, Esq. --
SZabell@laborlawsny.com -- ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.


SNAP-ON TOOLS: Court Denies Motion to Reconsider in "Jacobson"
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Donato of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California denied plaintiff Daniel
Jacobson's request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration
based on alleged errors in the arbitration order in the case
captioned, DANIEL JACOBSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SNAP-ON TOOLS COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-02141-JD (N.D. Cal.).

After extensive briefing and evidentiary submissions by the
parties, the Court compelled arbitration of the First through
Ninth claims of Jacobson's complaint on an individual basis, but
retained and stayed the Tenth claim for representative PAGA civil
penalties.

In the motion, Jacobson asked for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration based on alleged errors in the arbitration order
contending that Court overlooked the parties' purported intent to
strike the whole arbitration clause in a franchise agreement if a
provision barring "consolidation, joinder, and/or class action" in
the arbitration was found to be unenforceable.

In his Order dated January 5, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/zUrhitfrom Leagle.com, Judge Donato concluded that
Plaintiff has not tendered anything new or different that
qualifies as a basis for reconsideration and his purported issue
did not meet the standards for reconsideration, and his other
unconscionability points failed for the same reason.

Daniel Jacobson is represented by Peter Scott Rukin, Esq. --
prukin@rhdtlaw.com -- RUKIN HYLAND DORIA & TINDALL LLP

          - and -

     Chaya M. Mandelbaum, Esq.
     Erin Marie Mooney Pulaski, Esq.
     Steven G. Zieff, Esq.
     RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP
     351 California St # 700
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415)434-9800

Defendants are represented by Laura Emily Hayward Esq. --
lhayward@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Sued Over Natural Gas Storage Wells
------------------------------------------------------------
Greta Fay Goodman, Mjndy Ellen Goodman, Stuart Warren Goodman,
Debbie Goodman, and Gerald Karns, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. Southern California Gas Company,
a California Corporation, Sempra Energy, a California Corporation
State Of California, Division Of Oil, Gas And Geothermal
Resources, a public entity, and DOES1 through 100, inclusive, Case
no: 6C6 02996 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles Stanley Mosk
Courthouse, December 8, 2015), alleges that Defendants
negligently, carelessly, or in some other tortious manner
constructed, controlled, maintained, and operated its natural gas
storage wells and injected natural gas into an underground well
causing it to break and an ensuing massive gas leak.

Southern California Gas Company and its parent company, Sempra
Energy, "import" natural gas and then inject the natural gas into
storage reservoirs, including underground wells in the Aliso
Canyon Oil Field. Southern California Gas also utilizes wells in
the area to dispose of toxic waste from its operations and to
inject water to force oiland gas from one part of the formation to
another part of the formation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James P. Frantz, Esq.
     George T. Stiefel III, Esq.
     William P. Harris JH, Esq.
     JodiL Frantz, Esq.
     Philip C. Aman, Esq.
     M. Regina Bagdasarian, Esq.
     Kira C. Guisto, Esq.
     FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
     555 West Fifth St., Gas Company Tower, 31st Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90013
     Phone: (323) 425-8138
     Fax: (619) 525-7672
     E-mail: jpf@ficantzlawgroup.com
             gstiefel@frantzlawgroup.com
             whams@frantzlawgroup.com
             pca@firantzlawgroup.com
             rbagdasarian@firantzlawgroup.com
             kira@frantzlawgroup.com


SOUTHERN COPPER: Faces Shareholders' Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carla Lacey and Barbara Siegfried, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated stockholders of Southern Copper
Corporation, and derivatively on behalf of Southern Copper
Corporation, v. German Larrea Motavelasco, Oscar Gonzalez Rocha,
Emilio Carrillo Alfredo Casar Perez, Xavier Garcia De Quevedo
Topete, Daniel Muniz Quintanilla, Luis  Miguel Palomino Bonilla,
Gilberto Perezalonso Cifuentes, Juan Rebolledo Gout, Carlos Ruiz
Sacristan, Enrique Castillo Sanchez Mejorada, Luis Castelazo
Morales, And Grupo Mexico S.A.B DE C.V and Southern Copper
Corporation, Case No. 11779-VCG (Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, December 10, 2015), was filed on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated public stockholders of Southern
Copper Corporation and derivatively on behalf of nominal
defendant.

Southern Copper is an integrated producer of copper and other
minerals, and operate mining, smelting and refining facilities in
Peru and Mexico.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
     Craig J. Springer, Esq.
     ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
     3801 Kennett Pike
     Building C, Suite 305
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 504-4957

        - and -

     Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
     Spencer Oster, Esq.
     David Tejtel, Esq.
     240 East 79th Street, Suite A
     New York, NY 10075
     Phone: (888) 529-1108


ST. JOSEPH COUNTY: "Donovan" Settlement Approved on Final Basis
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Theresa L. Springmann granted the motion for final
order of approval in the captioned case JOHN P. DONOVAN (on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated), Plaintiff, v. ST.
JOSEPH COUNTY SHERIFF (in his official capacity), Defendant, Case
No.:  3:11-CV-133-TLS, (N.D. Ind.)

The Plaintiff, John P. Donovan, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, sued the St. Joseph County Sheriff in his
official capacity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  The
Plaintiff alleged that the Sheriff employed and implemented
polices that violated the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, the
Defendant did not ensure that pretrial detainees were presented
before a judge or magistrate for an initial hearing or arraignment
within forty-eight hours of their warrantless arrests or,
alternatively, released from custody within, or at the expiration
of, that same 48 hours.

The parties entered into a Class Action Release and Settlement
Agreement.  The Settlement required the Defendant to pay $270,000
into a Settlement Fund to cover administration and notice costs,
attorneys' fees and costs, the Named Plaintiff's incentive award,
and claims payments. After a reduction of costs for sending the
mailed notice and administering the fund, an incentive award not
to exceed $5,000, and for attorney's fees of no more than $108,000
plus costs, the settlement funds would be distributed to the
Settlement Class Members, defined as:

"All individuals arrested without a warrant from March 30, 2009
through October 22, 2010, and who were booked and/or placed into
the St. Joseph County Jail, and who were not brought before a
judicial officer within forty-eight (48) hours after their arrest
for a judicial probable cause hearing, and who were detained by
the St. Joseph County Sheriff in excess of forty-eight (48) hours
after their arrest."

The Settlement Class was divided into two groups: (I) Donovan and
other class members for loss of liberty, and; (II) those
individuals who submitted a claim form for emotional distress,
mental anguish, loss of employment or wages, or other special
damages. The anticipated recovery for the members of Settlement
Class I is about $51.15 per hour of over detention and $12.78 for
each fifteen minute increment of over detention. Any member of
Settlement Class II will have an opportunity to identify and
substantiate injuries and damages.

The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement on March 23, 2015.
The Court confirmed Christopher C. Myers and Ilene M. Smith as
Class Counsel for the Class Representative and the Class. The
Court approved Homefront Legal Services, LLC, 11805 North
Pennsylvania Street, Carmel, Indiana, as the Claims Administrator.

The Court conducted a Fairness Hearing on August 4, 2015.

In his Opinion and Order dated December 1, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/pWMbFXfrom Leagle.com, Judge Springmann granted the
motion for final order of approval of the Settlement.  The parties
are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
and to file a joint status report 60 days after Dec. 1, and then
once every six months until the settlement is completed and the
settlement fund account is closed. A final report should be filed
within sixty days after the conclusion of the distribution. The
Court will retain jurisdiction and oversight of the settlement
proceedings, but only until such time as the parties jointly
request an order of dismissal with prejudice.

Christopher C Myers, Esq.  Ilene M Smith, Esq.  and  Nicholas F
Wallace, Esq. of Christopher C Myers & Associates serve as counsel
for Plaintiff John P Donovan

James F Groves, Esq.  and David E Ballard, Esq.  of Lee Groves and
Zalas serve as counsel for Defendant St. Joseph County Sheriff


ST. LOUIS RAMS: Fans Sue Over Transfer to Los Angeles
-----------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
Rams executives misled fans about the team's intention to move
from St. Louis to Los Angeles in order to induce the fans to
continue to buy tickets and merchandise, a class action claims.

Four fans filed the class action against The St. Louis Rams LLC,
The St. Louis Rams Partnership and the ITB Football Company in
city court. The lawsuit was filed Jan.13, less than 24 hours after
the NFL officially announced the Rams move to Los Angeles.

Speculation on a Rams move back to Los Angeles increased after
owner Stan Kroenke bought a large parcel of land in Inglewood,
Calif., in 2014. On Jan.13, NFL owners officially approved
Kroenke's plan to build a $2.6 billion stadium on that site.

The plaintiffs claim that despite the speculation, they trusted
statements made by Kroenke and Rams COO Kevin Demoff concerning
the team's desire to stay in St. Louis.

The plaintiffs cite a variety of Kroenke comments including a 2010
interview he had with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in which he
said, "I'm going to attempt to do everything I can to keep the
Rams in St. Louis. Just as I did everything I could to bring the
team to St. Louis in 1995. I believe my actions speak for
themselves. There's a track record. I've always stepped up for pro
football in St. Louis. And I'm stepping up one more time."

The plaintiffs say Demoff made the following statement on the
Rams' website in 2012, ". . . Stan has been emphatic on this
point: He didn't lead the charge to bring the Rams back to St.
Louis to lead the charge out of St. Louis. . . .  Our goal is to
build a winner in St. Louis not only in 2012, but in 2022, 2032
and beyond. This city deserves better NFL football and that is
what we are focused on every day."

Even after the purchase of the Inglewood property, the plaintiffs
claim Demoff gave an interview on 101.1 ESPN radio in St. Louis
and when asked about the Rams' long term future, he responded, "I
expect it will be right here in St. Louis."

The plaintiffs claim those statements were intentionally
misleading.

"As early as 2013 and possibly before, Kroenke began targeting
acquisition of the Inglewood, CA stadium site," the complaint
states.

"Even after acquiring the Inglewood property in January 2014 (at
the latest), defendants did not disclose their desire to move the
Rams to Inglewood."

The plaintiffs say the Rams never informed their customers of
their intent to move to Los Angeles until Jan. 4, 2015. The
plaintiffs claim they were induced into buying tickets and other
Rams merchandise while the defendants knew their intention was to
move to Los Angeles.

The plaintiff claim the Rams' relocation application, released by
the team earlier this month, demonstrated the team's desire to
"lead the charge" out of St. Louis. The application blasted the
city's economic status and painted the city as unable to support
three professional sports teams.

"Defendants knew or should have known of all of these 'facts' at
the time of all their previous representations regarding the
future of the Rams in St. Louis," the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs claim the relocation application contained numerous
factual errors designed to paint St. Louis in a negative light.
Those allegations have since been refuted by St. Louis Mayor
Francis Slay and by an article by Forbes, according to the
complaint.

The proposed class consists of all fans who have bought Rams
tickets, merchandise or concessions between April 10, 2010 and
Jan. 4, 2015.

The class seeks damages for violations of the Merchandising
Practices Act.

Courthouse News obtained the lawsuit after business hours so
neither Plaintiffs' Attorney Steven J. Stolze nor the Rams were
available for comment.


ST. LOUIS RAMS: Breached Personal Seat License Deals, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the
Rams breached personal seat license agreements with its St. Louis
fans with their move to Los Angeles, irate football fans claim in
a class action.

The group led by Envision LLC and three people sued The St. Louis
Rams LLC in St. Louis County Circuit Court on Jan. 20.

As part of the Rams moving from L.A. to St. Louis in 1995, the
team sold fans personal seat licenses, with the Rams retaining all
the proceeds, according to the lawsuit in Clayton, Mo. In return,
fans were assigned specific seats in the Edward Jones Dome and
were granted to right to buy season tickets for those seats for
every season through 2025.

The plaintiffs claim that the agreement includes a stipulation
that if the team plays any home games at a venue other than the
Edward Jones Dome, then the team will use its best efforts on a
pro rata priority basis to assure PSL holders the right to buy
tickets in the other stadium.

On Jan. 12, 2016, the Rams and owner Stan Kroenke received NFL
approval to move back to L.A. beginning with the 2016 season.

"The PSL holders have a right to transfer their interest in the
PSLs, which would include the right to purchase tickets in LA,"
Plaintiffs' Attorney David R. Bohm, of Danna McKitrick, told
Courthouse News. "But the Rams are not acknowledging that they
have any right to tickets in L.A. and the website where transfers
could be enacted and registered essentially has statements on them
that since the Rams have moved out all transactions involving St.
Louis fans' PSLs have been terminated."

The Rams have announced that the majority of the seats in their
new $2.6 billion stadium currently being built in Inglewood,
Calif., will be available through PSLs sold to L.A. fans,
according to CBS Los Angeles.

Rams attorney Alan Bornstein did not immediately respond to a
phone message from Courthouse News requesting comment.

The class seeks a declaratory judgment stating that they have a
right to buy Rams tickets for comparable seats at any venue in
L.A., including the new stadium being built for the Rams, and that
they still have the right to transfer PSLs to other fans and
retain any revenue from said transfer.

The class consists of more than 50,000 St. Louis Rams fans who
bought PSLs, according to the complaint. It consists of both
charter PSL holders, fans who originally bought the PSL when the
Rams moved to St. Louis in 1995, and PSL owners who bought the
seat license from a charter holder and had it transferred to them.

"Essentially the charter PSL holders and the people who have
accepted transfer of charter PSLs have a right to seat until 2025
and if the Rams are playing elsewhere the Rams are supposed to
make tickets available to them at those other locations," Bohm
said in an interview. "The Rams have not honored that commitment."

This is the second class action filed in the aftermath of the Rams
move. Another class action filed on Jan. 13 claims the team
intentionally misled fans about its intention to move to L.A. in
order to induce St. Louis fans to buy tickets and team
merchandise.


SUNRUN INC: Involved in Consumer Rights & Labor Class Action Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is currently
involved in an ongoing consumer rights class action lawsuit, as
well as a wage and hour class action.

"If we are not successful in these cases, we may be required to
pay significant monetary damages, which could hurt our results of
operations," the Company said. Lawsuits are time-consuming and
expensive to resolve and divert management's time and attention.
Although we carry general liability insurance, our insurance may
not cover potential claims or may not be adequate to indemnify us
for all liability that may be imposed. We cannot predict how the
courts will rule in the class action lawsuits or any other
potential lawsuit against us. Decisions in favor of parties that
bring lawsuits against us could subject us to significant
liability for damages, adversely affect our results of operations
and harm our reputation."

The consumer rights class action proceeding is Reed v. Sunrun
Inc., Case No. BC498002 (Calif. Super. Ct., L.A. Cty.), and
Gilardi & Co., LLC, is making settlement information available to
claimants at http://www.licensinglitigationagainstsunrun.com/

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     Craig R. Spiegel, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1918 8th Ave., Suite 3300
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: (206) 623-7292
     E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     301 North Lake Ave., Suite 203
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Telephone: (213) 330-7150
     E-mail: Elaine@hbsslaw.com

and Sunrun is represented by:

     David F. McDowell, Esq.
     MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
     707 Wilshire Boulevard
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Telephone: (213) 892-5200
     E-mail: dmcdowell@mofo.com

          - and -

     Margaret Mayo, Esq.
     MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
     425 Market St.
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Telephone: (415) 268-7000
     E-mail: mmayo@mofo.com

The labor-related case is Galindo v. Rec Solar Commercial Corp.,
et al., Case No. 37-2015-00008350 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego
Cty.), a copy of the Complaint is available at:

     http://www.flipdocs.com/showbook.aspx?ID=10004307_775428

and the plaintiffs are represented by:

     Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
     Kyle R. Bordrehaug, Esq.
     Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
     BLUMENTHAL, NORTREHAUG & BHOWMIK
     2255 Calle Clara
     La Jolla, CA 92037
     Telephone: 858-551-1223


STRATEGIC REALTY TRUST: Court Granted Final Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
granted on October 15, 2015, final approval to a settlement of a
class action previously disclosed.  As a result, the action was
dismissed with prejudice.


SUPERVALU INC: Min. Judge Dismissed Data Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Services reported that a federal judge in
Minneapolis agreed to dismiss a class action against SuperValu, AB
Acquisition and New Albertson's over malicious software hackers
installed on the payment-processing network for payment card
transactions at grocery stores.

The case is captioned, IN RE: SuperValu, Inc., Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation, Court File No. 14-MD-2586 (D. Minn.)


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Plaintiffs Must Go to Ariz. for Deposition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick of the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona granted Defendants'
motion to compel in the case captioned, John Doe 1, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:10 CV 00899 JWS (D. Ariz.).

Defendants request that the court compel Plaintiffs Virginia Van
Dusen, Joseph Sheer, Vickii Schwalm, Jose Motolinia, and Peter
Wood to appear for deposition in Arizona in compliance with the
notices they properly served on September 4, 2015.

Plaintiffs state that they have refused to appear for deposition
thus far because Defendants' have not fully cooperated in the
discovery process. They argue that they should not be required to
travel to Arizona for deposition and that the purpose of a class
action is to pool resources and reduce costs, and they cite cases
where opt-in plaintiffs in collective actions under the Fair Labor
Standards Act were not required to travel for depositions.

In his Order and Opinion dated December 28, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/pCjsUUfrom Leagle.com, Judge Sedwick concluded that
the basis for Plaintiffs' objection is moot because the court has
since resolved the disputes regarding outstanding document
production and the Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 30(b)(6) notices. The court
concluded that Plaintiffs must comply with the deposition notices
and appear for deposition in Arizona. Plaintiffs cannot ignore a
discovery request as a self-imposed sanction against Defendants
for perceived discovery lapses or abuses.

The Court directed Plaintiffs to appear for deposition in Arizona
on or before February 29, 2016.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Susan Joan Martin, Esq.
     Daniel Lee Bonnett, Esq.
     Jennifer Lynn Kroll, Esq.
     MARTIN & BONNETT PLLC
     1850 N Central Ave # 2010,
     Phoenix, AZ 85004
     Tel: (602)240-6900

Defendants are represented by Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq. --
ebronchetti@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER &
HAMPTON


TALLGRASS TALENT: Court Grants Motion to Remand
-----------------------------------------------
District Judge Christina A. Snyder of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California granted Plaintiff's
motion to remand in the case captioned, SONIA VIVAR, v. TALLGRASS
TALENT GROUP, LLC, ET AL, Case No. CV15-6212-CAS (SSx) (C.D.
Cal.).

On July 14, 2015, plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended
Complaint (SAC) in the instant putative class action against
defendants Tallgrass Talent Group, LLC and Omega Resources
Solutions in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The SAC
asserts the following claims against defendants: (1) failure to
pay the minimum wage in violation of the California Labor Code
Sections 1194, 1997; (2) failure to provide proper paystubs in
violation the California Labor Code Sec. 226; (3) failure to
reimburse business related expenses in violation of the California
Labor Code Sec. 2802; (4) unfair competition in violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law; and (5) violation of the
California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA).

On August 14, 2015, defendant Omega removed the action pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d).

On December 14, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to remand. On
December 18, 2015, defendant Tallgrass joined plaintiff's motion
to remand and on December 21, 2015, defendant Omega filed a notice
of non-opposition to plaintiff's motion to remand. Plaintiff
contended that the amount in controversy in the case was roughly
estimated as $3,230,500, and none of the parties appeared to
dispute the estimate.

In her Civil Minutes dated December 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/2vnHGEfrom Leagle.com, Judge Snyder granted remand
because defendants have not established that CAFA's amount in
controversy requirement is satisfied.

Sonia Vivar is represented by Anthony R. Strauss, Esq. --
tony@palaylaw.com -- Aris Edmund Karakalos, Esq. --
aris@palaylaw.com -- Michael Anthony Strauss, Esq. --
mike@palaylaw.com -- STRAUSS AND PALAY APC

Defendants are represented by Douglas A. Wickham, Esq. --
dwickham@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC & Brian F. Van Vleck,
Esq. -- bvanvleck@vtzlaw.com -- VAN VLECK TURNER AND ZALLER LLP


TARGA RESOURCES: Investors Sue to Block Sale to General Partner
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that shareholders claim directors are selling natural gas dealer
Targa Resources to its general partner in a deal "tainted by
conflicts of interest," and that share prices have been cut in
half since the $6.3 billion deal was proposed last year.

Lead plaintiff John F. Lindeman filed the federal class action on
Jan. 19 in Houston.  Targa Resources Partners LP owns 12 natural
gas plants in West Texas, several along Louisiana's Gulf Coast and
another in North Dakota.

Lindeman claims the six co-defendant directors violated securities
laws in a Dec. 3, 2015 SEC filing, in which they recommended
unitholders approve the sale to Targa Resources Corp. and Targa
Resources GP LLC in a stock-for-stock deal valued at $16.35 per
share.  The Jan. 19 lawsuit refers to Targa Resources Partners LP
as "TRP" and Targa Resources Corp. as "Corp." This story adheres
to those designations.

Lindeman says the deal was initially valued at $6.3 billion and
TRP unitholders were to get Corp. stock worth $35.53 per unit,
which he calls a "paltry 18 percent premium."

But between Nov. 3, when Targa Resources announced the merger, and
Jan. 5 this year, Corp.'s share price dropped by 50 percent,
Lindeman says. "As a result, the merger consideration now
significantly undervalues the partnership," the complaint states.
Lindeman says it's also marred by conflicts of interest: "The
proposed transaction is the product of a single-bidder process
throughout which defendant Joe Bob Perkins, occupying a dual role
as CEO of both TRP and Corp, brokered a deal for Corp. to takeover
TRP on the cheap, to the detriment of TRP unitholders."

Targa Resources acknowledges on its website that TRP exists to
fund Corp. with the goal of enriching Corp.'s stock holders.

"Our primary business objective is to increase our dividends to
our stockholders by assisting the partnership in executing its
business strategy. Our cash flows are generated from the cash
distributions we receive from the partnership," Corp. says in a
company profile on the Targa Resources website.

Lindeman takes issue with that incestuous relationship.

"For its part, Corp. is a publicly traded company on the New York
Stock Exchange with quarterly shareholder earnings pressuring the
company's bottom line. Thus, Corp. had an interest in, and every
ability to, effectuate a takeover of TRP on the cheap using its
position of control on both sides of the transaction," the lawsuit
states.

Under the deal, TRP owners will get 0.62 of Corp. stock for every
TRP unit.

"Based on Corp's closing price of $26.38 per share on January 5,
2016, TRP unitholders can expect to receive only $16.35 per unit,"
the lawsuit states.

Lindeman says another conflict of interest that should derail the
deal is that Corp. elects and approves TRP's board members.

TRP's board rejected offers from three other companies before
announcing it would sell out to Corp., Lindeman says, citing the
partnership's SEC filing. And he says TRP's filing leaves
unitholders in the dark about the negotiations that led to the
proposed merger.

He seeks class certification and an injunction to stop the board
from consummating the deal until it provides background that was
omitted from the statement it filed with the SEC.
"A special meeting of TRP unitholders to vote on the proposed
transaction is scheduled for February 12, 2016, and thus, time is
of the essence," the complaint states.

Lindeman is represented by Thomas Bilek in Houston.

Targa Resources did not immediately respond to a phone message
seeking comment Jan. 21 afternoon.


TED CRUZ: Not Eligible to Run for President, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Services, that Texas
Sen. Ted Cruz is not eligible to become president because he was
born in Canada, a Houston lawyer claims in a federal class action
in Houston.

Cruz is the favorite to win the Republican presidential candidate
nomination at the Iowa caucuses on Feb 1. ahead of Donald Trump,
according to a recent poll by the Des Moines Register.

Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz was born Dec. 22, 1970, in Calgary,
Canada, to an American mother and a Cuban father.  His origins
have stirred controversy on the campaign trail with Trump claiming
there are legitimate questions about whether his Canadian birth
disqualifies him from being president or vice president of the
United States.

Cruz scoffed at that idea on Jan. 14, during a GOP presidential
candidate debate in South Carolina.

"I recognize that Donald is dismayed that his poll numbers are
falling in Iowa. But the facts and the law here are really quite
clear. Under longstanding U.S. law, the child of a U.S. citizen
born abroad is a natural-born citizen," Cruz said.

That's why Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who was born in Panama,
could run for president in 2008, Cruz said during the debate.

Houston attorney Newton Boris Schwartz Sr., 81, isn't so sure
about Cruz's candidacy.

Schwartz says the U.S. Constitution is unclear on the question of
Cruz's eligibility in a lawsuit he filed against Cruz on Jan. 14
in Federal Court in Cruz's hometown of Houston.  Schwartz claims
in the lawsuit there is no U.S. Supreme Court precedent to
determine if Cruz qualifies.

"'Natural born citizen' has never been defined," the complaint
states.

Schwartz says his status as an eligible voter for the Nov. 1
presidential election gives him standing to bring the lawsuit.  He
seeks a declaration that Cruz is not "a 'natural born' citizen"
and is "therefore ineligible to be elected, or serve as president
or vice president of the U. S."

Schwartz said he's voted for a Democrat in every presidential
election since 1968 when he voted for Richard Nixon, a Republican,
except in 1992 when he voted for Texas billionaire Ross Perot, who
ran as an independent.

"If I had to vote on who the candidates are now I would probably
vote for Bernie Sanders. My wife is leaning toward Hillary
Clinton," he said in a phone interview.

Schwartz has practiced law for 61 years, including three years as
a federal prosecutor in Houston and two years as a U.S. Air Force
JAG officer, he said.  He said he expects his case will lose
before a trial court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New
Orleans, then move on to the Supreme Court where he expects it to
"go 5-to-4 or 6-to-3 either way, so it's going to be an uphill
fight."

"This is a serious and substantial question. I'm trying to get it
heard as quickly as we can to avoid a futile election. If Trump
puts Cruz as his vice president even and he's later found
disqualified, what do you do? You have to go back and have a new
election for president or vice president," Schwartz said.

Trump said during the debate that he's simply repeating what
others have said about Cruz's presidential eligibility, including
Cruz's former Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe.
"There are other attorneys that feel, and very, very fine
constitutional attorneys, that feel that because he was not born
on the land, he cannot run for office," Trump said.

"Here's the problem. We're running. We're running. He does great.
I win. I choose him as my vice presidential candidate, and the
Democrats sue because we can't take him along for the ride," Trump
added. "I don't like that. OK?"

Cruz said he's not worried about Trump's rhetoric at Thursday's
presidential debate. Cruz is a Harvard-trained lawyer and served
as Texas' solicitor general from 2003 to 2008, a job that required
him to present legal arguments for the state before the U.S.
Supreme Court.

"I've spent my entire life defending the Constitution before the
U.S. Supreme Court. And I'll tell you, I'm not going to be taking
legal advice from Donald Trump," Cruz said.

He also downplayed a recent New York Times article that reported
he didn't disclose $1 million in loans he took out to finance his
2012 U.S. Senate campaign, including a $500,000 loan from Goldman
Sachs, his wife Heidi's employer.

"I made a paperwork error," Cruz admitted. He said he disclosed
the loans on personal financial disclosures he filed with the U.S.
Senate, but erred by not disclosing them in reports made to the
Federal Election Commission.

President Obama's presidency has been dogged by a similar
"birther" conspiracy theory that contends he is an illegitimate
president because he was born in Kenya, his father's homeland, not
in Hawaii like his birth certificate says.

Trump has been a vocal critic of Obama and has questioned the
authenticity of the president's birth certificate.


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Class Actions Filed in California Related to IPO
------------------------------------------------------------------
TerraForm Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that separate purported
class action lawsuits were filed on October 23, 2015 and October
30, 2015, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of its officers
and directors, each of the underwriters of the Company's August 5,
2015 initial public offering (the "IPO") and SunEdison.
Additionally, on October 29, 2015 and November 5, 2015, separate
purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for Northern District of California against the same
defendants. The class action plaintiffs assert claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

The class action complaints allege, among other things, that the
defendants made false and materially misleading statements and
failed to disclose material information in the Registration
Statement for the IPO regarding SunEdison and its recent operating
results and business strategy. Among other relief, the class
action complaints seek class certification, unspecified
compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, costs and such
other relief as the applicable court should deem just and proper.

The Company intends to defend the class action lawsuits
vigorously. The Company is still in the preliminary stages of
reviewing the allegations made in the complaints and, as a result,
is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
such lawsuits or that an adverse resolution of these lawsuits
would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position and results of operations.


TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: Law Graduates' Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Services, that law school
graduates claiming they were disavowed as alumni after Texas A&M
bought their alma mater didn't show that their rights were
violated, a federal judge in Fort Worth ruled.

On Jan. 14, U.S. District Judge John McBryde dismissed a proposed
class action lawsuit filed by lead plaintiff Kristin Brown, a
graduate of Texas Wesleyan University School of Law, or TWU Law.

Brown's lawsuit claims that Texas A&M University refused to
reissue law diplomas to approximately 500 TWU law graduates after
it purchased the downtown Fort Worth law school in 2013 and
renamed it the Texas A&M University School of Law.

The law school's graduates since the purchase have been accepted
by Texas A&M as full alumni, have the updated Texas A&M school
name on their diplomas, and are eligible to receive Aggie rings,
Brown alleges.

The "pre-acquisition" TWU graduates sued TWU and Texas A&M for
negligence, tortious interference and breach of implied contract.
They also sued for a declaratory judgment allowing them to refer
to Texas A&M as their alma mater without fear of facing trademark
infringement claims.

When Texas A&M rejected the plaintiffs' request to reconsider, a
dozen of them also filed a complaint against Texas A&M with the
American Bar Association. The ABA responded that it has no role in
student-school disputes.

Brown and others say they have been damaged because they "have
lost the ability to easily show that their juris doctor degrees
are valid to potential employers and clients, as their law school
is no longer easily located on many lists of accredited law
schools."

McBryde ruled against the TWU graduates for their declaratory
judgment request, noting they admit they are using the Texas A&M
trademarks in commerce and have not suffered any resulting
consequences, leaving no "substantial controversy."

"Even assuming the existence of a case or controversy as to
infringement, plaintiff's claim is barred by sovereign immunity,"
the 12-page opinion states.

The plaintiffs have also failed to show a violation of a "specific
federal right" in claiming violations of due process, equal
protection and other injuries under state law, McBryde ruled.

"This they are unable to do. Aside from mentioning in a conclusory
fashion that they have been denied due process and equal
protection, plaintiffs have not alleged any facts to support the
allegations," the judge wrote. "They allege 'unequal and
irrational treatment,' but admit that they are not in the same
category as those they want to be treated like. That is, they
graduated from TWU Law and they want to be treated like those who
graduated from A&M Law after the acquisition by A&M."

McBryde questioned if Brown and the other litigating graduates
would have standing in any event since "it appears that alumni
generally do not have the right to interfere with the
administration of their alma mater."

Regarding the state law claims against the TWU, McBryde noted the
allegations only described alleged wrongful conduct by Texas A&M.

"At best, plaintiffs wish that Wesleyan defendants had done
something to assure that A&M would acknowledge them as graduates,"
the judge wrote. "Plaintiffs do not allege that the Wesleyan
defendants have failed or refused to provide them transcripts or
references or help in proving that they graduated from an
accredited law school."

Emails requesting comment from Texas A&M and Warren Norred,
attorney for the TWU graduates, were not immediately returned Jan.
15 afternoon.

The case captioned, KRISTINE BROWN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, vs. TEXAS
A&M UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, ET AL., Defendants. NO. 4:15-CV-613-
A (N.D. Tex.)


TORMUS INC: Court Denies Dismissal of "Palma" Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Defendants'
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint in the case captioned,
WILMER ALEX PALMA, ET AL., v. TORMUS INC., ET AL., SECTION "B"
(2), Case No. 15-3025 (E.D. La.).

Plaintiffs filed the action on July 28, 2015, seeking to recover
unpaid overtime wages, interest, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated employees who worked for Defendants during the
past three years. Plaintiffs allege that they were both hired by
Defendant Tormus in 2015 as "employees" as that term is defined in
the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 203(e), to perform general manual labor
by moving furniture and helping with furniture deliveries.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants paid them $10.00 per hour by
cash, and that they were not paid one          - and -half times
this hourly rate despite often working more than forty hours a
week.

In the motion, Defendants sought involuntary dismissal of
Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice, or, in the alternative,
involuntary dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint against Defendants
Iseed and Isaid with prejudice, and either amendment of the
complaint to reflect individual actions or restriction of the
collective opt-in feature to employees that were hired by
Defendant Tormus after April 1, 2015.

Defendants contended that Plaintiffs have failed to provide
evidence of a "factual nexus" between the manner in which
Defendants' alleged policy affected the Plaintiffs and the manner
in which it affected the other employees, so that a collective
action has not been properly asserted. Plaintiffs argued that
their Complaint meets each of the four requirements for alleging a
claim for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA. Additionally,
Plaintiffs asserted that Defendants' attempt to have the
collective action dismissed is premature, as certification has not
yet occurred.

In his Order and Reasons dated December 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ZxVl7sfrom Leagle.com, Judge Lemelle concluded that
By alleging the amount that Defendants paid Plaintiffs, the time
period during which Plaintiffs worked, and that Plaintiffs worked
in excess of 40 hours and were never paid one          - and -half
times their hourly rate, Plaintiffs have met their burden.
Defendants cited no law to support their position that Plaintiffs'
Complaint was insufficient.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Roberto L. Costales, Esq.
     COSTALES LAW OFFICE
     3801 Canal St
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Tel: (504)534-5005

          - and -

     William Henry Beaumont, Esq.
     WILLIAM H. BEAUMONT LAW
     3801 Canal St
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Tel: (504)483-8008

Defendants are represented by:

     Scott J. Spivey, Esq.
     A Professional Law Corporation
     3232 Edenborn Ave, Ste C
     New Orleans, LA
     Tel: (504)509-6889


TROY CONSTRUCTION: Conditional Cert. Bid in "Stone" Case Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James M. Munley granted Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification in the captioned case LINDA STONE,
Plaintiff, v. TROY CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendant, Case No.:
3:14CV306, (M.D. Pa.)

Plaintiff raises claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(FLSA), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (PWPCL). Plaintiff
alleges that defendant's company-wide policy and practice from
February 2011 through the present has been to pay per diems to the
vast majority of its non-exempt, hourly employees. The parties
agreed to engage in an initial phase of discovery limited to class
issues prior to the court ruling on plaintiff's then-anticipated
Rule 23 and FLSA conditional certification motion.

In his Memorandum dated December 1, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/I7qiXTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Munley granted the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective
action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) and certification of a class action pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to the
FLSA, the court will grant Plaintiffs' motion for the
certification of an FLSA class consisting of non-exempt employees
of defendant who, within the past three years, permanently resided
within fifty miles of their worksite and received at least one per
diem in a workweek in which they worked over 40 hours, and a Rule
23 class of the same employees, but limited to those working in
Pennsylvania. At this stage in the case, plaintiff has presented
sufficient evidence that the policy was generally applicable, and
that individual damages can be proven or disproven quite easily by
Defendant's payroll records. Thus, the legal issues in this case
are entirely common, and the common factual issues predominate
over the individual. Further, the predominance of common issues of
law and fact means that no one individual class member has any
greater interest in controlling the litigation than another, and
that a class action is the most efficient means to resolve the
dispute. Defendant posits that plaintiff's interests run counter
to those of any potential class member who properly received per
diems. Defendant's logic fails to account for the obvious fact
that any employee who properly received per diems would have no
claim against defendant. Such class members have suffered no
damages and have suffered no wrong in need of righting, so
Plaintiff cannot possibly harm their interests by pursuing her
claims on behalf of those class members who have been shortchanged
in their overtime payments.

Justin L. Swidler, Esq. Matthew D. Miller, Esq.  and Richard S.
Swartz, Esq.  of SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC serve as counsel for Plaintiff
Linda Stone, on on behalf of herself and those similarly situated

Jacob E Godard, Esq. -- Lawrence Bradley Hancock, Esq. --
hancockb@gtlaw.com -- Michael Burnett, Esq. -- burnettm@gtlaw.com
and James N. Boudreau, Esq. -- boudreauj@gtlaw.com of Greenberg
Traurig, LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Troy Construction, LLC


TWITTER INC: Plaintiff Drops "Raney" Eavesdropping Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported
that a class of Twitter users on Jan. 14 voluntarily dismissed a
lawsuit in San Francisco claiming the social media company
eavesdropped on users' private messages.

Lead plaintiff Wilford Raney sued the social network in September,
claiming Twitter intercepted direct messages to replace hyperlinks
with its own Twitter-generated links.

Altering links in those messages demonstrates the source of
traffic came from Twitter, increasing the tech company's
"perceived value to third-party websites and would-be
advertisers," according to the lawsuit.

Raney claimed the social network never disclosed the fact that it
seeks out and replaces links in private messages, which users
expect to remain private.

On Jan. 14, attorneys for Raney notified the court of its decision
to voluntarily dismiss the class action based on new information
learned in a Jan. 6 deposition.

Class attorney Alexander Nguyen of Edelson P.C. declined to
comment on why his client chose to dismiss the suit or what
information was obtained in the deposition.

Twitter previously filed a motion to dismiss on Nov. 9, claiming
the laws it was accused of violating in the complaint - the
Wiretap Act and Children's Internet Protection Act - do not apply
to processing electronic communications, such as direct messages.

Twitter's attorney, Michael Rodes of Cooley LLP, did not
immediately respond to a phone call seeking comment Friday
morning.

A Twitter spokeswoman on Friday would not say whether Twitter
views direct messages exchanged between its users, but stated in
an email: "We're pleased the case was voluntarily dismissed by the
Plaintiff without us paying anything or entering into a
settlement."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Arbitration Bid for Absent Class Members Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California denied Uber's motions to
compel arbitration of the absent class members in the case
captioned, DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-03826-EMC
(N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Douglas O'Connor, Thomas Colopy, Matthew Manahan, and
Elie Gurfinkel are current or former drivers who have performed
services for Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.  They are
prosecuting the instant class action against Uber, alleging that
Uber has violated California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) by
violating Section 351 of the Labor Code. On September 1, 2015, the
Court certified a class of "All UberBlack, UberX, and UberSUV
drivers who had driven for Uber in the state of California at any
time since August 16, 2009, and who (1) signed up to drive
directly with Uber or an Uber subsidiary under their individual
name, and (2) are/were paid by Uber or an Uber subsidiary and in
their individual name, and (3) did not electronically accept any
contract with Uber or one of Uber's subsidiaries which contains
the notice and opt-out provisions previously ordered by this Court
unless the driver timely opted-out of that contract's arbitration
agreement."

From February 2013 to December 10, 2013, Uber and Rasier issued
four agreements and one driver addendum that incorporate the
arbitration provision at issue in the instant motion. In August
2013, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a protective order
to strike the arbitration clauses. On December 6, 2013, the Court
issued an order "declining to rule on the unconscionability of the
arbitration provision because there is no allegation that a motion
to compel arbitration is pending or threatened.

Uber moved to compel arbitration as to absent class members who
are subject to the 2013 Agreements to arbitrate their disputes
with Uber.

In his Order dated December 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/CWxDxNfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chen found that the
2013 Agreements contain a non-severable blanket PAGA waiver which
is void a matter of public policy. The inability to sever the PAGA
waiver causes the entire arbitration agreement to fail.

Plaintiffs are represented by Adelaide Pagano, Esq. --
apagano@llrlaw.com -- Sara Smolik, Esq. -- ssmolik@llrlaw.com --
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. -- slissriordan@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN &
LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

Uber Technologies is represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise, Esq.
-- aspurchise@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, Marcellus Antonio
McRae, Esq. -- mmcrae@gibsondunn.com -- Theane D. Evangelis, Esq.
-- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Brandon J. Stoker, Esq. --
bstoker@gibsondunn.com -- Debra W. Yang, Esq. --
dwongyang@gibsondunn.com, Joshua Seth Lipshutz, Esq. -
jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- Kevin Joseph Ring-Dowell, Esq. --
kringdowell@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP


UNITED AIRLINES: 9th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Suit over Kiosks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
United Airlines need not face a class action in San Francisco over
its limited number of kiosks accessible to blind travelers at
California airports, the Ninth Circuit ruled Jan. 19.

Issuing its decision 38 months after hearing oral arguments, the
three-judge panel said federal statutes pre-empt the National
Federation for the Blind's claims for violation of California's
Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Such claims furthermore do not relate to a "service" provided by
United, as outlined by the Airline Deregulation Act, according to
the ruling.

The National Federation of the Blind sued United Airlines back in
October 2010, joined by three individuals - Michael May, Michael
Hingson and Christina Thomas.

Rather than offering audio output or other blind-friendly
alternatives, United's machines operated exclusively by video and
touch-screen navigation, according to the complaint

U.S. District Judge William Alsup dismissed the action, finding
the claims pre-empted by both the Airline Deregulation Act and the
Air Carrier Access Act.

Affirming on Jan. 19, the Ninth Circuit pointed to its en banc
opinion in the 1998 case Charas v. Trans World Airlines, which
determined that the term "service" in the Americans with
Disabilities Act refers to the provision of air transportation -
such as "the prices, schedules, origins and destinations of the
point-to-point transportation of passengers, cargo or mail," not
airline-provided amenities like drinks and luggage handling.

Though the Federal Aviation Act contains a broad savings clause,
it did not result in a reversal today.

"According to the federation, any state-law claims that fall
outside the scope of the ADA express preemption provision are
necessarily preserved by the FAA's savings clause. Not so," Judge
Marsha Berzon wrote for a three-judge panel.

Under the federation's interpretation, "a passenger could sue an
airline for violating any state standard of care not expressly
preempted by the ADA, notwithstanding federal regulations covering
in depth the particular field at issue," Berzon noted.

"The result would be chaotic."

New Department of Transportations regulations on accessibility of
airport kiosks furthermore speak "directly to the concerns raised
by the federation's suit," the ruling states.

"Given its great detail and pervasive extent, the new regulation
preempts any state regulation of that same field," Berzon wrote.

The case captioned, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, on behalf of
its members and itself; MICHAEL MAY; MICHAEL HINGSON; CHRISTINA
THOMAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED AIRLINES INC., Defendant-Appellee.
NO. 11-16240 (9th Cir.).


UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit over Defunct Discount Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that lifetime members of a now-defunct United Airlines senior
discount program want a refund, claiming the airline no longer
offers them the promised discounts.

Howard Neft filed a class action in Chicago against United
Continental Holdings and United Airlines in federal court on
Jan. 19.  In 1999 or 2000, Neft bought a Silver Wings Plus program
lifetime membership, a discount program specifically offered to
seniors, according to the complaint.  The Silver Wings Plus
program, launched by United in 1986, offered members low, fixed-
zone fares in exchange for a one-time fee of $225.

The airline discontinued the program in 2007 as part of cost-
cutting measures, but did not offer members a refund - "perhaps
recognizing that it would spend hundred of millions of dollars if
it provided a refund to lifetime members," Neft's lawsuit claims.

Instead, United said it would continue to provide existing members
with access to substantial travel discounts.

Before the program was terminated, Silver Wings offered members
domestic fares for as low as $118 roundtrip, and international
fares for as low as $475 roundtrip, according to the complaint.

"For at least the past two years, however, plaintiff has been
unable to book a zone fares flight with United, either by phone or
online," Neft says.

United's website instructs Silver Wing lifetime members to search
for zone fares online by entering "silverwing" in the offer code
box.

Neft says he has followed these instructions, but never found any
available discounted fares.

"United's agents have no knowledge of the program and/or zone
fares, United's website does not retrieve any searches for zone
fares flights, and directs plaintiff to call United's agents," the
complaint states. "The remaining Silver Wings lifetime members
have experienced, and continue to experience, the same or similar
difficulties in booking a zone fares flight with United."

Neft claims United's conduct has essentially cancelled the
program, and he seeks to recover the $225 fee he and other class
members paid to join the program, plus interest and compensatory
damages.

He is represented by Robert Stein III with Alvarado Smith in Santa
Ana, Calif.

United did not immediately respond to an emailed request for
comment sent Jan. 20 afternoon.

Neft's lawsuit was filed less than two weeks after the Seventh
Circuit ruled that United frequent flyers could not recover
damages for benefits lost when the airline changed the value of
miles awarded in 2010.


UNITED STATES: Detainees' Suit Certified as Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that    a
federal judge in Tucson, Arizona, certified a class of civil
detainees who accused the Tucson Sector Border Patrol of denying
them sleep, food, water, medicine and basic sanitation in Southern
Arizona immigration jails.

Norlan Flores, a 34-year-old Nicaraguan with two stints in Border
Patrol jails in the Tucson Sector, and two Jane Does still in jail
sued the Secretary of Homeland Security and other federal
officials in June 2015.

They claim that holding cells at several Tucson Sector jails are
unconstitutionally "inhuman and punitive," that detainees are
often "packed into overcrowded and filthy holding cells with the
lights glaring day and night; stripped of outer layers of clothing
and forced to suffer in brutally cold temperatures; deprived of
beds, bedding, and sleep; denied adequate food, water, medicine
and medical care, and basic sanitation and hygiene items such as
soap, sufficient toilet paper, sanitary napkins, diapers, and
showers; and held incommunicado in these conditions for days."

U.S. District Judge David Bury on Jan.11 rejected the government's
arguments that the potential class lacked commonality. The
government claimed such conditions are not widespread, and applied
to the treatment of criminals under the Eight Amendment rather
than civil immigration detainees under the Fifth Amendment.

Bury called the government's reasoning "absurd."

"Such a finding would lead to the absurd result that only criminal
detainees, not civil detainees, could ever litigate system-wide
conditions of confinement as a class," Bury wrote in his Jan. 11
order. "For purposes of commonality the operative question is not
whether the same detention status and same legal standard applies
as applies in other analogous class action cases."

Citing the landmark ruling in Walmart v. Duke (2011), Bury added:
"(T)he question is whether the putative class members, themselves,
present a common contention that 'is capable of classwide
resolution,' meaning 'determination of its truth or falsity will
resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of
the claims in one stroke.'"

Bury also rejected the government's claim that Flores should be
dismissed as a plaintiff and class representative because he was
not in custody when the lawsuit was filed.

"For purposes of standing, Flores's previous 36-hour detention
without contact with counsel after a minor traffic violation,
coupled with his indeterminate wait for his approved Visa is
sufficient to show an 'actual or imminent invasion of a legally
protected interest,'" Bury ruled.

The judge certified a class that includes "All individuals who are
now or in the future will be detained for one or more nights at a
CBP facility within the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector," though he
directed the plaintiffs to file an amendment "better describing"
the phrase "one or more nights."

Bury also appointed Flores and the two Jane Doe plaintiffs as
class representatives.

The class is potentially huge. Some 200,000 people were arrested
in the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector in 2013-2014, which includes
eight stations in four counties.

"The class is certified as to defendants' alleged violations under
the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the APA [Administrative
Procedures Act] of the following asserted rights: The right to
sleep, the right to hygienic and sanitary conditions, the right to
adequate medical care, the right to adequate food and water, and
the right to warmth," Bury wrote.

The plaintiffs are represented by Morrison & Foerster, the
American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Law Center,
the ACLU of Arizona, and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
of the San Francisco Bay Area.

"With these rulings, we can now focus on building a record and
documenting the abhorrent conditions that detained individuals
must endure and to ending these conditions once and for all,"
American Immigration Council attorney Mary Kenney said in a
statement.

A Border Patrol official said Thursday that it is CBP policy not
to comment on pending litigation.

The case is captioned, Unknown Parties, et al.,Plaintiffs,  v.
Jeh Johnson, et al., Defendants. Case Number CV 15-00250-TUC-DCB
(D. Ariz.)


USA TECHNOLOGIES: "Messner" Class Action Filed in Oct. in E.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------------
USA Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a purported class
action complaint was filed on October 1, 2015, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by
Steven P. Messner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, against the Company and its executive
officers, alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a purported class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the
Company between September 29, 2014 through September 29, 2015. The
complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements, relating to, among other things, the
failure to identify a large number of uncollectible small balance
accounts. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and
unspecified damages including attorneys' fees and other costs.
Based on its review of the complaint, the Company believes that
the claims alleged in the complaint lack merit, and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims.


VAALCO ENERGY: Vladimir Gusinsky Files Shareholder Suit in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, v. Steven P. Guidry, Frederick W.
Brazleton, O. Donaldson Chapoton, LLB, James B. Jennings, John J.
Myers, Jr., Andrew L. Fawthrop, Steven J. Pully, and Vaalco
Energy, Inc., Case No. 11775 (Del. Ch., December 7, 2015) is a
stockholder class action.

VAALCO is an independent energy company principally engaged in the
acquisition, exploration, development, and production of crude oil
and natural gas. The Company's recent performance has been
abysmal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joel Friedlander, Esq.
     Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq.
     Christopher M. Foulds, Esq.
     Benjamin P. Chapple, Esq.
     FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS,P.A
     1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 573-3500

        - and -

     Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
     Christopher Orrico, Esq.
     John Vielandi, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
     1251 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10020
     Phone: (212) 554-1400

        - and -

     Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     155 Federal Street, Suite 400
     Boston, MA 02110
     Phone: (617) 398-5600


VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Luis A. Ortiz, Kelvin X. Vargas , and all others similarly
situated v. Valleycrest Landscape Maintenance, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-24547 (S.D. Fla., December 10, 2015), seek to recover
regular wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the
costs and reasonably attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is a provider of landscape designing, lawn
maintenance, and related services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


VECTREN UTILITY: Defending Class Suit by SIGECO Employees
---------------------------------------------------------
Vectren Utility Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company is defending a class action complaint by employees of
Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company (SIGECO or Vectren
Energy Delivery of Indiana - South).

During the third quarter of 2014, the Company was notified of
claims by a group of current and former SIGECO employees
("claimants") who participated in the Pension Plan for Salaried
Employees of SIGECO ("SIGECO Salaried Plan").  That plan was
merged into the Vectren Corporation Combined Non-Bargaining
Retirement Plan ("Vectren Combined Plan") effective July 1, 2000.
The claims relate to the claimants' election for benefits to be
calculated under the Vectren Combined Plan's cash-balance formula
rather than the SIGECO Salaried Plan formula in effect prior to
the formation of Vectren.

On March 12, 2015, certain claimants filed a Class Action
Complaint against the Vectren Combined Plan and the Company in
federal district court requesting that a class be certified and
for various relief including that the Combined Plan be reformed
and benefits thereunder be recalculated. The Company denied the
allegations set forth in the Complaint.

The Company is unable to quantify any potential impact of the
claims. The Company does not expect, however, the outcome would
have a material adverse effect on the Company's liquidity, results
of operations or financial condition.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Bernstein Litowitz Named Lead Atty in MDL 2672
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District
Court for Northern District of California appointed Arkansas State
Highway Employees Retirement System (ASHERS) as lead plaintiff and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP as lead counsel in the
case captioned, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. No. 2672 This Order
Relates To: City of St. Clair Shores, 15-1228 (E.D. Va) Travalio,
15-7157 (D.N.J.) George Leon Family Trust, 15-7283 (D.N.J.)
Charter Twp. of Clinton, 15-13999 (E.D. Mich.) Wolfenbarger, 15-
326 (E.D. Tenn.), Case No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.).

On December 10, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation conditionally transferred five Plaintiff Securities Law
Reform Act (PSLRA) securities actions to the Court for
consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Court subsequently extended
the deadline to move for appointment of lead plaintiff to December
31, 2015.

In the motion, Arkansas State Highway Employees Retirement System
(ASHERS) has filed motions to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the
Virginia, New Jersey, and Michigan actions. All other Lead
Plaintiff applicants have since withdrawn their motions, and no
party has opposed ASHERS' motions.

In his Pre-Trial Order dated January 5, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/MjFXx9from Leagle.com, Judge Breyer found ASHERS as
the presumptively most adequate plaintiff under the PSLRA because
it has met the typicality and adequacy requirements under
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23 and no member of the purported classes has
provided proof that ASHER will not fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class or is otherwise subject to unique
defenses that render ASHER incapable of adequately representing
the class. The Court also approved Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman LLP to be lead counsel in the action because no parties
have objected to the appointment.

Plaintiffs are represented by Steve W. Berman, Esq. -
steve@hbsslaw.com, Thomas Eric Loeser, Esq. -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Robert B. Carey,
Esq. -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Defendants are represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Esq. --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE, C. Vernon
Hartline, Jr., Esq. -- vhartline@hdbdlaw.com -- HARTLINE DACUS
BARGER DREYER LLP, Casey Erin Lucier, Esq. --
clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- Howard Feller, Esq. --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Colin Hampton
Tucker, Esq. -- chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- John H. Tucker, Esq.
-- jhtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Kerry R. Lewis, Esq. --
klewis@rhodesokla.com -- RHODES HIERONYMUS JONES TUCKER & GABLE,
Dana Woodrum Lang, Esq. -- dlang@wcsr.com -- Henry Buist Smythe,
Jr., Esq. -- HSmythe@wcsr.com -- Kurt E. Lindquist, II, Esq. --
klindquist@wcsr.com -- WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE AND RICE, John W.
Cowden, Esq. -- cowden@bscr-law.com -- BAKER STERCHI COWDEN AND
RICE LLC,  Larry Martin Roth, Esq. -- lroth@rumberger.com --
Michael D. Begey, Esq. -- mbegey@rumberger.com -- RUMBERGER, KIRK
& CALDWELL, PA, Michael R. McDonald, Esq. --
mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- Thomas R. Valen, Esq. --
tvalen@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS PC


VOLTARI CORPORATION: Oral Argument Before 9th Cir. Set for Apr. 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Voltari Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an appeal in a
putative securities class action remains pending.

"We previously announced that Joe Callan filed a putative
securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court,
Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Motricity
between June 18, 2010 and August 9, 2011 or in Motricity's initial
public offering," the Company said. "Motricity, which was our
predecessor registrant, is now our wholly-owned subsidiary and has
changed its name to Voltari Operating Corp. The defendants in the
case were Motricity, certain of our current and former directors
and officers, including Ryan K. Wuerch, James R. Smith, Jr., Allyn
P. Hebner, James N. Ryan, Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C. Gary, Brett
Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian V. Turner;
and the underwriters in Motricity's initial public offering,
including J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation,
Robert W. Baird & Co Incorporated, Needham & Company, LLC and
Pacific Crest Securities LLC."

"The complaint alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities Act") and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), by all defendants and under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act by Motricity and those of our former and current
officers who are named as defendants. The complaint sought, inter
alia, damages, including interest and plaintiff's costs and
rescission. A second putative securities class action complaint
was filed by Mark Couch in October 2011 in the same court, also
related to alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

"On November 7, 2011, the class actions were consolidated, and
lead plaintiffs were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act. On December 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint which added a claim under Section 12 of the
Securities Act to its allegations of violations of the securities
laws and extended the putative class period from August 9, 2011 to
November 14, 2011. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
May 11, 2012 and a second amended complaint on July 11, 2012.

"On August 1, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint, which was granted on January 17, 2013. A third
amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2013. On May 30, 2013, we
filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, which was
granted by the Court on October 1, 2013.

"On October 31, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. On April 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opening
appellate brief and on July 24, 2014 we filed our answering
brief."

Oral argument in Mosco, et al. v. Motricity Inc, et al., No. 13-
36029 (9th Cir.), is currently scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Fri.,
Apr. 8, 2016, in Seattle.


W.A. THOMPSON: "Murillo" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Murillo, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, and on behalf of aggrieved
employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, v. W.A.
Thompson, Inc., a California corporation; W.A. Thompson
Distributing CO. Of Barstow, a California corporation; W.A.
Thompson Distributing CO. of Moiave, a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC603395 (Cal. Super.,
County of Los Angeles, December 8, 2015), seeks meal period and
rest break wages, minimum and overtime wages, and penalties under
the Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order and
Business and Professions Code.

Defendants are beverage distribution companies with facilities
located in Bakersfield, California, Lancaster, California and
Barstow California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Han., Esq.
     Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh., Esq.
     JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
     411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Phone: (818) 230-7502
     Fax: (818) 230-7259


WASH.IO INC: "Bennett" Suit Seeks Damages for Labor Code Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shardae Bennett, and all others similarly situated v. WASH.IO,
Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. BC603067 (Cal. Super.,
December 8, 2015), seeks damages and injunctive relief for
Defendants' violation of the Labor Code.

WASH.IO, Inc. is a corporation whose business involved pick-up and
delivery and laundry and dry cleaning for customers in various
locations in the State of California, including the City and
County of Los Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Renee Mochkatel, Esq.
      ALLRED, MAROKO & GOLDBERG
      6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500
      Los Angeles, CA 90048-5217
      Tel: (323) 653-6530
      Fax: (323) 653-1660

         - and -

      James H. Cordes, Esq.
      831 State St., Ste. 205
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Tel: (805) 965-6800
      Fax: (805) 965-5556


WCA WASTE: Bid to Remand or Dismiss Royal American Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark E. Walker of the United States District Court
for Northern District of Florida denied Defendant's motion to
dismiss or remand in the case captioned, ROYAL AMERICAN
MANAGEMENT, INC., HOUSING PARTNERS OF GAINESVILLE, FL., LTD.,
RESERVE AT KANAPAHA II, LTD., HUNTERS RUN APARTMENTS, LTD., and
ALACHUA APARTMENTS, LTD., Plaintiffs, v. WCA WASTE CORPORATION,
WCA OF FLORIDA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV 151-MW/GRJ (N.D.
Fla.).

On June 17, 2015, Royal American Management, Inc. brought a
proposed class action in state court against WCA Waste Corporation
and WCA of Florida, LLC, which provide waste-disposal services.
The lawsuit concerned two fees charged by Defendants: a "fuel
surcharge" and an "environmental fee."  The initial complaint
asserted that charging these fees was a violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida Statutes, and a
breach of a uniform contract between each proposed class member
and Defendants. Royal American alleged that it paid these fees to
Defendants. But attached to the initial complaint was a service
agreement between Defendants and "Reserve at Kanapaha I," which
did not mention Royal American. Defendants received service of
process on June 24, 2015, and July 10, 2015, respectively.

On July 23, 2015, Defendants removed the case to this Court. The
notice of removal invoked this Court's original jurisdiction under
the Class Action Fairness Act, specifically 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(d).

In the motion, Defendants moved to remand the case to state court
or dismiss the case. Defendants said that Royal American never had
standing to sue them.  They asserted that Royal American did not
fix this supposed jurisdictional defect by amending the complaint
to add the apartment entities as Plaintiffs. Finally, they argued
that the state court never had subject-matter jurisdiction and so
the case should be dismissed under the doctrine of derivative
jurisdiction.

In his Order dated January4, 2016 available at http://is.gd/2veDvW
from Leagle.com, Judge Walker found that Defendants removed the
case nearly 5 months before moving to remand or dismiss in
violation of the time set by statute for Defendants to raise the
procedural objection to their own removal under either Sec.
1441(a) or Sec. 1453(b) removals.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ryan Blake Hobbs, Esq.
     BROOKS LEBOEUF BENNETT ETC PA
     909 East Park Avenue
     Tallahassee, FL 32301
     Tel: (850)222-2000

          - and -

     Nicholas William Armstrong, Esq.
     Oscar Monfort Price, Iv, Esq.
     PRICE ARMSTRONG LLC
     2421 2nd Ave N #1,
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Tel: (205)208-9588

Defendants are represented by Bryan O. Balogh, Esq. --
bbalogh@burr.com -- Martin E. Burke, Esq. -- mburke@burr.com --
BURR & FORMAN LLP & John D. Jopling, Esq. --
jjopling@dellgraham.com -- DELL GRAHAM PA


YAHOO! INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Johnson" Case Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Manish S. Shah of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the case captioned, RACHEL
JOHNSON and ZENAIDA CALDERIN, Plaintiffs, v. YAHOO!, INC.,
Defendant, Case Nos. 14CV2028, 14 CV 2753 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs are cell phone subscribers who each received at least
two text messages transmitted by defendant Yahoo!. The first:
personalized text messages originally sent to plaintiffs by some
non-party. The second: Yahoo!'s explanation for why plaintiffs
received the first. While plaintiffs take no issue with the
former, they contend Yahoo!'s sending of the latter violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiffs contend that in sending them these Welcome Messages,
defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which
makes it unlawful to make any call using any automatic telephone
dialing system to any cellular telephone service.

In the motion, Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of "All
persons within the United States to whose cellular telephone
number Yahoo! sent the Welcome Message during the period: (i)
commencing March 1, 2013 through March 31, 2013, and while such
cellular number was assigned to Sprint or (ii) commencing April 1,
2014 through April 30, 2014 and while such cellular number was
assigned to T-Mobile" and two subclasses of "Subclass A: All
persons within the United States to whose cellular telephone
number Yahoo! sent the Welcome Message during the period
commencing March 1, 2013 through March 31, 2013, while such
cellular number was assigned to Sprint, and whose cellular
telephone number is not associated with a Yahoo! user in Yahoo!'s
records. Subclass B: All persons within the United States to whose
cellular telephone number Yahoo! sent the Welcome Message during
the period commencing April 1, 2014 through April 30, 2014, while
such cellular number was assigned to T-Mobile, and whose cellular
telephone number is associated with a Yahoo! user in Yahoo!'s
records."

In the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 4, 2016
available at http://is.gd/TfM9yBfrom Leagle.com, Judge Shah found
that Plaintiffs failed to meet the superiority requirement and
certified a class of "All persons within the United States to
whose cellular telephone number Yahoo! sent the Welcome Message
during the period commencing March 1, 2013 through March 31, 2013,
while such cellular number was assigned to Sprint, and whose
cellular telephone number is not associated with a Yahoo! user in
Yahoo!'s records."

The Court designated Plaintiff Johnson as class representative.

Rachel Johnson is represented by:

     Keith James Keogh, Esq.
     Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
     Michael S. Hilicki, Esq.
     KEOGH LAW, LTD
     55 W Monroe St #3390,
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312)726-1092

          - and -

Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. -- ak@kazlg.com -- KAZEROUNI LAW
GROUP, APC, David J. McGlothlin, Esq. --
david@westcoastlitigation.com -- Joshua Branden Swigart, Esq.
-- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- HYDE & SWIGART

Defendants are represented by Francis A. Citera, Esq. --
citerag@gtlaw.com -- Brett Michael Doran, Esq. -- doranb@gtlaw.com
-- Ian Charles Ballon, Esq. -- balloni@gtlaw.com -- Justin
Alexander Barton, Esq. -- bartonj@gtlaw.com -- Lori Chang, Esq. --
changl@gtlaw.com -- Lucia Lynn Marker-Moore, Esq. -- marker-
moorel@gtlaw.com -- Nina D. Boyajian, Esq. -- boyajiann@gtlaw.com
-- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP


ZAFGEN INC: Lead Plaintiffs & Counsel Appointed in "Bessler"
------------------------------------------------------------
Zafgen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a purported
stockholder of the Company filed on October 21, 2015, a putative
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, against the Company and Thomas E. Hughes,
entitled Aviad Bessler v. Zafgen, Inc. and Thomas E. Hughes, No.
1:15-cv-13618. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b),
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions
about the Company's clinical trials for its drug beloranib. The
lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in
connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price
between January 12, 2015 and October 16, 2015 as a result of those
allegedly false and misleading statements, as well as punitive
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Company is
currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a
range of potential loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit
because it is at an early stage.

On Jan. 7, 2016, the Honorable F. Dennis Saylor IV entered an
Order appointing Terry M. Brennan, Ron Kenner, Kevin Koziatek,
Vincent Rampe, and Dragon Gate Management Ltd. as co-lead
plaintiffs and approving their selection of:

     Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
     Joel Anderson Fleming, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
     Boston, MA 02110
     Telephone: 617-398-5600
     E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
             joel@blockesq.com

and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Co-Lead Counsel.

Zafgen is represented by:

     Adam Slutsky, Esq.
     Deborah S. Birnbach, Esq.
     Kate Elizabeth MacLeman, Esq.
     GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
     Exchange Place
     53 State Street
     Boston, MA 02109
     Telephone: 617-570-1000
     E-mail: aslutsky@goodwinprocter.com
             DBirnbach@goodwinprocter.com
             kmacleman@goodwinprocter.com


* CFIA Recalls Almond Spread Products Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:  Antony and Sons, Raw Elements Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail and
Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 10228

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is warning the public
not to consume and retailers, restaurants and institutions not to
sell or use the products described below due to possible
Salmonella contamination.

The following products may have been sold nationally as well as
through internet sales.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home or in your
establishment. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned
to the location where they were purchased.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may
include severe arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products in Canada.

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

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

  Brand     Common name      Size     Code(s) on  UPC
  name      -----------      -----    product     ---
  ----                                ----------
  Jem Raw   Cashew Cardamom  28.4 g   All codes   6 09728 97861 7
  Organic   - Sprouted                sold from
            Cashew Almond             June 2015
            Spread                    up to and
                                      including
                                      December 3,
                                      2015
  Jem Raw   Cinnamon Red     28.4 g   All codes   6 09728 97862 4
  Organic   Maca -                    sold from
            Sprouted Almond           June 2015
            Spread                    up to and
                                      including
                                      December 3,
                                      2015
  Jem Raw   Hazelnut Raw     28.4 g   All codes   6 09728 97865 5
  Organic   Cacao -                   sold from
            Sprouted Hazelnut         June 2015
            Spread                    up to and
                                      including
                                      December 3,
                                      2015
  Jem Raw   Superberry Maqui  28.4 g  All codes   6 09728 97864 8
  Organic   Camu - Sprouted           sold from
            Almond Spread             June 2015
                                      up to and
                                      including
                                      December 3,
                                      2015
  Jem Raw   Cashew Cardamom   170 g   All codes   6 09728 97860 0
  Organic   - Sprouted                old from
            Cashew Almond             June 2015
            Spread                    up to and
                                      including
                                      December 3,
                                      2015
  Jem Raw   Cinnamon Red      170 g   All codes   6 09728 97848 8
  Organic   Maca - Sprouted           sold from
            Almond Spread             June 2015
                                      up to and
                                      including
                                      December 3,
                                      2015
  Jem Raw   Hazelnut Raw      170 g   All codes   6 09728 97857 0
  Organic   Cacao - Sprouted          sold from
            Hazelnut Spread           June 2015
                                      up to and
                                      including
                                      December 3,
                                      2015
  Jem Raw   Superberry Maqui  170 g   All codes   6 09728 97858 7
  Organic   Camu - Sprouted           sold from
            Almond Spread             June 2015
                                      up to and
                                      including
                                      December 3,
                                      2015
  Jem Raw   Cashew Cardamom    455 g  All codes   6 09728 97854 9
  Organic   - Sprouted Cashew         sold from
            Almond Spread             June 2015
                                      up to and
                                      including
                                      December 3,
                                      2015
  Jem Raw   Cinnamon Red       455 g  All codes   6 09728 97850 1
  Organic   Maca - Sprouted           sold from
            Almond Spread             June 2015
                                      up to and
                                      including
                                      December 3,
                                      2015
  Jem Raw   Hazelnut Raw       455 g  All codes   6 09728 97851 8
  Organic   Cacao - Sprouted          sold from
            Hazelnut Spread           June 2015
                                      up to and
                                      including
                                      December 3,
                                      2015
  Jem Raw   Superberry Maqui   455 g  All codes   6 09728 97852 5
  Organic   Camu - Sprouted           sold from
            Almond Spread             June 2015
                                      up to and
                                      including
                                      December 3,
                                      2015

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/OukF9A



                            *********

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  * * *