CAR_Public/160204.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, February 4, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 25


                            Headlines


A. F. HORTON: Faces "Sarmiento-Perez" Suit for FLSA Violation
A1 EXPRESS DELIVERY: "Chacon" Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
AA USA: Recalls Dried Mango and Kiwi Products Due to Sulfites
ALL HARVEST: Faces "Interiano" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
AMAYA GROUP: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Sonnenberg & Farhner

APM TERMINALS: Elkay Plastics Co. Suit Goes to C.D. California
APPLE INC: Proposed Class Action Rejected by Quebec Court
ARMONK LIMOUSINE: Faces "Martin" Suit Under FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law
AUTO SAFE: "McLain" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Poyet" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2669

AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Deloach" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2669
AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Doe" Suit Moved to MDL 2669
AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Doe" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2669
AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Alfaro" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2669
AVID LIFE MEDIA: "John Does" Suit Goes to MDL 2669 in E.D. Mo.

AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Pauly" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to MDL 2669
AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Berki" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2669
BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement in "Brawner" Wins Final Approval
BATH & BODY WORKS: "Daniels" Suit Moved from S.D. to C.D. Cal.
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Intravenous Solutions

BIKRAM YOGA: GC Wins Punitive Damages in Sexual Harassment Suit
BILL COSBY: Judge Dismisses Pittsburgh Woman's Civil Suit
BREG INC: Court Won't Allow New Named Plaintiffs in "Lucas"
BRIGHAM YOUNG: Sued Over Discrimination of Ex-Mormons, Gays
BRITAX CHILD: Recalls B-Ready Strollers Due to Choking Hazard

BRITAX CHILD: Recalls Infant Car Seats and Travel Systems
BROOKLINE, MA: Police Officers Join Lawsuit Over Racism
CALIFORNIA: Class Action Status Granted in Fire Fee Suit
CAMPBELL-EWALD: Class Action 'Pick Off' Strategy Rejected
CARRIER IQ: Settles Privacy Class Action for $9 Million

CHAR-BROIL LLC: Plaintiffs Could Have Tough Road Ahead, Prof Says
CHICAGO, IL: Must Defend Suit over Impounded Vehicles
CHICAGO, IL: Appellate Court Reverses Class Cert. in Byer Suit
CITIBANK NA: "Nichols" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
CITIBANK NA: "McCormick" Suit Goes to Arbitration

CLACKAMAS COUNTY: Motion for Protective Order Granted in Part
CLASSIC CARPET: "Irizarry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: "Lockhart" Suit Moved to C.D. California
CONTINUUM HEALTH: Wins Summary Judgment in "Shafir" Case
CORE-MARK INT'L: Faces "Upton" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations

DIRECTV LLC: Conn. Judge Sends "Ferrie" Suit to Arbitration
DOALL CO: Faces "Stocks" Suit for FLSA, Wis. Labor Law Breaches
DOLE FRESH: Recalls Packaged Salad Products
DONAHOO'S GOLDEN: Faces "Millan" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
E.I. DU PONT: Dismissal of Shareholder Derivative Suit Affirmed

EAN HOLDINGS: "Toering" Suit Moved to Western Dist. Washington
ELEMENTS FINANCIAL: "Jones" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. Ohio
EMCORE CORP: "Mirasol" Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations
EMERITUS CORP: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement
ENERGY TRANSFER: "Amaitis" Suit Opposes Acquisition of Williams

ENZYMEDICA INC: "Hoffman" Suit Claims False Marketing of ViraStop
EQUIFAX INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Martinez" Suit
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Fesniak" Suit Moved to E.D. North Carolina
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Fesniak" Suit Moved to Maryland Dist. Ct.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Jackson" Suit Moved to C.D. California

EZUBAO: Police Arrests Founder Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Dismisses Illinois Suit Over Photo Tagging
FANDUEL INC: Faces "Boast" Suit Over Unlawful Gambling
FANDUEL INC: "Delgado" Suit Goes from Superior Court to C.D. Cal.
FANNIE MAE: "Cole" Suit Moved to Maryland Dist. Court

FCA US: "Granillo" Suit Goes from C.D. California to New Jersey
FURMANITE CORP: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Team Takeover
GENERAL MOTORS: Scheuer Test Case Problems Emerge Early in Trial
GENERAL MOTORS: Removal of Hilliard as Plaintiffs Counsel Sought
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Martinez" Suit Moved to Colorado Dist. Court

GOOGLE INC: Former Recruiter Sues for Wage and Hour Violations
GREAT AMERICAN: Faces "Goertzen" Suit Over Seniors Policies
HARBOR FREIGHT: "Blanco" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
HARBOR PARK: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation
HARVEST BAKERY: Class Certified in "Rivera" Labor Suit

HEARTWARE INT'L: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Suit
HEB GROCERY: Recalls Cookwares Due to Injury Hazard
IDE PONTIAC: "Buehlman" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
I PLAY: Recalls Glass Food Cubes Due to Injury Risk
ILLINOIS: Corrections Dept Must Defend Against "Everett" Case

ILLINOIS BELL: Court Tosses FLSA, IMWL & IWPCA Claims in "Bowen"
INTERNAL REVENUE: NorCal Tea Party Patriots Case Wins Class Cert.
JP MORGAN CHASE: 4th Amended Suit in ERISA Litigation Dismissed
JP MORGAN CHASE: "Bellino" Suit Moved from M.D. Fla. to S.D.N.Y.
KEEPERS GENTLEMEN'S: Exotic Dancers Must Opt for Arbitration

KEURIG GREEN: "Berger" Suit Opposes Acquisition by JAB Holding
KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS: "Binning" Suit Moved to Wash. D.C.
LAUGH FACTORY: "Aguila" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
LENOVO GROUP: Fights Suits Over Adware-Related Security Glitch
LEPRINO FOODS: California Court Narrows "Finder" Class Suit

LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recover Damages
LIFETIME HEALTHCARE: Faces "Fuller" Suit Over Security Breach
LOCKNCHARGE TECHNOLOGIES: Recalls Charging Stations
LUNERA LIGHTING: Recalls Led Lamps Due to Electric Shock Hazard
LYFT: Settles California Class Action Lawsuit, To Pay $12.25MM

MAL: Hungarian Court Acquits 15 Employees 2010 Sludge Flood Case
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Cawthon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Cremeans" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Elias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Martelli" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Mills" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MCCORMICK & CO: "Bittle" Suit Moved from S.D. Ill. to Wash. D.C.

MEDTRONIC INC: Minn. Appeals Court Revives Shareholder Suit
MEMPHIS, TN: Faces "Moses" Suit Over Alleged Illegal Detention
METAL TECHNOLOGIES: Conditional Class Cert. Bid Granted in "Weil"
MID-AMERICA SOUND: Indiana No Liability in Stage Collapse Case
MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hernandez" Suit Says

MINDWARE CORP: Recalls Children's Bikes Due to Laceration Hazard
MOURI MANAGEMENT: "Jimenez" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Judge Okays Amended Head Injury Suit Deal
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Appeal in Super Bowl Tickets Suit Tossed
NATIONAL INSURANCE: 11th Cir. Vacates Remand Order in "Hill" Suit

NATIONWIDE DEBT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
NATIONWIDE DEBT: Default Judgment Recommended in "Liversage"
NEW YORK: Counsel Found Lacking in Experience to Handle Class Suit
NEW YORK JETS: Cheerleaders to Receive $325,000 in Settlement
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE: Settlement Fails to Win Court Approval

NEW YORK TAXI & LIMOUSINE: Court Denies Drivers' Injunction Bid
NIMBLE STORAGE: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
OSI GROUP: Mulls Appeal of Verdict in Tainted Meat Suit
PAPA JOHN'S: Sued for Overtaxed Deliveries in Illinois
PARADISE PARKING: Faces "Paz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

PARAGON CONTRACTORS: Children Testify in Labor Case
PAULSON ADVISERS: SC Affirms Case Dismissal for Lack of Standing
PENNSYLVANIA: Settles ACLU Suit Over Mental Health Services
PIPELINE PRODUCTIONS: "Alexander" Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
PURE FOODS: Court Grants Foreign Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

PUSHPIN HOLDINGS: Must Defend Against "Blankenship" Suit
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Must Defend Against Plan Holders' Suit in Ore.
R AND J: Faces "Shannon" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
REZA'S RIVER: "Fatah" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
RJ REYNOLDS: Injunction on FDA's Use of Menthol Report Lifted

RNG GROUP: Recalls Bendable Solar Panels Due to Overheating
S&J CRAZY: Faces "Ormeno" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SAN DIEGO, CA: Court Denies Application for TRO in "St. Jon" Suit
SANTA FE NATURAL: Faces "Dunn" Suit Over "Natural" Tobacco Ads
SCOTTSDALE HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Mullin" Claim

SECURE-CARDIO: St. Louis Heart Center Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri
SELECT COMFORT: Court Grants Motion for Attorney's Fees
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Bivens" Suit Over RESPA Violation
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Sued Over Damages Caused by Gas Leak
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING: Court Trims "Whalen" Claims

SPOTIFY: Faces 2 Class Suits Over Royalties
STANDARD INSURANCE: Wins Summary Judgment in "Nelson" Class Suit
STATE FARM: SC Affirms Denial of Complaint and Leave to Amend
SUBURBAN K: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Fernandez" Suit Says
TENSION INT'L: "Bowers" Suit Alleges ERISA, Labor Law Breaches

TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Suit
TRAVIS KALANICK: Faces "Meyer" Suit Alleging Price Fixing
TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Recalls Shower Rugs Due to Fall Hazard
UBER: Canadian Taxi Drivers to Launch Class Action Lawsuit
UNITED COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Watkins" Suit Says

UNITED HEALTH GROUP: Minn. Court Tosses Podiatric Lawsuit
UNITED RECOVERY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
US HISPANIC: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Quezada" Suit Says
U.S. SECURITY: Faces "Stone" Suit Alleging FCRA Violation
VARALUZ LLC: Recalls Lighting Fixtures Due to Shock Hazard

VENTIV COMMERCIAL: "Standridge" Suit Alleges Labor Code Breach
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Budare" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Fidler" Suit Goes to S.D. California
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Yazdi" Suit Moved to Central Dist. California
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Ross" Suit Moved to Maryland Court

VWI LLC: "Greenberg" Suit Moved from Circuit Court to S.D. Fla.
YOLI'S MEXICAN: Faces "Campos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
YURMAN RETAIL: "Cociu" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations

* 25 States Must Pay $13.55MM in Fees Over Same-Sex Marriage Bans
* Pa. Common Pleas Court New Mass Tort Filings Drop 38% in 2015


                            *********


A. F. HORTON: Faces "Sarmiento-Perez" Suit for FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Early Ivan Sarmiento-Perez and all others similarly situated, v.
A. F. Horton Tree Service, LLC, D. R. Horton Tree Service, Inc.,
Resourcing Edge I, LLC, Alexis Horton, Dave R. Horton, and Ted A.
Crawford, Case 3:15-cv-03985-L (N.D.Tex., December 16, 2015), was
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A. F. Horton Tree Service, LLC specializes in all types of tree
and utility applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
     Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
     6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
     Dallas, TX 75240
     Phone: (972) 233-2264
     Fax: (972) 386-7610
     E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
             rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
             josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


A1 EXPRESS DELIVERY: "Chacon" Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Andrew Chacon et al. v. A-1
Express Delivery Service, Inc., Case No. BC600548, was removed
from Los Angeles Superior Court - Central Civil West, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:15-cv-09901-DMG-AS to the proceeding.

A-1 Express Delivery Service provides same-day transportation,
distribution, and logistics services to local firms and national
corporations in the United States. It offers local and nationwide
courier and delivery, scheduled delivery, bike messenger,
emergency/expedited delivery, congressional line standing, visa
and passport application, next flight out, freight/trucking, less
than truck load, and local freight services; and white glove, live
animal, and medical/specimen delivery services. The company was
founded in 1997 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Courtney D. Bhatt, Esq.
          MDK LAW
          777 108th Ave NE, Suite 2000
          Bellevue, WA 98004
          Telephone: (425) 455 9610
          Facsimile: (425) 455 l170
          Email: cbhau@mdklaw.com

               - and -

          Donald C Potter, Esq.
          DONALD POTTER LAW OFFICES
          776 E Green Street Suite 210
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 744 1555
          Facsimile: (626) 389 0592
          E-mail: dp@donpotterlaw.com

               - and -

          Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
          Marcus J Bradley, Esq.
          MARLIN AND SALTZMAN LLP
          29229 Canwood Street Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991 8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991 8081
          E-mail: kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com
                  mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Norman J. Ronneberg, Jr., Esq.
          Andrew B Downs, Esq.
          Marilyn Raia, Esq.
          BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC
          235 Pine Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94104-27 52
          Telephone: (415)352 2700
          Facsimile: (415)352 270l
          E-mail: norman.ronneberg@bullivant.com
                  andy.downs@bullivant.com
                  marilyn.raia@bullivant.com

               - and -

          Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON AND FEARY LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue Suite 460
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795 4700
          Facsimile: (626) 795 4790
          E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com


AA USA: Recalls Dried Mango and Kiwi Products Due to Sulfites
-------------------------------------------------------------
AA USA Trading Inc. of South River, NJ is recalling both dried
kiwi and dried mango products packaged under the AA brand in 8-
ounce plastic bags, because they may contain undeclared sulfites
and colors. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
sulfites or food colors run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The AA brand dried kiwi and dried mango products were sold in
retail stores in New York and New Jersey and Florida beginning in
July 2014.

The 8-ounce dried mango product was sold in a plastic bag printed
in green and white with the letters "AA" and the "thumbs-up"
symbol, labeled "Dried Tai Sweet Mango Slice," UPC code
6944155210102.

The 8-ounce dried kiwi product was sold in a similar plastic bag
printed in green and white with the letters "AA" and the "thumbs-
up" symbol, labeled "Dried Kiwi Slice," UPC code 6944155210041.

No illnesses have been reported to date. No complaints have been
received. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that
the dried kiwi and dried mango products containing sulfites was
distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of
sulfites. Additionally, it was discovered that packaging did not
declare the presence of colors FD&C Yellow #6 in the dried mango
product and both FD&C Yellow #5 and FD&C Blue #1 in the dried kiwi
product. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused
by a temporary breakdown in the company's packaging and labeling
processes.

Consumers who have purchased AA brand dried kiwi or dried mango
are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact Mei Zhang (secretary), (732)
651-9948, Monday to Friday, 9:00 am to 4:30 pm (Eastern Standard
Time).


ALL HARVEST: Faces "Interiano" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dimas Interiano, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Persons, v. All Harvest Trading, LLC and Henry L. Chea,
Case 4:15-cv-03640 (S.D.Tex., December 16, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's
fees under Fair Labor Standards Act.

All Harvest Trading, LLC is an importer and export wholesale
distributor of seafood.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
     2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
     Houston, Texas 77018
     Phone: (713) 868-3388
     Fax: (713) 683-9940


AMAYA GROUP: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Sonnenberg & Farhner
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, affirmed the judgment
dismissing the suits in the case captioned, KELLY SONNENBERG, et
al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMAYA GROUP HOLDINGS (IOM) LIMITED,
formerly known as Oldford Group, Ltd., et al., Defendants-
Appellees, JUDY FARHNER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
TILTWARE, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 15-1885,
15-1887 (7th Cir.).

Casey Sonnenberg and Daniel Fahrner claim that each lost $50 or
more at Internet gambling sites operated by one or more of the
defendants. Though neither Kelly Sonnenberg nor Judy Fahrner, the
other two plaintiffs -- who happen to be the mothers of Casey and
Daniel -- lost money, neither gambled at any of the defendants'
sites -- they seek to recover triple their sons' losses under the
"any person "may sue the winner" provision. The sons cannot sue
because they admit in their complaints that they failed to sue
within six months of the losses that they sustained in gambling on
the defendants' websites.

Both suits are in federal court under the Class Action Fairness
Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(2). Defendants moved to dismiss the
suits which were granted by the district court.

On appeal, plaintiffs invoke Sec. 5/28-7, which declares gambling
contracts null and void and ask the Court to read a civil cause of
action into the criminal provisions aimed at the owners and
operators of illegal sites--a civil cause that would entitle the
plaintiffs to damages measured by their losses.

In the Order dated January 15, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/hPHHHAfrom Leagle.com, the Seventh Circuit concluded
that Illinois courts are reluctant to imply a private right of
action in one section of a statute if other sections expressly
create such rights. The Courts cannot invoke the Court to declare
the gambling contracts null and void because they have no contract
with the defendants that they ask the court to void.


APM TERMINALS: Elkay Plastics Co. Suit Goes to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Elkay Plastics Company, Inc. v.
APM Terminals North America, Inc. et al., Case No. BC600032, was
removed from Los Angeles Superior, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-
00272-SJO-KS to the proceeding.

The Defendants engaged in allegedly unlawful business practices,
including the violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants have tortuously breached their duties
to itself, though a series of negligent misrepresentations.

The Defendants' primary role is loading and unloading shipping
containers and cargo ships, and making the containers available to
trucking companies for pickup and transportation to a destination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Courtney Diane Bhatt, Esq.
          MDK LAW
          777 108th Avenue NE Suite 2000
          Bellevue, WA 98008
          Telephone: (425) 455 9610
          Facsimile: (425) 455 1170
          E-mail: cbhatt@mdklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Norman J. Ronneberg, Jr., Esq.
          Andrew B Downs, Esq.
          Marilyn Raia, Esq.
          BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC
          235 Pine Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94104-27 52
          Telephone: (415)352 2700
          Facsimile: (415)352 270l
          E-mail: norman.ronneberg@bullivant.com
                  andy.downs@bullivant.com
                  marilyn.raia@bullivant.com


APPLE INC: Proposed Class Action Rejected by Quebec Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Emira Tufo, writing for Canadian Class Actions Monitor, reports
that on October 14, 2015, the Superior Court of Quebec rendered a
decision refusing to authorize a class action against Apple Canada
Inc. and Apple, Inc. (together, "Apple"), declaring the
Petitioner's claim prescribed (i.e. past the limitation period),
and despite her allegations that it was Apple's misrepresentations
that had rendered it impossible for her to act in due time (Ohana
c. Apple Canada inc., 2015 QCCS 4748).

The Petitioner, Nataly Ohana, attended at an Apple store in
Montreal on September 30, 2009 with a malfunctioning iPod Touch
and a near well dead iPhone, while both products were still
covered by Apple's one-year contractual warranty. Upon examination
of the devices, Ms. Ohana was told by an Apple representative that
both items had suffered from liquid damage and were thus
ineligible for warranty coverage.  Ms. Ohana did not think so.  In
fact, she knew with certainty that her iPhone Touch, at least, had
never gotten wet.  She nevertheless chose not to raise the issue
further with Apple at the time.  In February 2010, she had both
devices replaced by Apple for a fee.  Years passed.  In April
2013, Ms. Ohana learned that Apple had settled a class action
pertaining to the alleged unreliability of its Liquid Submersion
Indicators (LSIs) in the United States.  Although the American
action had been settled with no admission of fault or liability on
Apple's part, Ms. Ohana launched a motion for authorization of a
similar suit in Quebec.  According to Ms. Ohana, Apple's
misrepresentations about the reliability of its LSIs made it
impossible for her to initiate the class action sooner.

The examination of the Petitioner -- which is cited in quite some
detail in the ruling of the Superior Court -- proved fatal to her
case. When asked whether she thought, at the time of her visit to
the Apple store back in September of 2009, that her devices may,
indeed, have been exposed to liquid, she vehemently denied it --
at least with respect to her iPod Touch.  In her own words, Ms.
Ohana was "195% certain" that this device had never been exposed
to liquid.  The iPhone was a different story: Ms. Ohana worked at
a restaurant and occasionally left her iPhone on the counter
unattended -- it may have gotten wet.  Apple argued, and the Court
Agreed, that Ms. Ohana's action (based solely on her iPod Touch)
was therefore clearly prescribed: where Petitioner remained 195%
certain that she had a claim, whatever representations were made
by the Respondent to the contrary clearly did not render it
impossible for her to act in the sense of article 2904 of the
Quebec Civil Code.

The Court also disagreed with Ms. Ohana's interpretation of the
significance of the U.S. class action -- it proved nothing in
terms of Apple's fault, and only fed Ms. Ohana's hypotheses which
were insufficient to satisfy the requirements of article 1003 b)
of the Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") (which requires that the
facts alleged seem to justify the conclusion sought).

Reflecting on the other criteria necessary for the authorization
of a class action in Quebec, namely article 1003 a) CCP (requiring
that the recourses of the members raise identical, similar or
related questions of law or fact), the Court pointed out that what
the Petitioner presented as common questions actually concealed a
host of individual issues, including the level of conviction of
each individual class member as to whether their device had been
submerged in liquid. To undertake such an exercise for each class
member, the Court ruled, was not in keeping with the principle of
proportionality foreseen in article 4.2 CCP, to which all the
criteria of article 1003 CCP were subject.

Ms. Ohana also did not meet the criterion of article 1003 d) CCP
(requiring that the proposed member be in a position to represent
the group adequately). Among other reasons, the Court noted that
she did not appear to have conducted any inquiry prior to
instituting her action, nor did she contact Apple or any
prospective class members, choosing instead to file proceedings
modelled on the U.S. class action as soon as she learned of the
U.S. settlement.

The case is of special interest in the Quebec class action
context, as the province is known for its relatively lenient
stance at the authorization stage. The decision shows that Quebec
petitioners seeking to copy U.S. class action proceedings may not
be able to rely exclusively on the existence of a settlement of
U.S. proceedings to meet their burden of demonstration here.
Further, prescription can indeed operate to defeat a proposed
class action.  Petitioners who know that they have a claim cannot
avoid prescription by alleging misrepresentations, waiting to be
told that a case has been filed or a settlement entered into.  You
know what you know, and if you do not act in time, you risk being
195% prescribed.


ARMONK LIMOUSINE: Faces "Martin" Suit Under FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Martin, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. Armonk Limousine Car Service,
Inc., and Rafael Ruiz, individually, and Lisa Bove, individually,
Case 7:15-cv-09789-CS (S.D.N.Y., December 15, 2015), alleges
violations of the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants operate a limousine company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
     Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
     Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
     BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C
     655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (516) 248-5550


AUTO SAFE: "McLain" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael McLain, and all others similarly situated v. Auto Safe &
Sound, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-02847 (M.D. Fla., December 14,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant operates a car-care center.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
      P.O. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Tel: (407) 420-1414
      Fax: (407) 245-3341
      E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Poyet" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2669
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled David Poyet v. Avid Life Media,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08456, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).
The Missouri District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01929-
JAR to the proceeding.

Avid Life Media is a social entertainment company that operates
online social networking and dating communities for women and men
worldwide. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in
Toronto, Canada.

The Poyet case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley
Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on
multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share
factual questions arising from a data security breach that
allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving
AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate
intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or
in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website.
In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15-
Md-02669-JAR.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Ashley R. Rifkin, Esq.
          Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
          Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525 3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525 3991
          E-mail: notice@robbinsarroyo.com
                  arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com
                  kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
                  lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Conrad B Stephens, Esq.
          STEPHENS AND STEPHENS LLP
          505 South McClelland Street
          Santa Maria, CA 93454
          Telephone: (805) 922 1951
          Facsimile: (805) 922 8013
          E-mail: conrad@stephensfirm.com

               - and -

          Rebecca Anne Peterson, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          100 LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          Washington Avenue South Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339 0981
          E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David William Nelson, Esq.
          BARNES AND THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2904
          Telephone: (310) 284 3880
          Facsimile: (310) 284 3894
          E-mail: dnelson@btlaw.com


AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Deloach" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2669
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Deloach v. Avid Life Media, Inc.
et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00299, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).
The Missouri District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01925-
JAR to the proceeding.

Avid Life Media is a social entertainment company that operates
online social networking and dating communities for women and men
worldwide. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in
Toronto, Canada.

The Deloach case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley
Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on
multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share
factual questions arising from a data security breach that
allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving
AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate
intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or
in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website.
In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15-
Md-02669-JAR.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony C. Lake, Esq.
          Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
          GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
          3490 Piedmont Rd., Suite 1050
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 842 9700
          Facsimile: (404) 842 9750
          E-mail: aclake@gwllawfirm.com
                  twithers@gwllawfirm.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
          P.O. Box 7635
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Telephone: (724) 656 1555
          Facsimile: (724) 656 1556
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          William G. Bell , III, Esq.
          WILLIAM G. BELL, III, PC
          420 W. Broughton St.
          Savannah, GA 31401
          Telephone: (912) 233 8000
          Facsimile: (912) 234 0103
          E-mail: wgbatty@hotmail.com


AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Doe" Suit Moved to MDL 2669
---------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Doe v. Avid Life Media, Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00386, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).
The Missouri District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01926-
JAR to the proceeding.

Avid Life Media is a social entertainment company that operates
online social networking and dating communities for women and men
worldwide. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in
Toronto, Canada.

The Doe case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley
Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on
multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share
factual questions arising from a data security breach that
allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving
AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate
intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or
in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website.
In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15-
Md-02669-JAR.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlton F. Bennett, Esq.
          BENNETT & ZYDRON PC
          120 S Lynnhaven Rd., Suite 100
          Virginia Beach, VA 23452
          Telephone: (757) 486 5454
          E-mail: cbennett@bandslawyers.com


AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Doe" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2669
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Doe v. Avid Life Media, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07760, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).
The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01921-
JAR to the proceeding.

Avid Life Media is a social entertainment company that operates
online social networking and dating communities for women and men
worldwide. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in
Toronto, Canada.

The Doe case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley
Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on
multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share
factual questions arising from a data security breach that
allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving
AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate
intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or
in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website.
In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15-
Md-02669-JAR.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Michael Loren Silverman, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236 0000
          Facsimile: (312) 878 1342
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  msilverman@siprut.com

               - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle Alan Shamberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
          211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 750 1265
          Facsimile: (973) 877 3845
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  kshamberg@litedepalma.com


AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Alfaro" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2669
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gustavo Alfaro v. Avid Life Media,
Inc. et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-02295, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).
The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01930-
JAR to the proceeding.

Avid Life Media is a social entertainment company that operates
online social networking and dating communities for women and men
worldwide. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in
Toronto, Canada.

The Alfaro case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley
Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on
multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share
factual questions arising from a data security breach that
allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving
AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate
intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or
in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website.
In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15-
Md-02669-JAR.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven W. Ritcheson, Esq.
          HENINGER AND GARRISON, LLC
          9800 D Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 347
          Chatsworth, CA 91311
          Telephone: (818) 882 1030
          Facsimile: (818) 337 0383
          E-mail: swritcheson@hgdlawfirm.com


AVID LIFE MEDIA: "John Does" Suit Goes to MDL 2669 in E.D. Mo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled John Does et al. v. Avid Life
Media, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06619, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St.
Louis). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-
cv-01927-JAR to the proceeding.

Avid Life Media is a social entertainment company that operates
online social networking and dating communities for women and men
worldwide. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in
Toronto, Canada.

The John Does case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re:
Ashley Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL
was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on
multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share
factual questions arising from a data security breach that
allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving
AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate
intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or
in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website.
In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15-
Md-02669-JAR.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
          355 South Grand Avenue Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785 2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226 4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Pauly" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to MDL 2669
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Pauly v. Avid Life Media, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08842, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).
The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01924-
JAR to the proceeding.

Avid Life Media is a social entertainment company that operates
online social networking and dating communities for women and men
worldwide. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in
Toronto, Canada.

The Pauly case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley
Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on
multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share
factual questions arising from a data security breach that
allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving
AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate
intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or
in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website.
In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15-
Md-02669-JAR.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Michael Loren Silverman, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236 0000
          Facsimile: (312) 878 1342
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  msilverman@siprut.com


AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Berki" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2669
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Szilvia Berki et al. v. Avid Life
Media, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08208, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Missouri (St.
Louis). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-
cv-01928-JAR to the proceeding.

Avid Life Media is a social entertainment company that operates
online social networking and dating communities for women and men
worldwide. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in
Toronto, Canada.

The Berki case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley
Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on
multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share
factual questions arising from a data security breach that
allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving
AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate
intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or
in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website.
In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15-
Md-02669-JAR.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SHELLER AND LUDWIG
          1528 Walnut Street, Third Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 790 7300
          Facsimile: (215) 546 0942

               - and -

          Jennifer L. Duffy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JENNIFER DUFFY, APC
          28649 S. Western Ave. #6571
          San Pedro, CA 90734
          Telephone: (310) 714 9779
          Facsimile (213) 217 5010
          E-mail: jld@kbklawyers.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement in "Brawner" Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted final approval of
the settlement, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, claims-
administration expenses and incentive award to the named plaintiff
in the case 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, Case No. 3:14-CV-02702-LB (N.D.
Cal.).

Zelma Brawner sued her former employer 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 Sections 201,
202, and 203; 4) a resulting violation of California's unfair
competition law (UCL), California Business and Professions Code
Sec. 17200; and 5) a violation of the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act.

The parties settled the case, and the court granted the
plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
proposed class-action settlement. The court held a fairness
hearing on January 14, 2016.

The total settlement amount is $2,250,000, which will be allocated
as follows:

     1) $1,626,000 (or 72%) to the class members to be
        distributed based on a formula weighted by annual salary,
        estimated weekly overtime hours, and eligible work weeks,
        apportioned among wage and non-wage claims (1/3 to wages,
        1/3 to penalties, and 1/3 to interest);

     2) $562,500 (or 25%) for attorney's fees;

     3) litigation costs of $10,537.04 (estimated at $5,000 to
        $15,000 in the settlement agreement);

     4) $15,000 to the class representative;

     5) a $30,000 PAGA penalty, with $22,500 paid to the
        California Labor & Workforce Development Agency and
        $7,500 paid to the class members in proportion to their
        individual settlement shares; and

     6) $9,000 to the claims administrator, KCC.

The settlement agreement specifies that the costs of administering
the settlement up to $20,000 will be taken out of the gross
settlement fund of $2,250,000, and the defendant will pay costs
above $20,000.  Any unused funds of the $20,000 allocated to the
claims administration will be paid as a cy pres distribution to
Bay Area Legal Aid, subject to approval by the court.

The "Plaintiff Class" is defined as "all persons employed by
Defendant in its internal job codes CI049 and CI053, also known as
Dedicated Service Directors, Treasury Services Consultants and/or
Senior Treasury Service Consultants, in Concord, California from
May 9, 2010 through the date the Court enters judgment in
accordance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement."  The
"Settlement Class" is "all members of the Plaintiff Class who fail
to timely and/or properly exclude themselves from the settlement."
There are 116 employees that Bank of America has identified as
class members.

The defendant does not oppose the plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of the settlement.

In Memorandum Opinion dated January 14, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/2XEeW1from Leagle.com, Judge Beeler found that the
settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable and approves the final
settlement, including fees, costs, administration expenses, and
the incentive award.

Zelma Brawner is represented by:

     Donald Joseph Clapp, Esq.
     AIMAN-SMITH AND MARCY
     7677 Oakport St
     Oakland, CA 94621
     Tel: (510)562-6800

Bank of America is represented by Matthew C. Kane, Esq. --
mkane@mcguirewoods.com -- Regina Anne Musolino, Esq. --
rmusolino@mcguirewoos.com -- Sean Matthew Sullivan, Esq. --
ssullivan@mcguirewoods.com -- Joanne Elizabeth MacMillan, Esq. --
jmcmillan@mcguirewoods.com -- Sylvia Jihae Kim, Esq. --
skim@mcguirewoods.com -- Michael David Mandel, Esq. --
mmandel@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP


BATH & BODY WORKS: "Daniels" Suit Moved from S.D. to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Daniels v. Bath and Body Works,
LLC et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02343, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09900-CBM-JC to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brought this class
action suit against the Defendants for damages suffered as a
result of Defendants' unlawful and unfair employment practices.

The Bath and Body Works is a Delaware entity of unknown
form, with headquarters in Columbus Ohio, doing business in the
State of California. The L Brands (formerly known as Limited
Brands), is a Delaware entity of unknown form, with headquarters
in Reynoldsburg, Ohio, doing business in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          Christina Humphrey, Esq.
          David C. Leimbach, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, California 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991 8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991 8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
                  chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com
                  dleimbach@marlinsaltzman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alexander Miller Chemers, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          400 South Hope Street Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239 9800
          Facsimile: (213) 239 9045
          E-mail: alexander.chemers@ogletreedeakins.com


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Intravenous Solutions
---------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. announced it is voluntarily recalling
four lots of intravenous (IV) solutions to the hospital/user level
due to the potential for leaking containers and particulate
matter. Baxter was made aware of these issues as the result of two
complaints for leaking containers and one customer complaint each
for three lots due to particulate matter. In each case, the issue
was discovered prior to patient administration and there have been
no adverse events associated with these incidents reported to
Baxter to date.

Leaking containers could result in contamination of the solution.
If not detected, this could lead to a bloodstream infection,
worsened patient condition or other serious adverse health
consequences. Injecting a product containing particulate matter,
in the absence of in-line filtration, may result in blockage of
blood vessels, which can result in stroke, heart attack, damage to
other organs such as the kidney or liver, or death. There is also
the possibility of allergic reactions, local irritation and
inflammation in tissues and organs.

The recalls affect the following products and lots:

  Product   Product              Lot       Expiration    NDC
  Code      Description          Number    Date          ---
  -------   -----------          ------    ----------
  2B0043    0.9% Sodium Chloride P337857   07/31/2016    0338-
            Injection, USP,                              0553-18
            100mL in Mini-Bag
            Plus Container
  2B0043    0.9% Sodium Chloride P328997   01/31/2016    0338-
            Injection, USP,                              0553-18
            100mL in Mini-Bag
            Plus Container
  2B3421    Metronidazole        P339135    08/31/2017   0338-
            Injection, USP                               1055-48
            500mg/100mL
  2B7721    Clinimix E 5/15      P333930    05/31/2017   0338-
            (5% AA                                       1123-04
            w/Electrolytes in
            15% Dextrose
            w/Calcium)

Leaking containers were confirmed in 11 units of one lot (P337857)
of 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP, 100mL in Mini-Bag Plus
Container, and a subsequent investigation identified the root
cause as a mechanical issue that affected one machine during a
single shift. The mechanical issue has since been remedied.
A single unit in a separate lot (P328997) of 0.9% Sodium Chloride
Injection, USP, 100mL in Mini-Bag Plus Container was found to
contain a fragment of cardboard particulate matter. A unit from
lot P339135 of Metronidazole Injection, USP 500mg/100mL was found
to contain cloth fiber particulate matter, and a unit from lot
P333930 of Clinimix E 5/15 (5% Amino Acid with Electrolytes in 15%
Dextrose with Calcium) was found to contain a small fragment of
dried skin particulate matter.

0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP is indicated as a source of
water and electrolytes and may also be used as diluent for
reconstitution of a powdered drug product packaged in a vial with
a 20 mm closure. The lots being recalled were distributed to
customers and distributors nationwide between February 22, 2015
and December 28, 2015.

Metronidazole Injection, USP is indicated in the treatment of
serious infections caused by susceptible anaerobic bacteria.
Indicated surgical procedures should be performed in conjunction
with Metronidazole Injection, USP therapy. In a mixed aerobic and
anaerobic infection, antibiotics appropriate for the treatment of
the aerobic infection should be used in addition to Metronidazole
Injection, USP. Metronidazole Injection, USP has been shown to be
effective in Bacteroides fragilis infections resistant to
clindamycin, chloramphenicol and penicillin. The lot being
recalled was distributed to customers and distributors nationwide
between October 9, 2015 and January 18, 2016.

Metronidazole Injection, USP is indicated in the treatment of
serious infections caused by susceptible anaerobic bacteria.
Indicated surgical procedures should be performed in conjunction
with Metronidazole Injection, USP therapy. In a mixed aerobic and
anaerobic infection, antibiotics appropriate for the treatment of
the aerobic infection should be used in addition to Metronidazole
Injection, USP. Metronidazole Injection, USP has been shown to be
effective in Bacteroides fragilis infections resistant to
clindamycin, chloramphenicol and penicillin. The lot being
recalled was distributed to customers and distributors nationwide
between October 9, 2015 and January 18, 2016.

Clinimix E sulfite-free (Amino Acid with Electrolytes in Dextrose
with Calcium) Injections are indicated as a caloric component in a
parenteral nutrition regimen. The product is used as the protein
(nitrogen) source for offsetting nitrogen loss or for treatment of
negative nitrogen balance in patients where the alimentary tract
cannot or should not be used, gastrointestinal absorption of
protein is impaired, or metabolic requirements for protein are
substantially increased. The lot being recalled was distributed to
customers and distributors nationwide between May 29, 2015 and
December 3, 2015.

Customers were notified via letter that they should not use
product from the recalled lots. Recalled product should be
returned to Baxter for credit by contacting Baxter Healthcare
Center for Service at 1-888-229-0001, Monday through Friday,
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Central Time.
Unaffected lots of product are available for replacement.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can call Baxter at
1-800-422-9837, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time, or e-mail Baxter at
onebaxter@baxter.com. Consumers should contact their physician or
healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may
be related to using these drug products.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
these products may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

Baxter International Inc. provides a broad portfolio of essential
renal and hospital products, including home, acute and in-center
dialysis; sterile IV solutions; infusion systems and devices;
parenteral nutrition; biosurgery products and anesthetics; and
pharmacy automation, software and services. The company's global
footprint and the critical nature of its products and services
play a key role in expanding access to healthcare in emerging and
developed countries. Baxter's employees worldwide are building
upon the company's rich heritage of medical breakthroughs to
advance the next generation of healthcare innovations that enable
patient care.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/zWgNi3


BIKRAM YOGA: GC Wins Punitive Damages in Sexual Harassment Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Forshee, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that the
former general counsel of Bikram Yoga won millions in punitive
damages on Jan. 26 in a sexual harassment lawsuit against the
company's founder, Bikram Choudhury.

A state court jury in Los Angeles awarded former GC Minakshi Jafa-
Bodden $6.4 million in punitive damages.  The award came a day
after the same jury found Choudhury liable for gender
discrimination, wrongful termination and sexual harassment and
ordered him to pay Jafa-Bodden $924,500 in compensatory damages.

Ms. Jafa-Bodden filed suit in June 2013, alleging that
Mr. Choudhury sexually harassed her and wrongfully terminated her
after she began to investigate claims he had raped one of his yoga
students.  Other women have come forward with rape and harassment
allegations; most of those cases are pending, while one was
reportedly settled.

In court, Mr. Choudhury denied allegations of sexual assault and
testified that Ms. Jafa-Bodden was terminated because she was not
authorized to practice law in the U.S., according to the Los
Angeles Times.

"We think the jury's verdict is a tremendous vindication of all of
Ms. Bodden's efforts to stop this abusive and harassing conduct
not just towards herself but to numerous other women who have
attempted to stand up to Bikram Choudhury," said Carla Minnard,
one of Ms. Jafa-Bodden's attorneys, in a statement.
Mark T. Quigley also represented Ms. Jafa-Bodden.

Robert Tafoya, Mr. Choudhury's attorney, did not immediately
respond for comment.


BILL COSBY: Judge Dismisses Pittsburgh Woman's Civil Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
federal judge has tossed a Pittsburgh woman's civil suit against
Bill Cosby, finding that statements the comedian made refuting
rape allegations against him fell short of defamation.

U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab of the Western District of
Pennsylvania granted Cosby's motion seeking to dismiss plaintiff
Renita Hill's case against him.  Ms. Hill had claimed statements
Cosby, his lawyer and his wife made to the media calling her
sexual abuse allegations absurd had constituted defamation, false
light and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Judge Schwab, however, said some of the statements were "pure
opinion" and "a far cry" from defamation.

"Pennsylvania law requires that defendant's words have the general
tendency to cause harm to plaintiff's reputation.  It is not
sufficient if the words are merely embarrassing or annoying to
plaintiff," Judge Schwab said.

Ms. Hill filed suit against Mr. Cosby in the Allegheny County
Court of Common Pleas in October, alleging that, between 1983 and
1987, he repeatedly drugged and sexually assaulted her.  Ms. Hill
had been an aspiring actress and model, according to the
complaint, and the assaults began when she was 16 years old.
The case was since removed to federal court.

According to the complaint, Ms. Hill had given an interview about
the alleged abuse in November 2014, and Mr. Cosby's attorney
responded with a denial statement saying the various accusations
against Cosby by numerous women "escalated far past the point of
absurdity."

The complaint also noted statements that Mr. Cosby and his wife,
Camille Cosby, made indicating that Hill was lying.

Ms. Hill's alleged damages include mental anguish, depression,
anxiety, humiliation and loss of enjoyment of life.

Mr. Cosby filed a reply in early January, contending Ms. Hill's
defamation claim was not actionable, and the allegedly defamatory
statements by him and his representatives did not constitute
outrageous conduct warranting a claim of intentional infliction of
emotional distress.

"Plaintiff fails to show how general denials of sexual assault or
admonishment of hecklers constitute defamation or portrayal of
someone in a false light," the brief said.

Judge Schwab's decision tossed all of Ms. Hill's claims, and also
declined to give her an opportunity to submit an amended complaint
to the court.

"The court is confident that if counsel for plaintiff had
additional complained-of statements, those additional statements
would have been made part of the complaint," Judge Schwab said.
"Given the state of the law on this . . . any amendment would be
futile."

Ms. Hill's attorney, George M. Kontos of Kontos and Mengine Law
Group, said he plans to appeal the decision.


BREG INC: Court Won't Allow New Named Plaintiffs in "Lucas"
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California denied Plaintiffs' motion
for leave to amend and file a Fourth Amended Complaint (FAC) in
the case captioned, STACEY LUCAS, an individual; TAREK ALBABA, an
individual; RIGOBERTO VINDIOLA, an individual; DAVID GAMMA, an
individual; SARAH FISHER, an individual, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiffs, v. BREG,
INC., a California corporation; GARY LOSSE, an individual; MARK
HOWARD, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-258-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Stacey Lucas filed the putative class action on June 13,
2011, in the Superior Court of California, alleging, inter alia,
claims of false advertising and misrepresentation in violation of
California consumer protection laws. The gravamen of the complaint
is that Defendant Breg, a California corporation that manufactures
and sells the Polar Care 500 (PC 500) cold therapy device, engaged
in a deliberately deceptive advertising campaign to conceal unsafe
and defective aspects of the PC 500 from consumers and others. In
particular, Plaintiffs alleged that Breg represented to consumers,
physicians, and others that the PC 500 was safe for continuous use
between 45 and 55 degrees Fahrenheit, and that it was an effective
remedy for orthopedic injury, even though the company knew that
neither claim was true or accurate. On February 6, 2015, the case
was removed from state court to this Court pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d).

The complaint was amended three times while in state court. On
March 20, 2012, Plaintiff Lucas filed a First Amended Complaint
adding a cause of action for breach of express warranty. On
October 17, 2014, Plaintiff Lucas added Tarek Albaba, David Gamma,
and Rigoberto Vindiola as named plaintiffs in a Second Amended
Complaint that also asserted claims on behalf of a putative
nationwide class of consumers. Then, on December 16, 2014,
Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint adding Sarah Fisher as
a named plaintiff and class representative.

In its recent request, Plaintiffs sought leave to add three
additional named plaintiffs to the complaint: Anna Myatt, Timothy
Carroll, and Paula Hamma. Plaintiffs asserted that they did not
know of Myatt's desire to be added as a class representative until
late January 2015 -- that is, one month after Plaintiffs filed
their Third Amended Complaint -- and did not learn of Carroll and
Hamma's desire to be a class representative until after Magistrate
Judge Nita Stormes issued her July 10, 2015 Scheduling Order.

Defendants opposed primarily on the grounds that adding three
class representatives at the stage of the litigation would result
in undue prejudice.

In her Order dated January 11, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/vhoE0ofrom Leagle.com, Judge Bashant concluded that
Plaintiffs have not adequately refuted, that granting leave to add
three named plaintiffs to the complaint at the stage of discovery
and deposition preparation would require Defendants to compromise
important aspects of their defense strategy. The combination of
delay, undue prejudice, and history of previous amendments
overcame the usual presumption favoring leave to amend, and
justifies denial of the request.

Plaintiffs are represented by Chase Stern, Morris, Esq. --
morris@morrissullivanlaw.com -- William A Lemkul, Esq. --
lemkul@morrissullivanlaw.com -- MORRIS & SULLIVAN LLP

          - and -

     Marc O. Stern, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MARC O STERN
     8070 La Jolla Shores Dr # 519
     La Jolla, CA 92037
     Tel: (858)677-9200

Defendant are represented by David Jeffrey Duke, Esq. --
david.duke@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Eden Darrell, Esq. --
eden.darrell@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Marion V. Mauch, Esq. --
marion.mauch@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Mary Novacheck, Esq. --
mary.novacheck@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Paul Gerard Cereghini, Esq.
-- paul.cereghini@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Randall L. Christian,
Esq. -- randall.christian@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Susan Elizabeth
Burnett, Esq. -- susan.burnett@bowmanandbrooke.com -- BOWMAN AND
BROOKE LLP


BRIGHAM YOUNG: Sued Over Discrimination of Ex-Mormons, Gays
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Brigham Young University has been hit with a complaint claiming
that the law school's expulsion of ex-Mormons violates the
American Bar Association's nondiscrimination rules.

A group of university alumni called FreeBYU filed the complaint
with the ABA's Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the
Bar against Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School
alleging that the university's policy of kicking out students who
leave the Mormon faith runs afoul of its rules meant to protect
against religious discrimination.

FreeBYU has also asked the ABA to examine whether the university
honor code, which bans homosexual behavior, violates the
accreditor's protections of gay, lesbian and transgender students.

The group formed in 2013 to push university administrators to end
the policy of banning ex-Mormons from campus.  It began raising
similar criticisms of the honor code's impact on homosexual
students in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 decision
legalizing same-sex marriage, spokesman Brad Levine said.

Mary Hoagland, the law school's assistant dean for external
relations, said in a prepared statement that the school has
provided additional information to the ABA in response to
FreeBYU's complaint.  "We have been accredited by the ABA since
1974 and are confident that we continue to meet ABA standards,"
Ms. Hoagland said.

Barry Currier, the ABA's managing director of accreditation and
legal education, on Jan. 26 acknowledged receipt of FreeBYU's
complaint but declined to comment on the status of the
investigation, citing ABA policy.  "It's not going to be resolved
in the very near future," Mr. Currier said, adding that the ABA
committees tasked with reviewing law school accreditation matters
meet infrequently.  If the law school is found to have violated
its standards, the ABA will issue a public sanction, Currier said.

The university is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints.  Non-Mormons are allowed to attend -- paying higher
tuition than Mormons -- but students who leave the Mormon faith
can be expelled.

FreeBYU wants ex-Mormons to be treated the same way as students of
other faiths, said Levin, who graduated from the university with a
duel degree in law and public administration in 2011.

Homosexual students or those leaving the LDS church now have to
hide their identities and feelings from their friends, bishops (as
leaders of local Mormon congregations are known) and even
roommates lest they risk losing on-campus jobs, housing and
student status, Levin said.

"I don't hear any acknowledgement from the administrators of the
impact these policies have on students," Mr. Levin said.  "They
experience depression, isolation, stress and anxiety because they
feel like they can't be themselves. This is not a victimless
policy."

Mr. Levin said he was nearly expelled in his final year at BYU
after writing a book on the legality of same-sex marriage.  Though
he supports same-sex marriage, Levin, who is heterosexual, said he
was pressured to hide his position in order to remain on campus
and collect his diploma.  "I didn't expect for my academic freedom
to be so limited," said Mr. Levin, who describes himself as a
"lapsed Mormon."

The ABA's nondiscrimination standard prohibits law schools from
taking any actions that preclude the admission or retention of
students on the basis of "race, color, religion, national origin,
gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability."  It is currently
weighing the addition of "gender identity" to that list.

The existing standard allows religiously affiliated law schools to
give preference to applicants and faculty of that faith, though
they cannot use religion as grounds to shut out applicants.
Religious law schools are given some flexibility under the
standards, however.  A school affiliated with a religion that
opposes homosexuality is not required to support LGBT
organizations, for example.

The ABA is also considering modifying its diversity and inclusion
standards to state that schools must provide "an environment in
which diversity and inclusion are welcomed and embraced."


BRITAX CHILD: Recalls B-Ready Strollers Due to Choking Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Britax Child Safety Inc., of Fort Mill, S.C., announced a
voluntary recall of about 49,000 Britax B-Ready strollers in the
U.S. (in addition, 11,000 were sold in Canada). Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The foam padding on the stroller's arm bar can come off in
fragments if the child bites the arm bar, posing a choking hazard.

This recall involves Britax B-Ready strollers and B-Ready
replacement top seats that were sold separately. The B-Ready
strollers have a silver or black frame with a solid-colored top
seat in a variety of colors. The Britax logo is on the stroller's
side hinges and foot rest. B-Ready is printed on the sides of the
stroller frame.  The stroller's model number and date of
manufacture are printed on a label on the stroller's frame between
the front wheels or on the inside frame that connects to the back
right wheel. The replacement top seats were sold separately in a
variety of colors and fit into the stroller's frame. The
replacement top seat's model number and date of manufacture are
printed on a black label on the right side tube above the adjuster
button, under the fabric cover.

Model numbers and dates of manufacture included in this recall are
as follows:

  Britax Strollers and      Model Numbers   Dates of Manufacture
  Replacement Top Seats     -------------   (YYYY/MM/DD)
  ---------------------                     --------------------
  B-Ready Strollers         U281767,        April 1, 2010
                            U281768,        (2010/04/01)
                            U281771,        through
                            U281772,        Dec. 31, 2012
                            U281773,        (2012/12/31)
                            U281774,
                            U281784,
                            U281792,
                            U281793,
                            U281794,
                            U281795,
                            U281796,
                            U281797
  B-Ready replacement top   S845600,
  seats                     S845700,
                            S845800,
                            S845900,
                            S855000,
                            S855100,
                            S856600,
                            S870200,
                            S870300,
                            S870600

Britax has received 117 reports of children biting the arm bar
foam padding, including five reports of children choking or
gagging on foam fragments.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/9pg8AK

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Babies R Us, buybuy Baby, Target and other stores nationwide and
online at Amazon.com, Diapers.com and other websites from April
2010 through January 2016 for about $500 for the stroller. The
replacement top seats were sold by Britax from April 2010 through
January 2016 for about $150.

Consumers should immediately remove the arm bar from recalled
strollers and replacement top seats and contact Britax for a free
black, zippered arm bar cover and a warning label to apply to the
strollers and replacement top seats. Consumers can continue to use
their strollers without the arm bar attached.


BRITAX CHILD: Recalls Infant Car Seats and Travel Systems
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Britax Child Safety Inc., of Fort Mill, S.C., announced a
voluntary recall of about 71,000 units of Britax B-Safe 35 and B-
Safe 35 Elite infant car seats and travel systems (in addition
3,900 units were sold in Canada and 990 units in Mexico).
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The car seat carry handle can crack and break allowing the seat to
fall unexpectedly, posing a risk of injury to the infant.

This recall involves Britax B-Safe 35 and B-Safe 35 Elite infant
car seat and travel systems manufactured between October 1, 2014
and July 1, 2015. The product can be used as a rear-facing only
car seat and as an infant carrier. The car seat/carriers have a
canopy, black shell and base, and were sold in a variety of
colors. The Britax logo is printed on both sides of the seat shell
and on the carry handle grip. Model numbers and the date of
manufacture (DOM) are printed on a label located at the back of
the infant car seat/carrier shell.
Models included in the recall are:

  Britax Infant Car          Model Numbers   Dates of Manufacture
  Seats and Travel System    -------------   (YYYY/MM/DD)
  -----------------------                    --------------------
  B-Safe 35                  E9LU65M,        October 1, 2014
                             E9LU65P,        (2014/10/01)
                             E9LU63F,        through
                             E9LU66R,        July 1, 2015
                             E9LS63F,        (2015/07/01)
                             EXLU65M
  B-Safe 35 Elite            E9LS55T,
                             E9LS56P,
                             E9LS55U,
                             E9LS66C,
                             E9LS65U
  B-Safe 35 Travel System    S914900,
                             S915400,
                             S915200,
                             S921900,
                             S01635200

Britax has received 74 reports of handles developing fractures,
cracks and/or breaking while in use, including one report of an
infant who received a bump on the head when the carrier fell to
the ground.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S. and sold at Babies
R Us, buybuy BABY, Target and other stores nationwide and online
at Amazon.com, Diapers.com and other online retailers from
November 2014 to January 2016 for between $210 and $250.


BROOKLINE, MA: Police Officers Join Lawsuit Over Racism
-------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Ishkanian, writing for Boston Globe, reports that two
Brookline police officers joined a federal class-action suit with
six other town employees and residents who say they have been
damaged by the town's "longstanding and well-established history"
of racism.

The 85-page complaint filed in US District Court in Boston alleges
a history of racial discrimination and retaliation, and a culture
of white privilege that the plaintiffs say permeates every aspect
of town government.

The suit, filed by local attorney Brooks A. Ames, seeks financial
compensation and damages, establishment of a reparation fund, and
striking down the town's Diversity, Inclusion, and Community
Relations Commission bylaw.

"This is not just something between the four walls of a
courtroom," Ames told a crowd of about 75 supporters who gathered
in the lobby of Town Hall. "This is something that's big, it's
national, it's happening everywhere. Brookline has a chance to
lead, and I think it will."

Police Officers Prentice Pilot and Estifanos Zerai-Misgun joined
in a suit filed in December on behalf of firefighter Gerald
Alston, along with Brookline residents Cruz Sanabria, Juana Baez,
Rogelio Rodas, and Demetrius Oviedo, and sanitation division
employee Deon Fincher, who is currently out on disability.

Named as defendants are the town, the Board of Selectmen, and
several town officials.

"We care very much about Officers Pilot and Zerai-Misgun, and
perhaps this has not been well communicated," Neil Wishinsky,
selectmen chairman, said in a statement.  "We care about their
safety. We care about their dignity and want them to receive the
respect they deserve at all times. They clearly do not feel that
they have been listened to and we want to address it."

The complaint comes nearly six weeks after Pilot and Zerai-Misgun
went public with their story of ingrained racism within the
Brookline Police Department which they say has left them afraid
for their safety on the job. They have not worked since early
December.

Police Chief Daniel O'Leary appealed to the officers to meet with
him and a mediator to search for a way they can return to work,
but they rejected his request.

"We still hope to talk to them, and believe that any progress
[starts] there," Wishinsky said, adding that town officials are
working on alternative approaches "to create a path forward." They
are also reviewing the claims of the other plaintiffs, he said.

The suit details the case of Alston, a black firefighter who says
he has been ostracized from the Fire Department after reporting
that a superior, Lieutenant Paul Pender, left a message on his
answering machine in 2010 that contained a vulgar racial epithet.

"Brookline knowingly destroyed Mr. Alston's career, health, and
reputation to protect Lt. Pender and the town," the suit states.

The suit also alleges that three town residents were innocent
victims of police racial and ethnic profiling.

Baez, who spoke tearfully at a Board of Selectmen's meeting, was
"harassed, intimidated, and falsely charged with disorderly
conduct," after calling police in August for help dealing with a
belligerent tow truck driver illegally towing her boyfriend's car.

Baez, who is from the Dominican Republic and has lived in
Brookline for seven years, says police immediately took the side
of the white tow-truck driver, ordering her boyfriend to stop
speaking Spanish and demanding to see her passport, aggressively
questioning whether it was legal.

The charges against Baez were dropped, but she suffered "severe
emotional distress" because of the incident. "She is now afraid to
have any interaction with the police," the suit states.

The suit also details the case of Fincher, a black employee of the
town's sanitation division who allegedly was held to higher
standards than his white colleagues, and Oviedo, a resident
allegedly passed over for a spot on the Fire Department for a
white man with a lower civil service score.

The suit also sheds more light on the situation within the Police
Department that prompted Pilot and Zerai-Misgun to go public with
their fears.

Zerai-Misgun, who in 2014 had the best record of arrests in the
department, according to the suit, went to O'Leary along with
Pilot and a third black officer to report discriminatory treatment
in the department.

According to the suit, O'Leary promised he would address the
officers' concerns, and he did not.

In addition, before the meeting Zerai-Misgun had been promised an
anti-crime detective position on the day shift, but after the
meeting the chief eliminated the position, according to the suit.

This past December, another incident occurred which the men
reported to O'Leary. This time, Pilot pulled his cruiser alongside
a sergeant who was working a detail. He rolled down his window to
say hello and was greeted with a crude remark by the sergeant, who
used a racial epithet and told him to do "jumping jacks and I'll
put in a good word for you."

Hundred of residents have attended meetings of the Board of
Selectmen in support of the officers, and students at Brookline
High School held a demonstration after school calling for town
officials to address the issue.


CALIFORNIA: Class Action Status Granted in Fire Fee Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Eric Vodden, writing for Appeal Democrat, reports that state
residents paying an annual CalFire fire protection fee, including
many in the Yuba County foothills, have been granted class action
status in a Sacramento County lawsuit challenging the fee.

A Sacramento Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the Howard
Jarvis Taxpayers Association's lawsuit claiming the $150-a-year
fee is illegal. The ruling means that anybody paying the fee will
be included as class action defendants, though they will have the
choice to opt out.

Area Assemblyman James Gallagher, R-Plumas Lake, an opponent of
the fee, praised the judge's ruling. He said it ensures those
paying the fee will be eligible for a refund if the Howard Jarvis
group prevails in its suit.

"I will continue to fight against this fee because it is an
illegal tax," Gallagher said in a statement.

The suit claims the fee is an illegal tax because it wasn't
approved by a two-thirds majority of the Legislature.  Approved by
legislators in 2011 to offset the costs of providing fire
protection to people who live far from services, it affects more
than 700,000 homeowners within CalFire protection areas. Billing
started in 2012.

Yuba County Supervisor Randy Fletcher, who represents the
foothills, said one of the biggest local objections is that
property owners are not seeing that they are getting anything for
the fee.

Another objection has been that community fire departments in the
foothills already have prevention programs. CalFire fire
prevention efforts would be a duplication of what is already being
done, Fletcher said.

"If you have a really sound plan for the expenditure and for the
good use of it, I think you could sell the product," Fletcher
said. "But for the public, it's just another tax and we don't get
anything out of it."

Property owners wanting to protest their bill can file a petition
for redetermination within 30 days of the billing date.
Information on how to appeal can be obtained at
www.calfirefee.com/appeal.

Gallagher said he will co-author state legislation to extend to 60
days the length of time property owners have to pay or dispute the
tax.


CAMPBELL-EWALD: Class Action 'Pick Off' Strategy Rejected
---------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that defendants
can no longer defeat class actions by offering to pay off the lead
plaintiff, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.

Even if the lead plaintiff rejects a defendant's offer of
everything he asked for, the plaintiff's case -- and the class
action he seeks to represent -- remain alive, Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg wrote Jan. 20 for the six member majority.

"In short, with no settlement offer still operative, the parties
remained adverse; both retained the same stake in the litigation
they had at the outset," Ginsburg said. After the plaintiff
rejected the settlement offer, he "remained emptyhanded."

Plaintiffs' advocate Arthur H. Bryant hailed the court's ruling
Jan. 20 but said that, given language by the ruling's dissenters,
defendants are expected to pursue "variations on this gambit."

But such variations will also likely be defeated, he predicted.

"Fundamentally, everyone knows if an offer is not accepted,
there's no agreement, and we learn in first-year contracts class
that one side can't wipe out a case on its own," Bryant told
Bloomberg BNA Jan. 20. "The decision should put this line of
attack to bed, but given the defendants' prior activities, I will
be astonished if it does."

Bryant is chairman of the public interest firm Public Justice in
Oakland, Calif., which filed an amicus brief on behalf of the
plaintiff.

As if on cue, defense attorney David Almeida responded that the
court "certainly left the defense bar significant strategy to chew
on going forward."

"The most interesting -- and likely important -- takeaway from the
majority's opinion is what it did not address: the situation where
a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual
claim in an account payable to the plaintiff," Almeida told
Bloomberg BNA in a Jan. 20 e-mail.

A dissent by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. "makes abundantly
clear that such a scenario is very much available to defendants
going forward," Almeida said. Almeida is a partner in Sheppard,
Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP's Chicago office who specializes in
consumer class actions.

Genesis Healthcare Dissent Adopted

The majority adopted the reasoning from a 2013 dissent by Justice
Elena Kagan in a decision involving a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133
S. Ct. 1523 (2013) (14 CLASS 477, 4/26/13).

The majority in that case assumed, without deciding, that an
unaccepted offer that completely satisfied a claim would moot an
individual plaintiff's claim. The majority then decided that when
an individual claim is moot, a collective action claim brought
under the FLSA is also moot.

But Kagan, joined by three justices in dissent, said that an
unaccepted offer of judgment can't moot a plaintiff's individual
claims because that offer is a legal nullity with no operative
effect.

Here, the court embraced Kagan's analysis, noting that every court
of appeals that has considered the issue since Genesis Healthcare
has also done so.

Fifth Vote, and a Sixth!

The big question in this case was whether Kagan's dissent would
find a fifth vote.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is often the swing vote in close
cases, provided it.

Justice Clarence Thomas also concurred in the judgment but wrote
separately, saying the majority "does not advance a sound basis
for this conclusion."

Instead, he based his ruling on the common-law history of tenders,
under which "a mere offer of the sum owed is insufficient to
eliminate a court's jurisdiction to decide the case to which the
offer related."

Show Me the Money

Roberts' dissent made a similar, but less extreme, argument.

He said an offer, rather than full tender, should be enough to
moot the plaintiff's claim. "It would be mere pettifoggery to
argue that Campbell might not make good on" its promise to the
plaintiff of prompt payment.

But to avoid any uncertainty, Roberts suggested defendants deposit
a certified check in the settlement offer amount with the trial
court.

"The majority does not say that payment of complete relief leads
to the same result" as a mere offer, he said.

Defense attorney Almeida sees Roberts' words as a call to action.

"I anticipate deposits of cash to be made with courts across the
country, especially in the statutory class actions where, as Gomez
was here, plaintiffs are entitled to $1,500 at most, but are using
the class mechanism to extort eight-figure settlements," he said.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the
dissent.

Alito wrote separately to say an offer is enough for the case to
be dismissed as moot, as long as it is "absolutely clear" that the
defendant will make good on its promise.

Navy Recruitment Ads

Jose Gomez brought a class complaint against Campbell-Ewald Co.
after the marketing company sent him U.S. Navy recruitment text
messages that allegedly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. Section  227.

Campbell-Ewald offered Gomez $1,503 -- the value of his claim
under the TCPA. Gomez rejected the offer.

Campbell-Ewald moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing
that its offer of complete relief mooted both Gomez's individual
and class claims. The district court denied the motion.

The district court later granted summary judgment to Campbell-
Ewald on the basis of derivative sovereign immunity. The court
said the defendant couldn't be held liable for an alleged TCPA
violation for which the Navy itself couldn't be held liable.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the case wasn't mooted by
the defendant's offer. It also reversed the district court's
ruling on sovereign immunity.

The Supreme Court, in addition to upholding the Ninth Circuit's
no-mootness ruling, also rejected the defendant's sovereign
immunity argument.

It found that while government contractors may deserve certain
immunity, that immunity is qualified and may be overcome if the
defendant knew or should have known that his conduct violated a
clearly established right.

Jonathan F. Mitchell of Stanford University in Stanford, Calif.,
argued for Gomez.

Gregory G. Garre of Latham & Watkins LLP in Washington argued for
Campbell-Ewald.

Anthony A. Yang, assistant to the solicitor general, argued for
the government in support of the plaintiffs.


CARRIER IQ: Settles Privacy Class Action for $9 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a privacy class
action targeting mobile handset makers over built-in tracking
software has settled for what amounts to pennies per class member.

Plaintiffs lawyers at Pearson, Simon & Warshaw and Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro outlined the $9 million settlement in court papers
filed on Jan. 22.  The proposed deal, which would resolve claims
brought on behalf of about 79 million consumers, is subject to
approval from U.S. District Judge Edward Chen.

The deal, which allots roughly 11 cents per class member, is also
unlikely to yield much of a payday for the plaintiffs lawyers who
pursued claims against software maker Carrier IQ Inc. and phone
makers including HTC America, LG Electronics USA, Huawei Devices
USA and Samsung Telecommunications America.  In a declaration
filed alongside the settlement papers, one plaintiff lawyer wrote
that the maximum fee request of $2.25 million is less than the
hourly billings for work performed on the case.

The defendants were hit with more than 70 lawsuits across the
country after a 25-year-old programmer posted a video online in
2011 seeming to show how Carrier IQ software surreptitiously
logged keystrokes and encrypted web searches.  Plaintiffs claimed
that the defendants tracked users' private data without consent,
violating state and federal privacy laws, including the Federal
Wiretap Act which allows for statutory damages of up to $10,000
per violation.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated the cases before Chen in the Northern District of
California in 2012.

David Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and
the former director of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of
Consumer Protection, on Jan. 25 alled the deal a "nuisance-value
settlement."  However, Mr. Vladeck said that it was hard to
evaluate whether it was fair or not without knowing exactly what
Carrier IQ and the handset makers "were doing with this
information."

"This was really, really coercive spyware," Mr. Vladeck said.
"Everybody agreed that this software, once people thought about
it, wasn't a good idea."

Judge Chen dismissed the bulk of the claims against mobile handset
makers last year, finding that plaintiffs failed to allege that
any handset maker defendant besides HTC ever received customer
text messages or Internet searches.  Judge Chen found that even
HTC, which had received text messages through an error reporting
tool, hadn't done so intentionally as required to prove a
violation of the Wiretap Act.

Carrier IQ, which is represented in the litigation by Fenwick &
West, originally agreed to settlement terms after the parties'
first all-day mediation session in November 2014 with former U.S.
Magistrate Judge James Larson.  After four more sessions over the
past year, the handset defendants also agreed to the settlement
outlined on Jan. 22.  The line-up of defense firms representing
the handset makers includes Munger, Tolles & Olson for HTC;
Covington & Burling for Huawei; Greenberg Traurig for LG
Electronics; and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom for Samsung.
Just who pays what isn't lined out in the papers.
The settlement is structured in a way that could lead to a
significant payout to three cy pres recipients, the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Center for Democracy and
Technology, and CyLab Usable Privacy and Security Laboratory at
Carnegie Mellon University.  If enough class members make claims
to drive the average payout below about $4 per person, the entire
settlement fund is set to be divided equally among the three
organizations.

Venkat Balasubramani, a privacy lawyer who isn't involved in the
Carrier IQ case, said that such cy pres settlements have recently
been drawing scrutiny from the courts.  But he said that judges
still tend to sign off on such settlements in instances such as
this one where it's hard to determine what harm was done and by
whom.

Pearson Simon's Daniel Warshaw and Hagens Berman's Steve Berman
didn't immediately respond to phone messages on Jan. 25.

The plaintiffs lawyers wrote that they'll cap their fees at 25
percent of the settlement fund, or $2.25 million.  In a
declaration filed alongside the settlement papers, Mr. Warshaw
wrote the proposed fees amount to a negative lodestar multiplier
on the hourly rate for the work performed on the case.


CHAR-BROIL LLC: Plaintiffs Could Have Tough Road Ahead, Prof Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Wilcoxen, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Dr.
Timothy Kaye, a professor of law at Stetson University, says a
class action lawsuit over faulty ignition systems on gas grills
presents a claim that may be difficult for plaintiffs to prove.

Brian Zinn, of Florida, has filed a suit against W.C. Bradley Co.
and Char-Broil LLC in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, alleging that igniter systems in certain
models of gas grills manufactured by the company are liable to
fail and need replaced.

The suit also claims that manufacturer instructions provided with
the grills prescribe, in the case of igniter system failure, an
alternative manual lighting method that exposes users to serious
burn injury. The suit seeks damages in excess of $5 million.

Kaye said the suit involves two distinct claims.

"One is for economic loss because the igniter module allegedly
fails and needs replacing. The other is for physical danger
allegedly posed by following the alternative lighting
instructions," he said.

Kaye said the first claim will depend on the plaintiffs being able
to demonstrate that the grills in question have a genuine,
systemic defect that justifies a class action suit. However, Kaye
said the merits and likelihood of success of the second claim are
more difficult to assess.

"This isn't a typical products liability case, where the design of
the product is alleged to pose a risk. Here the design is not
being challenged; it's the instructions that are allegedly
hazardous," Kaye said.

Kaye said that if the plaintiffs successfully argue the suit's
first claim of regular ignition system failure, it may in fact
place an additional burden on the plaintiffs to justify the suit's
second claim that users are in danger of injury when following the
manufacturer's instructions for manually lighting the grills.

"The central issue here is whether anyone has actually been
injured when following those instructions," Kaye said.

"If not, it's difficult to see how they can justify the claim that
they pose a serious burn hazard  --  especially if the igniters
are failing and many users therefore resort to this alternative
lighting method.

"In addition, it's not clear from the claim to what extent any of
the alleged risk is greater than the risk normally inherent in
lighting a fire."


CHICAGO, IL: Must Defend Suit over Impounded Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------
Brandon Fuller and Savannah Washington were joint owners of a 2004
Pontiac Grand Prix, and Manuel Barrios is the registered owner of
a 2012 Honda Accord. In 2014, the plaintiffs' paths converged with
municipal and state laws governing the impoundment of vehicles in
relation to certain drug offenses. Plaintiffs allege that the City
of Chicago deprived them of their vehicles, which were impounded
pursuant to City of Chicago ordinances based on the alleged
commission of offenses related to drug use, without providing
required procedural due process. Specifically, according to the
plaintiffs, the City has a custom, policy, and practice of
attempting to coerce lienholders with an interest in certain
impounded vehicles to repossess those vehicles without notifying
the vehicles' owners that it is pressuring the lienholders.

On behalf of themselves and a putative class, the plaintiffs
allege that the defendants violated their federal due process
rights (Count I). The plaintiffs also bring a class action due
process claim against City police officer Mark Jaeger in his
individual capacity (Count II). In addition, to the extent that
the court finds Officer Jaeger liable for compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs (Count III), the plaintiffs request
indemnification from the City pursuant to 745 Ill.

The City and Jaeger seek to dismiss the claims against them
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that
the plaintiffs lack standing and, alternatively, that the
plaintiffs' claims fail on the merits. Officer Jaeger also argues
that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 14, 2016
available at http://is.gd/touifpfrom Leagle.com, District Judge
Joan B. Gottschall found that Barrios has sufficiently alleged the
causation element of standing against the City. Fuller's
allegations about the impoundment of his second car are
sufficient; the court will not require the plaintiffs to present
admissible evidence at the motion to dismiss stage in response to
the defendants' challenge to Fuller's allegations supporting
standing. The defendants' emphasis on illegal activity is not
persuasive. As they have not provided an alternative reason to
reject Barrios' standing to request injunctive relief, their
motion to dismiss that claim is denied.

The Court set for case status conference on March 2, 2016 at 9:30
a.m.

The case is, MANUEL BARRIOS, BRANDON FULLER, and SAVANNAH
WASHINGTON, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, GARRY
McCARTHY, and MARK JAEGER, Defendants, Case No. 15 C 2648 (N.D.
Ill.).

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Paul J. Lytle, Esq.
     LYTLE & MILAN, LLC
     1142 W Madison St #306
     Chicago, IL 60607
     Tel: (312)690-4111

          - and -

     Edward Roy Moor, Esq.
     MOOR LAW OFFICE, P.C.
     One North LaSalle St., Suite 600
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 726-6207

Defendants are represented by:

     Grant Erwin Ullrich, Esq.
     CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF LAW
     30 North LA Salle Street #700
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 744-8791


CHICAGO, IL: Appellate Court Reverses Class Cert. in Byer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Michael B. Hyman of the Appellate Court of Illinois
reversed the district court's decision certifying a class in the
case captioned, BYER CLINIC AND CHIROPRACTIC, LTD., Individually
and as the Representative of a Class of Similarly Situated
Persons, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL KAPRAUN, Defendant-
Appellant, (Eniva USA, Inc.; Eniva International, Inc.; Eniva-IC
Disc, Inc.; Kapraun, P.C.; and John Does 1-10, Defendants), Case
No. 1-14-3733 (Ill. App.).

Plaintiff Byer Clinic & Chiropractic, Ltd. (Clinic), of Arlington
Heights, IL, is the chiropractic practice of Carl F. Byer (Byer).
The claims against all of the original defendants were dismissed
following their filing for bankruptcy, leaving only a Montrose, MI
chiropractor, Michael Kapraun, as the defendant. Kapraun was
potentially liable for damages of in excess of $6 million before
trebling. The Clinic alleges that in March and September 2006 it
and other businesses received unsolicited facsimile transmissions
from Kapraun about an anti-aging vitamin product that violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sec.
227(b)(1)(C)(2012)).

Clinic seeks to certify a class. The primary issue involves the
Clinic's adequacy as the class representative, with the focus
almost exclusively on Byer's deposition testimony. Regarding the
Clinic's adequacy, Kapraun maintains that a fair reading of Byer's
deposition establishes a conspicuous paucity of knowledge
concerning the case and passivity regarding its prosecution
thereby making the Clinic unfit to serve as the class
representative. Despite reservations as to plaintiff's adequacy,
certified a class with plaintiff as its representative.

On appeal, Kapraun argues that the Clinic failed to support its
claim of adequacy with evidence. The record before the Court
contains evidentiary material including Byer's deposition,
defendant's deposition, and plaintiff's expert report, from which
to determine whether the Clinic met its burden.

In the Opinion dated January 19, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/D4xoX0from Leagle.com, Judge Hyman found the trial
court abused its discretion in certifying the Clinic as the class
representative. Because defendant's allegedly wrongful act in
March 2006 is distinct from its second allegedly wrongful act in
September 2006, the trial court erred in certifying a class with
plaintiff representing both groups of allegedly aggrieved parties.


CITIBANK NA: "Nichols" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Nichols, and all others similarly situated v. Citibank,
N.A., Citigroup Inc., CitiMortgage, Inc., and Does 1 through 50,
Case No. BC603940 (Cal. Super., December 11, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages and penalties
under the California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate a multinational investment banking and
financial services corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      550 South Hope Street, Ste 2655
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 488-6555
      Fax: (213) 488-6554

          - and -

      Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
      HYUN LEGAL, APC
      550 South Hope St., Ste 2655
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 488-6555
      Fax: (213) 488-6554


CITIBANK NA: "McCormick" Suit Goes to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge John T. Curtin of the United States District Court
for the Western District of New York granted Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration and to stay proceedings in the case captioned,
TIMOTHY McCORMICK, Plaintiff, v. CITIBANK, NA, Defendant, Case No.
15-CV-46-JTC (W.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Timothy McCormick brought the action against Best Buy
Co., Inc. seeking actual and statutory damages for violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227,
based on allegations that Best Buy used an automated telephone
dialing system to repeatedly call plaintiff's cellular telephone,
without his prior express consent, regarding his Best Buy credit
card account.

Best Buy filed an answer with affirmative defenses, including the
defense that plaintiff's TCPA claim is subject to binding
arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause in the written
agreement governing the Best Buy credit card account, issued by
Citibank, N.A. which provided that any dispute may be resolved by
binding arbitration. Plaintiff denied receipt copy of the Citibank
Card Agreement.

In the motion, Citibank sought an order compelling arbitration of
plaintiff's TCPA claims in accordance with the arbitration clause
of the Card Agreement, and staying all other proceedings in the
action pending the outcome of arbitration. Plaintiff contended
that he should not be compelled to arbitrate his TCPA claims
against Citibank because he did not receive a copy of the Citibank
Card Agreement, and therefore did not agree or otherwise consent
to be bound by the terms of the arbitration clause.

In his Order dated January 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/j9yKC3from Leagle.com, Judge Curtin found that the
claims set forth in the complaint in the action are subject to the
arbitration clause in the applicable Card Agreement, and the
proceedings in the action must therefore be stayed pending the
outcome of arbitration.

Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Sections 3 and 4, the parties are directed to
proceed to arbitration in the manner provided for in the Card
Agreement, and all proceedings in the action are stayed until such
time as the parties have advised the court, by consent motion to
lift the stay or by other appropriate joint written submission,
that the arbitration has been completed.

Timothy McCormick is represented by:

     Seth Andrews, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH HILLER, PPLC
     6000 N Bailey Ave #1a,
     Buffalo, NY 14226
     Tel: (877)236-7366

Citibank is represented by Meghan M. Breen, Esq. --
mbreen@lemerygreisler.com -- Paul A. Levine, Esq. --
plevine@lemerygreisler.com -- Lauren S. Cousineau, Esq. --
lcousineau@lemerygreisler.com -- LEMERY GREISLER LLC


CLACKAMAS COUNTY: Motion for Protective Order Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael H. Simon of the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon granted in part Defendant's
motion for protective order limiting topics of the Rule(b)(6)
Deposition of Clackamas County in the case captioned, DAVID
UPDIKE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CLACKAMAS COUNTY, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-
00732-SI (D. Or.).

Plaintiff David Updike has been deaf his entire life. Updike
served time in Clackamas County Jail. Clackamas County corrections
employees knew that Updike was deaf but did not provide Updike
with an ASL interpreter which limit his ways of communicating with
jail staff, including medical professionals. Defendant also
repeatedly failed to provide Updike with auxiliary aids and
services for communication. The denial of these aids and services
effectively deprived Updike of the ability to speak over the
telephone with his attorney and Updike's family and the
possibility of fully using the television for recreation.

He brought the putative class action against Defendant Clackamas
County, alleging two claims: (1) discrimination in violation of
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; and (2)
discrimination in violation of Sec. 504 of the Vocational
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Updike sought to represent a class of
past and future hearing-impaired inmates.

In the motion, Defendant sought a protective order pursuant to
Rule 26(c)(1)(D) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asking
the Court to strike six and limit three of Plaintiff's 29 separate
paragraphs of designated subject matter.

In his Opinion and Order dated January 11, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/RhygYhfrom Leagle.com, Judge Simon sustained
Defendant's objections concerning paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 6, 23, and
24 and overruled Defendant's objection concerning paragraph 9.
Defendant's objections concerning paragraphs 12 and 18 are
sustained in part and overruled in part.

David Updike is represented by:

     Carl Lee Post, Esq.
     Daniel J. Snyder, Esq.
     John D. Burgess, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL SNYDER
     1000 SW Broadway
     Portland, OR 97205
     Tel: (503)241-3617

          - and -

     Debra J. Patkin, Esq.
     NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF
     8630 Fenton St #820
     Silver Spring, MD 20910
     Tel: (301)-587-1788

Clackamas County is represented by:

     Kathleen J. Hansa Rastetter, Esq.
     CLACKAMAS COUNTY COUNSEL
     2051 Kaen Rd # 460
     Oregon City, OR 97045
     Tel: (503)655-8362


CLASSIC CARPET: "Irizarry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Irizarry, and all others similarly situated v. Classic Carpet
Dyers, Inc. and Gerald Cigarran, Case No. 8:15-cv-02851 (M.D.
Fla., December 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain
declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a carpet cleaning company in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      201 N. Franklin Street, #700
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 223-5505
      Fax: (813) 257-0572
      E-mail: Medelman@forthepeople.com


COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: "Lockhart" Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Reginald Lockhart et al. v.
Columbia Sportswear Company, Case No. RIC 150504, was removed from
Riverside County of the Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Eastern Division -
Riverside). The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:15-cv-02634-ODW-PLA to the proceeding.

The Columbia Sportswear Company, an unknown business entity, is
erroneously sued as Columbia Sportswear USA Corp.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE PC
          410 West Arden Avenue Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Casey J T McCoy, Esq.
          Jonathan D Meer, Esq.
          Maya Harel, Esq.
          David Samuel Rosenberg, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          2029 Century Park East Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277 7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201 5219
          E-mail: cjtmccoy@seyfarth.com
                  jmeer@seyfarth.com
                  mharel@seyfarth.com
                  drosenberg@seyfarth.com


CONTINUUM HEALTH: Wins Summary Judgment in "Shafir" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted defendants'
motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, LEIGH SHAFIR,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. CONTINUUM HEALTH CARE PARTNERS, INC. and ST. LUKE'S-ROOSEVELT
HOSPITAL CENTER, Defendants, Case No. 12-CV-5794 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y.).

In July 2012, plaintiff Leigh Shafir (Shafir) brought this action
alleging claims for violation of the overtime pay requirements of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law
(NYLL) against her former employers, defendants Continuum Health
Partners, Inc. ("Continuum") and St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital
Center (SLR). Plaintiff asserts that defendants had a written
policy -- a policy that plaintiff alleges defendants enforced --
of docking pay for partial day absences, in violation of the
Secretary's regulations for exempt employees. According to
plaintiff, the existence and enforcement of this policy altered
the terms of compensation to require payment on an hourly, not
salaried basis.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 25, 2013, in which
she alleged that she had been "paid entirely on an hourly basis,
with her ultimate compensation determined by the number of hours
she worked in any given pay period." After Judge Miriam Goldman
Cedarbaum -- who at the time presided over this action -- granted
plaintiff another opportunity to amend, on August 20, 2013,
plaintiff filed the operative Third Amended Class Action Complaint
(Third Amended Complaint). The Third Amended Complaint asserted a
new theory of liability, which was that the salary basis test was
not met because defendants had communicated a "clear and
particularized policy to the PAs that partial day absences will
result in a dock in pay.

Defendants moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6). On October 21, 2014, Judge Cedarbaum issued a
decision converting defendants' motion to one for summary judgment
under Rule 56 in light of the parties' reliance on matters outside
the pleadings. Defendants argue that they are entitled to judgment
as a matter of law because plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine
issue of fact as to whether the salary basis test has been
satisfied.

In the Opinion and Order dated January 15, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/ANd2ynfrom Leagle.com, Judge Forrest found that
defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because
plaintiff has failed to create a genuine issue of fact as to
whether she or other similarly situated PAs fail the salary basis
test.

Leigh Shafir is represented by Christopher G. Hayes, Esq. --
chris@chayeslaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER G. HAYES, Daniel
C. Levin, Esq. -- dlevin@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN &
BERMAN

Continuum Health Care Partners, Inc. is represented by Aaron
Warshaw, Esq. -- aaron.warshaw@ogletreedeakins.com -- Maayan
Deker, Esq. -- maayan.deker@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE,
DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. & Edward Cerasia, II, Esq.
-- ed@cdemploymentlaw.com -- Alison L. Tomasco, Esq. --
alison@cdemploymentlaw.com -- CERASIA & DEL REY-CONE LLP


CORE-MARK INT'L: Faces "Upton" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Upton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Core-Mark International Inc., Case no: CGC 15-549438
(Cal. Super., County of San Francisco, December 15, 2015), alleges
that Defendants violated California wage and hour laws and unfair
competition laws.

The Defendant transports freight, materials, grocery and
convenience items to customers throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig J. Ackerman, Esq.
     ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C
     1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
     Los Angeles, CA 90035
     Phone: (310) 277-0614
     Fax: (310) 27-9635
     E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

        - and -

     Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
     MELMED LAW GROUP P.C
     1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
     Los Angeles, CA 90035
     Phone: (310) 824-3828
     Fax: (310) 962-6851
     E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com


DIRECTV LLC: Conn. Judge Sends "Ferrie" Suit to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Janet C. Hall of the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut granted the motion to dismiss
and/or motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration, and to
compel arbitration in the case captioned, JONATHAN FERRIE,
Plaintiff, v. DIRECTV, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-409 (JCH)
(D. Conn.).

Plaintiff Jonathan Ferrie brings the putative class action against
defendant DirecTV, LLC, alleging that DIRECTV violated the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices by deceiving customers about
the price of its service. Ferrie has also filed a Motion to Amend
the Complaint, in which he seeks to allege that DIRECTV violated
section 52-570d of the Connecticut General Statutes by illegally
recording a phone call between Ferrie and DIRECTV.

On June 25, 2013, Ferrie initiated a telephone call with DIRECTV,
in which he inquired about, and ultimately ordered over the
telephone, DIRECTV service. After discussing various programming
and pricing options with DIRECTV, Ferrie agreed, during the same
phone call, to "purchase programming from DIRECTV for twenty-four
consecutive months or to pay the early cancellation fee of twenty
dollars for each month of your agreement not completed."

DIRECTV claims that it mailed Ferrie, in a single envelope, hard-
copy versions of the Order Confirmation letter and the Customer
Agreement.

The arbitration provision contained in the Customer Agreement
reads as follows: "you and we agree that any legal or equitable
claim relating to this Agreement, any addendum, or your Service"
will be resolved either informally, or through arbitration.
Customer Agmt. at 9. DIRECTV asserts that Ferrie's additional
claims, which arise out of DIRECTV's recording of the telephone
call between Ferrie and DIRECTV, relates to Ferrie's DIRECTV
"Service," thereby placing these claims within the scope of the
arbitration provision.

DIRECTV argues that it sent Ferrie the Customer Agreement in
various e-mails and as a hard-copy through the regular mail and
that Ferrie "accepted the DIRECTV Customer Agreement, including
its arbitration provision, by choosing to receive DIRECTV service,
instead of rejecting the Customer Agreement by canceling his
order.

Ferrie argues that he never agreed to be bound by the Customer
Agreement, or by its arbitration provision.

In her Ruling dated January 12, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/zWwKhUfrom Leagle.com, Judge Hall concluded that it
is clear that the act of recording the telephone call can be
viewed as relating to the "digital satellite entertainment
programming and services" for which Ferrie had signed up. Because
the court cannot say with "positive assurance that the arbitration
clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the
asserted dispute," the additional claims that Ferrie seeks to
bring in the Proposed Amended Complaint would fall within the
scope of the arbitration provision and amendment of the Complaint
would be futile.

Jonathan Ferrie is represented by John Louis Cordani, Jr., Esq.
-- jlcordani@carmodylaw.com -- Damian K. Gunningsmith, Esq. & John
R. Horvack, Jr., Esq. -- CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY, LLP

DirecTV, LLC is represented by Melissa D. Ingalls, Esq. --
melissa.ingalls@kirkland.com -- Shaun Paisley, Esq. --
shaun.paisley@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Matthew Dallas
Gordon, Esq. -- mattgordon@mdgordonlaw.com -- Nicholas Norton
Ouellette, Esq. -- nouellette@mdgordonlaw.com -- MATTHEW DALLAS
GORDON LLC


DOALL CO: Faces "Stocks" Suit for FLSA, Wis. Labor Law Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sherri L. Stocks, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. DOALL Company d/b/a DGI Supply, Case no:
15-cv-1496(E.D.Wis., December 16, 2015), alleges violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the wage and hour laws of Wisconsin.

DGI Supply is a division of DoAll with responsibilities for
distribution of tools and other industrial supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nathan D. Eisenberg, Esq.
     Jill M. Hartley, Esq.
     Erin F. Medeiros, Esq.
     THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
     1555 N. River Center Drive, S. 202
     P. O. Box 12993
     Milwaukee, WI 53212
     Phone: (414) 271-4500
     Fax: (414) 271-6308
     E-mail: nde@previant.com
             jh@previant.com
             efm@previant.com


DOLE FRESH: Recalls Packaged Salad Products
-------------------------------------------
Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., is temporarily suspending operations
at its Springfield, Ohio production facility, and is voluntarily
withdrawing from the market all Dole-branded and private label
packaged salads processed at that location (see the product list
at http://www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/)Products subject to the
voluntary withdrawal are identified with a product code beginning
with the letter "A" in the upper right-hand corner of the package
(see example below), and are sold in the following states and
Canadian provinces noted below. This suspension and withdrawal is
being performed voluntarily by Dole out of an abundance of
caution, in collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration
and Centers for Disease Control. See more about this withdrawal at
www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/

No additional Dole facilities are affected. Other Dole products,
including fresh fruit, fresh vegetables and packaged salads from
Dole's other processing facilities (with product codes beginning
with the letters "B" or "N"), are not part of this voluntary
withdrawal.

Retailers and consumers who have any remaining product with an "A"
code should not consume it, and are urged to discard it. Retailer
and consumer questions about the voluntary withdrawal should be
directed to the Dole Food Company Consumer Response Center at 800-
356-3111) (hours are 8:00am-8:00pm Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday). Media inquiries should be directed to Bil Goldfield at
818-874-4647.

Retailers which carry Dole products produced in its Springfield,
OH plant (with the product code beginning with the letter "A" in
the upper right-hand corner of the package) should check their
store shelves and warehouse inventories to confirm that no
withdrawn product is available for purchase by consumers. Dole
Fresh Vegetables' customer service representatives have been
contacting retailers, and are in the process of confirming that
the withdrawn product has been removed from the supply chain.

Dole Fresh Vegetables is coordinating closely with regulatory
officials.

List of states included in the voluntary withdrawal:

Alabama
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Massachusetts
Maryland
Minnesota
Missouri
Mississippi
North Carolina
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
Wisconsin

List of provinces included in the voluntary withdrawal:
Ontario
New Brunswick
Quebec


DONAHOO'S GOLDEN: Faces "Millan" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
Marcelino Perez Millan, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated current and former employees of Donahoo's
Golden Chicken, Inc. v. Donahoo's Golden Chicken, Inc., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1through 100 inclusive, Case no:
BC 604326 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, December 15, 2015),
seeks damages for, among other things, Defendants' alleged: 1.
Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods, 2. Failure to Pay
Overtime Compensation, 3. Failure to Pay Minimum Wage, 4. Failure
to Provide Accurate Statements and Maintain Required Records, 5.
Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged or Quitting Employees,
6. Unlawful Business Practice, and 7.Failure to Permit Employee to
Inspect or Copy Records.

Donahoo's Golden Chicken is a fried chicken fast food, carry-out
and delivery restaurant located in Pomona, CA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
     RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
     22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
     Torrance, CA 90505
     Phone: (310) 961-9600
     Fax: (310)961-9094


E.I. DU PONT: Dismissal of Shareholder Derivative Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for Law.com, reports that a team from
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom led the way in securing an
appellate victory for E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., affirming
the dismissal of a shareholder derivative lawsuit that accused
current and former DuPont directors of breaching their fiduciary
duty.

Co-counsel from Cravath, Swaine & Moore; Williams & Connolly; and
O'Melveny & Myers represented company directors and the former
CEO.

The suit by DuPont shareholder Robert Zomolosky stemmed from 2009
litigation by Monsanto Co. alleging that DuPont infringed its
patents related to its Round-up Ready seeds.

In 2012, a federal jury in Missouri found that DuPont's
infringement was willful and awarded Monsanto $1 billion in
damages. (In a subsequent settlement, DuPont agreed to pay
Monsanto $1.75 billion over 10 years in exchange for a license to
use the herbicide-resistant technology.)

Mr. Zomolosky in his suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware in 2013, alleged that the DuPont board's lack
of oversight and implicit approval of illegal activity led to the
patent infringement underlying the 2009 litigation.

"The DuPont board lost sight of its mandate and its
responsibilities, and acquiesced in unlawful legal maneuvers and
deceptive public statements in conscious disregard of its
obligations," wrote Blake Bennett of Cooch & Taylor for Mr.
Zomolosky.

On Jan. 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the suit.

"The board was not presented with an explicit choice of action or
inaction, each of which carried known and attendant consequences.
Rather, Mr. Zomolosky's complaint charges the board with general
inaction, lack of oversight and acquiescence," wrote Judge Thomas
Vanaskie, joined by Senior Judge Dolores Sloviter and Judge
Marjorie Rendell.

He continued, "Despite Zomolosky's attempts to cast his complaint
in a different light, at its core, his claim is that the board
'violated a duty to be active monitors of corporate performance.'
. . . Thus, Zomolosky's complaint needed to contain allegations
'that the directors were conscious of the fact that they were not
doing their jobs.'"

Mr. Zomolosky said sanctions against DuPont over the course of its
dispute with Monsanto should have been red flags to the board.
But the panel didn't buy it.

For example, DuPont was hit with a discovery sanction, but "It
cannot be the case that this type of procedural sanction -- levied
in 2001 -- would put the board on notice of specific instances of
infringement occurring seven years later," the panel found.
"Zomolosky's reliance on the 2009 litigation is equally
unavailing.  There, the court sanctioned DuPont for 'knowingly
making factual misrepresentations concerning its subjective belief
in order to maintain its reformation claims."

The panel continued, "We cannot conclude, however, that this
sanction supports an inference that the board was aware both of
the explicit conditions contained in the 2002 licensing agreement
and of the infringement at issue.  Rather, this sanction only
speaks to DuPont's unsuccessful legal strategy."

The Skadden team included partners Allen Lanstra -
allen.lanstra@skadden.com -- Thomas Nolan --
thomas.nolan@skadden.com -- and Edward Welch and associates Kevin
Minnick and Sarah Runnells Martin.


EAN HOLDINGS: "Toering" Suit Moved to Western Dist. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Toering v. EAN Holdings LLC, Case
No. 15-00002-28514-9, was removed from KingCounty Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
(Seattle). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
02016-MJP to the proceeding.

EAN Holdings through its subsidiaries offers car rental and
vehicle leasing services. The company was founded in 1957 and is
based in Houston, Texas. The company operates as a subsidiary of
Enterprise Holdings, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J Berger, Esq.
          Martin S Garfinkel, Esq.
          SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
          810 3rd Ave, Ste 500
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 622 8000
          Facsimile: (206) 682 2305
          E-mail: berger@sgb-law.com
                  garfinkel@sgb-law.com

               - and -

          Carson Flora, Esq.
          Dmitri Iglitzin, Esq.
          SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT LLP
          18 W Mercer St, Ste 400
          Seattle, WA 98119-3971
          Telephone: (206) 285 2828
          E-mail: flora@workerlaw.com
                  Iglitzin@workerlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Harry James Franklyn Korrell, III, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE (SEA)
          1201 Third Avenue, Ste 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3045
          Telephone: (206) 622 3150
          E-mail: harrykorrell@dwt.com


ELEMENTS FINANCIAL: "Jones" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jones v. Elements Financial
Services, LLC et al., Case No. CV-15-854886, was removed from
Court of Common Pleas for County of Cuyahoga, Ohio, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-02705-CAB
to the proceeding.

The Elements Financial is privately owned investment manager. The
firm primarily provides its services to individuals. It also
caters to high net worth individuals, pension and profit sharing
plans, registered investment advisors, financial intermediaries,
multi-family offices and charitable organizations. The firm
manages separate client focused equity and fixed income portfolios
for its clients. It invests in the public equity and fixed income
markets. The firm employs fundamental and technical analysis to
make its investments. It also invests in exchange traded funds,
municipal bonds, and American Depository Receipts. The company is
based in Irvine, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Myers, Esq.
          MYERS LAW
          1660 West Second Street, Ste. 610
          Cleveland, OH 44112
          Telephone: (216) 236 8202
          Facsimile: (216) 674 1696
          E-mail: dmyers@myerslawllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Walter D. Willson, Esq.
          Kelly D. Simpkins, Esq.
          WELLS, MARBLE & HURST
          300 Concourse Blvd., Ste. 200
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 605 6944
          Facsimile: (601) 605 6901
          E-mail: wwillson@wellsmar.com

               - and -

          Carolyn M. Cappel, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Fincun, Esq.
          WESTON HURD - CLEVELAND
          1301 East Ninth Street, Ste. 1900
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 241 6602
          Facsimile: (216) 621 8369
          E-mail: ccappel@westonhurd.com
                  jfincun@westonhurd.com


EMCORE CORP: "Mirasol" Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Mirasol, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and as a representative of other aggrieved employees, v.
Emcore Corporation, a New Jersey corporation; and DOES 1 through
250, inclusive, Case no: BC 604058 (Cal. Super., County of Los
Angeles, December 15, 2015), alleges (i) Violation of California
Labor Code, (Unpaid Overtime); (ii) Violation of California Labor
Code and 512(a) (Unpaid Meal Period Premiums); (iii) Violation of
California Labor Code, and Minimum Wage Order (Failure to Pay
Minimum Wage); (iv) Violation of Labor Code (Wages Not Timely Paid
Upon Termination), (v) Violation of California Labor Code (Non-
compliant Wage Statements); (vi) Violation of California Business
Professions Code.

Emcore designs and fabricates optical technologies for the
telecommunications industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
     Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
     Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
     Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
     555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Phone: (562) 432-8933
     Fax: (562)435-1656
     E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
             brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
             laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
             ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com


EMERITUS CORP: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
Plaintiffs' motions for final approval of class action settlement
and award of attorneys' fees costs as well as incentive payments
for named plaintiff in the case captioned, ARVILLE WINANS,
Plaintiff, v. EMERITUS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-
03962-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs filed the action in Alameda County Superior Court on
July 29, 2013. Defendant Emeritus Corp. removed the action to
federal court on August 27, 2013. Plaintiffs filed the operative
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC) on April 15, 2015.
Plaintiffs are current and former residents of Defendant's
assisted living facilities. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's
representations were misleading because, in actuality, staffing
and the level of resident care was based on labor budgets and
profit objectives. Plaintiffs asserted claims under the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California Financial Elder
Abuse statute.

The parties settled the case on March 11, 2015 after participating
in mediation. On June 5, 2015, the Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement, provisionally certified a settlement
class, and directed notice to class members through mail, media
publication, and website posting. Notice was completed on June 30,
2015. The parties further agreed to slight modifications to the
amount of the overall settlement fund and the request for
attorneys' fees, so that the average minimum payment to class
members would not be affected by the expansion of the class.

In the motion, Plaintiffs Arville Winans, by and through his
guardian ad litem, and Ruby Richardson, in her capacity as trustee
to the Wilma F. Fritz Trust, move for (1) final approval of the
parties' proposed class action settlement,  and (2) an award of
attorneys' fees, costs, and named plaintiff incentive payments.

In his Order dated January 11, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/rgstGwfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gilliam, Jr. found that
the notice and notice procedures used complied with the
requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(e) and that the proposed
class action settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and
that the settlement class members received adequate notice. The
Court awards $122,722.41 in cost to class counsel, $7,500 to
Plaintiff Winans, by and through his guardian ad litem, Renee
Moulton as service awards and $3,500 to Plaintiff Richardson, as
trustee of the Wilma F. Fritz Trust.

Arville Winans is represented by Guy Burton Wallace, Esq. --
gwallace@schneiderwallace.com -- Mark T. Johnson, Esq. --
MJohnson@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP & William Timothy Needham, Esq. --
tneedham@janssenlaw.com -- JANSSEN MALLOY LLP

          - and -

     Sarah S. Colby, Esq.
     George Nobuo Kawamoto, Esq.
     STEBNER AND ASSOCIATES
     870 Market St
     San Francisco, CA 94102
     Tel: (415)362-9800

Emeritus Corporation is represented by Harriet Spaulding Posner,
Esq. -- harriet.posner@skadden.com -- Jason David Russell, Esq.
-- jason.russell@skadden.com -- Kevin James Minnick, Esq. --
kminnick@skadden.com -- Lisa Michelle Gilford, Esq. --
lisa.gilford@skadden.com -- Thomas Jerome Nolan, Esq. --
thomas.nolan@skadden.com -- SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER AND FLOM
LLP


ENERGY TRANSFER: "Amaitis" Suit Opposes Acquisition of Williams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Amaitis and Linda Amaitis, On Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, v. Alan S. Armstrong, Frank T.
Macinnis, Janice D. Stoney, Juanita H. Hinshaw, Kathleen B.
Cooper, Joseph R. Cleveland, Laura A. Sugg, John A. Hagg, Steven
W. Nance, Murray D. Smith, Ralph Izzo, Eric W. Mandelblatt, Keith
A. Meister, Energy Transfer Corp., LP, Energy Transfer Corp GP,
LLC, Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., LE GP, LLC, Energy Transfer
Equity GP, LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., and Lazard Freres & Co.,
Case No. 11809(Del. Ch., December 15, 2015), seeks to enjoin the
acquisition of The Williams Companies, Inc. by ETE and its
affiliates.

Energy Transfer Corp. has two publicly traded partnerships
operating a diversified portfolio of energy assets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
     Craig J. Springer, Esq.
     David M. Sborz, Esq.
     ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
     3801 Kennett Pike
     Building C, Suite 305
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 504-4957
     Fax: (302) 397-2681

        - and -

     Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
     Christopher R. Tillotson, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     206 Covington Street
     Madisonville, LA 70447
     Phone: (504) 455-1400
     Fax: (504) 455-1498


ENZYMEDICA INC: "Hoffman" Suit Claims False Marketing of ViraStop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harold M. Hoffman, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Enzymedica, Inc., Docket No. BER-L-10676-15 (N.J.
Super., Bergen County, December 15, 2015), alleges that
Defendants, on a nationwide basis, falsely advertised, promoted,
marketed, distributed and sold a dietary supplement in capsule
form, known ViraStop, as effective in preventing, treating and
curing viral infection.

Enzymedica, Inc. is a Florida based enzyme manufacturer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
     240 Grand Avenue
     Englewood, NJ 07631
     Phone: (201)569-0086
     E-mail: hoffman.eso@verizon.net


EQUIFAX INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Martinez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part Defendant's
motion to dismiss in the case captioned, ANTHONY FRANCIS MARTINEZ,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. EQUIFAX INC. et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-2100 (SRC)
(D.N.J.).

The defendants are Equifax Inc. and Equifax Information Services
LLC.

The case arises from a dispute between a consumer, Martinez, and a
credit reporting agency, Equifax, under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (FCRA).  The Complaint alleges that Equifax issued a credit
report with incorrect and damaging information about Plaintiff,
and refused to correct it. The Complaint asserts four claims for
FCRA violations: 1) failure to implement reasonable procedures; 2)
failure to conduct a reasonable investigation; 3) failure to
provide notice of dispute; and 4) failure to consider all relevant
information. The Complaint asserts these claims for Plaintiff, as
well as on behalf of a putative class of "all persons who disputed
an Equifax credit report and where Equifax failed to apply the
proper and appropriate FCRA procedures."

Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint against Equifax Inc.,
arguing that Equifax Inc. is not a consumer reporting agency, as
defined by the FCRA. Defendants also moved to dismiss Counts III
and IV, contending that the Complaint does not plead sufficient
facts to make these claims plausible under the pleading standards
of Iqbal and Twombly. As to Count IV, for violation of the FCRA
through failure to consider all relevant information provided by
the consumer, the Complaint pleads sufficient facts to make
plausible a claim that Defendant violated the FCRA by failing to
consider all relevant information provided by the consumer. Taking
the factual allegations as true, such a violation appears
plausible.

In his Opinion and Order dated January 19, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/Libdrtfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chesler granted the
motion to dismiss as to Count III and the motion to strike the
class allegations.  As to Equifax Inc. only, the motion to dismiss
is granted.  Plaintiff's proposed class definition fails to meet
the ascertainability requirement. The Court found Count IV claims
to be true and appears plausible. As to Count III Defendants
correctly assert that the Complaint pleads insufficient facts in
support: the Complaint has no information about even what entity
provided the allegedly incorrect information to Equifax, much less
anything about what transpired between Equifax and that
unidentified entity.

Anthony Francis Martinez is represented by Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
-- Decklund@carellabyrne.com -- James E. Cecchi, Esq. --
JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY &
AGNELLO, P.C.

Equifax Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC are represented
by Joann Needleman, Esq. -- jneedleman@clarkhill.com -- CLARK HILL
PLC


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Fesniak" Suit Moved to E.D. North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Fesniak v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-03728, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
(Western Division). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:15-cv-00672-BO to the proceeding.

Experian Information Solutions is an information services company
that provides data and analytical tools to clients around the
world. It offers credit report, credit score, credit monitoring,
and identity theft protection services to individuals; and
customer acquisition, customer management, risk management, fraud
management, debt recovery, regulatory compliance, business
resources, and consulting services to businesses. The company is
based in Costa Mesa, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erin Amanda Novak, Esq.
          Mark D. Mailman, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC
          100 South Broad Street, 19th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735 8600

The Defendants are represented by:

          Caren D. Enloe, Esq.
          SMITH DEBNAM NARRON DRAKE SAINTSING & MYERS, LLP
          4601 Six Forks Road, Suite 400
          Post Office Box 26268
          Raleigh, NC 27611
          Telephone: (919) 250 2000
          Facsimile: (919) 250 2124
          E-mail: cenloe@smithdebnamlaw.com

               - and -

          Dorothy A. Kowal, Esq.
          PRICE, MEESE, SHULMAN & D'ARMINIO, PC
          Mack-Cali Corporate Center
          50 Tice Boulevard
          Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677
          Telephone: (201) 391 3737
          Facsimile: (201) 391 9360

               - and -

          Kelly Ann Williams
          PICADIO SNEATH MILLER & NORTON PC
          444 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1105
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 288 4005


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Fesniak" Suit Moved to Maryland Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Fesniak v. Experian Information
Solutions Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-03728, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore).
The Maryland District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03970-
JFM to the proceeding.

Experian Information Solutions is an information services company
that provides data and analytical tools to clients around the
world. It offers credit report, credit score, credit monitoring,
and identity theft protection services to individuals; and
customer acquisition, customer management, risk management, fraud
management, debt recovery, regulatory compliance, business
resources, and consulting services to businesses. The company is
based in Costa Mesa, California.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Jackson" Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hazel Jackson v. Experian
Information Solutions Inc et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-11238, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The Central
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-02161-AG-DFM to the
proceeding.

The Defendant failed to protect the sensitive data of T-Mobile's
customers and individuals who applied for credit with T-Mobile.

Experian Holdings is a Delaware corporation with principal offices
located at Costa Mesa, California

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER
          & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, Illinois 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379

               - and -

          Daniel A Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M Combs, Esq.
          James O Latturner, Esq.
          Sarah Margaret Barnes, Esq.
          Tara Leigh Goodwin, Esq.
          EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER AND GOODWIN LLC
          20 South Clark Street Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  courtecl@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  sbarnes@edcombs.com
                  tgoodwin@edcombs.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Richard Joseph Grabowski, Esq.
          Ellenna V Berger, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612-4408
          Telephone: (949) 851 3939
          Facsimile: (949) 553 7539
          E-mail: rgrabowski@jonesday.com
                  evberger@jonesday.com


EZUBAO: Police Arrests Founder Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Shih, writing for The Associated Press, reports that police
arrested the maverick founder of China's largest online finance
business on suspicion of fleecing 900,000 investors of $7.6
billion, in what could be the biggest financial fraud in Chinese
history.

State media outlets reported the arrest of Ding Ning and 20 of his
employees late on Jan. 31.  State broadcaster CCTV aired purported
confessions from two former employees at Ezubao, an Anhui Province
outfit that rose from obscurity to become China's largest online
financing platform in the span of about 18 months.

Ezubao was the most spectacular player in a booming online
investment industry that Chinese authorities have been struggling
to regulate.  Firms ranging from established Internet companies
such as Alibaba to virtually unknown upstarts have flooded into
the business, promising higher returns than those at state-run
banks, which often offer interest rates below inflation.

Ezubao promised investors that borrowers would pay back loans at
interest rates between 9 percent and 14.6 percent, but 95 percent
of those borrowers were fictional entities created by Ezubao, a
former company executive told investigators.

Behind the firm's rise was 34-year old Ding Ning, an Anhui native
who dropped out of school at 17 to work at his mother's hardware
factory, where he first gained experience running online sales,
according to media reports.

With no technical or financial training, Ding launched Ezubao in
July 2014 and opened multiple marketing offices across China. The
venture bought expensive ad spots that aired just before the
widely viewed nightly CCTV newscast, the state broadcaster's
flagship program.

Ezubao appeared to gain Beijing's imprimatur when the gov.cn
government website published an interview with Ding in July
discussing his life as an entrepreneur.  The interview has since
been removed from the site.

State media took a far different tone on Jan. 31 as CCTV aired
Ding's confession and footage of officials hauling away bags of
cash from his home.  The Xinhua news agency detailed Ding's
extravagant lifestyle and the gifts he lavished on a business
partner Zhang Min, including a $20 million villa in Singapore and
a $1.8 million pink diamond ring.

"The truth is that it's a fraud . . . it's a typical Ponzi
scheme," Zhang, the associate, said in her aired confession.

Despite the vast sums cited in the case, Ezubao, which also went
by Ezubo on its website, represented just a sliver of China's
shadow banking industry estimated to be worth $1.5 trillion as of
the end of June, according to Chinese banking regulators.

Independent economists and party officials alike have warned about
the danger of unchecked private lending and the political
spillover of a large-scale collapse.

After police shut down Ezubao in December, scores of protesters
gathered outside a Beijing government building to demand their
money back.  Simmering anger on social media also spurred public
security officials to phone Internet users to warn them against
criticizing the Communist Party online.

One investor from Northeast China who lost close to $80,000 told
The Associated Press in December that police confiscated her
computer and cell phone after she posted online that she might
file a petition with the central government.

Fu Weigang, a researcher at the Shanghai Institute for Finance and
Law, said difficulty obtaining financing in a state-dominated
banking system has for decades driven Chinese citizens into
underground borrowing and lending, which also gave rise to
countless Ponzi schemes.

But Ezubao was able to take advantage of an influx of mom-and-pop
investors in recent years using an Internet model, Fu said,
effectively pushing small-scale scams to a countrywide level.

"What they were doing was nothing new in China," Fu said.  "But
how they were doing it online, and the scale, was unprecedented."


FACEBOOK INC: Judge Dismisses Illinois Suit Over Photo Tagging
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Herra, writing for Cook Country Record, reports that a
federal judge has dismissed an Illinois man's attempted class
action lawsuit against Facebook, contending the social media
provider's photo sharing platform violates Illinois privacy law.
In dismissing the matter, however, the judge said the court in
this case only lacked jurisdiction to rule in the matter, and
stopped short of rendering an opinion on the lawsuit's allegations
against Facebook.

On Jan. 21, U.S. District Judge Jorge L. Alonso granted Facebook's
motion to dismiss the case, docketed in Chicago federal court as
No. 15-C-7681, for lack of personal jurisdiction. The social media
giant's other motion to dismiss -- for failure to state a claim --
was stricken as moot, since the judge had determined the court had
no jurisdiction in the case.

Plaintiff Frederick William Gullen had filed the putative class
action against Facebook on Aug. 31. According to court documents,
Gullen does not have a Facebook account, but claims he was harmed
when an unidentified person uploaded a photo of him to the social
media site and "tagged" his image with his name. Gullen claimed
Facebook then stored that information about his name and "facial
geometry" to a database so its so-called Tag Suggestions feature
can identify him in future photos. His lawsuit claimed that
feature violates Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act
(BIPA), a law that restricts how companies can collect, store and
use biometric information such as fingerprints, retina scans and
body scans.

In its motion to dismiss, Facebook argued Illinois is not the
proper venue for such a suit. Facebook is incorporated in Delaware
and headquartered in California, and contended Gullen's complaint
did not claim any relationship between the alleged conduct and the
state.

"Facebook has done nothing to create a relationship with
plaintiff, who alleges that he does not have a Facebook account
and has never interacted with Facebook," Facebook's attorneys said
in the motion to dismiss.

In granting the motion, Alonso noted the law is clear that
Facebook must have "certain minimum contact" with Illinois in
order for Illinois courts to have jurisdiction. In his complaint,
Gullen said that contact is satisfied because Facebook is
registered to do business here, has a sales and advertising office
here and "target(s) its facial recognition technology to millions
of users who are residents of Illinois."

"The first two contacts have no relationship to this suit," Alonso
wrote. "Given (plaintiff's) tacit admission that Facebook's
alleged collection of biometric information is not targeted at
Illinois residents, the third 'contact' becomes simply that
Facebook operates an interactive website available to Illinois
residents."

Alonso cited case law that established that merely operating a
website, even an interactive one, not targeted specifically at
potential customers within a state, like Illinois, is not enough
to establish personal jurisdiction within a state.

Because he had ruled that the court had no jurisdiction over the
case, Alonso declined to examine the remaining arguments. In its
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Facebook's
attorneys said Gullen's premise was wrong from the start.

"Tag Suggestions does not apply to people without Facebook
accounts," court documents stated. "If a person who is tagged in a
photo on Facebook does not have a Facebook account, Facebook does
not, contrary to . . . the complaint, save a 'face template' and
'corresponding name identification' in its 'database.'"

Attorneys for the defense had also argued that BIPA did not apply
to the case, as the law specifically exempts photographs and
information derived from photographs from the law's regulation.

Several other Facebook users -- who do have accounts on the social
media site -- have also cited BIPA in suits over the Tag
Suggestions feature. Those suits have been consolidated and are
being heard in the Northern District of California, where
Facebook's users agree through the site's terms and conditions to
resolve any legal disputes. That lawsuit remains pending.

Gullen was represented in the action by attorneys Katrina Carroll
and Kyle Shamberg, of the firm of Lite DePalma Greenberg, of
Chicago, and attorneys Frank Hedin and David P. Milian, of the
firm of Carey Rodriguez O'Keefe Milian Gonya, of Miami, Fla.

Facebook was defended by attorneys with the firm of Mayer Brown,
including Vincent Connelly, Lauren Goldman and Matthew Provance,
of Chicago; Archis Parasharami, of Washington, D.C.; and John
Nadolenco, of Los Angeles.


FANDUEL INC: Faces "Boast" Suit Over Unlawful Gambling
------------------------------------------------------
Leah Boast, and all others similarly situated v. FanDuel, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01127 (D.N.M., December 14, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for systemic and continued violation of the
New Mexico Statutes Annotated and various criminal laws by
unlawful gambling.

Plaintiff Family Member and Family-of-Players Class
Members have sustained ascertainable losses as the spouses,
children, heirs, executors, creditors, and administrators, of
persons that have bet and lost on FanDuel within a year of the
Original Complaint.

FanDuel is a company operating Daily Fantasy Sports websites in a
manner that violates New Mexico Law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bryan L. Williams, Esq.
      BELL, HUGHES & COLEMAN, PC
      610 7th St. NW
      Albuquerque, NM 87102
      Tel: (505) 242-7979 ext. 280
      Fax: (866) 782-8820
      E-mail: bwilliams@898-bell.com


FANDUEL INC: "Delgado" Suit Goes from Superior Court to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Fernando Delgado et al. v. FanDuel
Inc et al., Case No. BC602148, was removed from Los Angeles County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The
Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09907-FMO-
JC to the proceeding.

FanDuel operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables
users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The company is
based in New York, New York with an additional office in
Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David C Leimbach, Esq.
          Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
          Marcus J Bradley, Esq.
          MARLIN AND SALTZMAN LLP
          29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991 8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991 8081
          E-mail: dleimbach@marlinsaltzman.com
                  kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com
                  mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian , II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609 0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609 0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jui-Ting Anna Hsia, Esq.
          ZWILLGEN LAW LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, Suite 425
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 590 2341
          Facsimile: (415) 636 5965
          E-mail: anna@zwillgen.com


FANNIE MAE: "Cole" Suit Moved to Maryland Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cole v. Federal National Mortgage
Association et al., Case No. CAL15-32756, was removed from the
Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-03960-GJH to the
proceeding.

FNMA provides liquidity and stability support services for the
mortgage market in the United States. It securitizes mortgage
loans originated by lenders into Fannie Mae mortgage-backed
securities (Fannie Mae MBS). The company is based in Washington,
DC.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marc A Marinaccio, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          100 International Dr Ste 2000
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 659 2700
          Facsimile: (410) 659 2701
          E-mail: marc.marinaccio@hoganlovells.com


FCA US: "Granillo" Suit Goes from C.D. California to New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Granillo et al. v. FCA US LLC et
al., Case No. 5:15-cv-02017, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton). The New
Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00153-FLW-
TJB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs claimed that the "ZF 9HP Automatic Transmission"
installed in each of their vehicles has a defect. Transmission
contains one or more design and/or manufacturing defects" which
result in a host of symptoms including difficulty in shifting,
noisy shifting, harsh engagement of gears, sudden acceleration and
deceleration, loss of power, premature transmission wear, and
transmission failure. The Plaintiffs asserted for: violation
of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law,
Business and Professions Code.

FCA US, together with its subsidiaries, designs, engineers,
manufactures, distributes, and sells vehicles primarily in the
United States. The company offers passenger cars; utility
vehicles, including sport utility and crossover vehicles;
minivans; trucks; and commercial vans under the Chrysler, Dodge,
Jeep, and Ram brand names. It also distributes Fiat-brand vehicles
and service parts; sells Mopar branded service parts and
accessories; and provides service contracts to consumers, and
contract manufacturing services to other vehicle manufacturers.
FCA US LLC sells its products to dealers and distributors for sale
to retail customers and fleet customers, which include rental car
companies. The company is a Delaware limited liability
Company based in Auburn Hills, Michigan.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Robert Fried, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
                  Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rowena Santos, Esq.
          Kathy A. Wisniewski, Esq.
          John W. Rogers, Esq.
          Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          2029 Century Park East, 19th Floor
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Telephone: 310.282.2500
          Facsimile: 310.282 2501
          E-mail: rsantos@thompsoncoburn.com
                  kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com
                  jrogers@thompsoncoburn.com
                  SDAunoy@thompsoncoburn.com


FURMANITE CORP: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Team Takeover
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Gonzalez, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Furmanite Corporation, Kevin R. Jost, Ralph J.
Patitucci, Kathleen G. Cochran, Joseph E. Milliron, David E.
Fanta, John K. H. Linnartz, Jeffery G. Davis, Team, Inc., and TFA,
Inc., Case No. 11818 (Del. Ch., December 15, 2015), seeks to
enjoin a proposed transaction announced on November 2, 2015
pursuant to which Furmanite will be acquired by Team, Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, TFA, Inc.

Furmanite focuses on-site industrial plant turnaround maintenance
and on-line contractor engineered services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Tel: (302) 295-5310


GENERAL MOTORS: Scheuer Test Case Problems Emerge Early in Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the
lawyers defending General Motors in the multi-district litigation
over defective and dangerous car ignition switches were picking a
jury when they received a litigator's gift from heaven.

That gift -- an unexpected witness whose account would debunk the
plaintiff's claim that a faulty switch led to his injuries in a
car crash -- set in motion a series of actions that would cause
the first bellwether trial against GM to completely collapse.

Over the next 10 days, through opening arguments in which
plaintiff Robert Scheuer stood with his wife and their two young
daughters smiling for the jury, through the couple's soon-to-be-
discredited testimony, and right up until Jan. 21 when the
plaintiffs rested, GM's legal team worked to sweep the case out of
Southern District Judge Jesse Furman's courtroom.

The failure of the Scheuers' claim will have no impact on the
remaining five cases, but it is one less opportunity for the
plaintiffs' legal team to have a jury declare the ignition switch
was the culprit in a collision.

The case began to unravel on Jan. 11, one day before opening
arguments.  An Oklahoma realtor who handled plaintiff
Robert Scheuer's attempt to buy his "dream home" after his 2014
car accident heard a radio report about the trial.  The realtor,
Robert Kleven, called GM to say Scheuer's story wasn't true.
Once the call came in from Mr. Kleven, Kirkland & Ellis partners
Richard Godfrey -- richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- Andrew Bloomer
-- andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com -- and Mike Brock and their team
interviewed Mr. Kleven in Sand Springs, Oklahoma on Jan. 16,
employed a forensics expert and assembled their arguments.

On Jan. 18, they filed a motion and a brief under seal to revise
their witness list to add Mr. Kleven and a second witness, a KPMG
forensic technology services manager, and to recall Lisa Scheuer
to impeach her testimony about the extent of her husband's
incapacity and its impact on the real estate deal.

On Jan. 19, they followed with a memorandum of law, unsealed, that
said Mr. Kleven was prepared to testify about an "apparently
altered or fabricated" check stub for $441,431 -- an amount that
Scheuer, a 49-year-old mailman, represented was in his federal
government retirement fund "even though plaintiff knew he did not
have the funds to close."

The lawyers said the forensics expert would testify that his
analysis of text messages between Mr. Scheuer and Mr. Kleven
"confirms Mr. Kleven's recitation of events and overwhelmingly
demonstrates Mr. Scheuer's apparent fraud," concerning the May
2014 crash of his Saturn Ion.

The evidence, the GM lawyers said, directly contradicted Mr.
Scheuer's assertion on the witness stand that he was unable to
remember anything about the real estate deal, and contradicted his
wife's insistence that he was incapable of working to complete the
purchase.

This came on top of GM evidence contradicting Mr. Scheuer's
testimony that he was unconscious for almost three hours after the
accident.  Phone records showed Mr. Scheuer used his cell phone to
check his voice mail twice during the time he claimed to be passed
out behind the wheel of his damaged car.

And it also followed Mr. Scheuer's admission that, for almost a
year, the treatment he received for back and neck injuries he
supposedly sustained in the crash was the same treatment he had
already been receiving for his pre-existing injuries.

On Jan. 14, with the check stub, text message and other evidence
showing what the defense called the Scheuers' "fundamental
misstatement of the underlying facts," Judge Furman looked at
plaintiffs' lawyer, Robert Hilliard, and said, "It might make
sense to make this case go away."

Mr. Hilliard, of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, Texas,
called the revelation "shocking" and, while he was absolved of any
blame by Furman, his decision to designate the Scheuer trial as a
test case was questioned.


GENERAL MOTORS: Removal of Hilliard as Plaintiffs Counsel Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
Georgia lawyer with clients who have cases against General Motors
in the multi-district ignition switch litigation asked a federal
judge to remove co-lead plaintiffs counsel for allegedly putting
their own interests ahead of the plaintiffs'.

Lance Cooper of Marietta, Georgia, claims that Robert Hilliard of
Hilliard Munoz & Gonzalez in Corpus Christi and other attorneys
chose a weak case as the first of six bellwether trials to test
GM's liability for allegedly defective switches that cause cars to
lose power and cause accidents.

Mr. Cooper wrote to Southern District Judge Jesse Furman on
Jan. 25, saying Hilliard selected the case of Robert Scheuer to go
first merely to maintain control of the litigation, which he said
marked "the culmination of a long series of poor decisions and
mismanagement."

He asked for the removal of Mr. Hilliard and co-lead counsels
Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Elizabeth Cabraser
of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein.

Mr. Berman said on Jan. 26 the motion was "unwarranted," that
Mr. Cooper resigned from the litigation's executive committee nine
months ago and Cooper did not include "a single factual citation
in his presentation."

The Scheuer trial fell apart as Hilliard was forced to withdraw
the case at the close of the plaintiff's evidence. Scheuer's
account of his 2014 crash with his Saturn Ion was undercut by
evidence that he and his wife, Lisa, might have lied about the
extent of his injuries and their impact on the couple's finances.
Furman issued an order Jan. 25 asking Mr. Hilliard and co-counsel
to submit a response by Feb. 1.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: "Martinez" Suit Moved to Colorado Dist. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The action lawsuit titled Martinez v. DiMaria et al., Case No.
2015-cv-32911, was removed from Denver District Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver). The Colorado
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-02811-MJW to the
proceeding.

According to the complaint, as a result of the negligence of
Defendant DiMaria in his care and treatment of S.M. she died and
Plaintiff suffered injuries, damages and losses.

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

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea. This
includes, for example, nausea associated with cancer treatment
such as radiation or chemotherapy.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Julia T. Thompson, Esq.
          SCHOENWALD & THOMPSON, LLC
          Telephone: (303) 837 9000
          Facsimile: (877) 630 3992

               - and -

          Richard L. Murray , Jr.
          HALL & EVANS, LLC-DENVER
          1001 17th Street, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 628 3300
          Facsimile: (303) 628 3368
          E-mail: murrayr@hallevans.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Edward Rohner, Esq.
          SANDER INGEBRETSEN & WAKE, P.C.
          1660 17th Street, Suite 450
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 285 5300
          Facsimile: (303) 285 5301
          E-mail: drohner@shb.com


GOOGLE INC: Former Recruiter Sues for Wage and Hour Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
It takes Google 0.44 seconds to return 28 million results about
the California Labor Code. The company that developed and operates
the giant search engine might benefit from actually reading those
search results.

A former Google recruiter filed suit against the company for
classwide wage and hour violations, asserting it illegally and
deliberately cheated her and other employees of their hard-earned
wages.

Former Google contract employee Tymuoi Ha filed the complaint in
Santa Clara Superior Court against Google, Inc. and Urpan
Technologies (UrpanTech), one of the many staffing agencies
through which Google acquires temporary and contract workers.  The
complaint alleges that Defendants violated the California Labor
Code by denying employees compensation for all overtime worked,
failing to pay owed wages upon separation from employment and not
furnishing accurate wage statements.

Ha is represented in the matter by David Sanford, Michael D.
Palmer, Felicia Medina, Xinying Valerian and Yonina Alexander of
Sanford Heisler Kimpel, LLP, and Dayna Chmelka of Gates O'Doherty,
Gonter & Guy LLP.

"Google's market capitalization is about half a trillion dollars.
Our goal in bringing this suit it to ensure that the second
highest valued company in the world pays its workers in accordance
with the law of the land," said David Sanford, Chairman of Sanford
Heisler Kimpel.

Google has faced similar allegations in the past, including in
McPherson v. Google, et al., a high profile wage & hour action
filed in New York federal court by a contract site manager.
McPherson asserted that Google limited the maximum hours he could
report and refused to pay him when his work required him to work
in excess of the capped amount. The parties reached a private
settlement on undisclosed terms in 2015.

"Working with staffing agencies like UrpanTech, Google hires
recruiters on a contract basis and refuses to pay them for their
many of hours of tireless work," said Michael Palmer, Sanford
Heisler partner and lead counsel for Ms. Ha. "The companies
restrict the number of hours recruiters can report, knowing that
they must work overtime to meet performance goals. In return for
the unpaid labor, the companies dangle the possibility of
permanent employment. That is hardly fair and just compensation."

Plaintiff Ha seeks to recover damages, including unpaid wages, on
behalf of herself and a California class of Google contract
recruiters.


GREAT AMERICAN: Faces "Goertzen" Suit Over Seniors Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Goertzen, an individual, individually and on behalf of
herself all similarly-situated persons, by and through her power
of attorney Beverly Kraus, v. Great American Life Insurance
Company, and Does 1-50, Case No: RG15796703 (Cal. Super., County
of Alameda, December 15, 2015), was filed on behalf of Plaintiff
and other similarly-situated consumers and beneficiaries to halt
and remedy the alleged harm caused by Defendant Great American's
systematic unlawful sales practices in connection with the
solicitation, offering, and sale of individual life insurance and
annuity contracts to Senior purchasers in California.

Great American markets and sells its life insurance and annuity
products primarily through its network of third-party and/or
employed individual sales agents, marketing organizations, and/or
brokerage firms.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ingrid M. Evans, Esq.
     Michaela Levy, Esq.
     EVANS LAW FIRM, INC.
     3053 Fillmore Street, #236
     San Francisco, CA 94123
     Phone: (415)441-8669
     Fax: (888)891-04906
     E-mail: ingrid@evanslaw.com;
             michael@evanslaw.com


HARBOR FREIGHT: "Blanco" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Blanco, and all others similarly situated v. Harbor Freight
Tools USA, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case No. BC603939 (Cal.
Super., December 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the California Labor Code.

The Defendant operates retail stores throughout the United States,
including numerous locations in the State of California and in the
County of Los Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      550 South Hope Street, Ste 2655
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 488-6555
      Fax: (213) 488-6554


HARBOR PARK: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------
Carlos Alvarez Ramos, and all others similarly situated v. Harbor
Park Landscaping, LLC dba Harbor Park Landscaping and Bert E.
Brodsky, Case No. 1:15-cv-07093 (E.D.N.Y., December 14, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants own and operate a landscaping company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Ste 2540
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


HARVEST BAKERY: Class Certified in "Rivera" Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York granted Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the case captioned, MAXIMINO RIVERA,
MIGUEL ROLDAN, and OSCAR QUINTANILLA, and all other non-exempt
employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HARVEST BAKERY INC.,
ROBERT MARCONTI, and JOSE GONZALEZ, Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-691
(ADS)(AYS) (E.D.N.Y.).

From June 2010 to December 2012, the Plaintiff Rivera was employed
by the Defendants as a production worker. According to a
declaration filed in support of the Plaintiffs' present motion,
Rivera usually worked from 5:00am to 10:00pm or seventeen hours
per day, six days a week, which amounts to a total of 102 hours
per week. The case arises from allegations by the Plaintiffs
Maximino Rivera, Miguel Roldan, and Oscar Quintanilla that the
Defendants Harvest Bakery, Inc., Robert Marconti, and Jose
Gonzalez failed to pay their production workers overtime pay and
spread of hours wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. (FLSA), and the New York
Labor Law (NYLL) Sections 650, et seq.

Defendants filed an answer to the complaint and, for several
times, served an offer of judgment to Rivera but were never
accepted by the Plaintiff.

In the motion, Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of "all persons
who work or have worked for Harvest Bakery at any time from the
six (6) years prior to the filing of this complaint to the entry
of judgment in this case." The Plaintiffs assert that the proposed
class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) primarily
because they assert that the Defendants had a common policy of
denying their employees overtime pursuant to Section 142-2.2 of
Title 12 of the NYCRR and spread of hours wages pursuant to
Section 142-2.4 of Title 12 of the NYCRR.

The Defendants oppose certification, asserting that (i) the
Plaintiffs' motion is premature because discovery has not been
completed; (ii) the class action has been rendered moot by the
Rule 68 offers of judgment that they made to the named Plaintiffs;
and (iii) the Plaintiffs have failed to show, by a preponderance
of evidence, that the proposed class meets the requirements of
Rule 23(a) and (b)(3).

In reply, the Plaintiffs assert that (i) their motion is not pre-
mature; (ii) their claims are not moot; and (iii) the proposed
class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3).

In his Memorandum of Decision and Order dated January 25, 2016
available at http://is.gd/CKXXFMfrom Leagle.com, Judge Spatt
found that the proposed class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a)
and (b)(3).  He certified a class of "all current and former non-
exempt hourly employees who worked for the Harvest Bakery in the
State of New York at any time from the six (6) years prior to the
filing of this complaint to the entry of judgment in the case".

The Court appointed Plaintiffs and Peter A. Romero, Esq., their
counsel, as class representatives finding that they satisfied the
standard set forth in Rule 23(g).

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Peter Arcadio Romero, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO
     503 NY-111
     Hauppauge, NY 11788
     Tel: (631)257-5588

Harvest Bakery Inc. is represented by Saul D. Zabell, Esq. --
SZabell@laborlawsny.com -- ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.


HEARTWARE INT'L: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased HeartWare
International, Inc. ("HeartWare" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HTWR)
securities between June 10, 2014 and January 11, 2016, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

HeartWare shareholders may, no later than March 22, 2016, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of HeartWare and would like to learn more about
these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to
sign up online, visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/htwr.

HeartWare is a medical device company that develops and
manufactures miniature heart pumps that are implanted into the
patient's body. It has been alleged that after the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") issued a Warning Letter to the Company
identifying numerous manufacturing and other regulatory failures
at the Company's sole manufacturing facility, various officers and
directors misled investors, in violation of their fiduciary
duties, when they assured investors that the Company was
addressing problems with HeartWare's manufacturing and other
regulatory failures. The officers and directors repeatedly told
investors that the items the FDA noted in its Warning Letter posed
no risk to the clinical trials or timely approval of its new MVAD
pump.

On September 9, 2015, HeartWare disclosed that it was halting
enrollment in the MVAD trial because of a manufacturing problem
with the device. On October 12, 2015, HeartWare disclosed that
patients in the MVAD trial had suffered adverse events, and that
the trial would be further delayed. Finally, on January 11, 2016,
the Company revealed that problems with MVAD caused serious
adverse events in nearly half of the patients so far implanted
with the device, and that the trial would be delayed indefinitely.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
Wayne, PA 19087
484-588-5516
877-316-3218
www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/htwr
E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


HEB GROCERY: Recalls Cookwares Due to Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
HEB Grocery Company LLC, of San Antonio, Texas, announced a
voluntary recall of about 41,000 Cookware. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The metal discs that cover the cookware's rivets can pop off and
hit consumers, posing an injury hazard.

This recalls includes the Connect by H-E-B tri-ply stainless steel
cookware. It was sold as a 12-piece set or as individual pieces.
"Connect" is stamped into the base of the handle and the Connect
by H-E-B logo is stamped on the underside of the cookware.
Cookware included in this recall does not have a date code on the
underside. The UPC code can be found on the back of the product
packaging:

  Product Name                     UPC
  ------------                     ---
  Connect by H-E-B  8in Tri Ply    4122032279
  Stainless Steel Fry Pan
  Connect by H-E-B 12Pc Cookware   4122032277
  Set  Tri Ply Stainless Steel
  Connect by H-E-B 10in Tri Ply    4122032280
  Stainless Steel Fry Pan
  Connect by H-E-B 12in Deep       4122032297
  Saute w/Lid & Handle
  Connect by H-E-B 10in Tri Ply    4122032281
  Non-Stick  Stainless Steel
  Fry Pan
  Connect by H-E-B 8in Tri Ply     4122032283
  Non-Stick  Stainless Steel
  Fry Pan
  Connect by H-E-B 6Qt Dutch       4122032293
  Oven
  Connect by H-E-B 12in Tri        4122032290
  Ply Non-Stick  Stainless Steel
  Fry Pan w/handle
  Connect by H-E-B 12Qt Stock Pot  4122032296
  w/Lid
  Connect by H-E-B 12in Tri Ply    4122032286
  Stainless Steel Fry Pan w/handle

The firm has received seven reports of the metal discs popping off
the cookware. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/XT8Ybk

The recalled products were manufactured in Chin and sold at H-E-B
stores in Texas from September 2014 through December 2015 for
between $20 and $250.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cookware and
return it to H-E-B for a full refund.


IDE PONTIAC: "Buehlman" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Jeff Buehlman, and all others similarly situated v. Ide Pontiac,
Inc., and Ann Ide, Case No. 6:15-cv-06745 (W.D.N.Y., December 14,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate an automobile dealership.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Mullin, Esq.
      FERR & MULLIN, P.C.
      7635 Main St. Fishers
      P.O. Box 440
      Fishers, NY 14453
      Tel: (585) 869-0210
      Fax: (585) 869-0223


I PLAY: Recalls Glass Food Cubes Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with i
play., inc., of Asheville, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of
about 68,000 green sprouts(R) glass food cubes (in addition, about
300 sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The glass containers can break unexpectedly, posing a risk of
injury.

The recalled glass food storage cubes are sold in a set of four
with colored, rubberized plastic lids and fit into one storage
tray. The cubes are sold in 2-ounce and 4-ounce sizes. The lid
colors and trays of the affected lot of 2-ounce cubes include
blue, green and pink. The lid colors and trays of the affected 4-
ounce cubes include blue, green, pink and yellow. "green sprouts"
is molded into each plastic lid, on edges of the matching plastic
storage tray and on the bottom of each quadrant of the storage
tray. "green sprouts(R) by i play., Inc."  and "Made in China" are
molded into the bottom of each glass cube. On the bottom of the
plastic storage tray is a tracking dial with one of the following
markings:

An arrow that points to "11" and the numbers on the sides of the
arrow read "4" on the left of the arrow and "1" on the right.

An arrow that points to "5" and the numbers on the sides of the
arrow read "1" on the left of the arrow and "5" on the right.

CPSC and the firm are aware of 23 reports of incidents. No
injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/7f307V

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
buybuy Baby and Whole Foods nationwide and online at amazon.com,
babyhaven.com, diapers.com, drugstore,com and target.com from June
2015 through December 2015 for about $15 for the 2-ounce size and
$20 for the 4-ounce size.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled food cubes
and contact i play. for instructions on receiving a coupon toward
the purchase of a new i play. product and shipping.


ILLINOIS: Corrections Dept Must Defend Against "Everett" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edmond E. Chang of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss and to strike the class claims in its entirety in the case
captioned, CHRISTOPHER EVERETT, Plaintiff, v. JOHN R. BALDWIN, in
his official capacity as Acting Director of the Illinois
Department of Corrections; and TARRY WILLIAMS, in his official
capacity as Warden of Stateville Correctional Center, Defendants,
Case No. 13 C 04697 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Christopher Everett, an inmate at Stateville
Correctional Center, alleges that he suffered a knee injury that
went untreated in prison, causing him severe pain and limiting his
mobility. He sues Defendants John Baldwin and Tarry Williams in
their official capacities under Section 1983, alleging on behalf
of himself and a proposed class that the Illinois Department of
Corrections and/or Stateville maintains an unconstitutional policy
of failing to enforce medical prescriptions directing that inmates
be placed in low galleries or low bunk beds due to a medical
condition. He also alleges that the Illinois Department of
Corrections and/or Stateville routinely denies inmates immediate
healthcare whenever an inmate is scheduled for future health
appointments, even when the inmate has a severe medical condition
that requires treatment before the scheduled appointment. Finally,
Everett alleges that Defendants violated the Rehabilitation Act
and the Americans with Disabilities Act for denying him access to
meals, showers, and a prison job on account of his medical
condition.

Plaintiff filed three Counts of Everett's Second Amended Complaint
for failure to state a claim. The claims are: (1) an Eighth
Amendment claim for failure to honor medical permits; (2)
violations of the Rehabilitation Act (Rehab Act) and Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and (3) an Eighth
Amendment claim for denying inmates immediate medical care.

In the motion, Defendants move to dismiss Everett's Second Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim and also move to strike the
class claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f).

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 15, 2016
available at http://is.gd/U3c1lIfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chang
found that Everett's class allegations are not facially and
inherently deficient because he has successfully stated a claim
that he and others suffered from a widespread policy that denied
inmates low bunks and low galleries.

The Court denies Defendants' motion to strike because "although
courts may strike class allegations at the pleading stage when
they are 'facially and inherently deficient,' courts will not do
so when the dispute is factual and discovery is needed."

Christopher Everett is represented by Mark Steven Mester, Esq.
Caitlin E. Dahl, Esq. Kathleen Patricia Lally, Esq. & Robert D.
Boley, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

Defendants are represented by:

     Lyle Kevin Henretty, Esq.
     Summer Muazaz Hallaj, Esq.
     ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
     100 West Randolph Street
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 814-3000


ILLINOIS BELL: Court Tosses FLSA, IMWL & IWPCA Claims in "Bowen"
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Defendant's
partial motion to dismiss in the case captioned, JOE BOWEN,
Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY d/b/a AT&T ILLINOIS,
Defendant, Case No. 15 C 2707 (N. D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Joe Bowen (Bowen) allegedly worked as a Cable Splicer
for Bell from March 2007 to November 2009, and again from sometime
in 2010 to March 2011. Bowen indicates that he is a class member
in Blakes v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co. (11 C 336), in which he is
pursuing certain FLSA claims against Bell. In Blakes, the court
initially conditionally certified certain claims and later
decertified certain claims.

After the decertification, Bowen joined with certain plaintiffs
from Blakes to pursue the decertified claims in a new action named
Tinoco v. Ill. Bell. Tel. Co. (14 C 1456). On March 24, 2015, the
judge in Tinoco granted Bell's motion to sever, and as a result,
Bowen was assigned the instant case number under which he was
directed to pursue his claims from Tinoco. Bowen includes in his
second amended complaint alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

Bell moved to dismiss the IMWL and IWPCA claims, and a portion of
the FLSA claims arguing that some of Bowen's FLSA claims are time-
barred.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated January 14, 2016,
is available at http://is.gd/co9XTKfrom Leagle.com.

Joe Bowen is represented by:

     Colleen M. McLaughlin, Esq.
     Gregory Scott Dierdorf, Esq.
     Elissa Joy Hobfoll, Esq.
     MCLAUGHLIN & HOBFOLL LAW
     1751 S Naperville Rd
     Wheaton, IL 60189
     Tel: (630)221-0305

Illinois Bell Telephone Company is represented by George Alan
Stohner, Esq. -- George.stohner@GaegreBD.com -- Lindsey M. Hogan,
Esq. -- Lindsey.hogan@FaegreBD.com -- Ellen E. Boshkoff, Esq. --
ellen.boshkoff@FaegreBD.com -- Gregory P. Abrams, Esq. --
Gregory.abrams@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP


INTERNAL REVENUE: NorCal Tea Party Patriots Case Wins Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan J. Dlott of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio granted Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the case captioned, NorCal Tea Party
Patriots, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Internal Revenue Service, et al,
Defendants, Case No. 1:13-CV-341 (S.D. Ohio).

Beginning in 2010, Plaintiffs applied to the IRS for exemption
from federal taxation pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, 26
U.S.C. Sections 501(c)(3) and/or 501(c)(4). Plaintiffs allege that
the IRS targeted them and other dissenting groups by segregating
their tax-exemption applications because their names included
terms such as "Tea Party," "Patriots," or "9/12 Project" or
because their focus included issues such as government spending.
Plaintiffs allege that the IRS subjected the applications from
these dissenting groups to delays and increased scrutiny. The
allegations that underlie this federal case also were the subject
of investigations by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration (TIGTA), the Senate Finance Committee, and the
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations for the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (Senate PSI).

Plaintiffs initiated the suit on May 20, 2013 and filed their
Second Amended Class Action Complaint on January 23, 2014.
Plaintiffs sued four sets of defendants:

     -- the Government, consisting of the United States of
        America, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and IRS
        employees sued in their official capacities;

     -- Management Defendants of the IRS sued in their individual
        capacity;

     -- Line-Level Employees of the IRS sued in their individual
        capacities; and

     -- Carter Hull, an IRS attorney sued in his individual
        capacity.

Defendants moved to dismiss all three claims. In its July 17, 2014
Order, the Court dismissed all claims against the Individual
Defendants and dismissed Count 1 against the Government. Counts 2
and 3 against the Government remain.

In the motion, Plaintiffs NorCal, SD Citizens, AAOL, Texas
Patriots TP, and San Angelo TP seek to certify a Principal Class
and an Unnecessary Requests Subclass as to Count 3 only.

In her Order dated January 19, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/Gxk3YZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Dlott found that the
Plaintiffs have satisfied all of the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P.
Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b).

The Court ordered the parties filed multiple briefs and exhibits
under seal.

Plaintiffs are represented by Christopher P. Finney, Esq. --
chris@finneylaw.com -- FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC, Dane C. Martin, Esq.
Edward D. Greim, Esq. -- edgreim@gravesgarrett.com -- Todd P.
Graves, Esq. -- egraves@gravesgarrett.com -- GRAVES GARRETT, LLC

          - and -

     David R. Langdon, Esq.
     LANGDON LAW LLC
     8913 Cincinnati Dayton Rd.
     West Chester, OH 45069
     Tel: (513) 733-1038

          - and -

     Bill Randles, Esq.
     BILL & BEV RANDLES LAW GROUP LLP
     5823 North Cypress Avenue
     Kansas City, MO 64119
     Tel: (816)744-4779

Internal Revenue Service is represented by:

     Grover Hartt, III, Esq.
     Joseph A. Sergi, Esq.
     Christopher R. Egan, Esq.
     Gerald Alan Role, Esq.
     Laura Beckerman, Esq.
     Laura M Conner, Esq.
     US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
     950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20530-0001
     Tel: (202)-353-1555


JP MORGAN CHASE: 4th Amended Suit in ERISA Litigation Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George B. Daniels of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, IN RE JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. ERISA
LITIGATION, Case No. 12 CIV. 04027 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs, a putative class of current and former employees of
JPMorgan Chase & Co. who participated in the JPMorgan Chase 401(k)
Savings Plan brought the consolidated class action. They claimed
that Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
John Wilmot, and Douglas Braunstein breached their duty of
prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA). Plaintiffs alleged that JPMorgan concealed risk-
escalating trades made by its Chief Investment Office, the unit
responsible for managing the synthetic credit portfolio.

In a previous decision, the Court dismissed the action in its
entirety and held that Plaintiffs' "duty of prudence" claim failed
because Plaintiffs could not overcome the so-called Moench
presumption for ESOP fiduciaries under then-controlling Second
Circuit law. While that decision was on appeal, the Supreme Court
rejected the Moench presumption and articulated the requirements
that plaintiffs must meet to state a claim for breach of ERISA's
duty of prudence against ESOP fiduciaries. The Second Circuit then
vacated this Court's March 31, 2014 judgment and remanded the case
to determine the effect of the Supreme Court's decision on this
action.

Plaintiffs filed their Fourth Amended Complaint on January 8,
2015, asserting only a claim for breach of the duty of prudence
under ERISA.

Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the FAC pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on March 3, 2015.

In his Opinion and Order dated January 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/kGdTYqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Daniels concluded that
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for breach of ERISA's duty
of prudence because Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege
that a prudent fiduciary in Defendants' circumstances would not
have viewed making public disclosures of JPMorgan's purported
misconduct as more likely to harm than help the fund.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
     Samuel Ethan Bonderoff, Esq.
     ZAMANSKY & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.
     50 Broadway - 32nd Floor
     New York NY, 10004
     Tel: (212) 742-1414

JP Morgan Chase is represented by Daryl Andrew Libow, Esq. --
libowd@sullcrom.com -- Richard C. Pepperman, II, Esq. --
peppermanr@sullcrom.com -- Christopher Michael Viapiano, Esq. --
viapianoc@sullcrom.com -- Menachem David Possick, Esq. --
possickm@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP


JP MORGAN CHASE: "Bellino" Suit Moved from M.D. Fla. to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bellino et al. v. JP Morgan Chase
Bank, N.A., Case No. 8:15-mc-00137, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (White
Plains). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:16-
mc-00012-NSR to the proceeding.

JP Morgan Chase Bank provides global financial services and retail
banking. The Company offers investment banking, treasury and
securities services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 298 3281
          Facsimile: (914) 824 1561

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew B Boese, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP(FL)
          200 South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 415 3206
          Facsimile: (305) 415 3001
          E-mail: aboese@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Christian J. Pistilli, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P. (DC)
          One City Center, 850 10th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (212) 662 6000
          Facsimile: (212) 662 6091
          E-mail: cpistilli@cov.com


KEEPERS GENTLEMEN'S: Exotic Dancers Must Opt for Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune,
reports that exotic dancers who perform at the Keepers Gentlemen's
Club in Milford claim they haven't been paid
fairly -- they say they haven't received minimum wage and aren't
even allowed to keep all of the tips customers give them.  The
women took their complaint to the state court system last year,
but a judge recently concluded they will have to fight for fair
wages before an arbitrator instead.

While the case may involve semi-nude performers, it focuses on two
legal issues that have been very much in the employment law
mainstream in recent years: workers questioning whether they are
being classified as independent contractors when they are in
reality employees; and contract clauses requiring worker
complaints to be adjucated through arbitration rather than
litigated in court.

Six women brought a lawsuit against Keepers Inc. and its president
and director, Joseph Regensburger, in Superior Court in New Haven
in March 2015.  The plaintiffs -- Crystal Horrocks of New Haven,
Yaritza Reyes of New York, Dina Danielle Caviello of Wolcott,
Jacquelyne Green of Bristol, Sugeily Ortiz of Stratford and
Zuleyma Bella Lopez of Branford -- claim violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  The women claim the club management hasn't
paid them minimum wage for the hours they have worked and failed
to pay them time-and-a-half for overtime.

"The defendants have unjustly and unlawfully enriched themselves
at the expense of their employees," their lawsuit claims.

Attorney Stephen Bellis of the Pellegrino Law Firm in New Haven,
who represents the gentleman's club, filed a motion seeking a stay
of the proceedings until arbitration could take place. According
to Mr. Bellis' motion, the women signed agreements to use binding
arbitration in any dispute with the club based on state or federal
statute, and they also signed "employment lease agreements"
acknowledging they are independent contractors rather than full-
fledged employees.  The plaintiffs had claimed any entertainment
lease agreement should be void because it sought to implement an
allegedly "illegal employment scheme."

Disc Jockey Fee

In a 14-page decision issued Jan. 4, Superior Court Judge Robin
Wilson concluded the women's wage claims fall within the scope of
an arbitration agreement and should be decided by an arbitrator.
Judge Wilson granted the defendants' motion for a stay of the
court proceedings.

"We feel Judge Wilson made the correct decision," Mr. Bellis said.
"There were contracts signed by the entertainers, in which they
agreed to go to arbitration in the case of any dispute."

Mr. Bellis said on Jan. 25 he is in the process of conferring with
attorneys to decide on an arbitrator and schedule arbitration
hearings.  He said he expects any hearings to occur within the
next couple of months.

Attorney A. Paul Spinella of Spinella & Associates of Hartford,
who represents the dancers, could not immediately be reached for
comment.

The women claim the exotic, or topless, dance club in Milford,
brings in annual gross sales in excess of $500,000 a year.  The
women stated in their lawsuit that they performed on stage, in
common areas and in semi-private rooms, and that they would earn
tips from customers.  They worked at the club from about 2011 to
2014, court documents show.

In general, the women claimed violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, citing unpaid wages, unpaid overtime and unlawful
deduction from wages.  According to their lawsuit, the club's
management improperly made them share their tips and gratuities.
They had to pay a "house fee" as a condition of employment, and
had to pay a fee to the disc jockey on the night they worked, the
lawsuit alleged.  Through their lawsuit, the women sought all lost
wages and economic benefits, costs and attorney fees, treble
damages for failure to pay wages, compensatory damages and
interest.

"The plaintiffs, who have no real opportunities to profit from the
success of the defendants' business, have depended on customers'
tips and gratuities, which make their opportunities for profit or
loss a function of how much money customers have and are willing
to spend," their complaint states.

Their lawsuit claims the women were misclassified by the club as
"independent contractors," even though club management controlled
their work schedule, conduct, dress, songs they danced to and
rates they charged for dances.  Their litigation claims the
misclassification meant they weren't able to receive the benefits
associated with being full-fledged employees, such as workers'
compensation or unemployment benefits, if they were to lose their
jobs.

The women still can pursue their FLSA allegations, but they have
to go through an arbitrator, under Judge Wilson's ruling.

"The arbitration agreement provides that the scope of the
arbitrator's authority is to decide any and all claims, state or
federal, that arise between the plaintiffs and the defendants,"
the judge wrote.  "The claim that the entertainment lease
agreement violates state and federal employment laws, as well as
public policy considerations, falls within the arbitration
agreement's 'any and all controversies' requirement."


KEURIG GREEN: "Berger" Suit Opposes Acquisition by JAB Holding
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Berger, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Norman H. Wesley,
Barbara D. Carlini, John D. Hayes, Brian P. Kelley, A.D. David
Mackay, Michael J. Mardy, Hinda Miller, David E. Moran, Jose
Octavio Reyes Lagunes, Susan Saltzbart Kilsby, Robert A. Steele,
Acorn Holdings B.V., Maple Holdings Acquisition Corp., JAB
Holdings B.V., and JAB Holding Company, Case No. 11815 (Del. Ch.,
December 15, 2015), seeks to enjoin a proposed transaction
announced on December 7, 2015, pursuant to which Keurig will be
acquired by JAB Holding Company and its affiliates.

Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. is a beverage system company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG P.A
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Tel: (302) 295-5310


KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS: "Binning" Suit Moved to Wash. D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Binning v. Keypoint Government
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02686, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington,
DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-
02259-ABJ to the proceeding.

KeyPoint Government Solutions is a leading provider of specialized
investigative services to a broad range of U.S. Federal Government
organizations spanning the civilian, defense and intelligence
sectors.


LAUGH FACTORY: "Aguila" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Jeff Aguila, and all others similarly situated v. Laugh Factory,
Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case No. BC603867 (Cal. Super.,
December 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
allegedly sending unsolicited text messages for marketing purposes
through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system, invading
the consumers' rights to privacy in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Laugh Factory operates, manages, and owns the "Laugh Factory"
comedy club in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq.
      JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
      114 North Brand Blvd., Suite 200
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 630-7280
      Fax: (888) 879-1697
      E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com


LENOVO GROUP: Fights Suits Over Adware-Related Security Glitch
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that attorneys for
Chinese laptop maker Lenovo Group Ltd. have taken their first shot
at stamping out litigation claiming that software pre-installed on
its notebook computers left customers vulnerable to cyberattacks.

In court papers filed on Jan. 21, the company's lawyers at K&L
Gates maintain that Lenovo acted quickly to address the security
glitch created by adware that came installed on certain Lenovo
models.  K&L Gates partner Daniel Stephenson wrote that no
customers were actually hacked as a result of the problem and the
plaintiffs have suffered no harm.

"In cases where a hacking has not occurred, standing is not
established," Mr. Stephenson wrote.

Lenovo was hit with a wave of lawsuits across the country last
year after online reports in February identified security
vulnerabilities on laptops that came equipped with adware
developed by Bay Area firm Superfish Inc.  Multidistrict
litigation targeting both Lenovo and Superfish was consolidated
before U.S District Judge Ronald Whyte of the Northern District of
California in June.  Superfish, which has yet to file its own
motion to dismiss, is represented by Fenwick & West.

In the motion filed on Jan. 21, Mr. Stephenson wrote that the
federal and state wiretapping laws plaintiffs invoked don't fit
Lenovo's situation since the company never intercepted
communications or received users' personal data.  "Lenovo is not
liable for anything that Superfish did," he wrote.  Although the
Superfish program might have taken up memory and slowed browsing
speeds, JStephenson wrote that the effect was "temporary and
immaterial."

"Lenovo made no unmet representations about product performance,"
he wrote.  "No specific upload/download speed was 'part of the
bargain' between plaintiffs and Lenovo."
With the plaintiffs' latest amended complaint coming after the
production of more than 100,000 pages of discovery, Judge
Stephenson is asking Judge Whyte to dismiss the suit with
prejudice.

Co-lead plaintiffs counsel at Pritzker Levine; Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy; and Girard Gibbs are set to respond to Lenovo's motion
this month.  A hearing before Judge Whyte on the matter is set for
March 11.


LEPRINO FOODS: California Court Narrows "Finder" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in
part Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned, JERROD
FINDER, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado
Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 1:13-CV-2059 AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.).

Jerrod Finder was a former employee of Leprino Foods Company or
Leprino Foods Dairy Products Company. He alleged that he was not
provided meal breaks as required by California law. Plaintiff
originally filed suit in state court. Defendants removed the case
to federal court, asserting subject matter jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act. Defendants filed a motion on the
pleadings. Plaintiff's claims were dismissed without prejudice and
with leave to amend. Plaintiff's operative complaint is the first
amended complaint and contains five causes of action: (1) failure
to provide meal periods in violation of California Labor Code
Sections 512 and 226.7, (2) failure to provide accurate wage
statements in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226 and
226.6, (3) failure to promptly pay wages due in violation of
California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202, (4) violation of
California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200, and (5)
enforcement of California Labor Code provisions under the Private
Attorney Generals Act.

Defendant alleged there are insufficient facts to explain what
inaccurate or incomplete information was provided. Regarding the
improper name, Plaintiff states "the wage statements simply state
'Leprino Foods.'

In the motion, Defendants objected that "The Plaintiff's
conclusory statement did not provide the factual detail required
to support a claim. Plaintiff has not alleged, for example, that
he was unable to schedule his own meal breaks. Nor has Plaintiff
alleged any facts regarding the context and applicability of the
alleged policy to which he refers.

In his Order dated January 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/QyWiIRfrom Leagle.com, Judge Ishii denied in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss as to meal periods and wage claims
because Defendants have provided neither new case law nor argument
persuasive enough for grant of dismissal and granted in part as to
the portion of Plaintiff's PAGA claim based on Section 226.3
because Plaintiff failed to allege facts that can state a claim.

Plaintiff may, but is not required to, file a second amended
complaint by January 26, 2016.

Jerrod Finder is represented by:

     Morris Nazarian, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MORRIS NAZARIAN
     875 Century Park E #1790,
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: (877)225-4529

Leprino Foods is represented by Sandra Lynn Rappaport, Esq. --
srappaport@hansonbridgett.com -- Emily Hartig Fulmer Taylor, Esq.
-- etaylor@hansonbridgett.com -- HANSON BRIDGETT LLP


LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recover Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charmeairria Harris, and all others similarly situated v.
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government and Rodney Ballard, Case
No. 5:15-cv-00367 (E.D. Ky., December 12, 2015), seeks recovery of
actual and punitive damages from Defendants under federal, state,
and common law for its alleged policy, custom or practice at the
Jail of charging persons admitted to the jail for the costs of
their incarceration.

Defendant Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government was
responsible for the establishment of policies either formally or
by custom for, and was responsible for the employment, training,
supervision and conduct of, Rodney Ballard, Director of LFUCG's
Division of Community Corrections, and the officers and employees
of the Jail.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory A. Belzley, Esq.
      BELZLEYBATHURST ATTORNEYS
      P.O. Box 278
      Prospect, KY 40059
      Tel: (502) 292-2452
      E-mail: gbelzley@aol.com

          - and -

      Matt Boyd, Esq.
      BOYD LAW OFFICE
      155 East Main Street, Suite 220
      Lexington, KY 40507
      Tel: (859) 252-0222
      E-mail: mattboydlaw@aol.com


LIFETIME HEALTHCARE: Faces "Fuller" Suit Over Security Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Fuller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lifetime Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-
06739-EAW (W.D.N.Y., December 10, 2015) arises out of the
announced security breach that exposed the personally identifiable
information of approximately 10 million customers.

Lifetime Healthcare, Inc. operates a $6 billion group of companies
that provide health care services and health insurance within New
York and provide certain long-term care services throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Licata, Esq.
      DOLCE PANEPINTO
      1260 Delaware Avenue
      Buffalo, NY 14209
      Telephone: (716) 852-1888
      E-mail: jlicata@dolcepanepinto.com

         - and -

      Shanon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Shane Rowley, Esq.
      Nancy Kulesa, Esq.
      Andrea Clisura, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
      E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com


LOCKNCHARGE TECHNOLOGIES: Recalls Charging Stations
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
LocknCharge Technologies LLC, of Madison, Wis., announced a
voluntary recall of about 550 Charging stations. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

A defective USB charging hub can cause an electrical shock to the
consumer when the charging station is connected to the electrical
supply.

This recall involves LocknCharge iQ10 charging stations that allow
users to charge and store multiple tablet computers. The charging
stations are metal cubes about 16 inches tall x about 16 inches
wide x about 12 « inches long and have two doors on the front. The
cube has white sides with black doors and either a black or white
top cover. The LocknCharge logo is on the sides of the cube. The
charging stations came with a blue basket and a green basket with
dividers that hold the devices to be charged. The baskets have a
white handle with the LocknCharge logo on each side. The charging
stations have two USB charging hubs under the top cover. Recalled
charging stations have charging hubs with no batch code or that
have batch codes that begin with 14L, 15B or 15C. The batch code
is on the bottom of the charging hub under a silver data label.

LocknCharge has received one report of a woman in Australia
receiving an electrical shock from a charging station.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/90p4Vr

The recalled products were manufactured in Australia and Hong Kong
and sold at Distributors to schools, government agencies and other
users from February 2015 to May 2015 for about $600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled charging
stations and contact LocknCharge Technologies for a free
replacement charging hub and instructions for replacing the
charging hub.


LUNERA LIGHTING: Recalls Led Lamps Due to Electric Shock Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lunera Lighting Inc., of Santa Clara, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 60,000 Helen GX23 LED lamps (an
additional 1,000 sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Lamps can overheat, posing fire, burn and electric shock hazards.

This recall involves Lunera 13 watt Helen GX23 LED industrial
lamps. The dimmable lamps are white and measure 6 inches long by
1.25 inches wide by 0.75 inches thick. The Lunera logo is printed
on the front on the lamp at one end. Model numbers HN-H-UNV-GX23-
13W-2700-G3, HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-3000-G3, HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-3500-G3
and HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-4000-G3 appear on the back of the connector.
The date code, ranging from 1501 to 1552, is stamped on the bottom
of the connector.

Lunera has received 11 reports of lamps overheating. No injuries
have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at FSG,
Grainger, Nedco, Standard Electric and other Lunera
industrial/commercial retailers and online at www.1000bulbs.com
and www.bulbs.com from October 2015 through December 2015 for
about $25.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lamps and
contact Lunera for a full refund.


LYFT: Settles California Class Action Lawsuit, To Pay $12.25MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine and Heather Somerville, writing for Reuters, report
that ride-hailing service Lyft has agreed to settle a proposed
class action lawsuit in California by giving drivers additional
workplace protections but without classifying them as employees,
removing a major threat to its business model.

The settlement agreement, filed in San Francisco federal court,
provides for Lyft to pay $12.25 million, as well as give drivers
notice if they are to be deactivated from the platform and other
benefits.

Lyft and larger rival Uber face separate lawsuits brought on
behalf of drivers who contend they are employees and entitled to
reimbursement for expenses including gas and vehicle maintenance.
The drivers currently pay those costs themselves.

The cases have been closely followed because a determination that
the workers are employees instead of contractors could affect the
valuations for other startups that rely on large networks of
individuals to provide rides, clean houses and other services.

While the deal will involve some costs for Lyft, classifying
drivers as employees would have been much more expensive and
complicated, said Jan Dawson, chief analyst of Jackdaw Research.

"It looks like Lyft got off fairly lightly here," Dawson said.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, an attorney for the drivers, acknowledged
that the settlement does not achieve a reclassification of drivers
as employees, but said the benefits are still significant.

Unlike a separate lawsuit against Uber, which has been certified
as a class action, Liss-Riordan said Lyft's arbitration agreement
with its drivers would have made it difficult for Lyft drivers to
similarly sue as a group.

Additionally, Liss-Riordan said her firm receives many more
complaints from Uber drivers about issues with their pay, and
about being deactivated from the platform.

"We have not been hearing so many concerns from Lyft drivers,
which leads us to believe that Lyft is treating its drivers with
more respect than Uber is treating its drivers," Liss-Riordan
said.

Uber representatives could not immediately be reached for comment.
Uber is scheduled for a June trial in San Francisco on whether its
drivers are employees or contractors.

As part of the settlement, Lyft has agreed that it can only
deactivate drivers for specific reasons, like low passenger
ratings. Drivers will be given an opportunity to address those
issues before they are deactivated, according to the court filing.

Lyft also agreed to pay the arbitration expenses for any driver
who wants to challenge their deactivation or disputes over
compensation.

Lyft general counsel Kristin Sverchek said the company is pleased
to resolve the lawsuit on terms that "preserve the flexibility of
drivers to control when, where, and for how long they drive on the
platform".

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria would have to approve the deal.
A hearing on preliminary approval is currently scheduled for
February 18 in San Francisco.


MAL: Hungarian Court Acquits 15 Employees 2010 Sludge Flood Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Hungarian court on Jan. 28
acquitted 15 employees of a company whose burst reservoir in 2010
flooded three towns with toxic red sludge, killing 10 people.

A court in the city of Veszprem said the spill, Hungary's worst
environmental disaster, had been caused by the collapse of a
reservoir wall due to "loss of stability originating in the
subsoil," Hungarian state media reported.

The court said that couldn't have been foreseen by the executives
or employees of MAL, the Hungarian Aluminum Production and Trade
company.

The spilled sludge was a highly caustic waste product of aluminum
production. More than 1 million cubic meters (35.3 million cubic
feet) of the material poured out of the huge reservoir in minutes,
flooding the western Hungarian villages of Kolontar, Devecser and
Somlovasarhely.  The sludge even reached the Danube River through
tributaries, but was sufficiently diluted by then to avoid causing
major damage.

Hundreds of people were evacuated.  The houses most affected by
the sludge flood were later demolished and entire neighborhoods
were relocated and rebuilt.

The verdict cleared the accused of all criminal charges, including
reckless public endangerment and violating waste management
regulations, but the judge said it wouldn't affect lawsuits filed
against MAL.

Environmental groups and political parties said they were dismayed
by the verdict.

"There is still no one responsible for the 2010 sludge flood,"
Greenpeace said in a statement.  "However, it is obvious that
human negligence led to the catastrophe" both on the part of MAL
and the authorities in charge of permitting and overseeing the
company's activities.

The governing Fidesz party said the court's decision was
"appalling" and said that while it respected the court's
independence, it wanted prosecutors to appeal the verdict.
Opposition parties also criticized the ruling.


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Brown v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02618-PAG (N.D. Ohio, December 16, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Cawthon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Cawthon v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02633 (N.D. Ohio, December 17, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Cremeans" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Jane Cremeans v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. Case No.
1:15-cv-02619-PAG (N.D. Ohio, December 16, 2015) is brought
against the Defendant for work in excess of 40 hours during a
workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Elias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Elias v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02620 (N.D. Ohio, December 16, 2015) is brought against
the Defendant for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Martelli" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Martelli v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
5:15-cv-02589-SL (N.D. Ohio, December 14, 2015) is brought against
the Defendant for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Miller v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
02590 (N.D. Ohio, December 14, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Mills" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chenelle Mills v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 4:15-
cv-02580 (N.D. Ohio, December 14, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Particia Parker v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02617-JG (N.D. Ohio, December 16, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MCCORMICK & CO: "Bittle" Suit Moved from S.D. Ill. to Wash. D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bittle v. McCormick & Co. Inc.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00989, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-02260-ESH to the
proceeding.

McCormick manufactures, markets, and distributes spices, seasoning
mixes, condiments, and other flavorful products to the food
industry worldwide. It operates through two segments, Consumer and
Industrial. The company is based in Sparks, Maryland.


MEDTRONIC INC: Minn. Appeals Court Revives Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Peter M. Reyes Jr. of the Minnesota Court of Appeals
affirmed in part the district court's dismissal of claims in the
case captioned, In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case
No. A15-0858 (Minn. App.).

On March 25, 2014, Jose E. Almeida, the chief executive officer of
contacted Omar Ishrak, the chief executive officer of Medtronic,
Inc. to set up an in-person meeting to discuss a potential merger
between Medtronic and Covidien. The parties discussed potential
merger options, including Medtronic acquiring Covidien through an
"inversion" wherein Medtronic would no longer be a Minnesota-based
company but would be incorporated in Ireland.

On June 15, 2014, Medtronic announced the inversion, by which
Medtronic would acquire Covidien. On that same day, Perella
Weinberg Partners LP, an independent advisory and asset-management
firm, provided an opinion to the Medtronic Board, and they opined
that the consideration Medtronic would pay was fair to Medtronic
and to its shareholders.

On July 2, 2014, appellant Lewis Merenstein filed a class-action
suit against respondents. Merenstein challenges "the decision to
structure the acquisition as an inversion, which caused harm, both
as to the excise taxes he is being forced to pay and as to that
part of the dilution [in his corporate ownership] attributable to
the need to comply with the IRS's anti-inversion regulations."
Merenstein alleged harm to him and Medtronic's shareholders by the
Individual Respondents for self-dealing (count I), breach of
fiduciary duties (count II), and breaches of the standard of
conduct for both officers and directors pursuant to Minn. Stat.
Sections 302A.251, .361 (2014) (counts III and IV). Count V seeks
equitable relief pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 302A.467 for each of
these breaches. Counts VI and VIII-X allege harm based on
violations of Minn. Stat. Sec. 302A.255 (2014) (count VI),
Sections 302A.165, .251, .255, .521 (2014) (count VIII), Sections
302A.011, subd. 10, .551, .557, .559 (2014) (count IX), and Sec.
302A.165 (count X). Count VII alleges harm based on Minn. Stat.
Sec. 302A.521. Counts XI and XII allege harm based on violations
of Minn. Stat. Sections 80A.68, .76 (2014) (count XI), and
Sections 80A.69, .76 (2014) (count XII).

Respondents moved for dismissal pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 23.09
and Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e), asserting that all the counts are
derivative. The district court granted respondents' motion to
dismiss on March 20, 2015, concluding that counts I-X are
derivative claims and that Merenstein failed to follow the
procedures mandated by rule 23.09. The district court further
concluded that, although counts XI and XII were direct claims,
appellant failed to state a claim for relief pursuant to rule
12.02(e).

On appeal, Merenstein challenged the district court's dismissal of
his class-action suit. Merenstein argued that the district court
erred by (1) dismissing ten of his claims as derivative and for
failing to comply with Minn. R. Civ. P. 23.09 and (2) dismissing
two of his claims for failure to state a claim under Minn. R. Civ.
P. 12.02(e).

In the Opinion dated January 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/pZvv31from Leagle.com, Judge Reyes found that the
district court did not err in determining that count VII as
pleaded is a derivative claim subject to dismissal under rule
23.09 and reversed the remaining counts for determination of
whether the counts are sufficiently pleaded.

On remand the district court shall determine whether appellant
pleaded with particularity a claim consistent with the
requirements of Minn. Stat. Sec. 80A.69(a), Minn. R. Civ. P. 9.02,
and Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e).

Merenstein is represented by Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. --
ralockridge@locklaw.com -- gmfishbein@locklaw.com -- Richard A.
Lockridge, Esq., LOCKRIDGE, GRINDAL, NAUEN, P.L.L.P.

Medtronic Inc. is represented by James K. Langdon, Esq. --
langdon.jim@dorsey.com -- Michelle S. Grant, Esq. --
grant.michelle@dorsey.com -- James K. Nichols, Esq. --
nichols.james@dorsey.com -- DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP


MEMPHIS, TN: Faces "Moses" Suit Over Alleged Illegal Detention
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Moses, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. City of Memphis, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
02806-JDT-dkv (W.D. Tenn., December 17, 2015) is brought on behalf
of all persons who were detained in 201 Poplar Memphis, TN and
6201 Haley Rd., Memphis, TN 38134 in Shelby County, Memphis,
without due process, not brought before a Magistrate or Judge,
arrested of a person without probable cause that the person
committed a crime, arrest without the mention of the suspect's
Miranda Rights, arrest without just cause or valid arrest warrant,
arrest with an arrest warrant that was obtained with false
information given to the court by a police officer, arrest by
incompetence, arrest for personal gain, arrest based on race,
arrest based on pure malice.

City of Memphis is a municipal corporation, duly incorporated
under the laws of the State of Tennessee.

Pamela Moses is a pro se plaintiff.


METAL TECHNOLOGIES: Conditional Class Cert. Bid Granted in "Weil"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted in part
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a combined class action and denied
Metal Technologies' motion to leave to file surreply in the case
captioned, BRIAN A. WEIL and MELISSA D. FULK, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. METAL
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:15-CV-00016-JMS-DKL
(S.D. Ind.).

Plaintiffs Brian A. Weil and Melissa D. Fulk filed a Complaint
asserting claims against Defendant Metal Technologies, Inc. (Metal
Technologies) for failure to pay wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, (FLSA), and the Indiana Wage Payment Act, (IWPA).
Plaintiffs assert three types of conduct by Metal Technologies as
the basis of their lawsuit and the instant motion. They argue that
Metal Technologies 1) rounded employees' payroll records to pay
them for their scheduled hours of work rather than actual hours of
work; 2) deducted wages from employees' paychecks to pay for work
uniforms; 3) and treated employees' lunch breaks of twenty minutes
or less as unpaid time. Plaintiffs assert that these practices
violate federal and state law. Plaintiffs seek to have Mr. Weil
serve as class representative for the collective action brought
under the FLSA for all three of the alleged violations and for the
class action brought under a state law breach of contract theory,
for any employee who was involuntarily terminated. Mr. Weil was a
full time employee at Metal Technologies from November 2014 until
December 2014, when he was involuntarily terminated.

Metal Technologies uses an electronic time clock to record the
time that each employee clocks in and out, and employees track
their time by swiping a personal security badge. Metal
Technologies also requires its employees to clock out at the
beginning of a meal period and clock back in at the end of a meal
period.

In the motion, Plaintiffs moved to certify a combined class action
and FLSA Collective Action and Metal Technologies moved for leave
to file surreply to plaintiffs' motion to certify a combined class
action and FLSA collective action.

In her Order dated January 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/HFHVy6from Leagle.com, Judge Magunus-Stinson found
that conditional certification for Plaintiffs' sub-class is
appropriate and have made the necessary "modest factual showing"
that Metal Technologies maintains a common policy or practice and
that it violates the law. The Court also found that Plaintiffs met
their burden for conditional certification, and grants Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify the FLSA collective action for improper rounding
policy.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Jacob H. Miller, Esq.
Robert F. Hunt, Esq.
Robert Peter Kondras, Jr., Esq.
HUNT HASSLER KONDRAS & MILLER LLP
100 Cherry Street
Terre Haute, IN 47807
Tel: (812)232-9691

Metal Technologies, Inc. is represented by Melissa K. Taft, Esq.
-- Melissa.Taft@jacksonlewis.com -- Michael W. Padgett, Esq. --
PadgettM@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C.


MID-AMERICA SOUND: Indiana No Liability in Stage Collapse Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Callahan, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Indiana is not liable to pay damages incurred by a company that
provided stage rigging that collapsed and killed seven people
during the 2011 state fair, the state's high court has unanimously
ruled.

Mid-America Sound Corp. had argued that a voucher claim form the
State Fair Commission signed months after the August 2011 collapse
included an "indemnification" provision that released it from any
claims arising from the use of its equipment.  But the high court
ruled on Jan. 28 that the invoice form's language "did not clearly
and unequivocally provide for retroactive application" of that
provision for any claims arising from the deadly rigging collapse.

Chief Justice Loretta Rush also wrote that the "need for explicit
language is especially important when an agreement involves
retroactive indemnity."

The Jan. 28 ruling vacates a 2015 state appeals court ruling that
had overturned a trial judge's finding that Mid-America Sound
could not shift its liabilities to the state.

Seven people were killed and nearly 100 were injured when high
winds toppled rigging and sent the roof of the stage onto fans
awaiting the start of a concert by the country duo Sugarland at
the fairgrounds in Indianapolis.

Indiana has paid out $11 million to victims of the collapse,
including $5 million under the state's liability cap and $6
million in public funds freed up by the General Assembly.

The amount of damages Mid-America Sound faces in lawsuits filed
following that disaster remains under court seal.

Robert MacGill, the company's lead attorney in the case, declined
to comment on Jan. 29 on the court's ruling.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said in a statement that
he's relieved the court ruled against Mid-America Sound's effort
to "shift its legal responsibility for the State Fair tragedy onto
the taxpayers."

Indiana's attorneys argued during September's hearing in front of
the high court that the State Fair Commission is a state entity
that cannot be required to pay the liability faced by a private
company and that doing so would violate state law.

Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher also told the justices the
indemnification provision in Mid-America's invoice claim form was
"a gotcha claim."

Mr. MacGill said in his arguments that the company had inserted
the indemnification provision in 2003, after the company tried to
halt a 2002 State Fair concert as severe weather threatened but
was rebuffed by fair officials.  Mr. MacGill said the State Fair
Commission had signed such forms with the company for nine years
and all of those included the same provision.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hernandez" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
11179 (N.D. Ill., December 11, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates a financial service
company in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger Zamparo Jr., Esq.
      Jordan Mark Sartell, Esq.
      ZAMPARO LAW GROUP, P.C.
      2300 Barrington Road, Suite 140
      Hoffman Estates, IL 60169
      Telephone: (224) 875-3202
      Facsimile: (312) 276-4950
      E-mail: roger@zamparo.com
              jordan@zamparolaw.com


MINDWARE CORP: Recalls Children's Bikes Due to Laceration Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Mindware Corp., of Omaha, Neb., Northwest Synergy, of Redmond,
Wash. and Wal-Mart Stores, of Bentonville, Ark., announced a
voluntary recall of about 29,000 Children's bikes (in addition,
268 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

Overinflated tires can cause the wheel rims to crack and send
pieces of the plastic rim flying, posing a laceration hazard to
consumers.

This recall includes all Chillafish BMXie, Chillafish Jack and
Chillafish Josie balance bikes. The bikes were designed for
children ages 2 to 5 and have no pedals and no chains. BMXie bikes
are made of plastic. The bikes are about 31.5 inches long with a
seat that can be adjusted from about 12.5 inches high to about
15.5 inches high and have a detachable foot support. BMXie bikes
were sold in the colors blue, lime green, pink, red and yellow.
Item reference number CPMX01BLU, CPMX01LIM, CPMX01PIN, CPMX01RED
or CPMX01YEL is on a label on the bottom of the bike frame. Jack
and Josie bikes have steel frames. The bikes are about 34 inches
long with a seat that can be adjusted from about 14 inches high to
about 17 inches high. Jack bikes were sold in a black and orange
color scheme with flames on the crosstube and item reference
number CPJJ02BLA on a label on the bottom of the bike frame. Josie
bikes were sold in a white and pink color scheme with flowers on
the crosstube and item reference number CPJJ02WHI on a label on
the bottom of the bike frame.

Chillafish has received 19 reports of plastic separating from the
rims, including two reports of consumers being cut by flying
plastic when pieces of the plastic rim were expelled.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Sam's
Club stores nationwide and online at Amazon .com, Target.com and
ToysRUs.com from November 2013 through November 2015 for between
$55 and $80.

Consumers should immediately stop children from using the recalled
bikes until the tires are deflated to a pressure at or below 32
psi and contact Chillafish for a free repair. Chillafish is
contacting consumers directly.


MOURI MANAGEMENT: "Jimenez" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paulo Jimenez, an individual v. Shtnrai Iiome, a business entity,
form unknown; Mouri Management Group, Incorporated, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No: 15cv289015
(Cal. Super., County of Santa Clara, December 15, 2015), alleges
that Defendants violated the provisions of the California Labor
Code, the applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Order(s), and City of San Jose Municipal Code.

Defendants own and operate intermediate and developmentally
disabled care facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel A. Menendez, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL A MENENDEZ
     P.O. Box 1328
     San Jose, CA 951 09
     Phone: (408)479-4969
     Fax: (408)273-6912
     E-mail: daniel@siliconvalleylegal.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Judge Okays Amended Head Injury Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Z. Lee of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois granted the joint motion for
preliminary approval of an amended class settlement and for
certification of the settlement class in the case captioned, IN
RE: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE
CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION This Document Relates to All Cases,
Case No. 2492, Master Docket No. 13 C 9116 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs in the multi-district litigation are current and former
collegiate athletes, who have sued the National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA) on a class-wide basis, asserting
various contractual and common law claims arising from the manner
in which the NCAA has handled student-athlete concussions and
concussion-related risks over the years. After extensive
discovery, the parties in the first-filed case, Arrington v. NCAA,
No. 1:11-cv-06356 (N.D. Ill. 2011), commenced settlement
negotiations with the assistance of two prominent retired federal
judges. A number of similar actions were filed on behalf of NCAA
student-athletes nationwide, and those actions were consolidated
by the Judicial Panel of Multidistrict Litigation before this
Court.

After extensive, arm's-length negotiations, the parties arrived at
a settlement, and a number of the Plaintiffs submitted the
settlement agreement to the Court for approval under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(e). However, Anthony Nichols, the named Plaintiff appointed
by the Court as Interim Lead Objector, opposed the settlement on
various grounds. On December 17, 2014, the Court declined to
approve the settlement agreement, raising a number of significant
concerns.

After additional negotiations, the Settling Plaintiffs and the
NCAA agreed on an amended settlement agreement, and the Settling
Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint and a
motion for preliminary approval of the amended class settlement
agreement. The Court permitted Nichols to file objections to the
amended settlement. Nichols directs his principal objection to the
provision in the amended settlement agreement whereby the Settling
Plaintiffs agree to release their right to pursue their personal
injury claims on a class-wide basis.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 26, 2016
available at http://is.gd/jKojKCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Lee found
that the amended settlement is within the range of possible
approval and preliminarily certifies the settlement class under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and ordered the Settling Plaintiffs and
the NCAA to provide notice to the settlement class, as well as an
opportunity for individual class members to opt out of the class
settlement.

                           *     *     *

Russell Westerholm, writing for University Herald, reports that
with a federal judge's approval now in hand, the NCAA settled a
class-action lawsuit with thousands of former student-athletes
over head injuries.

According to The Associated Press, U.S. District Judge John Lee
approved the settlement after the two sides altered the terms to
include student-athletes that play non-contact sports. The
settlement includes a $70 million fund for brain trauma testing
for people who say they suffered head injuries while playing their
sport in college.

"While we are pleased the court has provided a preliminary pathway
to provide significant resources for the medical monitoring of
student-athletes who may suffer concussions, we are still
examining the conditions placed on preliminary approval," NCAA
chief legal officer Donald Remy said in a statement obtained by
CBS Sports.

$5 million of the fund will go toward research and the NCAA will
change the way its members schools handle medical care for head
injuries as well.

The alterations to the settlement delayed Lee's approval, but it
also allowed for former student-athletes to file lawsuits under
the right circumstances. Former Eastern Illinois football player
Adrian Arrington filed a lawsuit against the NCAA in 2011 alleging
neglect toward multiple head injuries he suffered in his playing
career, The AP noted.

Documents from Arrington's case showed in 2013 the NCAA was not
monitoring a head injury protocol it installed in 2010. After his
lawsuit had gained class-action status, Arrington wound up
withdrawing from the lawsuit due to the settlement protecting the
NCAA from future litigation.

Jay Edelson, an attorney from Chicago representing the former
student-athletes, told The AP the group was "thrilled" with Lee's
ruling.

"Rather, the facts produced in discovery present a multitude of
potential permutations regarding whether the NCAA breached a duty
to protect its athletes and caused any particular plaintiff
injury," Lee wrote. "And the need to make individual, fact
intensive determinations as to liability with respect to each
class member eclipses any common issues as to whether the NCAA had
a duty to protect players from concussion-related risks, breached
that duty, and fraudulently concealed those risks."

Plaintiffs are represented by William T. Gibbs, Esq. --
WTG@CorboyDemetrio.com -- Philip Harnett Corboy, Jr., Esq. --
FHC@CorboyDemetrio.com -- CORBOY & DEMETRIO

          - and -

     John Barton Goplerud, Esq.
     HUDSON MALLANEY SHINDLER & ANDERSON, P.C.
     5015 Grand Ridge Dr #100
     West Des Moines, IA 50265
     Tel: (515) 223-4567

          - and -

     David Freydin, Esq.
     Timothy A. Scott, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DAVID FREYDIN, LTD.
     8707 Skokie Blvd., Ste 305
     Skokie, IL 60077
     Tel: (847) 972-6157

National Collegiate Athletic Association is represented by Mark
Steven Mester, Esq. - mark.mester@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Appeal in Super Bowl Tickets Suit Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Julio M. Fuentes of the Court of Appeals, Third
Circuit, affirmed a lower court judgment in 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, Case No. 15-1435 (3rd Cir.).

Super Bowl XLVIII took place at MetLife Stadium in East
Rutherford, New Jersey on February 2, 2014. Plaintiffs allege that
the NFL distributed 99% of Super Bowl tickets to NFL teams and
League insiders. Only about 1% of Super Bowl tickets were
available for purchase by members of the general public, and the
only way for someone to obtain one of those tickets was to
participate in a League-sponsored lottery. In order to acquire a
ticket in the lottery, a person had to (i) enter by the deadline,
(ii) be selected as a winner, and (iii) choose to actually
purchase a ticket.

Finkelman filed a putative class action against the NFL in January
2014 in the District of New Jersey. One month later, he filed an
amended complaint that added several defendants and identified
Hoch-Parker as a second named plaintiff.

On December 30, 2013, Finkelman purchased two tickets to the Super
Bowl in the resale market at a price of $2,000 per ticket and
Hoch-Parker wanted to purchase five Super Bowl tickets for himself
and his family, hoping to pay no more than $1,000 per ticket but
decided not to purchase any when he found out that tickets were
sold at $4,200. The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' suit for
failure to state a claim.

Plaintiffs appealed.

In the Opinion dated January 14, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/eIQkSXfrom Leagle.com, Judge Fuentes concluded that
neither Hoch-Parker nor Finkelman has constitutional standing to
bring the case. The Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice
because the NFL did not raise the issue of Finkelman's Article III
standing before the District Court.

On remand, the District Court may exercise its discretion as to
whether plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend their
complaint.

Plaintiffs are represented by Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. --
bnagel@nagelrice.com -- Robert H. Solomon, Esq. --
rsolomon@nagelrice.com -- Greg M. Kohn, Esq. --
gkohn@nagelrice.com -- Andrew Pepper, Esq. --
apepper@nagelrice.com -- NAGEL RICE, LLP

National Football League is represented by Jonathan D. Pressment,
Esq. -- jonathan.pressment@haynesboone.com -- William Feldman,
Esq. -- william.feldman@haynesboone.com -- HAYNES & BOONE, LLP,
Karen A. Confoy, Esq. -- kconfoy@foxrothschild.com -- Steven J.
Daroci, Esq. -- sdaroci@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP


NATIONAL INSURANCE: 11th Cir. Vacates Remand Order in "Hill" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Julie Carnes of the Court of Appeals, Eleventh
Circuit, vacated a lower court's remand order in the case
captioned, LISA HILL, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATIONAL INSURANCE
UNDERWRITERS, INC., DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 15-14967 (11th Cir.).

Plaintiff alleged that she purchased two insurance products from
Direct General: (1) a personal injury protection and property
damage (PIP/PD) automobile insurance policy and (2) Accident
Medical Protection (AMP). Plaintiff accused Defendants of
wrongfully charging policy fees and accepting commissions for both
PIP/PD and AMP insurance policies. Plaintiff sued Direct General
for breach of contract (Count II) and breach of fiduciary duty
(Count III). She seeks a judgment declaring that NIU cannot charge
or accept the AMP fee and must return all such fees charged or
accepted (Count I). Other claims against NIU include breach of
contract (Count V), breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing (Count VI), and breach of fiduciary duty (Count
VII) -- all premised on vicarious liability -- as well as a claim
of aiding and abetting Direct General's breach of fiduciary duty
(Count VIII).

On December 17, 2012, Direct General timely removed the action to
federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
Plaintiff moved to remand under the local-controversy exception. A
couple of weeks later, the district court issued an order
remanding the case to state court. But instead of granting
Plaintiff's motion, or even mentioning the ground that Plaintiff
had asserted in her motion, the court characterized its order as
being issued sua sponte and based the remand on another reason
altogether.

The next day, Direct General filed an emergency motion for
reconsideration based on CAFA. The day after Direct General's
emergency motion, the district court vacated its sua sponte remand
order, leaving pending Plaintiff's motion to remand based on the
local-controversy exception. On May 22, 2015, the district court
granted Plaintiff's motion to remand, finding that the local-
controversy exception applied.

On appeal, Defendants National Insurance and Direct General
appealed the district court's decision to remand the case to a
Florida state court based on the "local-controversy" exception of
the Class Action Fairness Act.

Plaintiff argued that the Appeals Court lacked jurisdiction to
consider the appeal, but that even if it did, the district court
correctly ruled that the local-controversy exception applies and
therefore properly remanded the case.

In her Order dated January 14, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/ExVHkHfrom Leagle.com, Judge Carnes concluded that
the Appeals Court has jurisdiction over the appeal, and held that
the district court failed to apply the correct legal standard in
evaluating the merits of Plaintiff's motion to remand.


NATIONWIDE DEBT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tremaine K. Watkins, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Nationwide Debt Management Solutions, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-08515 (D.N.J., December 9, 2015) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Nationwide Debt Management Solutions, LLC operates a full service,
compliance-driven collection agency and master servicer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONWIDE DEBT: Default Judgment Recommended in "Liversage"
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland recommended that
Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment and award of damages in
the case captioned, THOMAS LIVERSAGE, et al., Plaintiff, v.
NATIONWIDE DEBT MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
ELH-15-1266 (D. Md.).

Plaintiffs, two Maryland residents and "consumers," as defined in
15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692a(3), filed a Class Action Complaint on behalf
of themselves and all similarly situated persons on May 1, 2015.
Defendant is, and at all relevant times was, a "debt collector" as
defined in 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692a(6) and Md. Code Ann. Com. L. Sec.
14-201(b). Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant's collection
practices violate certain portions of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, the putative class consists of
"all Maryland residents who subjected to any collection activity
by Defendant Nationwide within three years before the date of the
filing of the Complaint."  Plaintiffs purported that they meet the
requirements mandated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint. On June 9,
2015, Plaintiffs filed a Request for Entry of Default with the
Clerk's Office, which was granted on August 25, 2015.

In the motion, two named plaintiffs, Thomas and Patricia
Liversage, sought statutory damages of $1000.00 each, as well as
attorneys' fees of $3,264.50, and filing fees of $400.00, for a
total damages award of $5,664.50.

In her Report and Recommendations dated January 11, 2016 available
at http://is.gd/xyqKlGfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gallagher concluded
that Plaintiffs plausibly state a claim for relief under the
FDCPA, and the liability prong of the default judgment standard is
satisfied. He recommended that a total judgment of $2,110.00 which
constitutes $200.00 in statutory damages be awarded to each
Plaintiff, $1,310.00 in legal fees and $400.00 in costs.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     E. David Hoskins, Esq.
     Steven B. Isbister, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF E. DAVID HOSKINS, LLC
     16 E. Lombard St,
     Baltimore, MD 21231
     Tel: (410)662-6500


NEW YORK: Counsel Found Lacking in Experience to Handle Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Simmons, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
a group of plaintiffs suing the New York City Housing Authority
for discrimination lost their bid for class certification after a
federal judge found their attorney was inexperienced in handling
class actions.

Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin said she had "serious
doubts" that plaintiffs counsel Lee Sam Nuwesra, a Manhattan solo,
could adequately represent the plaintiffs' interests, noting that
some of his court papers were compiled by his 16-year-old
daughter.

"Quite aside from counsel's lack of class action experience, his
performance in the present case has been so lacking as to raise
doubts about his ability to diligently pursue the interests of the
class," Scheindlin said in Wynn v. NYCHA, 14-cv-2818.

Nuwesra did not return phone and email messages seeking comment.
But he defended himself in court papers, saying he has had a law
practice in New York City since 1993, and major parts of his
practice involve labor, employment and civil rights litigation.

Nuwesra claimed he was "pretty qualified" and included a list of
his past employment and civil rights cases, marking some as
"collective/class actions." He said his "young assistant/daughter"
compiled the list.

Nuwesra is representing a group of plaintiffs suing their
employer, the New York City Housing Authority, under city and
federal civil rights laws, alleging they have been systemically
underpaid due to their race or ethnicity. The group also sued
Local 237 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, alleging
it engaged or encouraged discriminatory conduct.

The five named plaintiffs are black or Hispanic members of Local
237,who have worked as plasterer helpers for NYCHA. They claim
their pay grade is not commensurate with the work they perform.

The agency's actions, they say, resulted from racial
discrimination against mostly black and Hispanic caretakers in
their work category. In November, Nuwesra moved to certify the
case as a class action on behalf of all black and Hispanic union
members who worked at NYCHA in the plaintiffs' category of work.

But Scheindlin found the plaintiffs failed to meet a number of
requirements for certification, including failing to commit to a
class definition to determine who is in the class.

The very fact that plaintiffs described the class in at least four
different ways makes the class unascertainable, she said. "It
would be particularly inappropriate for the court to craft the
specific class definition in the first instance where, as here,
the plaintiffs have failed to do so themselves."

Further, Scheindlin said, plaintiffs have not met their burden of
proving the claims of the class members are typical of the class
as a whole. Turning to adequacy of counsel, the judge said the
issue is particularly important in the class action context where
the class is bound by the result of the litigation.

"I have serious doubts that plaintiffs' counsel can adequately
represent the interests of the proposed class," she said, noting
that both defendants also challenge counsel's adequacy.

Addressing Nuwesra's list of prior cases, Scheindlin said it was
compiled "apparently without any oversight from counsel," as it
double counted a case and the Wynn case was listed as class-action
experience.


NEW YORK JETS: Cheerleaders to Receive $325,000 in Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Marsh and Kirstan Conley, writing for the New York Post,
report that the Flight Crew is cheering a win against their own
team.

The Jets cheerleaders scored a $325,000 settlement from Gang Green
in a New Jersey court.

The deal will give each of the 52 pompom pushers $2,500 per season
they've worked. Squad members featured in photo shoots are also
eligible for an additional $400 payment per shoot.

The deal covers the 2012-13 and 2013-14 NFL seasons.

The class-action suit, filed in 2014 by a cheerleader identified
only as Krystal C., claimed the women made only $150 per game and
nothing for practice time.

In a joint statement about the deal, the Jets said they "deny the
claims and the parties have agreed to a settlement to avoid the
expense, time and distraction of litigation."

Both parties declined further comment.

State Sen. Diane Savino (D-SI) applauded the settlement and called
for "the Buffalo Bills to do the same, to ensure that their
cheerleaders are not left out in the cold when it comes to fair
pay and treatment."

Bills cheerleaders were recently granted class-action status in a
similar wage suit against their team.

In that Erie County lawsuit, the Buffalo Jills say they had to
live by a strict code of conduct that dictated their appearance,
eating habits -- and even how they used feminine products.

Savino also called on the NFL "to step forward as a leader and
develop uniform rules for their teams to ensure that all
cheerleaders in every state received the employee pay and
protections they deserve."


NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE: Settlement Fails to Win Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Steven D. Merryday of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida denied parties' motion
for "approval of FLSA collective action settlement" and for other
relief in the case captioned, CHRISTINA COPELAND-STEWART,
Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
8:15-CV-T-23AEP (M.D. Fla.).

Copeland-Stewart worked for New York Life "as a customer service
representative and sales agent in the AARP Life Member Services
cost center." The complaint alleges that New York Life "failed to
properly pay Copeland-Stewart and all other similarly situated
employees complete overtime compensation. After Copeland-Stewart
initiated this action, eighteen current and former New York Life
employees filed notices "of consent to join" the action as
"similarly situated" plaintiffs.

After a court-ordered mediation, Copeland-Stewart and New York
Life agreed "to resolve this matter on a collective class-wide
basis for a maximum settlement amount up to $1,075,000. The
eighteen present opt-in plaintiffs will participate in the
proposed settlement. Also, the parties plan to notify and offer
other current and former New York Life employees the option of
opting into this action and joining the proposed settlement.

In the motion, Copeland-Stewart and New York Life moved for
"certification" of the action "as a collective action"; for
approval of the proposed settlement; for appointment of Copeland-
Stewart as "class representative"; for appointment of Copeland-
Stewart's counsel, C. Ryan Morgan, as "class counsel"; for
approval of a $322,500 attorney's fee award to Morgan; for
approval of service awards (totaling $27,500) to Copeland-Stewart
and the present opt-in plaintiffs; and for approval of a proposed
notice to the putative class members about the right to opt into
this action and to join the proposed settlement.

In his Order dated January 19, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/vou22Cfrom Leagle.com, Judge Merryday found that the
motion fails to demonstrate that the typical putative class member
is similarly situated to Copeland-Stewart; and Copeland-Stewart
has neither the authority to represent the future opt-in
plaintiffs nor the authority to settle their FLSA claims. The
motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a), which requires a
motion to include a statement of the basis for the precise relief
requested and a memorandum of legal authority in support of the
request. To the extent that the motion seeks conditional
certification of the proposed class, the motion fails to offer any
information showing that the typical putative class member is
similarly situated to Copeland-Stewart "with respect to job
requirements and pay provisions.

No later than February 12, 2016, the parties (1) must seek
preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement, (2) must seek
final approval of a proposed settlement as to only Copeland-
Stewart and the present opt-in plaintiffs, (3) must announce that
the parties abandoned the proposed settlement and move for
conditional certification, or (4) must announce that the parties
abandoned the proposed settlement and proceed with Copeland-
Stewart as the only plaintiff.

Leigh Shafir is represented by Christopher G. Hayes, Esq. --
chris@chayeslaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER G. HAYES, Daniel
C. Levin, Esq. -- dlevin@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN &
BERMAN

Continuum Health Care Partners, Inc. is represented by Aaron
Warshaw, Esq. -- aaron.warshaw@ogletreedeakins.com -- Maayan
Deker, Esq. -- maayan.deker@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE,
DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. & Edward Cerasia, II, Esq.
-- ed@cdemploymentlaw.com -- Alison L. Tomasco, Esq. --
alison@cdemploymentlaw.com -- CERASIA & DEL REY-CONE LLP


NEW YORK TAXI & LIMOUSINE: Court Denies Drivers' Injunction Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Frederic Block of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York denied Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunctive relief in the case captioned,
JASWINDER SINGH, BALBIR NAGI, MAN SINGH and NYC YELLOW CAB DRIVERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiffs, v. MEERA JOSHI, THE NEW YORK CITY
TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, BILL DE BLASIO and THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-5496-FB-VMS (E.D.N.Y.).

TLC conducted the first lottery of independent medallion holders
in June 2015; the three individual plaintiffs were among those
chosen. By letters dated August 17, 2015, TLC informed each
plaintiff that he would be required to purchase an accessible
vehicle when his current vehicle came up for mandatory retirement.
The retirement dates are April 13, 2016, for plaintiff Man Singh,
May 26, 2016, for plaintiff Balbir Nagi, and October 6, 2016, for
plaintiff Jaswinder Singh.

On September 22, 2015, the three individual plaintiffs filed suit
against TLC, its chairperson, Meera Joshi, the City of New York
and Mayor Bill De Blasio. The plaintiffs allege that the
regulations impose noneconomic and economic burdens on them.
Plaintiffs' assert three federal claims: (1) that the regulations
violate the Due-Process Clause of the United States Constitution,
(2) that the regulations violate the Equal Protection Clause of
the United States Constitution; and (3) that the regulations
amount to an unconstitutional taking of private property without
just compensation. They also assert due-process and takings claims
under the New York Constitution, and a challenge to the
regulations under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law
and Rules.

Once served, the defendants filed a letter motion to transfer the
case to the Southern District of New York.

In the motion, Plaintiffs argue that the regulations violate the
Constitution and other applicable laws. They seek preliminary
injunction barring enforcement on the grounds that the regulations
violate the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal
protection.

In her Memorandum and Order dated January 26, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/CQ879zfrom Leagle.com, Judge Block concluded that
TLC's decisions to set a goal of 50% accessibility, to include
both corporate and individual medallion owners in that mandate,
and to require all individual owners to share the burden on a
rotating basis, all reflect the balancing of interests that
defines modern policymaking. The nature of independent medallion
ownership required a mechanism for choosing which owners would
bear that burden first. The use of a lottery, in which every owner
was treated exactly like every other owner, entirely comports with
equal protection.

Plaintiffs are represented by Andrew St. Laurent, Esq. --
andrew@harrisobrien.com -- Steven Gabriel Hayes-Williams, Esq. --
ghayeswilliams@harrisobrien.com -- ANDREW M. ST. LAURENT, HARRIS,
O'BRIEN, ST. LAURENT & HOUGHTELING LLP

Defendants are represented by:

     Michelle Goldberg-Cahn, Esq.
     Karen B. Selvin, Esq.
     NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
     100 Church St # 4
     Tel: (212)788-0303


NIMBLE STORAGE: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Desai Kushal Vikramkumar, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Nimble Storage, Inc., Suresh Vasudevan and
Anup V. Singh, Case No. 4:15-cv-05803-YGR (N.D. Cal., December 17,
2015) alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Nimble Storage, Inc. is in the business of providing flash-
optimized storage platforms.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dennis J. Herman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      Post Montgomery Center
      One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 288-4545
      Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
      E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
              dherman@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman
      Mario Alba Jr.
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              malba@rgrdlaw.com


OSI GROUP: Mulls Appeal of Verdict in Tainted Meat Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Kelvin Chan, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a U.S.
meat supplier is disputing a Chinese court's verdict that its
local subsidiary sold expired chicken and beef to McDonald's, KFC
and other fast food restaurants in China.

OSI Group of Aurora, Illinois, also said that it's considering
appealing what it called an "unjust verdict" by a Shanghai court
on Feb. 1 to fine two of its Chinese units and sentence 10
employees to prison in the case.

The scandal was exposed in 2014 by Shanghai's Dragon TV station,
which reported that OSI's subsidiary repackaged and sold old meat.

The case disrupted operations at chains including Burger King and
Starbucks.  It also added to the long list of Chinese product
safety scandals over the past decade, including phony or
adulterated goods such as milk powder and drugs that have sickened
or killed infants, hospital patients and others.

Shanghai's Jiading District People's Court said it fined OSI
subsidiaries Shanghai Husi Foods Ltd. and Hebei Husi Foods Ltd.
1.2 million yuan ($182,000) each.  OSI China general manager, Yang
Liqun, was sentenced to three years in prison and a 100,000 yuan
fine. Yang, who is an Australian citizen, was also ordered to be
deported.

"After an actual investigation was completed, all authorities
involved have recognized that this case has never been about food
safety," OSI said in a statement.  "The verdict is inconsistent
with the facts and evidence that were presented in the court
proceedings."

The company added that it is "forced to consider an appeal through
all legal channels" and is also weighing legal action against
Dragon TV.


PAPA JOHN'S: Sued for Overtaxed Deliveries in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Schmidt, writing for The Telegraph, reports that a class
action lawsuit filed in Madison County could entitle some
Illinoisans who ordered pizza delivered from Papa John's a little
cash back.

A Madison County man is asking a circuit judge to approve a
settlement of a class action suit in which he claimed that Papa
John's Pizza illegally charged a 16-cent sales tax on a delivery
fee.

Zachary Tucker claimed in his suit that Illinois law does not
allow sales taxes on anything other than taxable, tangible goods.
The attorneys for Tucker said that, since the customer could pick
up the pizza or have it delivered, the firm was allowed only to
charge sales tax on the difference between the cost of delivery
and the amount of the delivery fee.

The attorneys alleged that the Tucker ordered a pizza delivered
from a Papa John's location in Wood River, and was charge a
delivery fee of $2.36.

"Plaintiff Tucker was improperly charged a sales tax of 6.850
percent. Under Illinois law, defendants were not allowed to charge
sales tax on the delivery fee. Accordingly, defendants required
Tucker to pay an additional 16 cents in sales tax for the not-
taxable service.

The original suit alleges there are 122 Papa John's stores in
Illinois. The number of people in the class was not available, but
the proposed class members were all those who had ordered food for
delivery from any Papa John's location in Illinois and who paid
"excess" sales tax to which the defendants were allegedly not
entitled.

The suit asked the Madison County court to certify the case as a
class action, but before that occurred, the case was moved to
federal court.

The latest filing on Jan. 13 includes the same wording as in the
original suit, but another document filed in the case asks that a
county circuit judge approve a final settlement.


PARADISE PARKING: Faces "Paz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sobhille Paz v. Paradise Parking, a/k/a Double Park, LLC, Daniel
Radrizzani, and Mitchell Liss, Case No. 1:15-cv-24625-JEM (S.D.
Fla., December 17, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing valet services
throughout Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      309 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


PARAGON CONTRACTORS: Children Testify in Labor Case
---------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has heard from
five children and teenagers who say they were pulled out of class
to work long hours picking pecans at a Utah ranch while they were
growing up in a polygamous group.

The testimony in Salt Lake City on Jan. 26 comes after labor
lawyers asked a judge to sanction the company accused of using
1,400 unpaid laborers, including 175 children, during a 2012
harvest.

The U.S. Department of Labor says Hurricane-based Paragon
Contractors has deep connections to the Fundamentalist Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and broke a previous order
against using child labor during the harvest taped by news cameras
about 300 miles south of Salt Lake City.

The company denies wrongdoing, saying the women and children
volunteered to collect fallen nuts and kept some for themselves.


PAULSON ADVISERS: SC Affirms Case Dismissal for Lack of Standing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Collins J. Seitz of the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed
district court's dismissal of complaint in the case captioned,
HUGH F. CULVERHOUSE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAULSON & CO. INC. and
PAULSON ADVISERS, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 349, 2015
(Del.).

Culverhouse filed a putative class action against the Investment
Fund Managers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. The first amended complaint alleges that
between 2007 and 2011, the Investment Fund invested about $800
million in the Sino-Forest Corporation, a Chinese Forestry
Company. On behalf of himself and others "who held limited
partnership interests in the Investment Fund," or "invested in one
of its many 'pass-through' feeder hedge fund platforms,"
Culverhouse alleged breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence,
and unjust enrichment against the Investment Fund Managers
resulting from the Investment Fund's loss from its Sino-Forest
holdings.

The Investment Fund Managers moved to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They also argued that
Culverhouse lacked standing because his claims in the first
amended complaint were derivative under Delaware law. The district
court decided the claims were derivative, and dismissed the
complaint for lack of standing under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1).

On appeal of the dismissal for lack of standing, the Court in
Tooley established a two part test to answer the direct/derivative
question. Whether a claim alleged in a complaint is direct or
derivative turns solely on "(1) who suffered the alleged harm (the
corporation or the suing stockholders, individually); and (2) who
would receive the benefit of any recovery or other remedy".

In the Opinion dated January 26, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/fnCyfLfrom Leagle.com, Judge Seitz found that
Culverhouse failed to meet both parts of the Tooley test. To the
extent not waived by the terms of the agreements specific to each
fund, the Investment Fund Managers owe fiduciary duties to the
investors who invested directly in the Investment Fund, including
the Feeder Fund. The alleged harm flowing from the Investment
Fund's losses would not in the first instance be suffered by
Culverhouse. Culverhouse also would not in the first instance
receive the benefit of any recovery. Under the Tooley test,
Culverhouse's claims are derivative.

Hugh F. Culverhouse is represented by Richard L. Renck, Esq. --
RLRenck@duanemorris.com -- Robert M. Palumbos, Esq. --
RMPalumbos@duanemorris.com -- Harvey W. Gurland, Jr., Esq. --
HWGurland@duanemorris.com -- Felice K. Schonfeld, Esq. --
FKSchonfeld@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, Lawrence A.
Kellogg, Esq. -- LAK@lklsg.com -- Jason Kellogg, Esq. --
JK@lklsg.com -- LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER & GROSSMAN LLP

Paulson Advisers, LLC is represented by Gregory E. Stuhlman, Esq.
-- stuhlmang@gtlaw.com -- Richard A. Edlin, Esq. --
edlinr@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP


PENNSYLVANIA: Settles ACLU Suit Over Mental Health Services
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cherri Gregg, writing for CBS Philly, reports that Pennsylvania's
Department of Human Services has settled an ACLU class action that
challenged the state's treatment of mentally ill individuals
caught in the criminal justice system.

The agreement brings more resources to those inmates with severe
mental illness.

"The terrific thing about this case is that the Department of
Human Services has stepped up," says David Gersch -- one of the
lead attorneys in the JH v. Dallas case -- filed by the ACLU on
behalf of hundreds of defendants declared mentally incompetent in
Pennsylvania Courts.

They claimed lack of services meant their clients were housed in
jail, without treatment, including the lead defendant jailed for
stealing $3 worth of peppermint patties.

"A lot of these people have been put in solitary confinement," he
says.

On the eve of trial, DHS agreed to provide more resources,
including 120 more treatment slots and a million dollars to
Philadelphia for more housing opportunities.

"It's a tremendous step forward," Gersch says.

"This agreement puts the focus exactly where it needs to be, on
providing the highest level of services we can for those served by
the forensic system," DHS Secretary Ted Dallas said in a
statement. "I would like to thank the ACLU for their
professionalism and willingness to compromise. By working
together, we have taken a good first step towards addressing a
long-standing issue that both sides agree has affected
Pennsylvanians for too many years."


PIPELINE PRODUCTIONS: "Alexander" Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alexander et al. v. Pipeline
Productions Inc. et al., Case No. CV-15-00246-4, was removed from
the Independence County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Batesville). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00005-KGB to the proceeding.

Pipeline is a Kansas corporation that has its principal place of
business in Lawrence, Kansas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George Nathan Steel, Esq.
          Jeremy Y. Hutchinson, Esq.
          Scott E. Poynter, Esq.
          STEEL, WRIGHT & COLLIER, PLLC
          400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2910
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 251 1587
          E-mail: nate@swcfirm.com
                  scott@swcfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Stroud, Esq.
          BLAIR & STROUD
          Post Office Box 2135
          Batesville, AR 72503-2135
          Telephone: (870) 793 8350
          Facsimile: (870) 793 3989
          E-mail: rds@blastlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael A. Thompson, Esq.
          Scott Andrew Irby, Esq.
          WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS
          200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
          Telephone: (501) 371 0808
          E-mail: mthompson@wlj.com
                  sirby@wlj.com

               - and -

          Richard B. Benenson, Esq.
          BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARGER SCHRECK, LLP
          410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 223 1100


PURE FOODS: Court Grants Foreign Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut granted all foreign
defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned, JUAN MENDEZ,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. PURE FOODS MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:14-CV-1515 (SRU)(D. Conn.).

The three named Plaintiffs each spent between five and seven
months working respectively as a maintenance worker, a cook, and a
cashier at Popeye's Chicken franchises in Hartford, Wallingford,
and North Haven, Connecticut. They bring claims against 28
defendants, all but two of which are business entities. Seven of
those defendants are Connecticut companies that operate fried-
chicken restaurants, and the rest are foreign companies or
individuals -- the foreign defendants -- operating similar
restaurants in other states or who reside in other states and have
an ownership interest in some or all of the companies.

The Amended Complaint is organized into seven counts: Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) overtime violations (Count I), FLSA minimum-
wage violations (Count II), Connecticut overtime violations (Count
III), Connecticut minimum-wage violations (Count IV), Connecticut
unpaid-wages violations (Count V), Connecticut recordkeeping
violations (Count VI), and Connecticut meal-period violations
(Count VII).

In the motion, the foreign defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(2) motion
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

In his Ruling and Order dated January 14, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/qCzZRTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Underhill found that
there are certainly no allegations sufficient to establish that
chicken restaurants as far away as Virginia -- even when
construing the complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiffs -- are alter egos of chicken restaurants in
Connecticut, have conducted business in or otherwise availed
themselves of Connecticut in any way, or should be subject to
personal jurisdiction in Connecticut.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jack D. McInnes, Esq. --
mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com -- Kenneth & Richard M. Paul, III, Esq.
-- paul@paulmcinnes.com -- PAUL MCINNES LLP

          - and -

     James Krayeske, Esq.
     KENNETH J. KRAYESKE LAW OFFICES
     1 Linden Place, Unit 107
     Hartford, CT 06106
     Tel: (860) 995-5842

Defendants are represented by Cindy M. Cieslak, Esq. Michael J.
Rose, Esq. -- mrose@rosekallor.com -- Robin B. Kallor, Esq. --
rkallor@rosekallor.com -- ROSE KALLOR LLP


PUSHPIN HOLDINGS: Must Defend Against "Blankenship" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Amy J. St. Eve of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois denied in part -- and denied
in part without prejudice -- Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, to strike
allegation therefrom in the case captioned, RONALD W. BLANKENSHIP,
and GARY BRASSFIELD, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PUSHPIN HOLDINGS, LLC, LEASE
FINANCE GROUP LLC, and JAY COHEN, Defendants, Case No. 14 C 6636
(N.D. Ill.).

The Court previously granted in part and denied in part
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class
Action Complaint. In particular, the Court denied Defendants'
motion in regard to Plaintiffs' allegations of unfair and
deceptive acts under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) and
granted Defendants' motion with regard to Plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim due to Plaintiffs failure to sufficiently allege
that the lease agreements were valid and enforceable and failure
to allege Plaintiffs' substantial performance under those lease
agreements.

Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint "largely mirrors" their First
Amended Complaint.  However, it withdraws their breach of contract
claim and retains their ICFA claim.

In the motion, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
arguing that Plaintiffs' allegations fail to state a claim under
the ICFA because many of the allegations underlying their claim
are barred by the three-year statute of limitations.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 19, 2016
available at http://is.gd/b2YmHJfrom Leagle.com, Judge St. Eve
found that Plaintiffs' ICFA survives Defendants' motion to dismiss
because Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a timely claim under
ICFA based on Defendants' alleged wrongful acts in pursuing forged
lease agreements against Plaintiffs; and that Defendants relied
upon allegedly forged lease agreements and filed suit against
Plaintiffs to enforce such agreements.

The Court granted Defendants' to strike Plaintiffs' allegations
concerning the enforceability of an alleged arbitration provision
in the lease agreements based on its irrelevance to the present
action in light of Plaintiffs' withdrawal of its breach of
contract claim in its Second Amended Complaint.  It is premature
at this point to determine if the inclusion of the allegations
regarding the arbitration clauses is relevant. Accordingly, the
Court denies this aspect of the motion without prejudice.

Plaintiffs are represented by Howard Brian Prossnitz, Esq. --
howard@prossnitzlaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD PROSSNITZ

Defendants are represented by Jason Brett Hirsh, Esq. --
jhirsh@lplegal.com -- LEVENFELD PEARLSTEIN, LLC, John V.
Baranello, Esq. -- jbaranello@mosessinger.com -- Scott E.
Silberfein, Esq. -- ssilberfein@mosessinger.com -- MOSES & SINGER
LLP


PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Must Defend Against Plan Holders' Suit in Ore.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael H. Simon of the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon granted in part Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment and denied Providence's motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, A.F., by and through his parents
and guardians, Brenna Legaard and Scott Fournier; A.P., by and
through his parents and guardians, Lucia Alonso and Luis Partida;
S.W., by and through his parents and guardians, Kody Whipple and
Jamie Whipple; S.S., by and through his parents and guardians,
David Smith and Brooke Kennelley; I.F., by and through his parents
and guardians, Bryan Fowler and Susan Rogers Fowler; and on behalf
of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Providence
Health Plan, Defendant, Case No. 3:13-CV-00776-SI (D. Or.).

Plaintiffs A.F., A.P., S.W., S.S., and I.F. brought the civil suit
against Defendant Providence Health Plan. Plaintiffs are
dependent-beneficiaries under group health insurance plans issued
by Providence. Providence denied Plaintiffs ABA therapy coverage
based on Providence's Developmental Disability Exclusion and
denied S.W. and I.F. coverage on the additional basis of its
Experimental Exclusion. On August 8, 2014, the Court ruled on
cross-motions for summary judgment that Providence's Developmental
Disability Exclusion violates the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, and Oregon law and
was therefore prohibited under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).

Plaintiffs' second amended class action complaint alleges three
claims under ERISA:

     (1) injunctive relief under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(3),
prohibiting Providence from continuing to process and pay claims
under its insured Plans in a manner that is inconsistent with the
Federal Parity Act and Oregon law and requiring Providence to
provide the class with corrective notice and information, on
behalf of all named Plaintiffs and all members of the class;

     (2) equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(3)
sufficient to redress Providence's violations of its fiduciary
duty, on behalf of all named Plaintiffs; and

     (3) recovery of benefits due and declaration of future
benefits under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(1)(B) on behalf of named
Plaintiffs A.F., A.P., S.W., and I.F.

In the motion, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their
Third Claim, and Providence moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second
Claim for failure to state a claim.

In his Opinion and Order dated January 7, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/j74NAxfrom Leagle.com, Judge Simon found that A.P.
has successfully demonstrated the futility of any second-level
appeal and granted A.P. $1,740 in relief and granted S.W.'s motion
for summary judgment in part, in the amount of $3,703. The Court
also granted I.F.'s motion for summary judgment in part, in the
amount of $10,185.

The Court cannot conclude at the motion to dismiss stage that the
two claims are indeed duplicative although Plaintiffs may not
simply "repackage" their Section 1132(a)(1)(B) claim and thus
obtain duplicative relief.

Plaintiffs are represented by Joshua L. Ross, Esq. --
jross@stollberne.com -- Nadine A. Gartner, Esq. --
ngartner@stollberne.com -- Keith S. Dubanevich, Esq. --
kdubanevich@stollberne.com -- STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING &
SHLACHTER P.C.

Providence Health Plan is represented by Arden J. Olson, Esq. --
arden.j.olson@harrang.com -- William F. Gary, Esq. --
william.f.gary@harrang.com -- Jacob A. Landau, Esq. --
aaron.landau@harrang.com -- Jens Schmidt, Esq. --
jens.schmidt@harrang.com -- HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK, PC


R AND J: Faces "Shannon" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
------------------------------------------------------------
James Shannon, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. R And J Technical Services, LLC F/K/A R AND J
Technical Services, Inc., Case 7:15-cv-00229 (W.D.Tex., December
16, 2015), to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs, pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

R and J Tech supplies electrical and technical services to the oil
and gas industry throughout the major shale plays in the United
States, including the State of Texas, Louisiana, Utah,
New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota and Alaska.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clif Alexander, Esq.
     PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP
     819 N. Upper Broadway
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Phone: (361) 452-1279
     Fax: (361) 452-1284
     E-mail: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com


REZA'S RIVER: "Fatah" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Shara Fatah and Antigona Mullaliu, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Reza's River North, Inc. and
Reza's Andersonville, Inc. d/b/a Reza's Restaurant, and Reza
Toulabi, Case No. 1:15-cv-11395 (N.D. Ill., December 17, 2015)
seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants located at 5255 North
Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60640 and 432 West Ontario Street,
Chicago, IL 60654.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      Jorge A. Gamboa, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
      Website: www.stephanzouras.com


RJ REYNOLDS: Injunction on FDA's Use of Menthol Report Lifted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
almost two years ago, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's
ability to use a controversial report on menthol cigarettes nearly
disappeared like a puff of smoke.

In a Washington federal district court, Judge Richard Leon found
that three members of the scientific advisory committee
responsible for the report had conflicts of interest against the
tobacco industry.  He ordered that the three members be removed
over their financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies
and their history of giving expert testimony against tobacco
manufacturers.  And he barred the government from using the
report, handing a victory to two major tobacco companies that were
challenging the FDA's Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory
Committee.

As a Justice Department lawyer would later write, the July 2014
ruling was a " unique judicial venture" into an area typically
left to an agency's discretion -- the handling of a conflict of
interest or the appearance of one.

But in January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
overturned Leon's order, finding that R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
and Lorillard Tobacco Co.'s alleged injuries "are too remote and
uncertain" for the two to have standing in the case.  The decision
lifted the injunction on the FDA's use of the menthol report.

In a patch of largely unfamiliar legal territory, the decision
also clarified that a claim against an advisory committee should
come after an agency's final action.

But the ruling otherwise raises questions -- and risks -- for both
sides.

The FDA was required to create the Tobacco Products Scientific
Advisory Committee under the 2009 law that empowered the agency to
regulate the tobacco industry.  The committee's first order of
business was to report on how menthol cigarettes were affecting
public health.

For the tobacco industry, the stakes were high.  The report,
approved unanimously by the committee's nine voting members,
advised that "removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace
would benefit public health in the United States."  The companies
alleged that the three members' financial interests created a
heightened risk of adverse regulations on menthol tobacco
products, but the D.C. Circuit noted that "it remains unclear
whether the FDA will issue a final rule, and what it would say."

"Ripeness concerns underscore this point: part of the reason the
injury is too remote is that, if the FDA chooses not to issue a
rule, this case 'may not require adjudication at all,' " wrote
Circuit Senior Judge Stephen Williams.

But the opinion was silent on what a plaintiff must prove, even
after showing that a committee is tainted, to have an agency's
action thrown out.

"That's the $100 million question in this case for the tobacco
companies," said Scott Nelson, an attorney at the Washington-based
Public Citizen Litigation Group, who filed an amicus brief
supporting the government in district court. (The brief was filed
on behalf of the American Heart Association, the American Cancer
Society and other public health groups.)

Judge Leon noted in his decision that the three challenged
committee members -- Dr. Neal Benowitz of the University of
California, San Francisco; Dr. Jack Henningfield of Pinney
Associates; and Dr. Jonathan Samet of the University of Southern
California's Keck School of Medicine -- were designated to testify
in nearly 1,000 pending tobacco cases as of June 30, 2010.  Dr.
Benowitz and Dr. Henningfield also had financial interests in
smoking-cessation products, according to the ruling.

The FDA argued that it checked each advisory committee member for
possible conflicts of interest before appointing them to the panel
and before every meeting.  In March 2015, seven months after
Leon's ruling, the agency announced that three other committee
members were leaving the committee after being rescreened under
the expanded conflict of interest criteria.

An FDA spokesman said the agency is still reviewing the D.C.
Circuit's decision but is "very pleased with the outcome."
Williams & Connolly lawyer Richard Cooper, a former chief counsel
of the FDA who represented R.J. Reynolds, could not be reached for
comment.  Greenberg Traurig represented Lorillard, which R.J.
Reynolds' parent company purchased in 2014.


RNG GROUP: Recalls Bendable Solar Panels Due to Overheating
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
RNG Group Inc., of Ontario, Calif., announced a voluntary recall
of about 1,500 100-watt bendable solar panels (in addition, about
20 solar panels were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

This recall involves Renogy brand 100-watt bendable solar panels.
The recalled solar panels are black plastic sheets about 41 inches
long by about 21 inches wide by about 1/8 inch thick. Model number
RNG-100DB is on the top of the panel, either on the front or back.

The firm has received 11 reports of the solar panels overheating,
including three reports of property damage.  No injuries have been
reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Thailand and sold
online at Amazon.com, eBay.com and Renogy-store.com from May 2015
through October 2015 for about $300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled solar panels
and return them to RNG for free replacements.


S&J CRAZY: Faces "Ormeno" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriela Ormeno, Rebecca Wiles, Giovanna Monteverde, and Gabrielle
Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. S&J Crazy Lizards Entertainment, LLC, et al., Case No.
9:15-cv-81726-BB (S.D. Fla., December 17, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

S&J Crazy Lizards Entertainment, LLC owns and operates adult
entertainment clubs in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack C. Morgan III, Esq.
      Scott J. Hertz, Esq.
      ROETZEL & ANDRESS, ALPA
      2320 First Street, Ste. 1000
      Fort Myers, FL 33901
      Telephone: (239) 338-4218
      Facsimile: (239) 337-0970
      E-mail: jmorgan@ralaw.com
              shertz@ralaw.com

         - and -

      John B. Gallagher, Esq.
      2631 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 201
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306
      Telephone: (954) 524-1888
      Facsimile: (954) 524-1887
      E-mail: gal2701@aol.com


SAN DIEGO, CA: Court Denies Application for TRO in "St. Jon" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California denied Plaintiff's
application for a temporary restraining order in the case
captioned, DJ ST. JON on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TIMOTHY J. TATRO ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-2552-GPC-JLB (S.D. Cal.).

On November 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed this action alleging claims
of: (1) Violation of Procedural Due Process; (2) Failure to
Discharge a Mandatory Duty; (3) Negligence Per Se; (4) Civil
Conspiracy; (5) Aiding and Abetting; (6) Civil Conspiracy; (7)
Aiding and Abetting; (8) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (9)
Professional Negligence; (10) Violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL); and (11) Fraud.

The crux of Plaintiff's action is that Defendants violated
Plaintiff's due process rights by conspiring to reach a
"settlement" regarding an award of attorney fees without a
preliminary approval or fairness hearing as required by California
Rule of Court 3.679. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Class
Counsel and City Counsel agreed to mutually forego their right to
appeal in exchange for such corresponding promises not to appeal
in exchange for City Counsel agreeing to Class Counsel receiving
nearly $8 million in attorneys' fees.

The Defendants are:

     -- Vincent J. Bartolotta, Jr, Karen Frostrom, Timothy J.
        Tatro, Tatro & Zamoyski, LLP, Thornes Bartolotta &
        McGuire, Peter A. Zamoyski (collectively "Class
        Counsel");

     -- City of San Diego, a California municipality (the
        "City"), Jan I. Goldsmith, City Attorney for San Diego,
        Donald R. Worley, Assistant City Attorney for San Diego,
        and John E. Riley, Deputy City Attorney for San Diego
        (collectively the "City Defendants"); and

     -- M.D. Scully; William Rathbone; Timothy Branson; and
        Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP doing business as
        Gordon & Rees (collectively "Gordon Rees Defendants").

Plaintiff seeks to bar Defendants from (1) evicting any members of
the Proposed Class from the De Anza mobilehome park until the
actual termination of tenancy for the Aglio Class; (2) closing De
Anza Park until 30 days before the actual termination of tenancy
for the Aglio Class; and (3) evicting any homeowners, tenants,
residents and other occupants of De Anza park that are presently
current on their rent until 30 days before the actual termination
of the Aglio Class.

In his Order dated January 13, 2016 available at
http://goo.gl/D5T8Zcfrom Leagle.com, Judge Curiel found that that
Plaintiff has not made a clear showing that she is entitled to the
extraordinary remedy of a TRO.

DJ St. Jon is represented by:

     Eduardo Martorell, Esq.
     Joshua Bordin-Wosk, Esq.
     BORDIN MARTORELL, LLP
     6080 Center Dr #600
     Los Angeles, CA 90045
     Tel: (323)457-2110

Defendants are represented by Colin Howard Walshok, Esq. --
cwalshok@wingertlaw.com -- WINGERT GREBING BRUBAKER AND GOODWIN
LLP


SANTA FE NATURAL: Faces "Dunn" Suit Over "Natural" Tobacco Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Dunn individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc., Case 1:15-cv-
01142-WPL-SCY (D.N.Mex., December 16, 2015), seeks redress for
Defendant's alleged failure to properly market and advertise its
"natural" tobacco Products.

Santa Fe is a tobacco manufacturer best known for its American
Spirit cigarette brand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicholas Koluncich III, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS KOLUNCICH III, LLC
     500 Marquette Avenue NW, Suite 1200
     Albuquerque, NM 87102
     Phone: (505) 881-2228
     Fax: (505) 881-4288
     E-mail: nkoluncich@newmexicoclassactions.com

        - and -

     Melissa Wolchansky, Esq.
     Charles D. Moore, Esq.
     HALUNEN LAW
     1650 IDS Center
     80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 605-4098;
     Fax: (612) 605-4099
     E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
             moore@halunenlaw.com

        - and -

     Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     8120 Woodmont Avenue - Suite 810
     Bethesda, MD 20814
     Phone: 202 789 3960

        - and -

     Michael R. Reese, Esq.
     REESE LLP
     100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10025
     Phone: (212) 643-0500
     Fax: (212) 253-4272
     E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com


SCOTTSDALE HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Mullin" Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Douglas L. Rayes of the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona denied Defendant's motion to
dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint in the case captioned,
Cynthia Susan Mullin, Plaintiff, v. Scottsdale Healthcare
Corporation Long Term Disability Plan, et al., Defendants, Case
No. CV-15-01547-PHX-DKR WO (D. Ariz.).

The action arises under the Employment Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974. Plaintiff Cynthia Mullin formerly worked as a nurse
for Defendant HonorHealth. She participated in and was a
beneficiary of the Scottsdale Healthcare Corporation Long Term
Disability Plan, an ERISA benefit plan offering long-term
disability benefits for HonorHealth's employees. She applied for
short-term disability after she was involved in a motor vehicle
accident in March 2014. Omaha denied Mullin's claim in September
2014. Mullin administratively appealed, and in June 2015, Omaha
upheld its denial. Thereafter, HonorHealth terminated Mullin's
employment because her leave had been exhausted and LTD benefits
denied.

In her complaint, Mullin asserts four claims against the Plan,
Omaha, and HonorHealth. Only Counts I and II require discussion.
In Count I, Mullin alleges that Omaha and the Plan acted
arbitrarily and capriciously in denying her LTD benefits, and
seeks to recover those benefits pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec.
1132(a)(1)(B). Omaha concedes that Count I properly states a claim
to relief under ERISA. In Count II, Mullin alleges that Omaha
breached its fiduciary duties in its handling of her LTD benefits
claim, and seeks "other equitable relief including but not limited
to surcharge" pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(3).

In the motion, Omaha moved to dismiss Count II because it is
duplicative of Count I.

In his Order dated January 11, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/vyXuMvfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rayes concluded that
Mullin has adequately pled a Sec. 1132(a)(3) fiduciary misconduct
claim that is not clearly duplicative of her Sec. 1132(a)(1)(B)
claim for wrongfully denied benefits.

Cynthia Susan Mullin is represented by:

     Erin Rose Ronstadt, Esq.
     Kristin Nicole Kalani, Esq.
     OBER & PEKAS PLLC
     3030 N 3rd St #1230
     Phoenix, AZ 85012
     Tel: (602)-277-1745

Defendants are represented by Kathleen Kelly Kahn, Esq. --
kkahn@lrrc.com -- Kristina Novotny Holmstrom, Esq. --
kholmstrom@lrrc.com -- LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP


SECURE-CARDIO: St. Louis Heart Center Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v.
Secure-Cardio, LLC, Case No. 15SL-CC04055, was removed from
Circuit Court of St. Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00052-DDN to the proceeding.

Plaintiff's Petition alleges that Defendant violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Secure Cardio is a privately held company in San Clemente,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max G. Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          28 Old Belle Monte Rd.
          Chesterfield, MO 63017
          Telephone: (636) 536 7022
          Facsimile: (636) 536 6652
          E-mail: maxmargulis@margulislaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Scott K.G. Kozak, Esq.
          Carolyn B. Theis, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800
          St. Louis, Missouri 63105
          Telephone: (314) 621 5070
          Facsimile: (314) 621 5065
          E-mail: skozak@armstrongteasdale.com
                  ctheis@armstrongteasdale.com


SELECT COMFORT: Court Grants Motion for Attorney's Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joanna Seybert of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York granted Defendant's motion
for attorney's fees in the case captioned, SLEEPY'S LLC,
Plaintiff, v. SELECT COMFORT WHOLESALE CORPORATION, SELECT COMFORT
RETAIL CORPORATION, and SELECT COMFORT CORPORATION, Defendants,
Case No. 07-CV-4018(JS)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y.).

In about 2000-2001, Select Comfort began partnering with other
mattress retailers to offer a version of the Sleep Number bed in
those retailers' stores. In 2005, Sleepy's approached Select
Comfort to become one of these retail partners. Soon after, the
parties executed the "Select Comfort Corporation Dealer Agreement"
which provided that Sleepy's would become an authorized dealer of
the Personal Preference Line of Select Comfort products. Sleepy's
sales of the Personal Preference Line products never took off and
blamed Select Comfort for allegedly disparaging the Personal
Preference Line to potential customers. In April 2007, the parties
negotiated and signed a Wind-Up Agreement, which terminated their
relationship.

On August 24, 2007, Sleepy's commenced the instant case in Nassau
County Supreme Court. Sleepy's asserted claims for (1) breach of
contract; (2) fraudulent inducement; (3) slander per se; (4)
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5)
unfair competition; and (6) violation of the Lanham Act. Select
Comfort denies these allegations and consistently asserts that
Sleepy's lawsuit was a competitive ploy to force Select Comfort to
renegotiate the Dealer Agreement. On October 22, 2015, the Court
entered judgment in favor of Defendant.

In the motion, Defendant now moves for its attorney's fees
incurred in defending Plaintiff's claims under the Lanham Act's
attorney's fees provision, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1117(a) arguing that (1)
Sleepy's pursued its claims in bad faith -- particularly, to gain
leverage in order "to renegotiate the Dealer Agreement on terms
more favorable to Sleepy's"; 2) Sleepy's failed to introduce any
admissible evidence to support its claims; and (3) Sleepy's
"engaged in egregious, grossly negligent spoliation of evidence in
the face of contemplated litigation". Sleepy's argued in
opposition that it had substantial evidence to support its claims
and that the lawsuit was not a competitive ploy.

In her Memorandum and Order dated January 11, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/9WpPRqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Seybert found that
attorney's fees are especially warranted in light of Sleepy's
"egregious, grossly negligent spoliation of evidence." The Court
only declined to impose sanctions because "Plaintiff's claims all
failed even when considering the evidence of which Select Comfort
urged exclusion.

The Court directed the parties to confer and submit a proposed
briefing schedule for Defendant's separate application for
reasonable attorney's fees within 20 days of the date of the
Memorandum & Order.

Sleepy's LLC is represented by Andrew W. Singer, Esq. --
singer@thsh.com -- David J. Kanfer, Esq. -- kanfer@thsh.com --
Lewis Donald Prutzman, Esq. -- prutzman@thsh.com -- Paul D.
Sarkozi, Esq. -- sarkozi@thsh.com -- Vincent J. Syracuse, Esq. --
Syracuse@thsh.com -- George Foulke Du Pont, Esq. --
dupont@thsh.com -- Stefanie Marie Ramirez, Esq. --ramirez@tshs.com
-- TANNENBAUM HELPERN SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP

Select Comfort is represented by Heidi A.O. Fisher, Esq. --
hfisher@foxrothschild.com -- Andrew S. Hansen, Esq. --
ahansen@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP

          - and -

     Joseph S. Miller, Esq.
     Michael J. Bleck, Esq.
     Michael K. Gravink, Esq.
     Michelle R. Schjodt, Esq.
     OPPENHEIMER WOLFF & DONNELLY LLP
     222 S 9th St #2000
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: (612) 607-7000


SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Bivens" Suit Over RESPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Bivens, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
04325 (N.D. Ga., December 14, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act.

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. is a loan servicing company with
operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and Jacksonville, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wayne Charles, Esq.
      WAYNE CHARLES, PC
      395 Highgrove Drive
      Fayetteville, GA 30215
      Telephone: (770) 241-8936
      E-mail: wc115@bellsouth.net


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Sued Over Damages Caused by Gas Leak
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Castillo, et al. v. Southern California Gas Company,
Sempra Energy and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC605353
(Cal. Super. Ct., December 16, 2015) is an action for damages as a
result of the natural gas leak at the Defendants' Aliso Canyon Gas
Storage Facility, that exposed Porter Ranch residents' homes and
properties to noxious odors, gases, chemicals, and numerous other
pollutants and contaminants.

The Defendants operate an underground natural gas storage field
located at 12801 Tampa Avenue, Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melinda Davis Nokes, Esq.
      Christopher Dalbey, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
      1880 Century Park East, Suite 700
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 247-0921
      Facsimile: (310) 786-9927
      E-mail: mnokes@weitzlux.com
              CDalbey@weitzlux.com

         - and -

      Robin Greenwald, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC.
      700 Broadway
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212)558-5500
      Facsimile: (212)344-5461
      E-mail: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com


SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING: Court Trims "Whalen" Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, CHERYL WHALEN, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-410-BBC (W.D. Wis.),
District Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the United States District
Court for the Western of Wisconsin granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss with respect to claims that (a) defendant's February 19,
2015 and March 13, 2015 letters violated 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692f; and
(b) defendant's February 19, 2015 letter violated 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1692el; and denied Defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to
the claim that defendant's March 13, 2015 letter violated 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1692e.

Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, serviced a second
mortgage on plaintiff Cheryl Whalen's home before a foreclosure in
2015. In the proposed class action, plaintiff contended that
defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by
sending her three documents related to the mortgage debt, which
she had discharged in bankruptcy. In particular, plaintiff says
that the documents were "false, deceptive or misleading" in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692e and "unfair or unconscionable"
in violation of Sec. 1692f.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss with respect to two of those
documents, arguing that it did not violate Sec. 1692e or Sec.
1692f because the documents were not made in connection with the
collection of a debt and they were neither "false, deceptive or
misleading" nor "unfair or unconscionable."

Plaintiff does not respond meaningfully to defendant's argument
that the documents were not unfair or unconscionable within the
meaning Sec. 1692f.

In her Opinion and Order dated January 11, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/XnnGIwfrom Leagle.com, Judge Crabb found that
plaintiff fails to make an argument that the disclaimer is
insufficient to provide notice that defendant was not using the
February 19, 2015 letter to attempt to induce a debt because there
is no language in the letter that would lead plaintiff to doubt
that the bankruptcy disclaimer applied to her. The Court concluded
that defendant is not entitled to dismissal of plaintiff's claim
that defendant's March 13, 2015 letter violated Sec. 1692e because
Defendant cites no authority for the view that the canon of
statutory construction can apply to limit an unambiguous provision
such as Sec. 1024.39(c), at least in the absence of a conflict
between the specific and the general provisions.

Cheryl Whalen is represented by:

     Eric Leighton Crandall, Esq.
     CRANDALL LAW OFFICES, SC
     251 South Knowles Avenue
     New Richmond WI 54017

          - and -

     Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Esq.
     CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A.
     367 Commerce Ct
     Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
     Tel: (651) 770-9707

          - and -

     Thomas John Lyons, Sr., Esq.
     LYONS LAW FIRM PA
     367 Commerce Ct,
     St Paul, MN 55127
     Tel: (651)770-9707

Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC is represented by Eric J. Wilson,
Esq. -- ewilson@gklaw.com -- GODFREY & KAHN S.C., John Curtis
Lynch, Esq. -- john.lynch@troutmansanders.com -- Jon Hubbard, Esq.
-- jon.hubbar@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP


SPOTIFY: Faces 2 Class Suits Over Royalties
-------------------------------------------
Alan Cross, writing for A Journal of Musical Things, reports that
it's been a rough year for Spotify so far with two massive class-
action lawsuits alleging the company hasn't licensed or paid for
the use of thousands of songs. This issue over mechanical
royalties is. . . complicated to say the least, but the
accusations all comes down to this: Spotify is streaming songs
that they have no right to. And they're not paying for those
streams, either.

Now that the lawsuits are filed, now what? Musically takes a look:

2016 WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE YEAR WHEN SPOTIFY REACHED 100M ACTIVE
USERS, EN ROUTE TO AN IPO.

The former will happen soon while the latter may still be on the
cards this year. But 2016 is now also the year when Spotify faces
its biggest existential threat yet: a pair of class-action
lawsuits in the US focusing on songwriter royalties

The lawsuits against Spotify were filed by two musicians, David
Lowery and Melissa Ferrick, either side of Christmas, with media
coverage splashing on the potential damages of $150m and $200m
respectively.

It's important to understand exactly what their claims are about,
and especially important to understand that the issues go well
beyond Spotify.

The first key point: these lawsuits are not just about unpaid
royalties for songs streamed on Spotify. That's part of it, but
the issue is also over the licensing of those songs -- or at least
one of the two licences on the composition (songwriting) side.

For many people, this story's public life began in October 2015
with a dispute between Spotify and independent music company
Victory Records over mechanical royalties. However, it was
actually Lowery who first opened the can of worms in a post on his
blog The Trichordist in July.

"I've been trying to figure out how it is that Spotify has legally
made available many of the songs that I have published under
Camper Van Beethoven Music and Bicycle Spaniard Music," wrote
Lowery.

"In order to make my songs available on their service in the US,
Spotify must enter into a direct license with my companies or an
assigned agent. OR they must serve an NOI (notice of intent) to
take advantage of the statutory compulsory license.

"After two years I find no evidence that they have properly
licensed most of the songs that are currently available on the
service [. . . ] Further I can find no evidence that they paid the
US 'mechanical streaming' royalty to my companies or my agents."


STANDARD INSURANCE: Wins Summary Judgment in "Nelson" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Hayes of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California granted Defendant's motion
for summary judgment in the case captioned, MARIANA NELSON, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, an Oregon company; COUNTRYWIDE
FINANCIAL CORPORATION GROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN; COUNTRYWIDE
FINANCIAL CORP., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 13
CV 188 WHO MDD (S.D. Cal.).

Nelson sued Standard Insurance Company, Countrywide Financial
Corporation Group Long Term Disability Plan, and Countrywide
Financial Corporation. The Complaint asserted: (1) Class Action
Claim for Benefits pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security (ERISA) against the Countrywide Plan; (2) Class Action
Claim for Equitable Relief pursuant to ERISA against all
Defendants; (3) Class Action Breach of Fiduciary Duty pursuant to
ERISA against all Defendants; (4) Class Action Declaratory Relief
against all Defendants; and (5) Individual Claim for Benefits
pursuant to ERISA, against Defendant Countrywide Plan.

Standard determined that Nelson was not entitled to disability
benefits payments under the Policy for a non-limited condition
after December 31, 2009. Standard relied upon specific provisions
of the policy, objective testing from Nelson's treating
physicians, medical records from treating physicians showing mild
sleep apnea, and the opinions of Dr. Herzberg and Dr. Brown
consistent with the medical records provided by Nelson.

Nelson filed a motion for summary judgment and judicial notice.
Countrywide also filed a motion for summary judgment.

In his Order dated January 13, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/amKSlafrom Leagle.com, Judge Hayes concluded that
the decision by Standard to limit benefits was reasonable based
upon the express language of the Policy and the medical records.
Standard provided full review of the claim and followed proper
procedures in determining the claim.

Mariana Nelson is represented by Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq. --
Jack.Winters@winterandassoc.com -- Sarah D. Ball, Esq. --
Sarah.Ball@wintersandassoc.com -- WINTER AND ASSOCIATES

          - and -

     Matthew B. Butler, Esq.
     Michael G. Olinik, Esq.
     THE BUTLER FIRM
     1601 Rio Grande St #331
     Austin, TX 78701
     Tel: (512)992-0794

Defendants are represented by Jacqueline J. Herring, Esq. --
jackie.herring@svs-law.com -- Warren Sebastian Von Schleicher,
Esq. -- warren.vonschleicher@svs-law.com -- SMITH, VON SCHLEICHER
& ASSOICATES


STATE FARM: SC Affirms Denial of Complaint and Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Strine Jacqueline Scott Corley of the Supreme Court
of Delaware affirmed the Superior Court's decisions of March 30,
2015 and June 23, 2015  in the case captioned, REBECCA CLARK and
JAMES SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs Below-Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Below-Appellee, Case No.
167, 2015 (Del.).

Rebecca Clark and James Smith are named insureds under State Farm
automobile insurance policies. Both filed claims for benefits on
their PIP coverage with State Farm.  State Farm began payments to
Clark on May 16, 2013 following her accident on January 24, 2013.
Both of the Policyholders received payments more than 30 days
after submitting their claims, but they also received the
statutorily required interest.

On February 20, 2014, the Policyholders filed a Proposed Class
Action Complaint against State Farm premised on State Farm's
alleged violations of Sec. 2118B. The complaint included four
counts: (1) declaratory judgment; (2) breach of contract; (3) bad
faith breach of contract; and (4) statutory consumer fraud.

Facing a motion for summary judgment because their original theory
did not pan out, the Policyholders changed their focus and sought
to file an amended complaint on August 20, 2014. On March 30,
2015, the Superior Court denied the Policyholders' motion for
leave to amend their complaint. The Superior Court viewed the
complaint seeking such relief as futile.

On appeal, the plaintiffs alleged that the Superior Court was
wrong to dismiss their claim, arguing that they have a ripe
disagreement with State Farm over its failure to comply invariably
with the 30-day deadline set forth in Sec. 2118B(c).

In the Decision dated January 11, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/Epx9nPfrom Leagle.com, Judge Strine agreed with the
Superior Court that the proposed amended complaint was futile and
therefore that the court properly denied leave to amend. The
Judiciary cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the
legislative branch. Section 2118B does not give the Judiciary a
mandate to act in the role of the Insurance Commissioner or to
read into Sec. 2118B(c) mandates that the General Assembly could
have, but did not, adopt.

Rebecca Clark and James Smith are represented by:

     John S. Spadaro, Esq.
     JOHN SHEEHAN SPADARO LLC
     724 Yorklyn Rd # 375,
     Hockessin, DE 19707
     Tel: (302)235-7745

State Farm is represented by Cari K. Dawson, Esq. --
cari.dawson@alston.com -- Kyle G.A. Wallace Esq. --
kyle.wallace@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP

          - and -

     Colin M. Shalk, Esq.
     CASARINO CHRISTMAN SHALK RANSOM & DOSS, P.A
     405 N King St #300,
     Wilmington, DE 19899
     Tel: (302)594-4500


SUBURBAN K: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Fernandez" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Fernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Suburban K, LLC, d/b/a Suburban Kia, Case No. 1:15-cv-
11390 (N.D. Ill., December 17, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of sending unsolicited text messages to the wireless
telephones of the Plaintiff and each of the members of the Class
without prior express written consent in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Suburban K, LLC operates an automotive dealership and service
center located 1795 Maplelawn Drive, Troy, Michigan 48084.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 North State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 241-1260
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              isalam@siprut.com


TENSION INT'L: "Bowers" Suit Alleges ERISA, Labor Law Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Bowers, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. Tension International, Inc., a
Missouri corporation doing business in Colorado as Tension
Packaging & Automation, Case 1:15-cv-02734 (D.Col., December 16,
2015), was brought pursuant to the federal Internal Revenue Code,
the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Act, and Colorado contract
law.

Tension ran a separate packaging and automation division in
Longmont, Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David H. Miller, Esq.
     Rachel Graves, Esq.
     SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM
     1600 Ogden Street
     Denver, CO 80218
     Phone: 303-839-1650
     Fax: 720-235-4377
     E-mail: DMiller@sawayalaw.com
             RGraves@sawayalaw.com


TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Tower Semiconductor Ltd. ("Tower Semiconductor" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:TSEM) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of
California, and docketed under 16-cv-00580, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Tower
Semiconductor securities between April 30, 2012 and January 14,
2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

Tower Semiconductor is an independent specialty foundry dedicated
to the manufacturing of semiconductors and operates a
semiconductor fabrication facility in Newport Beach, California.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the value of net tangible assets of the
acquisition of a fabrication facility from Micron Technology Inc.
was artificially inflated;(2) the value of net tangible assets of
the acquisition of 51% of TowerJazz Panasonic Semiconductor Co.,
Ltd. from Panasonic Corporation was artificially inflated; (3)
Tower Semiconductor's Series F Debentures were incorrectly
accounted for to understate debt; and (4) as a result, defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On January 14, 2016, analyst firm Spruce Point Capital Management
issued a report about the Company asserting, among other things,
that: (1) the value of net tangible assets of the acquisition of
TJP appears artificially inflated to $82 million; (2) the value of
net tangible assets of the acquisition of 51% in TPSCo was
artificially inflated to $181 million;(3) the Company's improper
accounting treatment for the Series F Debentures resulted in its
equity being inflated by approximately $50 million as of the third
quarter of 2012.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


TRAVIS KALANICK: Faces "Meyer" Suit Alleging Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
Spencer Meyer, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, v. Travis Kalanick, Case 1:15-cv-09796 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 16, 2015), seeks injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the Uber Technologies, Inc. riders allegedly injured by Mr.
Kalanick's illegal business plan to fix prices among competitors
and take a cut of the profits.

Travis Kalanick is the chief executive officer and co-founder of
Uber Technologies, Inc.  Kalanick says Uber is not a
transportation company and that it does not employ drivers.
Instead, according to the suit, Uber is a technology company,
whose chief products are smartphone apps.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Arthur Schmidt, Esq.
     ANDREW SCHMIDT LAW PLLC
     97 India Street
     Portland, ME 04101
     Phone: (207) 619-0320
     Fax: (207) 221-1029
     E-mail: andy@maineworkerjustice.com


TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Recalls Shower Rugs Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Tristar Products Inc., of Fairfield, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1.4 million AquaRug shower rugs (in addition
70,000 rugs were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The four suction cups on the underside of the rugs can fail to
prevent slipping, posing a fall hazard to the user.

This recall involves Aqua Rugs with four plastic suction cups. The
rugs are intended to provide a slip-resistant surface in the
shower or bathtub. The rugs were sold in beige and clear, and in
two sizes: 29.5 inches by 17.25 inches for use in the bathtub, and
21.75 inches by 19.75 inches for use in a shower stall. The rugs
have a plastic border and only four plastic suction cups, one
affixed to the underside of each corner of the rug. "AquaRug" and
"As Seen On TV" are printed on the front of the cardboard
packaging.

Tristar has received 60 reports of consumers falling in the shower
or bathtub while on the recalled four suction cup rugs, including
30 reports of injuries such as bruises, cuts, and fractured or
broken bones.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/0eC1ig

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bed
Bath & Beyond, Dollar General and other retail stores nationwide,
online at Amazon.com and BuyAquaRug.com, by Tristar through direct
response television commercials, and through a live television
show on QVC, from July 2012 to September 2015 for between $18 and
$28.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled shower rugs
and contact Tristar for instructions on how to dispose of the rugs
and to obtain a free replacement rug.


UBER: Canadian Taxi Drivers to Launch Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
CTV Montreal reports that taxi drivers are seeking permission to
launch a class action lawsuit against Uber.

The Steelworkers Union, which represents 4,000 taxi drivers,
announced they are applying to court for permission to sue the on-
demand car service Uber and the provincial government.

Lawyer Marc-Antoine Cloutier will represent the union in its legal
battle.

The provincial government has been criticized for demanding taxi
drivers in Quebec obtain special permits and licenses to practice
their trade, but yet turn a blind eye to drivers working for Uber
doing the same thing.

Uber has said it has no employees, but instead calls all of its
on-demand drivers independent contractors.

This classification is being challenged in other legal
jurisdictions, with lawyers saying Uber should not be allowed to
avoid paying into workers compensation, employment insurance and
other government-mandated benefits.

A spokesperson for the Steelworkers Union, Benoti Jugand, said
drivers will meet on Jan. 31 to discuss the legal action at
length.

Uber spokesperson Jean-Christophe La Rue sent a statement to CTV
Montreal, stating: This protectionist class action lawsuit is
without merit especially since some Quebec taxi companies are
saying they had a record year in 2015.

La Rue was referring to a radio interview on Jan. 4, 2016, where
Abdallah Homsy of Co-op Taxi said "We have improved our service.
And I can tell you that several thousand people, the day and the
evening of the 31st to Jan. 1st, several thousand people used our
App. We had an almost record year in numbers of work, in numbers
of trips, for journeys in the city of Quebec for trips on New
Year's Eve."


UNITED COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Watkins" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tremaine K. Watkins, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-
cv-08516 (D.N.J., December 9, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

United Collection Bureau, Inc. is an Ohio corporation that
operates a debt collection firm in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED HEALTH GROUP: Minn. Court Tosses Podiatric Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David S. Doty of the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, Podiatric OR of Midtown Manhattan,
P.C., Plaintiff, v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., United HealthCare
Services, Inc., United HealthCare Insurance Company, United
HealthCare Service LLC, Oxford Health Plans, LLC, Optum, Inc. and
Optum Group, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 15-3234 (DSB/HB) (D.
Minn.).

Podiatric is an out-of-network healthcare provider with an office-
based surgery (OBS) facility that is accredited under New York
law. Podiatric regularly treats patients insured by the Plans,
submits claims directly to United, and receives payments directly
from United.  If United has questions about a claim or a dispute
arises, it deals directly with Podiatric.

United has refused to pay OBS facility fees. On August 11, 2014,
and December 17, 2014, United sent two letters to Podiatric
stating that it would no longer pay OBS facility fees.  In the
first letter, United stated, "As a non-participating [out-of-
network] physician office with an OBS accreditation, UnitedHealth
Group will not reimburse facility fees. This letter is sent as
notice that any future claims for facility charges will not be
paid."  United's second letter reiterated that unless the provider
has a "license to operate as an Ambulatory Surgery Center,
facility fees will not be paid." The letters also stated that
insureds may appeal that determination or designate an authorized
representative to do so. On August 7, 2015, Podiatric filed a
putative class action complaint, seeking benefits under 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 1132(a)(1)(B), and injunctive relief under Sec. 1132(a)(1)(B)
or, alternatively, Sec. 1132(a)(3).

In the motion, United argued that Podiatric lacks standing to sue
because the Plans contain non-assignment clauses which prohibit
Podiatric from obtaining the rights to the insureds' benefits.

In his Order dated January 11, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/y0XBMTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Doty concluded that
United waived the non-assignment clauses as a matter of law and
that United's non-assignment clauses do not prohibit assignment of
the causes of action. Podiatric has failed to establish that
pursuing administrative remedies would be futile.

Podiatric OR of Midtown Manhattan is represented by Cyril V.
Smith, Esq. -- csmith@zuckerman.com -- D. Brian Hufford, Esq. --
dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Jason S. Cowart, Esq. --
jcowart@zuckerman.com -- Ramya Kasturi, Esq. --
rkasturi@zuckerman.com -- ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP, Karen Hanson
Riebel, Esq. -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
-- kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -- Kristen G. Marttila, Esq. --
kgmarttila@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P

United Health Care Group is represented by Aaron D. Van Oort, Esq.
-- aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- Blake J. Lindevig, Esq. --
blake.lindervig@FaegreBD.com -- Deborah A. Ellingboe, Esq. --
Deborah.ellingboe@FaegreBD.com -- Paul W. Heiring, Esq. --
paul.heiring@FaegreBD.com -- Tyler A. Young, Esq. --
tyler.young@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP


UNITED RECOVERY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel E. Nicasio, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. United Recovery Systems, LP, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
08633-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., December 14, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

United Recovery Systems, LP operates a debt collection firm in New
Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


US HISPANIC: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Quezada" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Margarita Quezada, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. U.S. Hispanic Ventures Inc., d/b/a Milagros
De Mexico, Case No. 3:15-cv-05785 (N.D. Cal., December 17, 2015)
seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited text
messages to the wireless telephones of the Plaintiff and each of
the members of the Class without prior express written consent.

U.S. Hispanic Ventures Inc. is a pharmacy company that markets and
sells wellness products and herbal remedies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Meredith Lierz, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              mlierz@ahdootwolfson.com

         - and -

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 241-1260
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              isalam@siprut.com


U.S. SECURITY: Faces "Stone" Suit Alleging FCRA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Stone, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and Does 1 through 10, Case no: BC604257 (Cal.
Super., County of Los Angeles, December 15, 2015), alleges that
Defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by furnishing,
using, procuring, and/or causing to be procured consumer reports
for employment purposes by failing to make proper disclosures
required thereunder and/or by failing to make and/or obtain the
required certifications required thereunder.

U.S. Security Associates, Inc. provides security guard services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter R. Dlon-klndem, Esq
     THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
     Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (818)883-4900
     Fax: (818)883-4902
     E-mail: peter@.dion-kindemlaw.com

        - and -

     Lonnie C. Blanchard, III Esq.
     THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
     3311 East Pico Boulevard
     Los Angeles, CA 90023
     Phone: (213)599-8255
     Fax: (213)402-3949
     E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com

        - and -

     Jeffrey D. Holmes, Esq.
     HOLMES LAW GROUP, APC
     3311 East Pico Boulevard
     Los Angeles, CA 90023
     Phone: (310)396-9045
     Fax: (970) 497-4922
     E-mail: jeffholmesjh@gmail.com


VARALUZ LLC: Recalls Lighting Fixtures Due to Shock Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Varaluz LLC, of Las Vegas, Nev., announced a voluntary recall of
about 80 Longfellow lighting fixtures for indoor and outdoor use.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Improper wiring can allow melting of the insulation and cause the
fixtures to short out, posing fire and shock hazards.

This recall involves all Longfellow model 3- and 4-light light
fixtures for indoor or outdoor use. The black metal fixtures have
a clear/frosted glass shade on four sides and can be wall mounted
or ceiling mounted. Model number 731KL04EB, 731KM03EB, 731P03EB,
331P03BL, 731P03EB or 331P04BL is printed on the label on the
canopy of the ceiling mounted fixtures or the backplate of wall
mounted fixtures.

The firm has received two reports of lights bulbs shorting. No
injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/RX08Eo

The recalled products were manufactured in Philippines and sold at
Lighting showrooms nationwide and online through lighting and home
improvement websites from April 2013 to September 2015 for between
$320 and $420.

Consumers should immediately discontinue use of the fixtures until
replacement units are available. Consumers should contact Varaluz
for a replacement light fixture or a refund.


VENTIV COMMERCIAL: "Standridge" Suit Alleges Labor Code Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Standridge, individually; and on behalf of others
similarly situated and on behalf of the general, public, v.
Inventiv Health, Inc.; Ventiv Commercial Services, LLC dba
Inventiv Commercial Services, LLC; Inventiv Groupholdings, Inc.;
and DOES 1-1000, Case no: BC 604315 (Cal. Super., County Of Los
Angeles, December 15, 2015), alleges failure by Defendants to
reimburse Plaintiffs for Business Expenses in Violation of
California Labor Code and Unfair Business Practices in Violation
of California Business and Professional Code.

inVentiv Health is a global provider of healthcare and pharma
consulting to biopharmaceutical clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R.Craig Clark, Esq.
     James M. Treglio, Esq.
     Dawn M. Berry, Esq.
     CLARK & TREGLIO
     205 West Date Street
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619)239-1321
     Fax: (888) 273-4554

        - and -

     Walter Haines, Esq.
     UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
     5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
     Huntington Beach, CA 92649
     Phone: (562) 256-1047
     Fax: (562) 256-4554


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Budare" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------
Justin Budare, Robert Izard, and all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen of America Group, Inc. and Volkswagen of
America, Inc., Audi of America, LLC and Audi AG, and Porsche AG
and Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-05732 (N.D.
Calif., December 14, 2015), seek injunctive relief and
damages caused by Volkswagen's violations of Section 2 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the common law
of fraud and unjust enrichment and the statutory laws of
California.

The Defendants manufacture and sell vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery St., Ste 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 633-1908
      Fax: (415) 358-4980
      E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com

          - and -

      Allan Steyer, Esq.
      STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS
      ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
      One California Street, Suite 300
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 421-3400
      Fax: (415) 421-2234
      E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Fidler" Suit Goes to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Fidler et al. v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc. et al., Case No. 37-02015-00040190-CU-AT-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:15-cv-02935-H-BGS to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexandra T Steele, Esq.
          Thomas V Girardi, Esq.
          GIRARDI KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977 0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481 1554
          E-mail: asteele@girardikeese.com
                  tgirardi@girardikeese.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew Z Edelstein, Esq.
          John Nadolenco, Esq.
          Matthew H. Marmolejo, Esq.
          Neil Michael Soltman, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229 9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625 0248
          E-mail: AEdelstein@mayerbrown.com
                  jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
                  mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com
                  nsoltman@mayerbrown.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Yazdi" Suit Moved to Central Dist. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kevin Yazdi v. Volkswagen Group of
America Inc et al., Case No. 30-02015-00821838, was removed from
the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa
Ana). The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-
02157-DOC-SP to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexandra T Steele, Esq.
          Thomas Vincent Girardi
          GIRARDI AND KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977 0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481 1554
          E-mail: asteele@girardikeese.com
                  tgirardi@girardikeese.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew Zachary Edelstein, Esq.
          John Nadolenco, Esq.
          Neil M Soltman, Esq.
          Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229 9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625 0248
          E-mail: aedelstein@mayerbrown.com
                  jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
                  nsoltman@mayerbrown.com
                  mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Ross" Suit Moved to Maryland Court
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ross v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Case No. C-15-01883, was removed from the Circuit
Court for Cecil County, Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland (Baltimore). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03973-WMN to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melanie Joustra Garner, Esq.
          LOCKS LAW FIRM
          601 Walnut St Ste 720 East
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 893 0100
          Facsimile: (215) 893 3444
          E-mail: mgarner@lockslawfirm.com

          Stephen J Nolan, Esq.
          222 Bosley Ave Ste A 1
          STEPHEN J NOLAN CHARTERED
          Baltimore, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 821 8600
          Facsimile: (410) 821 8613
          E-mail: steve@sjnolan.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John L Hone, Esq.
          Ronald G DeWald, Esq.
          LIPSHULTZ AND HONE CHTD
          8630 Fenton St Ste 108
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587 8500
          Facsimile: (301) 495 9759
          E-mail: jhone@lhlegal.com
                  rdewald@lhlegal.com


VWI LLC: "Greenberg" Suit Moved from Circuit Court to S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Greenberg et al. v. VWI, LLC.,
Case No. CACE-15-017024 (21), was removed from the 17th Judicial
Circuit Court in Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-60083-BB to the
proceeding.

Plaintiffs' claims arose from the widely publicized Environmental
Protection Agency Notice of Violation dated September 18, 2015.
The EPA Notice concerns the alleged installation of emissions
testing defeat devices in certain Volkswagen and Audi 2.0 liter
diesel vehicles. Plaintiffs further claimed that the devices
allowed the vehicles to be sold illegally because the vehicles did
not and could not meet applicable emission laws.

The VWI is based in Greenwood, Colorado. The company's line of
business includes operating public hotels and motels.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Albert L. Frevola , Jr., Esq.
          Ivan John Kopas, Esq.
          William R. Scherer, Esq.
          CONRAD & SCHERER, LLP
          633 South Federal Highway, Eighth Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 462-5500
          Facsimile: (954) 463 9244
          E-mail: afrevola@conradscherer.com
                  ikopas@conradscherer.com
                  wrs@conradscherer.com

               - and -

          Bruce S. Rogow, Esq
          Tara A Campion, Esq
          BRUCE S. ROGOW PA
          Plaza 100
          500 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1930
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 767 8909
          Facsimile: (954) 764 1530
          E-mail: brogow@rogowlaw.com
                  tcampion@rogowlaw.com

               - and -

          Warrant T. Burns, Esq.
          Daniel H. Charest, Esq
          William Thompson, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST, LLP
          500 North Akard, Suite 2810
          Dallas, Texas 75201
          E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
                  dcharest@burnscharest.com
                  wthompson@burnscharest.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael R. Holt, Esq.
          Myron Shapiro, Esq.
          Larry M. Roth, Esq.
          RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL
          A Professional Association
          Brickell City Tower, Suite 3000
          80 S.W. 8th Street
          Miami, FL 33130-3037
          Telephone: (305) 358 5577
          Facsimile: (305) 371 7580
          E-mail: mholt@rumberger.com
                  mshapiro@rumberger.com
                  lroth@rumberger.com


YOLI'S MEXICAN: Faces "Campos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alma Campos v. Yoli's Mexican Kitchen, Inc. and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC604552 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 17, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Yoli's Mexican Kitchen, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in Los
Angeles County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Pairavi. Esq.
      Saradin Chhim, Esq.
      Michael A. Zelman, Esq.
      PAIRAVI LAW, PC
      1875 Century Park East, Suite 1025
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310)789-2063
      Facsimile: (310)789-2064
      E-mail: edwin@pairavilaw.com
              dean@pairavilaw.com
              michael@pairavilaw.com


YURMAN RETAIL: "Cociu" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
M. Cociu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. David Yurman, individually, Yurman Retail, LLC, a
business entity which is not authorized to do business in the
State of California, David Yurman Retail LLC, a business entity
which is not authorized to do business in the State of California.
David Yurman Enterprises, LLC, business entity which is not
authorized to do business in the State of California and DOE One
through and including Doe Ten, Case no: BC6 04385 (Cal. Super.,
County of Los Angeles, December 15, 2015), seeks unpaid wages,
continuing wages, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the
California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order.

David Yurman Retail LLC is a precious metal jewelry company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alan Harris, Esq.
     David Garrett, Esq.
     Christina Nordsten, Esq.
     HARRIS & RUBLE
     655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor
     Glendaie CA 91203
     Phone: (323) 962-3777
     Fax: (323) 962-3004
     E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
             dgarrett@han-isandruble.com
             cnordsten@harrisandruble.com


* 25 States Must Pay $13.55MM in Fees Over Same-Sex Marriage Bans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
twenty-five states that unsuccessfully defended same-sex marriage
bans in federal court have agreed or been ordered by a judge to
pay more than $13.5 million in legal fees to the challengers.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 decision in U.S. v. Windsor --
striking down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act --
opened the floodgates to lawsuits challenging state marriage bans
as unconstitutional.  There was a flurry of litigation in federal
courts leading up to the high court's decision in June in
Obergefell v. Hodges declaring a national right to same-sex
marriage.

The legal bills have steadily come due.

Payouts to plaintiffs' lawyers, who largely represented their
clients pro bono, so far ranged from $4,500 to $1.9 million.  And
there's more to come.  Fee petitions are pending in four states,
including a $2 million request in Tennessee. In other cases, the
lawyers are still fighting over how to apply Obergefell, delaying
a discussion about fees.

Under federal civil rights law, winning plaintiffs are entitled to
"reasonable" fees for their lawyers.  Most states reached
settlements with plaintiffs lawyers in the federal same-sex
marriage cases, but a few objected to fee requests and left it up
to a judge to decide.  The National Law Journal identified at
least 41 federal cases with a fee award or settlement to date.

There were seven-figure settlements and court-ordered fee awards
in six states.  Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and
Wisconsin reached agreements with plaintiffs' lawyers.  In
Kentucky, a judge ordered the state to pay $1.1 million.

States that settled avoided potential court-ordered enhancements
that could have added hundreds of thousands of dollars to the
final bill.  In Ohio, lawyers had asked for $1.1 million plus a 50
percent enhancement -- an additional $550,000.  They took home
$1.3 million.

In Pennsylvania, where the state agreed to pay $1.5 million in
fees, the American Civil Liberties Union cut its fees by
approximately 30 percent, according to Witold Walczak, legal
director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

After a federal judge struck down the state's same-sex marriage
ban, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett announced he wouldn't fight the
decision.  Mr. Walczak said that the 30 percent fee reduction was
"pretty generous, but we were thankful that they didn't appeal and
that we had actually won."

Plaintiffs lawyers in same-sex marriage cases typically billed
hourly rates that ranged from $130 for junior associates to $500
for experienced counsel.  In a few cases, the lawyers were more
expensive.

Lawyers from big law firms didn't always take home the money they
billed -- they often agreed to give their fees to a public
interest group -- but public court documents in these cases shed
light on their billing practices.

Timothy Bishop, a partner at Mayer Brown, claimed an hourly rate
of $980 for his work in the Wisconsin case.  That was
Mr. Bishop's regular rate at the time, according to court papers.
Another Mayer Brown partner involved in the case, Hans Germann,
billed an hourly rate of $705.

Jenner & Block partner Paul Smith, chairman of the firm's
appellate and Supreme Court practice, billed an hourly rate of
$789 in 2014 for his work in a marriage case in West Virginia,
down from the $1,100 he charged at the time, according to billing
records filed in court.

Other top billers were Stanford Law School professor Jeffrey
Fisher, who claimed an hourly rate of $750 for work in Kentucky;
Perkins Coie partner Paul Eckstein, who billed $695 for work in
Arizona; and James Esseks, director of the ACLU's Lesbian Gay
Bisexual Transgender and HIV Project, who billed $700 for his work
in Ohio.

Lawyers didn't have to disclose rates if they reached an early
settlement.

Virginia agreed to pay $520,000 to Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and
Shuttleworth, Ruloff, Swain, Haddad & Morecock.  The law firms
presented the commonwealth with billing records that totaled $1.7
million, according to court papers, but they were not public.
Gibson Dunn partner Theodore Olson, who in recent years reportedly
charged at least $1,800 an hour, helped lead the plaintiffs' legal
team in that case.


* Pa. Common Pleas Court New Mass Tort Filings Drop 38% in 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
mass torts may have dominated the Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas in 2015, but the number of new cases being filed in the
Complex Litigation Center dipped substantially.

According to the year-end court statistics from the Complex
Litigation Center, 1,288 new cases were filed in the mass tort
program last year.  That number represents a decrease of 807 from
the 2,095 new cases that were filed in 2014. That is a more than
38 percent drop.  Despite the reduced influx of new matters, the
total inventory for the year flatlined, with the total number of
cases pending in the mass tort program rising only from 5,305 to
5,320.

Of the new cases that were filed, 1,030 involved pharmaceuticals.
That is 797 fewer new pharmaceutical cases being filed than the
1,827 filed in 2014, a nearly 44 percent drop.  The inventory for
all the pending pharmaceutical cases, however, rose by 85 cases
throughout 2015, which put the year-end inventory for
pharmaceutical suits at 4,728.

In the asbestos program, 258 new cases were filed.  That is just a
10-case dip from 2014, which saw 268 cases filed.  The total
inventory for asbestos-related cases fell from 662 in 2014 to 592
at the end of 2015.

Attorneys said the numbers are largely caused by the normal ebb
and flow of litigation.  However, they also pointed to appellate
court rulings making it more difficult to hold generic
manufacturers liable.

Rosemary Pinto of Feldman & Pinto, which represents plaintiffs in
several mass torts, also noted that GlaxoSmithKline recently moved
its headquarters out of Philadelphia.

"One major drug company, in most cases, the court doesn't have
jurisdiction over," Ms. Pinto said.  "Those two things
contribute."
She also said the court has increased efficiency and doubled its
efficiency efforts discouraging non-meritorious claims from being
filed in Philadelphia.

Overall, the disposition rate of cases has been steadily
increasing over the past few years.  In 2013, only 37.5 percent of
the cases were being disposed of after 25 months.  In 2014, that
number rose to 52 percent of cases being disposed before two
years.  That number rose again in 2015 to 73.6 percent of cases
having a 25-month disposition rate.

When looking strictly at pharmaceutical cases, the number of suits
resolved within two years jumped from 55 percent to 86.6 percent.

"Obviously, there's great administrative handling of the mass
torts by [Supervising Judge Arnold] New, and some of these torts
reached the point where they were ready for resolution,"
Ms. Pinto said.  "One way or the other, the cases are moving."
Reed Smith attorney James Beck said the numbers also suggest that
significant settlements were made throughout the year.

In August, the makers of the birth-control drugs Yaz, Yasmin and
Ocella agreed to provide nearly $56.9 million to establish a
settlement program for plaintiffs claiming they suffered arterial
blood clots from the medications.

Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman attorney Michael M. Weinkowitz,
who represented some of the plaintiffs in that litigation, also
said the numbers could be related to the settlement.



                            *********

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  * * *