CAR_Public/160209.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 9, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 28


                            Headlines


A & A MARKET: "Singh" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT & Minimum Wages
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Bojorquez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
AIXTRON SE: Brodsky & Smith Investigating Sec. Law Violations
AIXTRON SE: "Bettis" Suit Seeks Remedies Under Exchange Act
ALMONTE BEACH: "Huitzil" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

AMERICAN HOMESECURES: "Jacobs" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages
AMERICAN PRIME: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages
AMMARI OF LOUISIANA: "Farrow" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
ANZ BANK: Court to Hear Final Appeal in Bank Fee Class Action
ARROW LINEN: "Paige" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Wages & OT

ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES: Feb. 25 BNL Class Action Court Date Set
AVENUE A CLASSIC: "Sierra" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid OT Wages
AVID LIFE: Suit Over Ashley Madison Consolidated in St. Louis
B&F DETASSELING: "Perez-Perez" Suit Seeks Money Damages & Relief
BAKER HUGHES: Falsely Classifies Directional Drillers, Suit Says

BERJAC OF OREGON: Investors Despair Over Ponzi Scheme Recovery
BESTCARE INC: "Romero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BLACKHAWK SPECIALTY: "Marcel" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid OT
BREEZE-EASTERN CORP: Faces "Soueidan" Suit Over Merger Deal
BUILDING UNLIMITED: "Baca" Suit Seeks OT Pay & Minimum Wages

C.N.A. TRADING: "Zhu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT
CALIFORNIA DREAMING: Sued for Minimum Wage Violation
CANADA: Ontario Court Set to Hear Arguments in G20 Class Action
CASEY'S GENERAL: Attorneys Fees Order Expected January
CASEY'S GENERAL: Settlement in FCRA Suit Has Initial Approval

CENTURY INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Defective AK-47 Rifles
CHAMBERS STREET: MOU Reached to Resolve Merger Suits
CHAMPION ROOFING: "Smth" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: E. Coli Outbreak Probe Widens as Sales Decline
CLASS VALET: "Asalde" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Sued for H-1B Violations
CONNS INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
CORTE CAFE: "Garza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
COURIER LOGISTICS: "Curry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CRYSTAL CLEAR: "Cates" Suit Seeks Recovery of Monetary Damages

DANCO METAL: "Green" Suit Seeks Payment of OT, Minimum Wages
DEPUY INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Wrong Sized Hip Implants
DEXCEL PHARMA: Fax Ads Violate TCPA, "Marcus" Suit Claims
DIRECT GENERAL: "Willis" Suit Seeks OT & Unpaid Wages
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Turner" Suit Alleges Kentucky Law Violation

DREAM KITCHENS: "Borzym " Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
DRILL-CHEM: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Other Damages
EOS PRODUCTS: Settles "Cronin" Lip Balm Class Action
EXACT VALVE SOLUTIONS: Violates FLSA, "Cruz" Suit Claims
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Defending Suits over Tank Refill Business

FIRST NIAGARA: "Desmarais" Suit Challenges KeyCorp Merger
FISHS EDDY: Faces New York Class Action Over FACTA Violations
FLINT, MI: AG Can't Defend Both Snyder, Individual MDEQ Employees
FLOOR AND DECOR: Text Ads Violate TCPA, "Reeder" Suit Says
FRANK A. REICHL: "East Moline" Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation

FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Execs Get Sentence in Chemical Spill Cases
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Ex-Owner Gets Sentence in Chemical Spill
GLOUCESTER TAXI: "Berge" Suit Alleges Wage Act Violations
GENERAL CHEMICAL: "Interstate Chemical" Suit Seeks Treble Damages
GFB ENTERPRISES: Diaz Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

GOOGLE INC: UC Berkeley Students File Suit Over E-mail Scanning
GOOGLE INC: Court Dismissed Gmail CAPTCHA Class Action
HAIR DIMENSIONS: "Garcia" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
HARTFORD GAS: "Aswad" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage and OT Premium Pay
HEARTWARE INC: Securities Class Suit Filed

HENNECOLD STORAGE: "Sutton" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
J. C. PENNEY: Defendants File Answer to Texas Securities Action
J. C. PENNEY: Defendants File Answer to Ramirez & Ihle Suit
J. C. PENNEY: Opposed Renewed Class Cert. Motion in Illinois Case
J&M TANK LINES: "Calvillo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

JEZ RESTAURANTS: Violates FLSA, Ill. Wage Laws, "Carmona" Says
JOE MACHENS: Knowingly Sold Damaged Vehicles, Class Suit Says
JOHNSON COUNTY, IN: Sued Over Public Defender System Problems
JUST SALAD: "REA" Suit Seeks Recovery of Unpaid Wages
K&B FINANCIAL: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Statutory Damages & Costs

KOBE SUSHI: "Zheng" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay & Minimum Wages
KYOTO SUSHI: "Chen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Adelson Loses Sanctions Bid
LIBERATOR MEDICAL: "Sapan" Suit Wants to Enjoin KeyCorp Merger
LINN CO: "French" Suit Seeks Payment of Corporate Dividends

MEMORIAL HERMANN: Ex-Flight Paramedic Sues Over Unpaid Wages
MERCEDES-BENZ: Transmission Fails Prematurely, Suit Claims
MERCURY PAYMENT: Champs Sports Suit Seeks Injunction
META FINANCIAL: MetaBank Faces Class Suits in N.Y., Cal. & Pa.
MIDLAND FUNDING: "Grunwald" Suit Seeks Damages under FDCPA

MILVIDA CORP: "Vargas" Suit Seeks Recovery of Unpaid, OT Wages
MMJ EVENTS: NYE Patrons Mull Class Action Over Barbecue Festival
MYRON GREEN: "Turner" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Seifert Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violations
NISHANT INC: "Alvarado" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages under FLSA

NOVA RESTORATION "Drag" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ORACLE CORP: Dodges Class Suit Over No-Poaching Agreements
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Class Suit in Discovery Phase
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Class Cert. Bid in "Beeney" Granted in Part
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Broadstone" Case Stayed Until Status Conference

PAYPAL: Class Action Settlement Payouts Face Problems
PEP BOYS: Faces Class Suits over Bridgestone Merger Deal
PEP BOYS: Faces "Edwards" Merger Suit in E.D. Pa.
PERRY ELLIS: Settlement Reached in "Ordaz" Case
PETROBRAS: N.Y. Judge Allows Shareholder Class Suit to Proceed

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Kentucky's Abortion Class Action to Proceed
PREMIERE GLOBAL: Pangea Merger Closed; Class Suit Dropped
PRICE MASTER: "Coulibaly" Suit Seeks Payment of Lost Wages, Costs
PSSP NY: "Camas" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Wages, OT
RED RIVER: Former Employees Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

RED RIVER: "Carranza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SACRAMENTO, CA: Judge Allows Citizens to Opt Out of Fire Fee Suit
SALE SLASH: FTC Shuts Down Business Over Fake Diet Pill Claims
SECRET TO LIFE: Coach Couple Sued Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
SECURITY ONE SOURCE: "Ventura" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages

SKV INVESTMENTS: "Montes" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wage
SOCAL GAS: California AG Files Suit Over Natural Gas Leak
SOCAL GAS: Los Angeles DA Files Charges Over Natural Gas Leak
SPARK NETWORKS: "Hoffman" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud
SUN FUNG: Recalls Japanese Style Anchovy Due to Gluten

SYNTHES USA: Recalls SynReam Medullary Reamer Head 13.5mm
TECHNICAL CONSUMER: Recalls LED Parabolic Aluminized Reflectors
TILLY'S INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Christiansen" Denied
TILLY'S INC: "Rebolledo" Parties Reached Settlement
TILLY'S INC: To Defend Against "Whitten" Class Suit in Calif.

TILLY'S INC: To Defend Against "Ward" Class Suit in Calif.
TRI-STATE: Acadia Fights Bauer Policy Coverage Counterclaim
TWO WAYS RESTAURANT: "Perez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT & Wages
U.S. COURTS: Overcharges PACER Fees, "Fisher" Suit Claims
U.S. WELL SERVICES: Faces "Lackie" Wage-and-Hour Suit

UBER TECH: Skimmed Drivers' Tips, "Ortega" Suit Alleges
UBER TECH: Drivers Sue in N.Y. over Exclusionary Requirements
UBER TECH: Calif. Court Hears Arguments in Drivers' Tips Suit
UBER TECH: Taxi Drivers Seek Injunction to Halt Quebec Service
UBER TECH: "Berger" Suit in Calif. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

UNCLE T: Recalls Frozen Fish Products Due to Egg and Gluten
UNITED CAPITAL: "Carollo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
URANIUM ENERGY: Defending "Stephens" Securities Action
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Cold-FX Study Results Not Published
VERIZON: Sonoma Agencies Join Statewide Suit for Overcharging

VIRTUOSO SOURCING: Collection Practices Illegal, "Sperber" Claims
VITAL DRUGS: "Canela" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
VITAL THERAPIES: Faces "Halverstadt" Securities Class Action
VIZIO INC: Faces "Jewett" Suit Over TV Tracking Software
VIZIO INC: Faces "Pagorek" Suit Over TV Tracking Software

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Recalls Audi A3 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
VTECH ELECTRONICS: "Donnell" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
WAL-MART CANADA: Recalls Seasonal Lights Due to Fire Hazard
WALT DISNEY: Hired Cheaper, Foreign Workers, Class Suit Claims
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UT: Sued Over Public Defender System Problems

WAYFAIR: Gives Bogus "Discounts," Class Suit Says
WEB.COM GROUP: Faces Class Suit over August Data Breach
WHOLE FOODS: Calif. Judge Tosses PETA Suit with Leave to Amend
WORD ALIVE: Recalls Ceramic Mugs Due to Burn Hazard
ZILLOW: Court Rejects Disclosure-Only Class Action Settlement

* Data Breach Litigation Decisions Show Competing Trends


                            *********


A & A MARKET: "Singh" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT & Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Harvinder Singh, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. A & A Market Plaza, Inc.; Best Market
& Deli, Inc.; Muskan Groceries Inc.; 87th Road Mini Market, Inc.;
Muskan Maniani, Inc. d/b/a Hillside Pizza And Grill; Palwinderjit
Singh a/k/a Paul Singh, Narinderjit Kaur, Rajinderjit Singh,
Parminder Kaur, Kamaljit Kaur a/k/a Kamaljeet Kaur, and Manjinder
Kaur, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-07396 (E.D.N.Y., December
30, 2015), seeks to recover from the Defendants including  unpaid
minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and/or attorneys' fees and
costs against Defendants for alleged violations of the Federal
Labor Standards Act, and of the New York Labor Law

A & A Market Plaza is a domestic business corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York with a principal address
at Queens, New York. The Company is engaged in interstate commerce
that has gross sales in excess of $500,000 per year.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762 1324
          Facsimile: (718) 762 1342


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Bojorquez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Alma Bojorquez, Jake Vallante, Matthew Allan and C'Endan
Claiborne, and all others similarly situated v. Abercrombie &
Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case
No. 2:15-cv-09651 (C.D. Calif., December 15, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the laws of Massachusetts, Florida and California by
compelling its employees to purchase Abercrombie clothing,
resulting in failure to pay the minimum wage, recapture of paid
wages, unlawful deductions from wages, and unreimbursed
expenditures for employee uniforms.

The Defendants own and operate retail stores, throughout the
United States and internationally, under the brand names
Abercrombie & Fitch, Hollister, Abercrombie Kids, and Gilly Hicks.
Abercrombie is a specialty retailer selling clothing and
accessories, primarily to children, teenagers, and young adults.
Abercrombie operates approximately 799 retail stores in the United
States, including approximately 31 stores in Massachusetts, 70
stores in Florida, and 113 stores in California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
      Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
      Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
      Carey A. James, Esq.
      AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
      7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1150
      Oakland, CA 94621
      Tel: (510) 562-6800
      Fax: (510) 562-6830


AIXTRON SE: Brodsky & Smith Investigating Sec. Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces an investigation of
Aixtron SE ("Aixtron" or the "Company") for potential violations
of federal securities laws and breaches of the Aixtron Board's
fiduciary duties.

The investigation concerns a securities class action lawsuit
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaint alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements including failing to disclose
that: (1) the AIX R6 MOCVD systems that were to be shipped did not
meet the customer's specific qualification requirements; (2) that,
as such, the Company's agreement to ship the AIX R6 MOCVD was
unlikely to be executed; (3) that the impending failure to execute
the original agreement would have a substantial negative impact on
the Company's prospects; and (4) therefore, the Defendants
statements about Aixtron's business, operations, and prospects,
were false and misleading.  Consequently, the lawsuit claims that
when the true details entered the market shareholders suffered
damages.

If you purchased shares of Aixtron common stock between September
25, 2014 and December 9, 2015, and wish to discuss the
investigation, or if you have any questions, you may e-mail or
call the law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC  before February 15 ,
2016, who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to
answer your questions. You may contact Jason L. Brodsky, Esquire
or Evan J. Smith, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by e-mail at
investorrelations@brodsky-smith.com,  by visiting http://brodsky-
smith.com/1031-aixg-aixtron-se.html, or calling toll free 877-
LEGAL-90.


AIXTRON SE: "Bettis" Suit Seeks Remedies Under Exchange Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Terry Bettis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Aixtron Se, Martin Goetzeler,
And Bernd Schulte, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00025
(S.D.N.Y., January 1, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as a result of Defendants' alleged
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities.

Aixtron provides deposition equipment to the semiconductor
industry. The Company's technology solutions are purportedly used
by customers to build advanced components for electronic and
optoelectronic applications based on compound, silicon, or
organic semiconductor materials.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, New York 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160


ALMONTE BEACH: "Huitzil" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Huitzil, on behalf for himself, the Plaintiff, v. Almonte
Beach Food Corp. d/b/a Key Food, Richard Almonte, and Antony W.
Almonte, the Defendants, Case No. cv16-0023 (E.D.N.Y., January4,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
statutory penalties, unpaid spread of hours premium, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law an
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Almonte Beach Food is based in Long Beach, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          Shanshan Zheng, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


AMERICAN HOMESECURES: "Jacobs" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Cody Jacobs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. American Homesecures, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00001-JLH (E.D. Ark., Western Division
January 4, 2016), seeks for declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties
and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and conducts
business throughout the United States, providing home security
services in areas including this judicial district.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve Rauls, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


AMERICAN PRIME: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Amaury Faustiono Gonzalez, and other similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. American Prime, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, and Margarita Galiana, individually, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:15-cv-24757-JAL (S.D. Fla., Miami Division, December 29,
2015), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages,
interests, costs and attorney's fees for alleged violations of
overtime pay and minimum wage pay under the laws of the United
States, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

American Prime secure leads from foreign investors located in
South America. Employees of the company regularly and recurrently
follow up on these leads through interstate electronic
communications including telephone, email, and fax.

The Defendants regularly transacted business within Miami-Dade
County, Florida, including the work performed by the Plaintiff
while he was employed by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
          20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Tel: (786) 923 5899
          Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

               - and -

          Isaac Mamane, Esq.
          MAMANE LAW LLC
          1150 Kane Concourse, Second Floor
          Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
          Telephone: (305) 773 - 6661
          E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


AMMARI OF LOUISIANA: "Farrow" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rieneke E. Farrow on behalf of herself and all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ammari of Louisiana, Ltd. d/b/a Creole
Cuisine Restaurant Concepts, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-07148
(E.D. La., December 29, 2015), seeks injunctive and declaratory
relief against defendants' unlawful actions, compensation for,
unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay, unpaid tips, unlawful
deductions, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ammari of Louisiana is a Louisiana corporation that
does business as Creole Cuisine Restaurant Concepts and owns,
manages, and operates at least 9 restaurants locations in New
Orleans, Louisiana.  It is managed by three officers Marviana
Ammari, Zeid Ammari, and Ghaith Ammari.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica M. Vasquez, Esq.
          VASQUEZ LAW OFFICE
          650 Poydras Street, Ste. 1414
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 571 9582
          Facsimile: (504) 684 1449
          Email: jvasquez@vasquezlawoffice.com


ANZ BANK: Court to Hear Final Appeal in Bank Fee Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clancy Yeates, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
a long-running legal battle over bank fees will soon come to a
head, with the High Court hearing a final appeal in a multimillion
dollar class action against ANZ Bank.

In a case being watched closely in banking and legal circles,
lawyers representing ANZ customers will appeal against last year's
ruling from the full bench of the Federal Court that ANZ Bank's
credit card late payment fees were legitimate.

At the heart of the debate -- which will determine the fate of
class actions against seven other banks -- is whether ANZ imposed
unfair penalties when it charged customers up to $35 for being
late paying their credit card bill.

A 2014 ruling from Justice Michelle Gordon, who is now a High
Court judge, found the fees were unfair penalties because they
easily exceeded the 50c to $5.50 cost to the bank of a customer
paying late.

But this was overturned last year when the full bench took into
account a much broader range of potential costs to the bank,
including the impact on provisioning for bad debts and regulatory
capital.

Andrew Watson, head of class actions at Maurice Blackburn, the
firm representing ANZ customers, said the law firm would argue the
Federal Court's reasoning threatened to make the law of unfair
penalties an "empty vessel."

That is because other corporations would be able to mount similar
arguments about their costs to defend high fees, he said.

"Our argument is that if you leave the full court's reasoning as
it is, you denude the doctrine of penalties of any meaningful
content," Mr. Watson said.  "You just render it an empty vessel."

ANZ Bank has maintained the fees were legal and the costs to the
bank of a customer being late were greater than the 50c to $5.50
range accepted by the Federal Court in 2014.  The Federal Court
Chief Justice James Allsop said in last year's ruling in ANZ's
favor that courts should not assume the "role of a price
regulator."

Legal action against seven other big banks including Westpac and
the Commonwealth Bank -- which could be worth hundreds of millions
of dollars -- hinges on the result of the case.

"The truth of it is this is a test case really for all banking
customers in Australia who have ever paid a late fee," Mr. Watson
said.

The action against ANZ, funded by IMF Bentham and attracting
43,500 customers, was launched in 2010.  There will be no further
avenues for appeals after the High Court's decision, expected
later this year.

Aside from the impact on banks, the legal principles being debated
in the case may also have implications for other late payment fees
such as those charged by electricity or telecommunications
companies.

Mr. Watson argued ANZ's claims about the potential costs to the
bank of late payments were similar to scenarios where a butterfly
flapping its wings in Brazil could cause an earthquake in
Japan -- and big companies would use similar logic to defend high
fees.

"Big corporations will just always be able to come up with some
sort of butterfly wings in Brazil causes earthquakes in Japan
scenario," he said.


ARROW LINEN: "Paige" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Wages & OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Marquese Paige, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, the Plaintiff, v. Arrow Linen Supply Co., Inc.,
and John Magliocco, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00032
(E.D.N.Y., January 5, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime, statutory penalties, liquidated damages
and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law.

Arrow Linen Supply is a domestic business corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert D. Salaman, Esq.
          AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 1420
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 825 1400


ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES: Feb. 25 BNL Class Action Court Date Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Counterpunch reports that the class action lawsuit -- begun 20
years old -- that charges Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL)
with contaminating neighborhoods adjacent to it will be moving
ahead again in New York State Supreme Court in February.

Court action is scheduled for the last week in February.  Since it
was first brought in 1996, the lawsuit has gone back and forth
between the State Supreme Court and the Appellate Division several
times, as BNL has fought it.

In July the Appellate Division -- the judicial panel over the
Supreme Court in New York State -- ruled the case can move towards
trial.  It declared that "the causes of action of the proposed
intervenors are all based upon common theories of liability."  In
other words, it stated that the plaintiffs could sue for damages.

But, outrageously, the radioactive contamination caused by BNL --
documented in the 2008 book "Welcome to Shirley: A Memoir from an
Atomic Town" and focused upon by the award-winning 2012
documentary "The Atomic States of America" -- can no longer be
part of the case.

The argument of lawyers for BNL lawyers was accepted by the
Appellate Division which, as it put it in its July decision, ruled
that "the nuclear radiation emitted by BNL did not exceed
guidelines promulgated by the federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission."

Further, the BNL radioactive pollution will not be allowed to be
considered despite the federal government in recent years paying
out millions of dollars to BNL employees in compensation for their
getting cancer after exposure to radioactivity at BNL.  In
addition, families of those BNL workers who died from cancer after
exposure to radioactivity have been paid.

The pay-outs to former workers and their families for cancer from
BNL radioactive exposure -- what neighbors of the lab are now
being barred from litigating about -- come under the federal
government's "Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program."

Instead, the non-employee victims are now being limited in the
class action lawsuit to suing for other BNL pollution, largely
chemical.

The "Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program"
covers not only BNL but the string of U.S. national nuclear
laboratories including Los Alamos, Livermore, Oak Ridge labs, as
well as federal nuclear facilities including its Savannah River
Plant and Hanford.

According to a Power Point presentation given at BNL in 2012 by
the U.S. Department of Labor, some $8.2 billion has been set aside
under the program for pay-outs, with $111.7 million of that for
exposure to radioactivity and consequent cancer at BNL

Joseph B. Frowiss, Sr., based in Rancho Santa Fe, California has
been handling many of the cases involving former workers at BNL --
and other government nuclear facilities -- and their families.  As
he says on his website -- "in the past seven years 1,800 of my
clients have received over $300 million and hundreds more are in
the pipeline . . . A diagnosis of one of 23 'specified' cancers
and typically 250 work days in a specified timeframe are the basic
requirements."

An "independent claims advocate," Mr. Frowiss has run full-page
advertisements in Long Island newspapers: "Brookhaven National Lab
Employees With Cancer," they are headed.  They note that "BNL
employees . . . are likely now eligible for lump sum tax free base
awards of $150,000, possibly to $400,000, plus medical benefits."

The case against BNL by non-employees who are now not being
allowed the compensation of BNL employees and their families for
exposure from BNL radioactivity originally specified damages
caused by BNL radioactivity.

It is titled Ozarczuk v. Associated Universities, Inc.

Associated Universities is the entity that managed BNL, at first
for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) which set BNL up in
1947 at Camp Upton, a former Army base on Long Island, to do
atomic research and develop civilian uses of nuclear technology.

The AEC was eliminated in 1974 by Congress for having a conflict
of interest with its mission of both regulating and at the same
time promoting nuclear technology in the United States.  Its
regulatory function was given to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) and promotional activities to a Department of Energy which
took over operating BNL and the other federal nuclear labs and the
other nuclear facilities.

The defendants in the action -- Associated Universities -- managed
BNL from its start until 1998 when it was fired by the DOE because
of widespread contamination at BNL and DOE's determination that it
was a bad overseer of BNL operations. The two nuclear reactors at
BNL were found to have, for many years, been leaking radioactive
tritium into the underground water table on which Long Island
depends for its potable water supply.

Associated Universities -- which continues with other activities
for the federal government -- includes Harvard, Yale, Princeton,
Columbia, Cornell and Johns Hopkins Universities, University of
Pennsylvania and University of Rochester and Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.  DOE replaced Associated Universities in
running BNL with a partnership of Stony Brook University on Long
Island and Battelle Memorial Institute of Ohio.

The lawsuit is named for Barbara Osarczuk who lived just outside
the BNL boundary in North Shirley and developed breast and thyroid
cancer that she attributes to BNL pollution.

The lawsuit charges that "actions of the defendant were grossly,
recklessly and wantonly negligent and done with an utter disregard
for the health, safety, well-being and rights of the plaintiffs."
It further accuses BNL of "failure to observe accepted industry
standards in the use, storage and disposal of hazardous and toxic
substances" and BNL itself of being "improperly located on top of
an underground aquifer which supplies drinking water to [a] large
number of persons."
Initially brought by 21 families, the lawsuit now has 180 families
as plaintiffs.

The attorneys representing them are led by two prominent lawyers,
A. Craig Purcell of Stony Brook, Long Island, a former president
of the Suffolk County Bar Association, and Richard J. Lippes of
Buffalo who represented Lois Gibbs and the Love Canal Homeowners
Association in landmark litigation.  That lawsuit took on the
massive contamination in the Love Canal neighborhood of Niagara
Falls caused by the Hooker Chemical Company which resulted in
widespread health impacts to residents of the area.  It led in
1980 to the creation of the federal Superfund program to try clean
up high-pollution sites in the United States.

Mr. Purcell said that after the many years of back-and-forth court
rulings, the plaintiffs have the judicial go-ahead to sue for
"loss of enjoyment of life, diminution of property values and the
cost of hooking up to public water."

Mr. Lippes said that "the lab was supposed to monitor anything
escaping from it -- and didn't do it."  The attitude of BNL, he
said, was that "every dollar spent for safety or on environmental
issues was taking away from research."  The lawsuit "should have
been resolved years ago, but there has been intransigence of lab
administrators not wanting to be held responsible."

BNL was designated a high-pollution Superfund site in 1989.  The
large amounts of radioactive tritium -- H30 or radioactive
water -- were found to have been leaking from BNL's High Flux Beam
Reactor in 1997.  That nuclear reactor was closed by the DOE and
then a smaller reactor was found to be leaking tritium too and was
shut down.

There are now no operating nuclear reactors at BNL.

Still, BNL remains closely connected to nuclear technology.  In
2010, BNL set up a new Department of Nuclear Science and
Technology with a multi-million dollar yearly budget.

BNL's announcement at the time quoted Gerald Stokes, its associate
director for Global and Regional Solutions, as saying: "BNL's long
involvement and considerable experience in nuclear energy make it
a natural place to create such an organization." On BNL's website
currently is a page headed, "Exploring Nuclear Technologies for
Our Energy Future" which discusses the department.

Long Island environmental educator and activist Peter Maniscalco
says: "The Brookhaven scientific culture still doesn't understand
the interrelationship between humans and the natural world and the
lethal consequences their work in nuclear technology imposes on
the population and environment of the world.  They still don't
understand that nuclear power is a polluting, deadly technology."

Attorney Purcell said that a "conference date" for Ozarczuk v.
Associated Universities, Inc. is scheduled for February 22 in New
York State Supreme Court in Riverhead, Long Island and a "court
date" for February 25.


AVENUE A CLASSIC: "Sierra" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reyes Sierra, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Avenue A Classic Foods Inc., (d/b/a
Avenue A Classic Food), Anmar Nahshal, and Omar Alomari, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00014 (S.D.N.Y., January 4, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
interest, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and NYLL.

The Defendant is based in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AVID LIFE: Suit Over Ashley Madison Consolidated in St. Louis
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Patrick, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
the hacking of a website dedicated to arranging romantic
infidelity led to angst, embarrassment, accusations and
potentially complicated litigation that is all coming here.

Lawsuits filed across the country against Avid Life Media LLC,
owner of AshleyMadison.com, are being consolidated in U.S.
District Court in St. Louis.

Two dozen lawyers representing Avid and current or former clients
met with District Judge John Ross. More listened in by phone as
Ross scheduled a series of motions and told the attorneys he soon
will pick leaders among them to streamline handling of the case.

One issue will be the continuing privacy of people who signed on
to the site, whose slogan is: "Life is short. Have an affair." It
has boasted of millions of clients, in 50 countries and every U.S.
ZIP code.

Ross said lawyers would have to file motions by Feb. 15 to allow
plaintiffs to continue using pseudonyms to press their cases. The
company can then respond. Lawyers have until March 22 to file a
consolidated class action complaint.

Robert A. Atkins, one of the lawyers for Avid Life, said that he
expects that some of the 50 or so plaintiffs might drop out of the
lawsuit if they have to reveal their real names. Roughly 40 filed
as John or Jane Doe or some variation.

He also raised an issue of the difficulty of properly identifying
plaintiffs, wondering whether some of them had used fake names
when signing up.

And he said a clause in the users' agreement might put the lawsuit
on hold while clients' claims are handled in arbitration in a
venue of the company's choosing.

St. Louis attorney John Driscoll told Ross that plaintiffs'
lawyers may need some limited information from the company before
they proceed, so they know which clients were covered under what
versions of user agreements. He said that the arbitration
requirement didn't exist in the beginning, and he disputed whether
it could be enforced against anyone.

Driscoll represents a woman from Maryland Heights who is among
clients complaining that after quitting the service they paid
extra to have their personal information removed but it was not
done.

Last summer, hackers harvested data from the company, then
released it online when the company refused to shut down the
website. That stolen information included user names, emails, home
addresses, messages and partial credit card information.

The results included efforts by some to publicly reveal names of
Ashley Madison customers and purported blackmail attempts and
suicides. The data also exposed some users' workplaces and
password choices and inner workings of the hook-up system.

Besides complaints of breached personal information, some
plaintiffs claim fraud, alleging -- as some analysts have -- that
the hacked data showed tens of thousands of the site's profiles of
women seeking flings were merely computer-generated "fembots."
Those allegedly sent millions of messages to male customers in an
attempt to garner more money.

The company has denied the claims about fembots, saying in August
that the ratio of paying men to women active on the site was 1.2
to 1 in the first six months of 2015.

Avid Life, based in Toronto, has offered a reward of 500,000
Canadian dollars for information leading to the hackers, who have
not been caught. It has also said that the website's rank have
been growing despite the attack.


B&F DETASSELING: "Perez-Perez" Suit Seeks Money Damages & Relief
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Perez-Perez, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Benito Vasquez,
doing business as B&F Detasseling, the Defendant. Case No. 2:16-
cv-14002-JEM (S.D. S. Car., Fort Pierce Division, January 4,
2016), seeks to recover money damages, declaratory relief, and
injunctive relief for Defendants' violations of the recordkeeping,
wage statement, working arrangement and wage payment provisions of
the AWPA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory S. Schell, Esq.
          MIGRANT FARMWORKER JUSTICE PROJECT
          508 Lucerne Avenue
          Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819
          Telephone: (561) 582 3921
          Facsimile: (561) 582 4884
          E-mail: Greg@Floridalegal.Org


BAKER HUGHES: Falsely Classifies Directional Drillers, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Baker Hughes falsely
classifies directional drillers for gas and oil as independent
contractors to stiff them for overtime, a class action claims in
Fresno, Calif. Federal Court.


BERJAC OF OREGON: Investors Despair Over Ponzi Scheme Recovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Wihtol, writing for The Register-Guard, reports some of
the hundreds of investors bilked in Berjac of Oregon's alleged
Ponzi scheme have given up hope of recouping much of their losses,
as expensive attorney fees eat into the money the Berjac
bankruptcy trustee has managed to claw back from culpable
entities.

The hunt for compensation cash now has narrowed to whether two
Oregon banks and a Eugene accounting firm are proved partly liable
for Eugene-based Berjac's activities.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court trustee overseeing the liquidation of
Berjac's assets has collected about $11 million by selling Berjac-
linked real estate and recovering money from Berjac
co-owners Michael and Gary Holcomb and other beneficiaries of the
alleged rip-off.

But from that amount must be paid the trustee's legal and other
bills, which total several million dollars.  After that, the
roughly 375 investors -- many of them from Lane County -- receive
payouts.

Those investors are owed about $40 million by Berjac, said Thomas
Gerber, an attorney who works for the trustee.

The two banks -- Eugene-based Pacific Continental Bank and
Portland-based Umpqua Bank, and the Eugene-based accountant, Jones
& Roth -- are the last remaining big potential sources of
compensation.

Some investors despair of getting much back.

Eugene resident Sally Piernick, 63, in December wrote to the
bankruptcy judge complaining about the high trustee attorney fees
and her low chances of recouping much of the roughly $171,000 she
had with Berjac when it went under.  "Many of us . . .  mentally
let go of ever getting our money back," she wrote.  "The loss of
(my) money affected my life severely then and continues three-plus
years later."

In the years leading to its collapse in 2012, Berjac used
investors' cash to pay interest to other investors, pay Holcomb
family members extra-high interest rates on their investments in
Berjac, buy luxury items, and delve into speculative real estate
projects that flopped in the Great Recession, bankruptcy records
show.  Investors had thought they were putting their money into
Berjac's insurance-premium financing business.

Berjac typically paid investors 4 percent to 5 percent annual
interest, often for several years.  But investors lost all their
principal -- in many cases hundreds of thousands of dollars per
person -- when the firm went bankrupt in August 2012. It's Lane
County's biggest alleged Ponzi scheme ever.

Now, one of the last questions centers on whether Jones & Roth --
for auditing Berjac's books -- and the two banks -- for lending
money to and receiving payments from Berjac over many years --
were culpable for helping prop up the scheme.

"The next big thing is what will happen with the banks" and the
accounting firm, Gerber said.  In theory, the three could be found
liable for the $30 million or more it would take to repay
investors in full, he said.  But the trustee's lawsuit in U.S.
District Court in Eugene against the banks and Jones & Roth still
is in its early stages.

The three firms dispute that they bear any blame.  They have
tried, unsuccessfully, to get the federal case dismissed.  They
declined to comment to The Register-Guard.

Investors are frustrated by the slow and expensive legal process.

Springfield attorney Thomas Huntsberger, the trustee appointed by
the Bankruptcy Court, and the attorneys and accountants working
for him, have run up large bills trying to retrieve money for
investors.  That retrieved money is used to pay the legal bills.

Portland law firm Bullivant Houser Bailey, hired by Huntsberger to
work on the case from 2012 to May 2014, is in a deepening fight
over the $1.22 million bill it submitted to the trustee. While
Bullivant worked for Huntsberger -- trying to recoup money from
Umpqua Bank and others -- it was using Umpqua as its business
lender, taking loans from the bank.  Bullivant did not tell
Huntsberger about this potential conflict of interest until late
May 2014, court records show.  On May 29, 2014, Huntsberger
dropped Bullivant.

Huntsberger then had to rapidly assemble a new legal team to pick
up Bullivant's work.  The new team had just three months to file
claims against entities and people potentially liable for Berjac's
debts before the Aug. 31, 2014, Bankruptcy Court deadline for
those submittals.

Bullivant asserts it did quality work for the trustee and that its
relationship with Umpqua presented no conflict.  However,
Bullivant admitted in a letter to Huntsberger that the Bullivant-
Umpqua business relationship might make it "appear that our firm
was not completely zealous in its evaluation and pursuit of any
claims against Umpqua."

Portland residents George and Melissa Rex, who lost $450,000 they
had invested with Berjac, said in a December letter to the court
that Bullivant's conflict of interest and its legal bill are
"absolutely outrageous and on the surface appears to be gouging
and tantamount to victimizing us creditors yet a second time."

Eugene resident David Barjas also is angry about Bullivant's bill.
Barjas wrote to the court that his investment with Berjac was
$106,266 -- about 60 percent of his net worth.  A company that
buys high-risk debt recently offered him $4,250 for his bankruptcy
claim, the disillusioned Barjas told the court.

With the legal costs and Berjac's lack of assets, retired
Eugene attorney John Cox, who had $443,000 invested with Berjac
when it folded, said that unless Umpqua, Pacific Continental and
Jones & Roth are found liable, he'd be surprised if investors get
back 15 cents on the dollar of what they are owed.

Which entities are liable?

In a U.S. District Court complaint filed late last year,
Huntsberger seeks $40 million in ordinary damages and $10 million
in punitive damages from Umpqua, Pacific Continental and Jones &
Roth each.  He asserts that under fraud laws his office has a
claim to the money Berjac transferred to the banks in the 10 years
before Berjac's bankruptcy, because that cash flowed from Berjac's
fraudulent venture.

The banks and the accounting firm counter the trustee's claims are
vague, the trustee lacks the authority to sue, and isn't legally
allowed to reach back in time that far and in that way.

Huntsberger alleges the two banks and the accounting firm were
aware that Berjac ran a Ponzi scheme: taking money from investors,
but not using the cash for its publicly stated purpose in Berjac's
insurance -- premium financing business.  Instead -- unknown to
investors -- Berjac used incoming investments to make interest
payments to other investors and put money in ill-managed real
estate projects, the trustee alleges.  Berjac was "insolvent" for
many years, and the banks provided loans to prop it up, the
trustee asserts.

It's the same attack Berjac investors are using in a civil class-
action lawsuit they filed in 2013 against the banks and Jones &
Roth in Multnomah County Circuit Court.  Like the trustee's
federal lawsuit, that case is moving slowly.  A judge in December
dismissed the charges against Jones & Roth, but declined to
dismiss the charges against the banks.

Claims banks were aware

Huntsberger alleges Umpqua provided lines of credit to Berjac from
1992 to 2009.  Pacific Continental, and a Eugene bank that it
bought -- Century Bank -- were lenders to the Holcomb brothers and
Berjac-linked entities since at least 2000, the trustee alleges.
Jones & Roth was Berjac's accounting firm from 2002 to 2011, the
trustee alleges.

Using Umpqua, Pacific Continental and Century emails and other
records it obtained, Huntsberger said it's clear bank officials
knew Berjac was operating a Ponzi scheme; one Umpqua email even
refers to "Ponzi schemes."

"Umpqua Bank knew that the primary source of repayment of the
lines of credit (to Umpqua) was new investor deposits (to
Berjac)," the trustee alleges.  In 2008, for example, most of the
$5.9 million Berjac paid to Umpqua came from investors who thought
the money was going into Berjac's insurance-premium business, the
trustee alleges.

In 2009, when Berjac finally paid off its line of credit to Umpqua
and the bank stopped doing business with Berjac, Umpqua executives
were jubilant and shared an email that stated: "With all the Ponzi
schemes coming to light these days, we are so lucky they (Berjac)
didn't have a run on the money from their investors."

A year earlier, in December 2008, New York fraudster Bernie Madoff
had been arrested for a decades -- long Ponzi scheme that cost
investors an estimated $18 billion.  As in the Madoff scheme,
Berjac's insurance -- premium financing business allegedly had
been a facade for years, with the owners manipulating investor
money to maintain the appearance of a legitimate business. In its
complaint, the trustee quotes from an Umpqua manager's 2008 email
stating: "I don't think that the (Berjac) investors know much
about what their money is invested in . . .  I'll bet that most of
them think it is all or mostly insurance premium financing."

"If investors ever figure out that poor quality of the investments
(real estate projects), he (Michael Holcomb) will have a run on
cash that he probably cannot meet," an Umpqua manager wrote,
according to the complaint.  In 2009, one Umpqua manager in an
email described Berjac as having "an extremely high degree or risk
of implosion." Umpqua has not responded in court to these emails.

Meanwhile, Century Bank loan officers wrote documents in 2008 and
2009 confirming the Holcombs and Berjac needed loans to cover
investor withdrawals because Berjac's money was "tied up" in real
estate, the trustee alleged.

Bankruptcy records suggest the trustee's office may settle with
the banks for less that it is demanding.  Another Eugene bank,
Summit Bank, between 2009 and 2011 provided loans to and received
repayments from Berjac-and-Holcomb-related entities.  Huntsberger
sued Summit, seeking to recover up to $251,900 in alleged
"fraudulent" transfers plus $1 million in punitive damages. Late
last year, Summit paid the trustee's office $90,000 to settle the
case.  Huntsberger said the deal was "in the best interests of
creditors" given the cost of litigation.

Huntsberger last summer hired retired Eugene federal Judge Michael
Hogan -- at a cost to the trustee's office of $550 an hour -- to
try to mediate with Umpqua, Pacific Continental and Jones & Roth,
plus with Bullivant law over its fees.

"Insider" beneficiaries?

In Ponzi-type cases, a bankruptcy trustee typically scours
accounting, property, banking and other records, hunting for
people who financially benefited from fraudulent "insider" or
"preferrential" relationships with the scammer.  Those
beneficiaries might have received special payments or loans before
the scam collapsed.  Depending on the links between the scammer
and the beneficiary, the trustee can try to recoup money going
back three months, a year, or even a decade.

In the Berjac case, the replacement legal team assembled by
Huntsberger had to "take over (Bullivant's) neglected analysis of
voluminous fraudulent and preferrential transfers (and) . . .
identified over 1,000 neglected potential fraudulent and
preferrential transfers to approximately 125 targets," wrote
Rebecca Kamitsuka, an attorney for the U.S. Justice Department
office that monitors conduct in bankruptcy cases.  "The new
counsel filed 11 fraudulent transfer actions and filed
preferrential transfer actions against approximately 59 named
defendants" before the Aug. 31, 2014, claims deadline, Kamitsuka
wrote.  She made her comments in an objection last fall to the
trustee paying Bullivant anything.

Unavoidable but "ugly"

Michael and Gary Holcomb were forced into personal bankruptcies in
2013, so much of Huntsberger's work has centered on trying to
acquire and sell real estate connected to Berjac.  The trustee has
taken ownership of and sold several pieces of real estate held by
non-Berjac entities that had borrowed money from Berjac but had
not repaid it.  The biggest, a tract of residential land in
McMinville, has just sold and will yield about $5.7 million for
the trustee's account, said Gerber, the trustee's attorney.

The trustee's office also recovered about $750,000 from dozens of
investors to whom Berjac had made interest or other payments in
the 90 days before it filed for bankrupcty in 2012, Gerber said.
Federal bankruptcy code requires the investors to pay back the
money they received, regardless of whether they had culpability in
the scam.  Gerber described this as a legally unavoidable but
"ugly" process that risks compounding the hurt of investors who
are already victims. However, those investors still can receive
later payouts from the trustee.

In some cases, the trustee sought to claw back money Berjac had
paid over several years, typically for real estate -- such as the
McMinville property -- or other ventures. The trustee's office
filed a legal action against Eugene-based Curtis Restaurant
Equipment and family members Michael and Frances Curtis, alleging
they received "preferrential" and "insider" payments from Berjac
for 10 years.  The company and the family settled, handing the
trustee $428,000 and dropping claims that Berjac owed them $1.8
million.

Attorneys said the bankruptcy process has most likely uncovered
just about all the Berjac or Holcomb assets to which investors
have a claim.  "We are keeping our eyes open and will continue to
do so," said Gerber.

Retired Eugene lawyer Doug DuPriest, who lost about $100,000
invested with Berjac, said he appreciates Huntsberger's work.  A
forensic accountant hired by Huntsberger "found more assets than
were apparent on the surface of the case," he said.

Retired attorney Cox said the trustee's mounting legal tab is not
surprising given the complexity and poor documentation of the
loans Berjac had made to real estate entities.

Legal fees still rising

The dispute over the Bullivant legal fees threatens to grow.
Huntsberger already has paid Bullivant nearly $600,000 of the
$1.22 million the firm billed, leaving more than $600,000 owing.
Bullivant and Huntsberger have agreed to a proposal that would pay
Bullivant another $328,000, and Bullivant would drop the rest of
its claim.

But investors and the Justice Department's Kamitsuka are urging
the bankruptcy judge to reject the deal and direct Bullivant to
give back everything it has been paid thus far.  Because Umpqua
was identified in 2012 by the trustee as a potential target,
Bullivant would never have been hired, had it revealed its
relationship with the bank, Kamitsuka wrote.

The judge has given the sides the next few months to build their
cases.

Other legal fees continue to rise.  Gerber said the trustee's
office does not have a complete up-to-date tally.

For September 2014 to August 2015, the Portland law firm Tarlow,
Naito & Summers -- hired by Huntsberger to replace Bullivant --
has billed the trustee's office $950,000 in legal fees.  The
firm's costliest attorney, Gerber, bills at $405 an hour.

A separate law firm handling the trustee's federal lawsuit against
the banks has billed the trustee $141,000 so far.  Its top-paid
lawyers charge $400 an hour.  The law firm also would get part of
any settlement. For his work as trustee, Huntsberger's fees and
expenses from the start of the case through April 2015 totalled
nearly $230,000, court records indicate.

Forensic accountants, real estate sales commissions, auction fees
and other costs have consumed tens of thousands of dollars from
trustee coffers.


BESTCARE INC: "Romero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Dinora Romero, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BestCare, Inc., BestCare Management,
Inc., and Lawrence Wiener, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-07397-
ADS-AYS (E.D.N.Y., December 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages that Defendants owe her pursuant to Fair Labor
Standard Act and the New York Labor Law Article.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from July 2012 to
March 2014 at Queen of the Rosary Motherhouse Complex located at
Amityville, New York.

The Defendants are engaged in the home health care business with
its principal place of business located at Levittown, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil M. Frank, Esq.
          FRANK & ASSOCIATES, PC
          500 Bi-County Boulevard, Suite 465
          Farmingdale, NY 11735
          Telephone: (631) 756 0400
          Facsimile: (631) 756 0547
          E-mail: Nfrank@laborlaws.com


BLACKHAWK SPECIALTY: "Marcel" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kipp Marcel and Wallace Trahan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Blackhawk
Specialty Tools, LLC, Trinity Tool Rentals, L.L.C., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00058 (E.D. La., January 5, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the provisions of
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Blackhawk Specialty Tools is a limited liability company
incorporated under the laws of Texas and headquartered in Houma,
Louisiana. Trinity Tool Rental is a limited liability company
incorporated under the laws of Louisiana and headquartered in
Gray, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert B. Landry III, Esq.
          Robert B. Landry III, PLC
          5420 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 204
          Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808
          Office Direct: (225) 349-7464
          Facsimile: (225) 349-7466
          E-mail: rlandry@landryfirm.com

               - and -

          James L. Arruebarrena, Esq.
          JAMES L. ARRUEBARRENA, LLC
          1010 Common Street, Suite 3000
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone (504) 525 2520
          Facsimile (504) 581 7083
          E-mail: jim@unfairtermination.com

               - and -

          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES LLP
          711 W. Alabama St.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: Gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


BREEZE-EASTERN CORP: Faces "Soueidan" Suit Over Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Majed Soueidan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Breeze-Eastern Corporation,
Brad Pedersen, Robert J. Kelly, Nelson Obus, William M. Shockley,
And Serge Dupuis, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00015-ER
(S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2016), seeks injunctive relief, including an
order enjoining the defendants from completing the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement until certain supplemental
disclosures are made by the Company and attorneys' and experts'
fees.

Breeze-Eastern Corporation is an American manufacturing company
which was set up in 1926 and is now based in Whippany, New Jersey.
Breeze-Eastern is the world's only dedicated helicopter hoist and
winch provider and the world's largest cargo hook systems
manufacturer. The company focuses on engineered equipment for
specialty aerospace/defense applications. It also manufactures
weapons handling systems and tie-down equipment for military and
civilian agencies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel K. Rosen, Esq.
          Joel C. Feffer, Esq.
          Samuel K. Rosen, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 935 7400
          Facsimile: (212) 753 3630


BUILDING UNLIMITED: "Baca" Suit Seeks OT Pay & Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Baca and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Building Unlimited, Inc. and Miguel A. Garcia, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:15-cv-24762-KMW (S.D. Fla., January 1, 2016), seeks to
recover paid overtime and minimum wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly as a result of Defendants' alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a roofer repairing and installing roofs as
part of a crew of approximately 4-5 employees.

Building Unlimited is a corporation that regularly transacts
business within Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


C.N.A. TRADING: "Zhu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Yong Zhu, Guang Li Wang, Jian Zhang, individually and on behalf of
all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
C.N.A. Trading Corp. d/b/a, Ou Jiang Supermarket, Ou Jiang City
Supermarket Inc. d/b/a, Ou Jiang Supermarket, Xiu Ou Xia, Xu Dong
Qu, "A King" Xia, John Doe and Jane Doe No. 1-10, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00029 (E.D.N.Y., January 1, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law and Wage Theft
Prevention Act, and FLSA.

C.N.A. Trading owns and operates a supermarket in Queens located
at Flushing, New York. The company has gross sales in excess of
Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) per year.

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
          Flushing, New York 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


CALIFORNIA DREAMING: Sued for Minimum Wage Violation
----------------------------------------------------
John Monk, writing for The State, reports that a federal civil
lawsuit brought by two Columbia waitresses alleging minimum wage
violations by the company that owns the popular California
Dreaming restaurant just off the University of South Carolina
campus has been given the provisional go-ahead to proceed as a
class action.

An arbitrator who examined the allegations in the lawsuit has
determined that the allegations have enough merit to allow more
than 1,000 current and former workers at three California Dreaming
restaurants in South Carolina to be contacted as potential
plaintiffs with claims. The lawsuit still has to be given final
approval.

"Notices went out to approximately 1,300 current and former
employees," said Columbia attorney Todd Ellis, one of three
lawyers representing California Dreaming waitresses Brittany
Bradley, a past employee, and Tamia Corbitt, a current employee.

Neither CentraArchy Restaurant Management Co., which owns
California Dreaming, nor its lawyers responded to requests for
comment.

Ellis has fought this battle before.

In a similar lawsuit against the South Carolina restaurant company
Carolina Ale House Co., the same plaintiffs' lawyers in 2015
settled a claim resulting in a judgment worth some $3 million for
past, current and future workers, according to federal court
records.

In an answer to the California Dreaming lawsuit, CentraArchy
denied all the allegations and said its "method of compensation
was lawful," that it had paid the plaintiffs all money due them
and that the plaintiffs knew about the company's payment system in
advance of being hired.

Potential plaintiffs in the case are all tipped employees --
servers, food runners, hosts and hostesses, and kitchen-based
service bartenders -- employed at California Dreaming restaurants
in Columbia, Charleston and Greenville in the past three years.
Plaintiffs must have made less than $7.25 an hour to be included.

CentraArchy has about 20 properties in several states, including,
in South Carolina, California Dreaming restaurants in North Myrtle
Beach and Surfside. Only the Columbia, Charleston and Greenville
sites are involved in the lawsuit.

Basically, the lawsuit alleges that California Dreaming management
required workers who got tips to participate in an "invalid tip
pool" and share tips with kitchen bartenders who have no customer
interaction and, as part of the workers' employment, they are paid
less than minimum wage "in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act."

California Dreaming only paid its tipped employees $2.13 an hour,
plus tips, the lawsuit alleges. According to the lawsuit, it is a
violation of federal law to pay tipped employees $2.13 an hour and
then force them to share tips with co-workers who do not
customarily receive tips.

"Defendant did not permit plaintiffs and other similarly situated
employees to retain all tips they received," the lawsuit said.
According to the order granting provisional class action status,
if the plaintiffs win, they will be able to recover unpaid minimum
wages and possibly other damages.

For example, a server who worked 100 hours and was paid $2.13 per
hour for each hour worked might get $5.12 per hour for each of
those 100 hours -- $512. The arbitrator in the case could also
double the award, according to court records.

The arbitrator in the case is Kris Cato, a certified arbitrator
and Columbia lawyer specializing in labor law. Cato will oversee
trial-like proceedings and make a final decision in the case.
There is no jury.

Besides Ellis, the plaintffs' lawyers are Jim Griffin and Badge
Humphries, all of Columbia. Among the restaurant's attorneys are
Molly Cherry of Columbia and Shannon Oliver of Atlanta.

According to CentraArchy's website, its mission statement is: "To
operate unique restaurants where our people are able to create a
dining experience that exceeds our guests' expectations and, in so
doing, achieve the highest potential in their food service
careers."

The website describes the company's restaurants as being "the
largest volume units of their kind in their respective markets. We
believe this is because we offer outstanding food priced modestly
for the quality and competently served. Our facilities are also
spectacular with several of our restaurants having won design
awards. We go to great lengths to ensure that in each restaurant
you will be comfortable and feel special."

In Columbia, the popular California Dreaming restaurant is in an
old train station with soaring ceilings off South Assembly Street.
In Charleston, the restaurant features a wrap-around deck and bar
overlooking the Ashley River.

CentraArchy Restaurant Management Co. is headquartered in
Charleston. The privately held family business does not release
financial information.


CANADA: Ontario Court Set to Hear Arguments in G20 Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
Ontario's top court will hear arguments on Jan. 25 about whether
two lawsuits arising out of the mass detentions during the
tumultuous G20 summit in 2010 should go ahead as class actions.

Police authorities in Toronto want the Court of Appeal to quash
the proceedings, which have already been subject to two lower
court rulings.  The courts had originally ruled against certifying
a class action, but Divisional Court overturned the ruling on
initial appeal and instead split the action in two.

In its factum, the police services board argues Divisional Court
overstepped its boundaries in expressing concern that the mass
arrests could be seen as "one of the hallmarks of a police state"
and therefore needed a thorough airing as class actions.

The board argues the original judge was correct in deciding the
different behavior of various summit protesters precluded their
being considered a class.

"The Divisional Court translated its expressed concern about
overbroad arrests into a common-issues hearing, which does not
allow consideration of the individual conduct of those alleging
false arrest," the board states in its factum.

"Conduct varied such that determining whether grounds existed in
respect of one of the class member's arrests could not determine
the answer for all."

The G20 summit over a weekend in June 2010 -- marred by vandalism
from several dozen protesters -- saw more than 1,000 people
arrested or detained in what was later described as one of the
worst violations of civil liberties in Canadian history.  Many
were kept in appalling conditions at a makeshift detention centre.
Almost all were released without charge within 24 hours.

Sherry Good, now lead plaintiff in one of the actions, was among
scores of people police "kettled" in the torrential rain at a
downtown intersection.  Divisional Court also ruled that Thomas
Taylor should represent those sent to the east-end detention
centre.

Both want damages for false arrest or imprisonment, and violations
of their constitutional rights.  They maintain a senior officer
gave orders for the indiscriminate roundup of anyone present at
various downtown locations -- enough to warrant class
certification.

"Arrestees included peaceful protesters, bystanders, journalists,
legal observers, and Torontonians who were present simply by
chance," their factum states.

"Without the possibility of a class action in this situation,
police can arrest entire crowds and only risk a few lawsuits from
a few determined and well-resourced people."

Lawyer Eric Gillespie, who represents Mr. Good, said the idea that
the individual conduct of each class member needs to be examined
is misguided and counter to well-established precedent.

"There are so many examples of class actions that are radically
dissimilar on their facts but have been certified," Gillespie
said.  "We say this is about as cut and dried as you will ever
get."

Co-counsel Murray Klippenstein said the encircling and arrest of
large groups of legitimate protesters is illegal, and they should
be allowed to sue as a group.

Arguing, as the police are doing, that people are free to sue
individually makes little sense and is "just not feasible,"
Mr. Klippenstein said.

"It wouldn't help justice or the protection of Canadian freedoms."

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which is intervening in
the appeal, also argues class actions are appropriate.

In green-lighting the two actions, the Divisional Court stressed
the broader issue at stake.

"It is important to remember that the police cannot sweep up
scores of people just in the hope that one of the persons captured
is a person who they believe is engaged in criminal activity," the
court said in its ruling.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Attorneys Fees Order Expected January
------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a Court
order awarding attorneys fees in the Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation was expected to occur in or about January
2016.

The Company was named as a defendant in four lawsuits ("hot fuel"
cases) brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri
against a variety of fuel retailers, which were consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City,
Kansas as part of the multidistrict "Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation."

A hearing to consider whether the previously-reported settlement
involving the Company was fair, reasonable and adequate was
conducted on June 9, 2015, and on August 21, 2015, the Court
approved the same. The approved settlement includes, but is not
limited to, the commitment on the part of the Company to "sticker"
certain information on its gasoline pumps and to make a monetary
payment (which is not considered to be material in amount) to the
plaintiff class.

A hearing was held on November 19, 2015, with regard to the
attorneys' fee award for plaintiffs' counsel. The settlement will
not be considered final until after a Court order is issued
awarding those fees, (which is expected to occur in or about
January 2016) and all time for appeals have expired.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Settlement in FCRA Suit Has Initial Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that

The Company is named as a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri on behalf of all individuals on whom the Company
obtained a consumer report for employment purposes during the last
2 years. Plaintiffs allege that the Company has violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") disclosure requirement. The FCRA
provides for statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each willful
violation, as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The
Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
Dismiss/Substitute a Proper Party.

Casey's tentatively resolved the matter at a Court ordered
mediation on September 8, 2015, for an amount which is not
considered material. The parties filed the Motion for Preliminary
Settlement approval in October 2015. The Court granted preliminary
approval during a hearing on December 1, 2015, and an order is
expected in the near future.

Casey's will provide the class member information to the
settlement administrator, who will then issue the notice with a 60
days opt out period. The Court is anticipated to issue an order
setting a final fairness hearing in approximately 90 days.


CENTURY INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Defective AK-47 Rifles
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Hargett, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a St.
Louis man is suing the designers of certain AK-47 rifles, alleging
the rifles fire even when in the safety position.

J. Steven Erickson, individually and for all others similarly
situated, filed a class action lawsuit Jan. 19 in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida against Century
International Arms, Century Arms, Century Arms of Vermont, and
Century International Arms of Vermont, alleging negligence, strict
liability, breach of express and implied warranties, concealment,
misrepresentation, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the defendants design, test,
manufacture, assemble, market, supply, and distribute certain AK-
47 rifles.  The suit says these rifles have a common design defect
that allows the rifles to fire when the safety is pulled, placed,
or pushed above the safety lock, creating an unreasonably
dangerous situation for any person possessing one of the rifles.

The lawsuit further alleges the defendants fraudulently concealed
and intentionally failed to warn of the defect.

Erickson and others in the suit seek more than $5 million in
compensatory and punitive damages, treble and statutory damages,
disgorgement, interests, attorney fees and costs.  They are
represented by attorney Angelo Marino Jr. of Fort Lauderdale,
Florida.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case
number 9:16-CV-80095


CHAMBERS STREET: MOU Reached to Resolve Merger Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Chambers Street Properties said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, that
Memorandum of Understanding has been reached providing for the
settlement of class action lawsuits related to a merger agreement
with Gramercy Property Trust, Inc.

On July 1, 2015, Chambers Street Properties, a Maryland real
estate investment trust (the "Company" or "Chambers"), entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
Gramercy Property Trust Inc., a Maryland corporation ("Gramercy"),
and Columbus Merger Sub, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company
and indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger
Sub"), pursuant to which Gramercy is expected to be merged with
and into Merger Sub (the "Merger"), with Merger Sub continuing as
the surviving entity of the Merger.

Putative class action lawsuits challenging the Merger were filed
in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, and the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, by purported stockholders of
Gramercy.  The actions, which were consolidated under the captions
Glenn W. Morris v. Gramercy Property Trust Inc. et al., Case No.
24-C-15-004972 (Md. Cir. Ct. Balt. City) and In re Gramercy
Property Trust Stockholder Litigation, Index No. 652424/2015 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.) (together, the "Actions"), name as defendants
Gramercy, the Gramercy board of directors, Chambers, and Merger
Sub.

On December 7, 2015, the parties to the Actions entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"), which provides for the
settlement of the Actions.  While the defendants in the Actions
continue to vigorously deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault,
liability or damage to any of the plaintiffs or the class of
stockholders of Gramercy, and believe that no supplemental
disclosure is required under the applicable law, in order to (i)
avoid the burden, inconvenience, expense and distraction of
further litigation in connection with the Actions, (ii) finally
put to rest and terminate all of the claims that were or could
have been asserted against the defendants in the Actions and (iii)
permit the Merger to proceed without risk of the courts in New
York or Maryland ordering an injunction or damages in connection
with the Actions, Chambers and Gramercy have agreed, without
admitting any liability or wrongdoing, pursuant to the terms of
the MOU, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the
proposed Merger.

The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery
and court approval following notice to Gramercy's stockholders.
In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which a court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement.  If the settlement is finally approved by the court,
it will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of Gramercy
challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be set forth in the notice sent to
Gramercy stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement.
In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Gramercy or
its successor.  The settlement is also contingent upon, among
other things, the Merger becoming effective under Maryland law.
There can be no assurance that the court will approve the
settlement.  In the event that the settlement is not approved or
that the conditions are not satisfied, the settlement may be
terminated.


CHAMPION ROOFING: "Smth" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Smth and Elizabeth Hale, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Champion Roofing,
Inc. and M. Walter Roofing, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-00066 (N.D. Ill., Eastern Division, January 5, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees, equitable relief, and prejudgment interest as
provided by law, pursuant to Illinois Minimum Wage Law and Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Champion Roofing and M. Walter Roofing are private domestic
corporations with their headquarters in Bensenville, Illinois.
They advertise on the internet as locally owned, quality roofing
companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF TERRENCE BUEHLER
          55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 372 2209

               - and -

          Peter Lubin, Esq.
          Vincent DiTommaso, Esq.
          DITOMMASO-LUBIN P.C.
          The Oak Brook Terrace Atrium
          17W220 22d Street, Suite 200
          Oak Brook Terrace, IL 60181


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: E. Coli Outbreak Probe Widens as Sales Decline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Candice Choi, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
E. coli outbreak that was linked to Chipotle restaurants may be
over, but the burrito chain's indigestion continues.

As Chipotle reported continuing sales declines on Feb. 2, the
embattled chain also said the scope of a previously disclosed
federal criminal investigation has widened beyond a single
restaurant in California.

The Denver company says sales sank 36 percent at established
locations in January.  That follows a previously reported drop of
14.6 percent for the October-to-December period, which marked the
first quarterly decline since Chipotle went public a decade ago.

Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. also said it has been served with
another subpoena requiring it produce documents related to
company-wide food safety dating back to the start of 2013.
Previously, it had said it was served a subpoena in relation to a
California restaurant, where there was a norovirus outbreak over
the summer.

Montgomery Moran, co-CEO of Chipotle, said he believed
investigators wanted to make sure "everything we did was on the up
and up."  He also said he thinks that will be the ultimate
conclusion at the end of the case.

A representative for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central
District of California, which is conducting the investigation with
the Food and Drug Administration, declined to comment.

Chipotle has been reeling since an E. coli outbreak linked to its
restaurants came to light at the end of October.  The outbreak
sickened people in 11 states.  Then in December, a norovirus
outbreak at a Boston location heightened customer fears about the
safety of the chain's food.  Sales at established locations
dropped 30 percent that month.

Now, Chipotle is pushing to move past its troubles and win back
customers.  The company has announced a series of new food safety
measures, such as blanching onions before chopping them and
stepped up testing of ingredients.  And, it noted that the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention declared the E. coli outbreak
to be over.

Co-CEO Steve Ellse said on Feb. 2 the company was "pleased to have
this behind us."

As such, Chipotle executives said they plan to launch the
company's biggest marketing effort ever.  It will encompass
outdoor, print and radio advertising.

On Feb. 1, the company also plans to open stores at 3:00 p.m.,
rather than the usual 11:00 a.m., so workers can participate in a
company-wide meeting on food safety.

For the period ending Dec. 31, Chipotle opened 79 new restaurants,
bringing its total to 2,010 locations.  The new locations helped
make up for the sales declines at existing locations.

Total revenue fell 7 percent to $997.5 million in the period.
Analysts expected $1.01 billion, according to FactSet.

Profit fell 44 percent to $67.9 million, or $2.17 per share.
Analysts expected $1.86 per share.

The stock is down more than 30 percent since the end of October.


CLASS VALET: "Asalde" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Flor Andrea Rodriguez Asalde, John Conde, Javier Antonio Cabrera
Savinovich, Brandon Anthony Gomez, and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v. First Class
Parking Systems LLC a/k/a 1st Class Valet Service, Sebastian
Lopez, and Jorge Zuluaga, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20027-
MGC (S.D. Fla., January 1, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages,
double damages, reasonable attorney fees, court costs, interest,
and any other relief that the Court finds reasonable under the
circumstances, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

First Class Parking Systems is based in North Miami, Florida. It
specializes in valet services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865 6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865 7167
          Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Sued for H-1B Violations
----------------------------------------------
Hugh Morley, writing for North Jersey, reports that from its
global headquarters in Teaneck, Cognizant Technology Solutions
operates one of the largest outsourcing businesses in the world,
providing skilled computer specialists and IT services to help
companies cut costs and improve efficiency.

To this end, Cognizant has become one of the biggest users of the
controversial H-1B program, through which employers can get
temporary visas to bring into the U.S. foreign workers with skills
that are in short supply in the U.S.

The program is strongly backed by Cognizant and tech giants like
Microsoft, who argue that the U.S. faces a chronic shortage of
skilled computer workers that could be alleviated if more H-1B
visas were issued. Critics, however, contend the program is abused
by employers who bring in lower-paid foreign workers who take jobs
away from Americans.

And now Cognizant is facing new allegations it did just that, at
Walt Disney World.

A lawsuit filed against Cognizant, as well as the Florida resort,
claims they violated racketeering laws by bringing in foreign
workers on visas to replace as many as 300 local employees, who
were then fired.

The suit, which echoes allegations contained in an earlier suit
against Cognizant, seeks class-action status. It was filed by Dena
Moore, an Orlando woman who designed software for Disney World
cash registers, who claims that she and 200 to 300 IT workers at
the theme park were directed in October 2014 by their employer to
train their replacements -- foreign workers brought into the U.S.
on H-1B visas.

Cognizant "leased or contracted" the foreign workers to work at
Disney, the suit claims. It alleges that Walt Disney World
managers told Moore and her colleagues that they would be fired on
Jan. 30, 2015, and had 90 days to train the H-1B employees.

"Employees were told that if they did not stay and train, they
would not get a bonus and severance," the suit alleges. It claims
that although the fired employees were told there would be job
openings elsewhere in the company that they could apply for, "very
few [only a couple] employees were rehired after being fired."

A second suit, based on the same events, has been filed by another
employee against Disney World and a different company, India-based
HCL Inc., which, like Cognizant, provides services to companies
looking to outsource work.

Cognizant said it does not comment on pending litigation, but put
out a statement saying it "fully complies with all U.S.
regulations regarding H-1B visas. We have a robust internal
compliance team that ensures our practices are not merely
compliant with existing laws in letter and spirit, but also adhere
to best practices."

The statement added that "as required by law, we pay our H-1B
employees at or above required wage levels, and ensure that their
compensation and benefits are competitive to their U.S.
counterparts."

Walt Disney World did not respond to a request for comment.

Moore, 53, said her sudden termination notice, delivered without
warning one morning in October 2014, stunned her, and removed her
from a job that she had held for a decade. As a senior technical
support developer, she was paid $40 an hour and got six weeks
vacation.

"You were in disbelief and shock. It was family," she recalled.
"It was the perfect job. . . . It devastated everybody -- not only
the people who were impacted directly but all of those who were
left behind."

The Disney suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Orlando, is one
of two H-1B legal cases pending against Cognizant. A California
suit filed in 2011 alleges that Cognizant worked with Molina
Healthcare Inc., a California health care provider, to replace 40
local IT workers at Molina with H-1B-holding workers brought in by
Cognizant.

The suit, which was filed by 19 former employees of Molina and is
scheduled to go to trial later this year, alleges that Cognizant
paid "various kickbacks and other financial incentives" to
Molina's chief information officer to replace "U.S. citizens and
green card employees at Molina's with Cognizant's H-1B
contractors."

The suit also alleges that Cognizant made false statements in the
applications for the H-1B workers by claiming that "there were no
qualified United States citizens or residents who could perform
the job functions sought for the compensation offered" when the
outsourcer knew that the incumbent employees could do the job.

The Disney suit centers on a section of the agreement signed by
some employers when they apply for an H-1B visa for a prospective
employee. In it, the company pledges that the hiring of the
foreign worker "will not cause the displacement of the U.S.
workers in the employer's workforce," and will not affect the
recruitment or hiring of U.S. workers, the suit says.

Moore alleges that Cognizant and Disney created an "enterprise" to
bring in foreign workers that violated these federal requirements.

"Cognizant falsely and fraudulently attested that there would be
no adverse affect to workers," the suit says.

Cognizant has about 220,000 employees in 50 locations worldwide,
of which about 70 percent are based in India. When it moved half
of its headquarters functions from Teaneck to Texas in 2013,
Cognizant said it had 620 employees in Bergen County and 3,700 in
New Jersey.

Ronil Hira, associate professor of Public Policy at Howard
University in Washington, D.C., who has studied the H-1B program
extensively and called for its reform, said Cognizant obtained the
second-largest number of H-1B visas in 2015 -- 4,293. The company
has obtained nearly 30,000 visas since 2005, he said.

Although the program is designed to enable employers to bring to
the U.S. foreign workers to do skilled jobs for which the local
pool of workers is scarce, most employers seeking the visas do not
need to prove that they can't find such workers, Hira said.

The federal government has designated Cognizant as an "H-1B
dependent" company, which has more than 15 percent of its
workforce on the visas, and so requires the company to meet extra
requirements in its visa applications.

These include mounting a recruitment effort to find American
workers before bringing a foreign worker with a visa into the
U.S., and attesting that in doing so it is not displacing an
American worker, Hira said.


CONNS INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Conn's Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2015, that briefing on the defendant's
motion to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit is fully
briefed and pending with the court in Texas.

"We and two of our current executive officers are defendants in a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the
Southern District of Texas (the "Court"), In re Conn's Inc.
Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548 (the "Consolidated
Securities Action")," the Company said. "The plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Securities Action allege that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts about our business, operations, and prospects. They
allege violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seek to certify a class of all persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired Conn's common stock and/or call options, or
sold/wrote Conn's put options between April 3, 2013 and December
9, 2014. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages
sought."

"On June 30, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. At the hearing, the Court
dismissed Brian Taylor, a former executive officer, and certain
other aspects of the complaint. The Court ordered the plaintiffs
to further amend their complaint in accordance with its ruling,
and the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Consolidated Amended
Complaint on July 21, 2015. The remaining defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on August 28, 2015. The briefing on the
defendant's motion to dismiss is fully briefed and pending with
the Court.

"The defendants intend to vigorously defend against all of these
claims. It is not possible at this time to predict the timing or
outcome of any of this litigation.


CORTE CAFE: "Garza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Luis Alberto Bello Garza, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Corte Cafe LLC (d/b/a Corte
Cafe), Antonino Pecora, and Fabio Peralta, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00009 (S.D.N.Y., January 4, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated wages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law.

The Defendant operates a restaurant in New York, New York.

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


COURIER LOGISTICS: "Curry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Curry; Tyrone Harris; Nicholas Mason; and Tyechia Webb;
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Amazon.com, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Courier
Logistics Services, L.L.C. a Florida limited liability company
the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00007-NVW (D. Ariz., January 5,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, overpayment
of employment tax compensation, and equal amount of liquidated
damages, including interests, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Courier Logistics Services is a courier and delivery service that
has a contract with Amazon, Inc. The Logistics Services has been
engaged by Amazon.com, Inc. to provide one to two hour deliveries
to Amazon's "Prime Now" customers based on orders placed via the
Amazon "Prime Now" mobile application.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillips Dayes, Esq.
          Trey Dayes, Esq.
          Sean Davis, Esq.
          NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          Phoenix, Arizona 85012
          Telephone: (602) 288 1610
          E-mail: docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com


CRYSTAL CLEAR: "Cates" Suit Seeks Recovery of Monetary Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Cates, Brian Stover, And Jason Miller, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated the Plaintiffs, v.
Crystal Clear Technologies LLC; Carbine & Associates LLC; Hood
Development, LLC; Tollgate Village Association Inc.; Bridgemore
Village Owners' Association Inc.; Canterbury Homeowners
Association Inc.; and DirecTV, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-
cv-00008 (M.D. Tenn., January 5, 2016), seeks to recover monetary
damages and injunction against Defendants from preventing other
telecommunications providers to serve the neighborhoods pursuant
to Sherman Act and Clayton Act.

Defendant Crystal Clear is a Tennessee limited liability
corporation with its principal place of business at Franklin,
Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Gerard Stranch IV, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLCC
          227 Second Avenue North, Fourth Floor
          Nashville, TN 37201-1631
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: gerards@BSJFirm.com


DANCO METAL: "Green" Suit Seeks Payment of OT, Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM GREEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Danco Metal Products, Inc., Takoda
Group, LLC, Takoda Holdings, LLC, Thomas "L.T. " Slater, Jim
Williamson, Tim Davis, And John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III,
John Doe IV And John Doe V, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00007
(N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division, January 4, 2016), seeks minimum wage
at regular pay day as well as for liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs, and unpaid overtime compensation as well as an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages under the FLSA and
Ohio Law.

Danco Metal Products is a limited liability company formed under
the laws of the State of Ohio. Takoda Group advertises itself as a
limited liability company with a principle place of business at
Beachwood, Ohio. Takoda Holdings is a limited liability company
formed under the laws of the State of Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER, LLC
          4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Suite 201
          Canton, Ohio 44718
          Telephone: (330) 470 4428
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


DEPUY INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Wrong Sized Hip Implants
-------------------------------------------------------
Deidre Mussen, writing for stuff.co.nz, reports that Bernadette
Rae has had half a dozen hips -- one for every 10 years of her
life.

The former yoga instructor had to have her second hip replacement
surgery after her DePuy's ASR metal-on-metal hip failed. And now
she faces a life of immobility or more surgery after her
replacement set, paid for by DePuy parent company Johnson &
Johnson, began dislocating within weeks of the operation.

Rae, 60, has been forced to sell her house and buy a "granny
flat", use a walking stick, and has experienced skin rashes and
cramps blamed on metal poisoning, and difficulty sleeping. She
can't bend to shave her legs or cut her toenails, so pays a beauty
therapist for waxing and pedicures.

Her story is echoed by the 20 other New Zealanders taking a
groundbreaking legal case against international manufacturers
DePuy, a subsidiary of medical giant Johnson & Johnson.

The group was given renewed hope after an investigation by the
UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper revealed thousands of people were
given the wrong sized hip implants, and some ASR hips were
manufactured incorrectly by DePuy.

The news came as about 15 patients with faulty hip implants sought
to join the class action by 20 Kiwi claimants against United
Kingdom-based surgical manufacturer DePuy International. It was
filed in the High Court in Wellington a week before Christmas and
the case's first procedural hearing was due to begin in early
March.

Experts also claim that as the metal hips wear they can deposit
toxic ions into the bloodstream.

Rae hopes the court case will get her some compensation for her
suffering, "I've had a lot of expenses and a lot of limitations. .
. . Some are mundane things, some are big things like selling my
house and having to walk with a stick. Heartbreaking things. "I
feel I'm prematurely living a granny life now."

Fellow claimant Joy Palaskas agrees.  The 61-year-old, who lives
on a farm in Onewhero in Waikato, only discovered she was one of
400 patients who got the recalled ASR hip replacements in New
Zealand after she spotted a story about it in a newspaper about
five years ago and contacted her doctor.

She desperately wants her time in court to tell DePuy and Johnson
and Johnson about the horrendous impacts their implant has had on
her life.

Like Rae, Palaskas also has not sought ACC compensation for her
hip, but wants it from DePuy.  "I feel like these big companies
need to be held accountable for it. I'm not a lab rat. They can't
play with people's health just to make money."

About 50 Kiwi patients who had ASR implants before the recall had
joined a class action against DePuy in the United Kingdom, but
their cases were rejected by the court in 2015 because of New
Zealand's ACC laws.

Meredith Connell lawyer Liesle Theron, a partner at the firm, said
if the media claims were correct that the ASR hips were
manufactured wrongly, it would help the Kiwi claimants' case.

Twenty of those Kiwi claimants had joined together to seek a
ruling in a New Zealand court about whether they could seek
compensation from DePuy despite our ACC laws.

DePuy was served copies of the proceedings at their Leeds head
office relating to the legal challenge and the first court hearing
into the case would be held in Wellington in early March.

She said about 15 people who had had ASR hip implants revised had
approached the law firm eager to join the court case, but were yet
to be included.

"We are encouraging anyone to at least approach us to have a
conversation about ASR hips."

The Accident Compensation Corporation said it had paid out more
than $1 million [$1,036,912] to 67 patients for claims relating to
their ASR metal-on-metal hip replacements since 2005 until the end
of 2015.

The metal-on-metal implants were recalled worldwide in 2010 by
DePuy because of a high rate of replacement surgery. Three other
types of metal-on-metal implants were also recalled in 2012
because of high failure rates.

A DePuy spokeswoman, Mindy Tinsley, said their first priority had
always been patient safety.

She said: "In relation to the ASR Hip System litigation in New
Zealand, the company is reviewing the claims made against it and
will be responding in due course."

In relation to the Telegraph investigation, she said DePuy
identified a proportion of metal-on-metal hip liners were
manufactured outside of our specifications.

"After a thorough investigation, we determined that these
variances would not adversely affect how the liners function nor
create a safety issue for patients. However, we did remove the
equipment that was causing the variances from the manufacturing
line."


DEXCEL PHARMA: Fax Ads Violate TCPA, "Marcus" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Marcus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dexcel Pharma Technologies Ltd. And
Dexcel Ltd., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-08921-AET-TJB
(D.N.J., December 29, 2015), seeks statutory damages and
injunctive relief as a result of Defendants' alleged violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for transmitting one or more
facsimiles advertising the commercial availability or quality of
property, goods, or services, without having obtained prior
express invitation or permission to transmit said facsimiles.

Dexcel Pharma Technologies is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of Israel, having a principal place of business at
Or-Akiva, Israel. The company is in the business of manufacturing
and selling generic copies of branded pharmaceutical products
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228 6667
          E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          369 S. Doheny Dr., No. 415
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


DIRECT GENERAL: "Willis" Suit Seeks OT & Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Krystal Willis, on behalf of herself and all other employees or
former employees of Direct General Insurance Agency, Inc.,
similarly situated the Plaintiff, v. Direct General Insurance
Agency, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-02352-HGD (N.D.
Ala., Northeastern Division, December 29, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief under the provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Krystal Willis was employed by Direct General as Sales Agent from
July 20, 2014 until October 22, 2015.

Defendant Direct General, headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee,
was incorporated in 1993 and is a financial services holding
company whose principal operating subsidiaries provide non-
standard personal automobile insurance, term life insurance,
premium finance and other consumer products and services primarily
on a direct basis and primarily in the southeastern United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
          Teri Ryder Mastando, Esq.
          Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
          MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
          301 Washington St., Suite 302
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 532 2222
          Facsimile: (256) 513 7489
          E-mail: tony@mastandoartrip.com
                  teri@mastandoartrip.com
                  artrip@mastandoartrip.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Turner" Suit Alleges Kentucky Law Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Turner, Crystal Turner, and all others similarly situated
v. DraftKings, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00154 (W.D. Ky., December
15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for operating an
illegal sports betting or gambling in violation of the Kentucky
Revised Statutes and various criminal laws.

DraftKings is a company operating Daily Fantasy Sports websites.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Lee L. Coleman, Esq.
      HUGHES & COLEMAN
      P.O. Box 10120
      Bowling Green, KY 42101
      Tel: (270) 782-6000
      E-mail: lcoleman@hughesandcoleman.com

          - and -

      James F. McDonough, III, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      3621 Vining Slope, Ste. 4320
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Tel: (404) 996-0869
      Fax: (205) 326-3332
      E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com


DREAM KITCHENS: "Borzym " Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Borzym, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dream Kitchens, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00005 (E.D. Wis., Milwaukee Division,
January 1, 2016), seeks damages in the amount of unpaid
compensation, overtime wages, liquidated damages, injunctive
relief requiring Dream Kitchens to cease and desist from its
violations of the Wisconsin laws, and other legal and equitable
relief as the Court deems just and proper under Fair Labor
Standards Act

Dream Kitchen provides designs, builds, and remodeling services.
The Company develops kitchen, bathrooms, and rooms. Dream Kitchen
is based in Madison, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Summer Murshid, Esq.
          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Timothy Maynard, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          222 East Erie, Suite 210
          P.O. Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: (414) 271 8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271 8442
          E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com
                  ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.com


DRILL-CHEM: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Other Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Garcia, individually, the Plaintiff, v. Drill-Chem, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-01162 (W.D. Tex., San Antonio
Division, December 29, 2015), seeks recovery of monetary damages
for all overtime worked as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff Francisco Garcia worked for Defendant as a Field
Employee from February of 2014 through August of 2015.

The Defendant is a domestic, for-profit corporation. It is an
independent provider of oil and gas well drilling, stimulation,
cementing and coiled tubing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


EOS PRODUCTS: Settles "Cronin" Lip Balm Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
celebrity-endorsed lip balm maker EOS Products settled a federal
class action in Los Angeles accusing it of selling unsafe products
by agreeing to print more information on its labels and address
individual claims, EOS said.

Lead plaintiff Rachael Cronin sued New York-based EOS on Jan. 12,
claiming its lip balms cause blistering, bleeding, skin-cracking
and rashes, and that EOS concealed the side effects.

"Our products are safe -- and this settlement confirms that," EOS'
corporate adviser Teneo Strategy said in a Jan. 28 email.

"Our lip balms are hypoallergenic, dermatologist-tested, made with
the highest quality ingredients, meet or exceed all safety and
quality standards set by our industry, and are validated by
rigorous safety testing conducted by independent labs," EOS said

Attorney Mark Geragos, who filed the class action, said EOS agreed
to provide additional product information on its labels, and he
will file a motion to dismiss the complaint.

The email from Teneo Strategy included a statement from Mark
Geragos, who filed the class action lawsuit.

"This is a testament to EOS being responsive to the concerns of
their consumers," Geragos said in the email. "EOS has demonstrated
through data that their lip balms are hypoallergenic, and has
provided a mechanism for individual instances to be resolved.

"EOS makes great products and the company is doing the right thing
by adding more information about their lip balm products on
packaging so that buyers can make informed choices," Geragos said.
"I am very pleased that we have been able to so quickly and
amicably resolve the matter with EOS lip balm products."

EOS, an acronym for "evolution of smooth," uses "celebrity brand
endorsers," including Kim Kardashian, Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus,
Hillary Duff, and others, to market its products. None of the
celebrities were parties to the complaint.

Cronin accused EOS of falsely claiming its lip balm is organic,
though it contains several ingredients the FDA considers to be
"major allergens," such as sodium hyaluronate, ascorbyl palmitate,
tocopherols, and butyrospermum parkii.

Because those ingredients were not listed, she said she and others
suffered temporary injuries, and sought class certification,
restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief and compensatory and
punitive damages for fraud, concealment, breach of warranty,
unjust enrichment, consumer law violations and unfair business
practices.


EXACT VALVE SOLUTIONS: Violates FLSA, "Cruz" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Jose Cruz, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Exact Valve Solutions, Inc. and
Joshua Moore, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00518 (S.D. Tex.,
Corpus Christi Division, December 30, 2015), seeks to recover
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Exact Valve Solutions is a Texas corporation with its principal
place of business in Nueces County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Brady, Esq.
          PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com
                  aanderson@phippsandersondeacon.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Defending Suits over Tank Refill Business
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp.,
Ferrellgas, L.P., and Ferrellgas Finance Corp. said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015,
that Ferrellgas will vigorously defend against a consolidated
class action lawsuit related by customers of the Company's tank
exchange business.

Ferrellgas has been named as a defendant, along with a competitor,
in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions.
The complaints, filed on behalf of direct and indirect customers
of Ferrellgas' tank exchange business. The lawsuits allege that
Ferrellgas and a competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill
level in barbeque cylinders and combined to persuade a common
customer to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased
cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of
federal and certain state antitrust laws. The lawsuits seek treble
damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and costs on behalf of
the putative class.  These lawsuits have been consolidated into
one case by a multidistrict litigation panel.

Ferrellgas believes it has strong defenses to the claims and
intends to vigorously defend against the consolidated case.
Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably
estimable at this time related to the putative class action
lawsuit.


FIRST NIAGARA: "Desmarais" Suit Challenges KeyCorp Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Wallace J. Desmarais, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. First Niagara Financial
Group, Inc., Nathaniel D. Woodson, G. Thomas Bowers, Gary M.
Crosby, George M. Philip, Carl A. Florio, Peter B. Robinson,
Carlton L. Highsmith, Roxanne J. Coady, Austin A. Adams, And Susan
S. Harnett, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-01226-UNA (D. Del.,
December 30, 2015), asserts claims against the Defendants for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and United
States Securities and Exchange Commission.

Cleveland, Ohio-based KeyCorp announced back in October the deal
to acquire Buffalo-based First Niagara for $4.1 billion.  KeyCorp
offered $11.40 per share for each First Niagara share.  The deal
will create the 13th biggest U.S.-based commercial bank, according
to a Reuters report.  The combination is expected to be completed
during the third quarter of 2016, First Niagara said on its Web
site.

Pursuant to the terms of a Merger Agreement, First Niagara
shareholders will receive $2.30 in cash and 0.68 shares of KeyCorp
common stock for each share of First Niagara that they own.

First Niagara Financial is Delaware Corporation based in
Buffalo, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Banko, Esq.
          Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482 3182
          E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington Street
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Telephone: (504) 455 1400
          Facsimile: (504) 455 1498
          E-mail: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          James M. Wilson Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl.
          New York, NY10017
          Telephone: (212) 983 9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983 9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@farugilaw.com
                  jwilson@farquilaw.com


FISHS EDDY: Faces New York Class Action Over FACTA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Hargett, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
New York woman is suing a dishes retailer over claims it prints
more than five digits of a card number on receipts.

Joan Pasini, individually and for all others similarly situated,
filed a class-action lawsuit Jan. 15 in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Fishs Eddy, alleging
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
(FACTA).

The suit states Fishs Eddy printed more than the last five digits
of a card number on transaction receipts, in violation of FACTA.

The suit claims that printing more than the last five digits of a
card number makes the cardholder more susceptible to identity
theft and credit and debit card fraud.

Ms. Pasini and others in the class seek statutory and punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs of the suit.  They are
represented by attorneys Taylor Asen -- tasen@cuneolaw.com -- and
Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca in Brooklyn,
New York, and by attorney Chant Yedalian of Chant & Co. in
Glendale, California.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case
number 1:16-CV-00354-PGG


FLINT, MI: AG Can't Defend Both Snyder, Individual MDEQ Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Chambers, writing for The Detroit News, reports that
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said his office cannot
legally defend both Gov. Rick Snyder and individual employees of
the state Department of Environmental Quality in a lawsuit filed
over the Flint water crisis.

In a brief filed on Jan. 29 in U.S. District Court, Mr. Schuette
said, "As the issues surrounding the situation in Flint have
unfolded, it has become apparent that there is a potential
conflict of interest between the governor and state of Michigan on
the one hand, and the individual MDEQ employees on the other."

"Given this conflict, counsel have determined it is likely they
cannot effectively represent both sets of clients," Mr. Schuette
said in the motion.

Mr. Schuette is requesting an extension of the filing deadline in
the case to allow his office to withdraw as the attorney for
individual MDEQ defendants and to allow separate counsel to be
found.

The court has not ruled on Mr. Schuette's request.

Four Flint families filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court
on Nov. 13 against the governor, state officials and Flint,
seeking class-action status.

In that 30-page civil complaint, the families allege that tens of
thousands of residents have experienced and will continue to
experience "serious personal injury and property damage" caused by
the "defendants' deliberate decision to expose them to the extreme
toxicity of water."

The federal lawsuit names Snyder; former DEQ director Daniel
Wyant, who stepped down amid the controversy; and five staff
members at DEQ, including the former chief of the Office of
Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance, Liane Shekter Smith, who
was reassigned in October.

The others are a water quality analyst, a district supervisor, a
water treatment specialist and an engineer.

It also names Flint's former emergency managers, its former mayor
as well as its director of Public Works, two city administrators
and the city itself.

The lawsuit alleges Snyder and the other defendants, "acting under
the color of law, deliberately deprived" Flint residents of the
rights and guarantees secured by 14th Amendment when they "took
safe drinking water from them and replaced it with what they knew
to be a highly toxic alternative solely for fiscal purposes."

"For more than 18 months, state and local government officials
ignored irrefutable evidence that the water pumped from the Flint
River exposed the plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class to extreme
toxicity, causing serious and dire injury and health hazards, and
property damage to the Flint water users," the lawsuit says.

State and local officials regularly assured the Flint water users
that the water supplied from the Flint River was being properly
treated, monitored and tested and was safe to consume and use, the
lawsuit states.

Information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act
establishes that many of these assurances were known to be false,
the complaint continues.

"State and local officials were not properly monitoring or
sampling the Flint River water and delayed in notifying the public
of serious safety and health risks in a knowing and deliberate
effort to conceal the truth from those who were being poisoned,"
it says.

"The deliberately false denials about the safety of the Flint
River water was as deadly as it was arrogant."

The lawsuit alleges the defendants violated due process of Flint
residents by creating a dangerous situation and violated
substantive due process and rights to bodily integrity.

The families are asking U.S. District Judge John Corbett O'Meara
to certify the case as a class action, to issue an order declaring
the conduct of the defendants unconstitutional and an order of
equitable relief to cover repairs and property damage, to
establish a medical monitoring fund and to appoint a monitor to
oversee water operation in Flint for a period of time determined
by the court.

They are also seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages and
attorney fees.


FLOOR AND DECOR: Text Ads Violate TCPA, "Reeder" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Reeder, individually and on behalf of the Class, the
Plaintiff, v. Floor And Decor Outlets Of America, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00804-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla., Ft. Myers
Division, December 29, 2015), seeks injunctive relief and award of
compensatory and statutory damages, together with costs,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and pre-judgment interest, as a result
of Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act with its marketing and advertising campaigns by
placing phone calls and transmitting text message advertisements
to cellular telephones.

The Defendant is a foreign corporation headquartered in Georgia
with its principal place of business located at Smyrna, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER
          Northeast Professional Center
          3900 First Street North, Suite 100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33703
          Telephone: (727) 327 3328

               - and -

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, L.L.C.
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925 5297
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbradv.com
                  scott@bohrerbradv.com


               - and -

          Jophn P. Wolff, III, Esq.
          Christoher K. Jones, Esq.
          KEOGH, COX ®& WILSON, LTD.
          701 Main Street
          Baton Rouge, LA 70808
          Telephone: (225) 383 3796
          E-mail: iwolff@keoghcox.com
                  ciones@keoghcox.com


FRANK A. REICHL: "East Moline" Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
City of East Moline, and all others similarly situated v. Frank A.
Reichl, GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc., General Chemical
Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, GenTek
Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade Logistics, Inc.,
Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation, Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC, and
John Doe Nos. 1-50, Case No. 2:15-cv-06638 (E.D. Pa., December 15,
2015), seeks to recover treble damages, equitable relief, costs of
suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of Sections 1
and 3 of the Sherman Act.

This is a nationwide direct-purchaser antitrust action arising out
of a thirteen-year conspiracy to rig bids, fix prices, and
allocate the market for liquid aluminum sulfate, or liquid alum, a
common coagulant used in water treatment and paper pulp
processing.

The Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of liquid
aluminum sulfate used primarily by municipalities in potable water
and wastewater treatment and by pulp and paper manufacturers as
part of their manufacturing processes. Liquid aluminum sulfate is
also used for algae control in lakes and ponds, to fix dyes to
fabrics and textiles, and by poultry houses as a litter amendment
for ammonia control.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
      Jeffrey J. Corrigan
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
      1818 Market St., Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 496-0300
      Fax: (215) 496-6611
      E-mail: jkodroff@srkw-law.com
              jcorrigan@srkw-law.com

          - and -

      Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
      FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Ave.
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 545-4600
      Fax: (212) 686-0114
      E-mail: burt@whafh.com

          - and -

      Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
      Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
      FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
      One South Dearborn St., Ste 2122
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 984-0000
      Fax: (312) 212-4496
      E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
              malmstrom@whafh.com

          - and -

      John S. Callas, Esq.
      McCARTHY CALLAS & FEENEY, PC
      The Law Centre
      329 18th Street
      Rock Island, IL 61201
      Tel: (309) 788-2800
      E-mail: jcallas@mcfe-law.com


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Execs Get Sentence in Chemical Spill Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Raas, writing for The Associated Press, reports that two
years after thousands of gallons of a coal-cleaning agent leaked
into the drinking water supply of 300,000 West Virginians, the
sentencings of six officials at a chemical distributor will bring
to a close criminal cases in the spill.

For residents who never met those men, the saga won't ever be
forgotten.

It began when a licorice odor was noticed along the Elk River in
Charleston the morning of Jan. 9, 2014.  The smell was pinpointed
to a leak of the coal-cleaning agent MCHM at a series of Freedom
Industries tanks less than 2 miles upstream from West Virginia
American Water's intake.

By nightfall, state officials declared a state of emergency,
telling residents in a nine-county area served by the water
company to avoid using their tap water except for flushing toilets
and putting out fires.

Residents immediately cleared store shelves of bottled water, and
suppliers sent in truckloads of water for residents to use in the
coming days.  Many restaurants were forced to close or cut back
services temporarily.

The tap water advisory remained in place for up to 10 days while
homes and businesses systematically flushed the chemical from
their lines.

Before the advisory was lifted, Freedom filed for bankruptcy.

The first to be sentenced for negligent discharge of a pollutant
are Freedom plant manager Michael Burdette on Jan. 25 and
environmental consultant Robert Reynolds on Jan. 27.  Each faces
up to a year in prison and a minimum $2,500 fine.  The company
faces up to $900,000 in fines at a hearing on Feb. 4.

Sentencings are for ex-Freedom officials William Tis, Charles
Herzing, Dennis Farrell and, lastly, Gary Southern.

Southern, Freedom's president, faces the harshest penalty: up to
three years in prison and $300,000 in fines.

"I think every one of them should be sentenced to the maximum,"
said Rhonda Mullins of Charleston.  "They didn't have to live
through that."

During the tap-water ban, Ms. Mullins said her daughter brought
her several gallons of bottled water daily for drinking, and
Ms. Mullins took water from a nearby creek and boiled it to wash
dishes.  Her daughter lives outside the spill zone and took
Ms. Mullins' dirty clothes home with her to do laundry.

Ms. Mullins said she was fortunate at the time that she wasn't
babysitting her young grandson.

"I think about all the young mothers that did have little
newborns," Ms. Mullins said.  "You know that was a mess."

For more than a decade, officials had been aware of critical
deficiencies at the Freedom site, including a cracked containment
wall that let chemicals seep through down a bank into the river,
according to an FBI affidavit.  But improvements to the wall
weren't made.

Tis, Herzing and Farrell owned Freedom until December 2013, when
they sold it to Pennsylvania-based Chemstream Holdings for $20
million. Southern became president afterward, but he was in charge
of Freedom's day-to-day operations for years beforehand.

Prosecutors portrayed Southern as a wealthy businessman who cared
little about safety.  Southern appeared unsympathetic when he told
reporters a day after the spill that he had had a "long day" and
tried to leave a news conference multiple times outside the tank
facility.  He also drank a bottle of water in front of TV cameras.

Former U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin, who resigned in December to
run in May's West Virginia primary for governor as a Democrat,
said the spill served as "a wake-up call" to the vulnerability of
tap water systems and cast "a spotlight on the issue of our water
security here in this nation."

"We need to ask ourselves if we're any safer in terms of our water
infrastructure than we were in January of 2014," he said. "I think
it's something that certainly not only tank owners need to be
concerned about, but the folks who provide our lifeblood -- our
water."

Hundreds of people went to emergency rooms complaining of symptoms
that could be spill-related, ranging from nausea to dizziness. M
any claimed illnesses even after their water was deemed safe
again.

Under a Freedom liquidation plan approved by a federal bankruptcy
judge in October, more than $2 million will be distributed to
residents and businesses affected by the spill.

A federal class-action lawsuit is set for trial in July, pitting
affected residents and businesses against West Virginia American
Water, its parent company and chemical manufacturer Eastman
Chemical.  In a related proposed settlement, Southern would pay
$350,000 and Farrell would pay $50,000.


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Ex-Owner Gets Sentence in Chemical Spill
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a former owner of Freedom
Industries has been sentenced to three years of probation and a
$20,000 fine for a 2014 chemical spill that fouled the drinking
water supply of 300,000 West Virginians.

Media outlets report Charles Herzing was sentenced Feb. 2 in
Charleston federal court.  He's the second of six former Freedom
officials to be sentenced on pollution charges.

The spill of thousands of gallons of the coal-cleaning agent MCHM
into the Elk River contaminated drinking water for residents in
nine counties for up to 10 days.

Robert Reynolds, Freedom's former environmental consultant, was
sentenced to three years of probation and a $10,000 fine.

Former Freedom plant manager Michael Burdette and the company
itself were set to have separate sentencings on Feb. 4.

Other former company officials will be sentenced later this month.


GLOUCESTER TAXI: "Berge" Suit Alleges Wage Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Inge Berge, and all others similarly situated v. Gloucester Taxi &
Livery Service, Inc. and Jeffrey L. Young, Case No. 15CV2025C
(Mass. Cmmw., December 14, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of Massachusetts Independent Contractor
Statute and the Wage Act.

The Defendants own and operate a fleet of taxi cabs and taxi vans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Bace, Esq.
      BACE LAW GROUP, LLC
      P.O. Box 9316
      Boston, MA 02114
      Tel: (508) 922-8328
      E-mail: mjb@bacelaw.com

          - and -

      John R. Bita III, Esq.
      35 India Street, 3rd Fl
      Boston, MA 02109
      Tel: (617) 538-5407
      E-mail: jrb@bitalaw.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: "Interstate Chemical" Suit Seeks Treble Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Interstate Chemical Co., Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Frank A. Reichl, General
Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC;
Gentek, Inc.; Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund; Chemtrade
Logistics, Inc.; Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation; Chemtrade
Chemicals US, LLC; and Geo Specialty Chemicals the Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00009-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., January 4, 2016), seeks to
recover treble damages, equitable relief, costs of suit, and
reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of Sherman Antitrust Act
and Clayton Act.

General Chemical Corporation has its principal place of business
in Toronto, Ontario. GCC manufactured chemical products, including
aluminum sulfate. GenTek is in the business of manufacturing and
performance products from GCG's soda ash and calcium chloride
industrial chemicals business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  bgreenberg@litedepalma.com


GFB ENTERPRISES: Diaz Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Diaz, individually, and on behalf Class Representation
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. G.F.B.
Enterprises, LLC, a for profit Florida LLC, d/b/a "Bean Automotive
Group", the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-20011-KMM (S.D. Fla.,
January 4, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
minimum wages and liquidated damages brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

G.F.B. Enterprises was founded in 1999 and is based in Miami,
Florida. The Company's line of business includes retail sale of
new and used automobiles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony F. Sanchez
          ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
          6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 665 9211
          Facsimile: (305) 328 4842
          E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com


GOOGLE INC: UC Berkeley Students File Suit Over E-mail Scanning
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Leung, writing for The Daily Californian, report that in
March 2014, Google fell under fire for scanning emails in Apps for
Education, a collection of online tools and services that include
Google Drive and Google Mail.

Now, nearly two years later, four UC Berkeley students and alumni
filed a lawsuit against Google Inc. on Jan. 27, alleging that UC
Berkeley emails were the target of such data mining between 2012
and 2014.

In 2014, nine plaintiffs in California accused Google of scanning
emails -- or collecting information on users for advertising
purposes without permission. Similarly, the four UC Berkeley
plaintiffs -- Ryan Corley, William Dormann, Shannon Mehaffey and
Teddey Xiao -- involved in the current lawsuit allege they did not
agree to have their emails intercepted and read by Google for
advertising purposes.

The plaintiffs allege Google scanned emails and thus violated the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a federal statute that
protects electronic communications while in transit and in
storage.  Google has not released any information verifying
whether the emails were scanned, although attorney Ray Gallo of
Gallo, LLP, who is filing the lawsuit on behalf of UC Berkeley
students and alumni, and the plaintiffs believe that a 2014 post
by Google acknowledging that Apps for Education emails had been
scanned prove it.

"The point is that you should be entitled to decide what
information you share," mr. Gallo said.  "In this particular case,
people did not consent to Google having that information."

According to Mr. Gallo, claims could be worth $10,000 per person
in damages.

Google representative William Fitzgerald said in an email that the
company does not comment on pending litigations.

Previous legal challenges

Google previously avoided charges by offering evidence that some
Google Apps for Education users had consented and knew that Google
was scanning emails.  Judge Lucy Koh said in 2014 that it would be
impossible to determine which email users consented to Google's
privacy policies so cases could not go through as a class action
lawsuit, which means one plaintiff could not file the lawsuit on
behalf of a large group of people.

This meant that small groups could mount a wiretapping challenge
to Google's services, said Chris Hoofnagle, campus law professor
and faculty director of the Berkeley Center for Law and
Technology, in an email.

"Of course we use Google on campus but we do not have a reliable
answer about how Google is scanning student and faculty email,"
Mr. Hoofnagle said in an email.

On April 30, 2014, the company announced that it had disabled ads
scanning in Apps for Education.

"This means ads in Apps for Education services are turned off and
administrators no longer have the option or ability to turn ads in
these services on," said Google for Education Director Bram Bout
in the statement.  "Google cannot collect or use student data in
Apps for Education services for advertising purposes."

Mr. Gallo said this meant Google acknowledged in April that it had
been scanning Apps for Education users' emails after all.

Nationwide, 30 million students, teachers and administrators used
the free Google Apps for Education email accounts in 2014.

How does Google use email scanning for advertising purposes?

Data mining allows Google to develop user profiles to target ads
more successfully.  While most Gmail users may have authorized
scanning by accepting some terms and conditions, Mr. Gallo said,
Google Apps for Education users from UC Berkeley and many other
schools may not have.

According to a statement from the campus, Google cannot scan
emails under the contract it has with UC Berkeley.

"The agreement that UCB utilizes for our Google Apps for Education
Service does not allow for Google's use of our data for any
purposes other than to fulfill its obligations to deliver the
service to us under our agreement," the statement reads.  "UCB
does not believe that scanning for the purpose of serving ads
anywhere is an allowed use under the agreement."

UC Berkeley is not involved in the lawsuits, Mr. Gallo said.  The
suit he filed alleges that other UC Berkeley Apps for Education
users between 2012 and 2014 including faculty and staff would have
also had their emails scanned, based on Google's 2014
announcement.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, under the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act, outside parties like school-
sanctioned email services must adhere to conditions that govern
students' education records.

Outside parties can only use information such as that obtained in
email data mining for the specific "legitimate educational
interests" the disclosure was made, according to a statement from
U.S. Department of Education.

After the initial lawsuits in 2014, Mr. Hoofnagle explained in a
blog post that Google switched to a new technology in 2010 called
a Content Onebox that allows the company to intercept emails in
transit from other email systems rather than scan those already
stored in Google Mail.

At UC Berkeley, where students and faculty are privy to everything
from confidential data and patient information to valuable
research on new technologies, a system that scans emails is even
more threatening, Mr. Hoofnagle said in the post.

"(The data mining) would allow Google to understand the meaning of
all of our communications: the identities of the people with whom
we collaborate, the compounds of drugs we are testing, the next
big thing we are inventing," Mr. Hoofnagle wrote.  "Imagine the
creative product of all of Berkeley combined, scanned by a single
company's 'free' email system."

UC Berkeley senior Ryan Corley and a plaintiff in the current
lawsuit against Google, said in an email that the alleged scanning
of emails by Google would constitute an "invasion of (his)
privacy."

The scanning of potentially sensitive information is "creepy,"
staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Jeremy Gillula said.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a
complaint December 2015 under the Federal Trade Commission for
unfair and deceptive trade practices.

The complaint says Google scanned people's emails while leading
them to believe otherwise, which Mr. Gillula alleged is false
advertising.

"A lot of these platforms are emails you have to use to
participate in college," Mr. Gillula said.  "You're forced to give
up any sense of privacy in your communications to turn in your
homework."

In general, scanning of emails containing confidential health
information is an example of data collection that is "potentially
very dangerous" and should not be available to Google for
targeting users for ads, Consumer Watchdog's Privacy Project
director John Simpson said.

Moving forward

Mr. Hoofnagle wrote in 2014 that Google would have a hard time
defending its claim that users and campuses consented to the
interception of their communications.

"Those campuses that negotiated a 'no data mining' provision are
in the best position to argue that there was no consent, because
they specifically rejected such data analysis," Mr. Hoofnagle
wrote. "And they are likely to have a claim because the placement
of the content one box suggests that data mining is taking place
over the entire stream of traffic."

As people become more aware of allegations of Google's data
mining, Mr. Gallo expects to file more cases on behalf of students
from other schools using Apps for Education in addition to UC
Berkeley.

"I think that people at a minimum should be entitled to not just
the opportunity to consent, but a very prominent disclosure," Mr.
Gallo said.


GOOGLE INC: Court Dismissed Gmail CAPTCHA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Francisco said a woman is not entitled to
compensation for time spent entering a single CAPTCHA word to
verify her identity when opening a Google email account.

U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley sternly dismissed
Gabriela Rojas-Lozano's class action, finding no evidence that
Rojas-Lozano wouldn't have opened a Gmail account if Google had
disclosed that it profits from the second word in its two-word
CAPTCHA security feature.

CAPTCHA is an acronym for "Completely Automated Public Turing test
to tell Computers and Humans Apart," and is a user identification
tool used to prevent bots from infiltrating websites, search
engines and other systems.

Rojas-Lozano filed her original lawsuit in Massachusetts in
January 2015, and it was transferred to the Northern District in
August 2015.

In essence, Rojas-Lozano claimed that the second part of Google's
two-part CAPTCHA feature, which requires users to transcribe and
type into a box a distorted image of words, letters or numbers
before entering its site, is also used to transcribe words that a
computer cannot read to assist with Google's book digitization
service. By not disclosing that, she argued, Google was getting
free labor from its users.

Corley said Rojas-Lozano's lawyer should have asked her whether
she would have completed the reCAPTCHA had she known this.

"Such question, of course, should have been asked and answered
before this lawsuit was filed and pursued in two states.
Regardless, it defies common sense that the answer would be yes.
For this reason, too, leave to amend is denied," Corley wrote.

In increasingly peeved language, Corley broke down the problems
with Rojas-Lozano's complaint.

"Plaintiff fails to allege facts that plausibly support an
inference of a duty to disclose," she wrote. "First, plaintiff
does not allege what representations she encountered when she
signed up for Gmail; instead, she merely alleges that as a
condition for signing up for Gmail, she had to respond to a
reCAPTCHA prompt by typing two words. For this reason alone, her
claim fails."

She added, "Plaintiff has also not alleged that she suffered any
damages as a result of the alleged misrepresentation. At best, she
alleges that Google profited from her allegedly uninformed
decision to complete the two-word reCAPTCHA. But Google's profit
is not plaintiff's damage."

Corley also took issue with Rojas-Lozano suing Google over what
basically takes a few seconds to do in exchange for free email
services.

"Google's profit is not the only benefit the court considers in
this balancing test-completing the prompt also entitles users to a
free Gmail account. Moreover, users' transcriptions increase the
utility of other free Google services such as Google Maps or
Google Books. Plaintiff has failed to allege how these numerous
benefits outweigh the few seconds it takes to transcribe one
word," Corley wrote.

"As Google suggests, it strains credulity that plaintiff or class
members would forego access to a free Gmail account and higher
quality Google Books or Google Maps because their brief
transcription of a single word might, indirectly or directly,
facilitate Google's profit earning."

Attorneys Google and Rojas-Lozano did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

The case captioned, GABRIELA ROJAS-LOZANO, Individually And On
Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, V.
GOOGLE, INC., Defendant. Case No. 15-cv-03751-JSC (N.D. Cal.).


HAIR DIMENSIONS: "Garcia" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Iliana Amparo Garcia, and all others similarly situated v. Hair
Dimensions of Miami Corporation, Carlos Velarde and Maxima Jobita
Velarde, Case No. 1:15-cv-24606 (S.D. Fla., December 8, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and
minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate several salons located in South
Florida tri-county area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARTFORD GAS: "Aswad" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage and OT Premium Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abdulhak Aswad, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hartford Gas, Inc., a Connecticut
Corporation, and Mohammed Olabi, an individual, the Defendants,
Case 3:15-cv-01882 (D. Conn., December 30, 2015), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, interest and costs,
including reasonable attorney's fees, as a result of Defendants'
alleged failure to pay Plaintiff at least minimum wage for all
hours worked and overtime premium in violation of Fair Labor
Standards Act and Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff began working for Defendants sometime in 2010. He
worked for Defendants at their Hartford Shell gas station,
Hartford, Connecticut until approximately May 5, 2015.
Defendant HARTFORD GAS is a Connecticut corporation, with a
principal office at Hartford, Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          THE JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000)
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com
                  jtb@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Matthew Sorokin
          THE SOROKIN LAW FIRM, LLC
          9 Lewis Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 776 6017
          Facsimile: (860) 278 7813
          E-mail: mat@sorokinlaw.com


HEARTWARE INC: Securities Class Suit Filed
------------------------------------------
Susan Petroni, writing for Patch, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Framingham-based HeartWare.

The complaint alleges that officers and directors of HeartWare
International, Inc. violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
between June 10, 2014 and January 11, 2016, by making materially
false and misleading statements about HeartWare's business
prospects.

Robbins Arroyo LLP said the class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

HeartWare, a medical device company, designs, develops,
manufactures, and markets miniaturized implantable heart pumps or
ventricular assist devices ("VADs") for the treatment of advanced
heart failure.

The company currently has one commercial product -- the HeartWare
Ventricular Assist System ("HVAD"), which provides patients with
additional blood flow in order to manage congestive heart failure.

The company was in the process of developing a new device- the
MVAD- based on HVAD technology but less than one-half HVAD's size.

According to the complaint, HeartWare officials represented that
MVAD would revolutionize the VAD market and be the key driver for
HeartWare's future growth.

The complaint alleges that on June 2, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter to HeartWare,
identifying several manufacturing and regulatory failures at its
Miami Lakes facility in Florida that were connected to reports of
death and serious injuries.


HENNECOLD STORAGE: "Sutton" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Russell R. Sutton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hennecold Storage, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-04486-ODE (N.D. Ga., Atlanta Division,
December 29, 2015), asserts pendent state law claims as a result
of Defendant's alleged violation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Hennecold as a warehouse lead from March
2012 through October 5, 2015.

During 2014, Hennecold had an annual gross volume of sales made or
business done of not less than $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes
at the retail level that are separately stated).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
          Kevin D. Fitzpatrick Jr., Esq.
          DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS & FITZPATRICK LAW FIRM
          3100 Centennial Tower
          101 Marietta Street
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 979 3150
          Facsimile: (404) 979 3170
          E-mail: kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com
                  charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com


J. C. PENNEY: Defendants File Answer to Texas Securities Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that Defendants have
filed an answer to a consolidated securities class action
complaint in Texas.

The Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah are
parties to the Marcus consolidated purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler
Division.

The Company said, "The Marcus consolidated complaint is
purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired our common
stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26,
2013, and alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff claims that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the
Company's financial condition and business prospects that caused
our common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.  The
consolidated complaint seeks class certification, unspecified
compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs and
expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper."

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
which was denied by the court on September 29, 2015. Defendants
filed an answer to the consolidated complaint on November 12,
2015.

               Johnson & Marcus Suits Consolidated

On August 26, 2014, plaintiff Nathan Johnson filed a purported
class action lawsuit against the Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and
Kenneth H. Hannah in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Texas, Tyler Division. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf
of persons who acquired the Company's securities other than common
stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26,
2013, generally mirrors the allegations contained in the Marcus
lawsuit, and seeks similar relief.

On June 8, 2015, plaintiff in the Marcus lawsuit amended the
consolidated complaint to include the members of the purported
class in the Johnson lawsuit, and on June 10, 2015, the Johnson
lawsuit was consolidated into the Marcus lawsuit.

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to
vigorously defend them. While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final
resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity
or capital resources," the Company said.


J. C. PENNEY: Defendants File Answer to Ramirez & Ihle Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that defendants have
filed an answer to the class action complaint by Roberto Ramirez
and Thomas Ihle in Texas.

JCP and certain present and former members of JCP's Board of
Directors have been sued in a purported class action complaint by
plaintiffs Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, which was filed on July
8, 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas,
Tyler Division. The suit alleges that the defendants violated
Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
by breaching fiduciary duties relating to the J. C. Penney
Corporation, Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan
(the Plan). The class period is alleged to be between November 1,
2011 and September 27, 2013.

Plaintiffs allege that they and others who invested in or held
Company stock in the Plan during this period were injured because
defendants allegedly made false and misleading statements and/or
omissions regarding the Company's financial condition and business
prospects that caused the Company's common stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices. The complaint seeks class
certification, declaratory relief, a constructive trust,
reimbursement of alleged losses to the Plan, actual damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was
granted in part and denied in part by the court on September 29,
2015. Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on November 6,
2015.

"We believe the lawsuit is without merit and we intend to
vigorously defend it," the Company said.


J. C. PENNEY: Opposed Renewed Class Cert. Motion in Illinois Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Company has
opposed a renewed motion by plaintiffs in an Illinois class for
class certification.

JCP is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Tschudy
v. JCPenney Corporation filed on April 15, 2011 in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of California. The lawsuit
alleges that JCP violated the California Labor Code in connection
with the alleged forfeiture of accrued and vested vacation time
under its "My Time Off" policy. The class consists of all JCP
employees who worked in California from April 5, 2007 to the
present. Plaintiffs amended the complaint to assert additional
claims under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act on
behalf of all JCP employees who worked in Illinois from January 1,
2004 to the present.

After the court granted JCP's motion to transfer the Illinois
claims, those claims are now pending in a separate action in the
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, entitled
Garcia v. JCPenney Corporation. The lawsuits seek compensatory
damages, penalties, interest, disgorgement, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs.

Plaintiffs in both lawsuits filed motions, which the Company
opposed, to certify these actions on behalf of all employees in
California and Illinois based on the specific claims at issue.

On December 17, 2014, the California court granted plaintiffs'
request for class certification. The Company has filed a motion to
decertify this class.

The Illinois court denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for
class certification pending the filing of an amended complaint.
Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in the Illinois lawsuit
on April 14, 2015 and the Company has answered.

On July 2, 2015, the Illinois plaintiffs renewed their motion for
class certification, which the Company has opposed.

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to
continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits," the Company said.


J&M TANK LINES: "Calvillo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Calvillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. J&M Tank Lines, Inc. the Defendant,
Case No. 5:15-cv-01165 (W.D. Tex., San Antonio Division, December
29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages as a
result of Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff worked for J&M as a sand hauler from December 2014
to August 2015. His job duties are typical of a J&M sand hauler
Calvillo has worked for J&M in Texas and New Mexico.

J&M is a Georgia corporation which does business, and maintains
offices, in the state of Texas. The Company is an oil field
service company. It provides commodities such as sand, calcium
carbonate, lime, flour, and salt. J&M is headquartered in
Birmingham, Alabama but has locations in Texas and Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          Alecia D. Best, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM L.L.P
          9801 Westheimer Rd, Suite 302
          Houston, TX 77042
          Telephone: (713) 223 8855
          Facsimile: (713) 623 6399
          E-mail: Ttran@tranlawllp.com


JEZ RESTAURANTS: Violates FLSA, Ill. Wage Laws, "Carmona" Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Carmona, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiffs v.
Jez Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a Taqueria Los Comales 1l, Jose E.
Zepeda, Individually, and Everardo Zepeda, Individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-11847 (N.D. Ill., Eastern Division.
December 30, 2015), seeks redress for Defendants' violations of
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from 2003 to on or about
December 18, 2015, as chef in Cook County, and was paid on a
weekly basis.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant Comales have annual
gross sales of $500,000.00 or more.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan J. Best, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski. Suite 200
          Chicago, lL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 445 9662
          E-mail: sbest@yourclg.com


JOE MACHENS: Knowingly Sold Damaged Vehicles, Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Stice, writing for Columbia Daily Tribune, reports that a
motion hearing has been set in a class-action lawsuit against Joe
Machens Automotive Inc. alleging the car dealer knowingly sold
vehicles with repaired hail damage to customers without first
informing them.

The lawsuit, filed in November on behalf of five plaintiffs, lists
Joe Machens Nissan Inc., Joe Machens Automotive Group Inc. and GRD
Auto Sales Inc. as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that Joe
Machens sold cars that had been damaged by hail to customers who
had not been informed of the repairs. The lawsuit defines its
class as anyone who bought a car with undisclosed hail damage from
Joe Machens dealerships within the past five years.

The lawsuit claims the dealerships sold cars labeled as "factory-
fresh" and "brand new" even if they had suffered hail damage. The
lawsuit also alleges that the company must have known about the
damage the cars sustained because it filed insurance claims for
the damage.

The defendants in the lawsuit on Jan. 21 filed a motion to put the
proceedings on hold in favor of arbitration.

The lawsuit was filed in November, after the Arkansas-based
McLarty Automotive Group finalized its purchase of all but two Joe
Machens dealerships from the Drewing family.

McLarty Automotive Group debuted in Columbia almost a year ago
when it purchased Frank Fletcher Honda, which it renamed Columbia
Honda. That dealership now falls under the same ownership umbrella
as the other Machens dealerships. The Drewing family retained
ownership of their BMW and Mercedes-Benz dealerships, which it
renamed Columbia BMW and Columbia Mercedes.


JOHNSON COUNTY, IN: Sued Over Public Defender System Problems
-------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Goeller, writing for Daily Journal, reports that months
after a lawsuit was filed against Johnson County judges,
commissioners and attorneys regarding the public defender system,
other counties could face a similar complaint.

Last year, a group of attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of six
people who had been arrested and were being represented by public
defenders.

The lawsuit claimed they were not receiving proper representation
because their public defenders had caseloads that were too large,
and the public defenders aren't able to challenge the judges
overseeing their cases, since the judges are also their bosses
under contracts they have with the county courts.

They also filed a separate petition with the Indiana Supreme
Court, asking the justices to declare that the way Johnson County
offers public defender services is unconstitutional.

Since then, a similar lawsuit has been filed in Fort Wayne by a
separate group of attorneys.  The attorneys who filed the local
case said they are also considering lawsuits in other communities,
and that they have been contacted by other counties who want to
know what changes they could make to avoid being sued.

For now, the lawsuit against Johnson County officials is waiting
to be assigned to a judge in Shelby County, after it was
transferred from Marion County, said Michael Sutherlin, one of the
attorneys who filed the local lawsuit.  A judge has been picked,
but has not yet agreed to take the case, he said.  That judge
would also decide if the lawsuit would get class action status, he
said.

The attorneys are also considering filing lawsuits in at least six
other counties, Mr. Sutherlin said.

Across the state, several counties follow a similar format to
Johnson County, meaning residents accused of crimes who are being
represented by a public defender likely face similar issues, said
Jonathan Little, an attorney who filed the lawsuit.

Some of those counties have contacted Little or one of the other
attorneys involved in the civil lawsuit to see how they can avoid
being sued, showing that some communities are being proactive, he
said.

Under the civil lawsuit, the attorneys say offenders are not
receiving proper representation because public defenders have too
many cases to be able to do their own investigation, discovery or
depositions in the case.  Offenders reported they were not hearing
back from their attorneys, and that they felt pressured by their
public defender into a plea agreement to resolve their case.

They want a different setup, where public defenders are contracted
by an entity other than the courts.

The lawsuit has had little impact on criminal cases in Johnson
County, Prosecutor Brad Cooper said.  The cases of the offenders
involved have had to be assigned to other judges, since the local
judges were named in the civil lawsuit, he said.

Mr. Cooper said the lawsuit is ludicrous, because local public
defenders have decades of experience.  And if the system was
changed, suspects could end up with public defenders who are
trying to gain experience, since attorneys who have a private
practice likely would not be interested in giving that up, he
said.

But he would like to see the county have more money for both
public defenders and deputy prosecutors, he said.

Until the lawsuit is resolved, Little said he believes people will
go to prison when they shouldn't, he said.

"We do these kind of cases because at some point it becomes so
obnoxious it's just a miscarriage of justice," Little said.


JUST SALAD: "REA" Suit Seeks Recovery of Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Jose Alvino Rea Rea, Pedro Altamirano, and Luis Enrique Rivera
Lorenzo on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Just Salad 600 Third LLC d/b/a Just Salad Murray
Hill; Just Salad Gp LLC d/b/a Just Salad Fashion District; Just
Salad 134 37th St. LLC; d/b/a Just Salad Fashion District; Just
Salad Partners LLC d/b/a Just Salad Financial District; Just Salad
315 Pas LLC d/b/a Just Salad 315 Park Ave South; Just Salad 320
Park Ave LLC d/b/a Just Salad Park Avenue; Just Salad 30 Rock LLC
d/b/a Just Salad 30 Rock; Just Salad 706 6th Ave LLC d/b/a Just
Salad Chelsea; Just Salad Wwp LLC d/b/a Just Salad World Wide
Plaza; Just Salad 663 Lex LLC d/b/a Just Salad Lexington; Just
Salad Park Slope LLC d/b/a Just Salad Park Slope; Just Salad 8th
St LLC d/b/a Just Salad 8th Street; Just Salad 1471 3rd Ave LLC
d/b/a Just Salad Upper East Side; Just Salad 1st Avenue LLC d/b/a
Just Salad 1st Avenue And 70th; Just Salad Hudson Square LLC d/b/a
Just Salad Hudson Square; Just Salad State Street LLC d/b/a Just
Salad Downtown Brooklyn; Just Salad Herald Square LLC d/b/a Just
Salad Macy's Herald Square; Just Salad 90 Broad Street LLC d/b/a
Just Salad 90 Broad Street; Just Salad 2056 Broadway LLC d/b/a
Just Salad Upper West Side; Just Salad 140 8th Ave LLC d/b/a Just
Salad 140 8th Avenue; Just Salad 233 Broadway LLC d/b/a Just Salad
233 Broadway; Just Salad Woodbury LLC d/b/a Just Salad Woodbury;
Nick Kenner, Rob Crespi, and Laura Pensiero, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:15-cv-10183 (S.D.N.Y., (Foley Square) December 31, 2015),
seeks to recover damages for unpaid compensation, liquidated
damages as provided by the FLSA, attorneys' fees and costs,
together with such other relief as this Court deems just and
proper, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Just Salad operates restaurants in New York and Hong Kong. It
offers soups, yogurt, snacks, salads and wraps, and sips, as well
as catering services. The company was founded in 2006 and is based
in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762 1324
          Facsimile: (718) 762 1342
          Email: johntroy@troypllc.com


K&B FINANCIAL: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Statutory Damages & Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. K&B Financial, Inc., an Illinois
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00052 (N.D. Ill.,
January4, 2016), seeks payment of statutory damages together with
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991.

K&B Financial is a corporation incorporated and existing under the
laws of the State of Illinois with its headquarters located at
Darien, Illinois. The Company is an independent authorized senior
general agency for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc E. McCallister, Esq.
          MCCALLISTER LAW GROUP, LLC
          120 North LaSalle St., 2800
                    Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 345 0611
          E-mail: mem@mccallisterlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213 0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927 0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
          Miami, Fl 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333 9427
          E-mail: Law@StefanColeman.com


KOBE SUSHI: "Zheng" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay & Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Youchun Zheng, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Kobe Sushi Japanese Cuisine 8 Inc.  d/b/a Kobe
Sushi Japanese Cuisine; Chong Lin You; and Xing Da Chen, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-10125-AKH (S.D.N.Y., December 30,
2015), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime compensation for
all hours worked over 40 each workweek against Defendants for
alleged violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act, and of the
New York Labor Law.

Youchun Zheng was employed by Kobe Sushi Japanese Cuisine, Inc.
located at New York, New York from August 1, 2013 to October 15,
2015 as a deliveryman.

Kobe Sushi Japanese Cuisine 8 is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York with a principal
address at New York, New York. The Company
is engaged in interstate commerce that has gross sales in excess
of $500,000 per year.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762 1324
          Facsimile: (718) 762 1342


KYOTO SUSHI: "Chen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shang Zhong Chen, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kyoto Sushi, Inc. d/b/a Kyoto Sushi;
Asquared Group, Inc. d/b/a Kyoto Sushi; and Andy Lee, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-07398 (E.D.N.Y., December 30, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and/or
attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendants' for alleged
violations of Federal Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from September 1,
2012 to October 11, 2015 as a chef/miscellaneous worker.

Defendant Kyoto Sushi, Inc. is a domestic business corporation
based in Flushing, New York. The business engaged in interstate
commerce that has gross sales in excess of $500,000 per year.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762 1324
          Facsimile: (718) 762 1342


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Adelson Loses Sanctions Bid
--------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writng for Courthouse News Services, reported that a
shareholder made an honest effort to revise a shareholder class
action against Sheldon Adelson and Las Vegas Sands, so he won't be
sanctioned despite its dismissal, a federal judge in Las Vegas
ruled.

U.S. District Judge James C. Mahan on Feb. 4 denied a motion from
Sheldon Adelson et al. for sanctions against lead plaintiff W.A.
Sokolowski, who in 2014 accused Las Vegas Sands of misstatements
and omissions in proxy statements to shareholders and the SEC.

The lawsuit included supplemental claims under state law, for
breach of fiduciary duty/corporate waste, unjust enrichment,
breach of fiduciary duty of candor, and breach of duty of loyalty.

The court dismissed the original complaint when Sokolowski could
not show he owned shares in the Sands during the time the claimed
misconduct occurred. He was given leave to amend and provide
factual allegations showing his ownership of shares from the time
the claimed misconduct occurred to the time he filed the
complaint. Sokolowski had been a Sands shareholder since Feb. 9,
2012.

He filed an amended complaint on Aug. 29, 2014, in which he
dropped claims for conduct occurring before he owned shares, but
retained allegations of misconduct from the time he bought shares,
and made more particular claims of misconduct after he bought
shares.

Mahan dismissed the amended complaint on June 19, 2015, saying
Sokolowski did not make a required "short and plain statement"
demonstrating claims for which he is entitled to relief. His
factual information supported only pre-purchase misconduct, and
allegations of wrongdoing after he bought shares were conclusory,
without sufficient factual allegations of wrongdoing.

The Sands said Sokolowski's complaints lacked legal basis and
asked for legal fees and costs.

But Mahan found that Sokolowski's amended complaint included new
allegations of misconduct that occurred after he bought shares,
which were not included in the original complaint.

Because he did try to establish new factual claims, and clearly
stated that his claims apply to the time after he bought shares,
Mahan said, Sokolowski complied with the court's order dismissing
the original complaint and is not subject to sanctions.

Adelson is the principal shareholder and CEO of Las Vegas Sands.
Sokolowski also sued his board of directors.

The case captioned, W.A. SOKOLOWSKI, individually and on Behalf of
LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP., Plaintiff(s), v. SHELDON G. ADELSON, et
al., Defendant(s).  Case No. 2:14-CV-111 JCM (NJK)(D. Nev.)


LIBERATOR MEDICAL: "Sapan" Suit Wants to Enjoin KeyCorp Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anat Sapan and Falko Hoernicke, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Liberator Medical Holdings, Inc., Mark Libratore, Jeannette
Corbette, Tyler Wick, Ruben Jose King-Shaw, Jr., Philip Sprinkle,
C.R. Bard, Inc., Freedom Mergersub, Inc., the Defendants, Case No.
2:15-cv-02484-APG-CWH (D. Nev., December 29, 2015), seeks to
recover damages from injury arising from Defendants' alleged
merger agreement on November 19, 2015 on terms which
disproportionately benefit the Individual Defendants and to the
detriment of Plaintiffs and Liberator's other public shareholders.

On November 20, 2015, Liberator Medical Holdings, Inc. (NYSE MKT:
LBMH), a national direct-to-consumer provider of quality medical
supplies through its subsidiary, Liberator Medical Supply, Inc.,
announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to be
acquired by C. R. Bard, Inc., for a cash purchase price of $3.35
per fully-diluted share, or approximately $181 million in the
aggregate.

The purchase price represents a 36% premium over Liberator's
average closing price during the 90 trading days ended November
19, 2015. The transaction is expected to close in the first
quarter of 2016, subject to approval by Liberator's shareholders,
satisfaction of customary closing conditions and receipt of
certain regulatory approvals.

The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the Proposed Transaction, alleging
breach of fiduciary duties and/or aiding and abetting such breach
under Nevada law and common law.

Liberator Medical Holdings has maintained a robust rate of growth
since its founding, and over the past five years has approximately
tripled revenue from about $25 million in fiscal year 2008 to
about $75 million in fiscal year 2014. During most of this time,
the Company has reinvested substantially all of its cash flow into
advertising to drive additional revenue growth.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq.
          MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.
          7915 West Sahara Ave., Suite 104
          Las Vegas, NV 89117
          Telephone: (702) 330 4505
          Facsimile: (702) 825 0141
          E-mail: andrew@mlolegal.com

               - and -

          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661 1100


LINN CO: "French" Suit Seeks Payment of Corporate Dividends
-----------------------------------------------------------
G. Dana French, as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Clarence J. "Peter" Bennett, the Plaintiff, v. Linn Co, LLC, and
Linn Energy, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-at-01031 (E.D.
Cal., December 30, 2015), seeks to claim payment to the Estate of
corporate dividends that had been declared prior to the death of
Mr. Bennett.

The Defendants have acquired and developed oil reserves within
the Eastern District of California, and pay dividends to
shareholders in the Eastern District of California.

The Defendants are Delaware limited liability companies based in
Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kurt F. Vote, Esq.
          Micaela L. Neal, Esq.
          WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
          265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 310
          Fresno, CA 93720
          Telephone: (559) 233 4800
          Facsimile: (559) 233 9330


MEMORIAL HERMANN: Ex-Flight Paramedic Sues Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Johnson, writing for SETexasRecord.com, reports that an
ex-flight paramedic for a Houston-based health care system is
suing his former employer for allegedly unpaid overtime
compensation while working for the company.

David Brandt filed a class-action lawsuit Jan. 6 against Memorial
Hermann Health System in the Houston Division of the Southern
District of Texas alleging a violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

While employed as a flight paramedic for Memorial Hermann Health
System from November 2010 to November 2015, Mr. Brandt alleges
that he and other crew members worked 12-hour shifts and that they
were never completely relieved during their designated lunch break
times.  The suit states this caused their hours to exceed a 40-
hour work week, and that they were not paid accordingly, which is
a violation of the FLSA.

Because of taking no time off, the lawsuit claims, Memorial
Hermann Health System is required to pay Mr. Brandt and others for
all hours worked -- including his 30-minute lunch break.

Mr. Brandt seeks damages for the unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, pre- and post-judgment interest, court costs and
attorney's fees.  He is represented by Gregg M. Rosenberg of
Rosenberg & Sprovach of Houston.

Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Court Case
number 4:16-cv-00033


MERCEDES-BENZ: Transmission Fails Prematurely, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Services reported that Mercedes-Benz's 722.9
7G-Tronic transmission wears out and fails prematurely, a class
action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court.


MERCURY PAYMENT: Champs Sports Suit Seeks Injunction
----------------------------------------------------
Champs Sports Bar & Grill Co. and Fashionadvice.com, LLC, d/b/a
Sam Malouf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Mercury Payment Systems, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00012-MHC (N.D. Ga., January 4,
2016), seeks return of all monies allegedly obtained by Mercury,
with interest, as well as punitive damages, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

Mercury Payment Systems provides payments technology and services
for small and medium sized businesses, merchants, and resellers in
the United States and Canada. It offers MercuryPay, a payment
processing solution that enables merchant accept common payment
types and card brands; integrated payments services that enable
restaurant and retail store operators, and service providers to
accept common transactions directly from devices; and customer
service and technical support services. The company is based in
Durango, Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth S. Canfield, Esq.
          DOFFERMYRE SHIELDS
          CANFIELD & KNOWLES, LLC
          1355 Peachtree Street, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, Georgia 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-8900
          E-mail: kcanfield@dsckd.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Kyle J. McGee, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2350
          Chicago, Illinois 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
          E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com
                  kmcgee@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Mark DiCello, Esq.
          Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
          THE DICELLO LAW FIRM
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, Ohio 44060
          Telephone: (440) 953 8888
          E-mail: madicello@dicellowlaw.com


META FINANCIAL: MetaBank Faces Class Suits in N.Y., Cal. & Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 8, 2015, that MetaBank has been named as a defendant,
along with other defendants, in four class action litigations
commenced in three different federal district courts between
October 23, 2015 and November 5, 2015: (1) Fuentes, et al. v.
UniRush LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:15-cv-08372); (2) Huff et
al. v. UniRush, LLC et al. (E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:15-cv-02253-KJM-
CMK); (3) Peterkin v. UniRush LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:15-
cv-08573); and (4) Jones v. UniRush, LLC et al. (E.D. Pa. Case No.
5:15-cv-05996-JLS).

The complaints in each of these actions seek monetary damages for
the alleged inability of customers of the prepaid card product
RushCard to access the product for up to two weeks starting on or
about October 12, 2015. The plaintiffs allege claims for breach of
contract, fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment,
conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty and violations of various
state consumer protection statutes prohibiting unfair or deceptive
acts or trade/business practices.

Due to the recent filing of the complaints, the Company is
evaluating the cases and has not yet filed an answer.

In addition, the OCC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
are examining the events surrounding the allegations with respect
to the Company and the other defendants, respectively. The OCC has
broad supervisory powers with respect to MetaBank and could seek
to initiate supervisory action if it believes such action is
warranted.


MIDLAND FUNDING: "Grunwald" Suit Seeks Damages under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
April Grunwald, and all others similarly situated v. Midland
Funding LLC and Messerli & Kramer P.A., Case No. 15-cv-04374 (D.
Minn., December 15, 2015), seeks damages against the Defendants
for alleged abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection
practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Midland Funding LLC is a buyer of unpaid debt. Midland Funding
purchases accounts with an unpaid balance where consumers have
gone at least 180 days without making a payment, or paid less than
the minimum monthly payment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony P. Chester, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      120 South 6th Street, Suite 2050
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (952) 225-5333
      Fax: (800) 635-6425
      E-mail: tony@westcoastlitigation.com


MILVIDA CORP: "Vargas" Suit Seeks Recovery of Unpaid, OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidel Armando Vargas, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiff v. Milvida Corp,
Gartholding LLC, Pierangelo Zanin, and Robert Webb, the
Defendants, Case No. cv16-0022 (E.D.N.Y., January 1, 2016), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Gart Holding is a domestic limited liability company organized
under laws of New York with a principal place of business and an
address in Forest Hills, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          Shanshan Zheng, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


MMJ EVENTS: NYE Patrons Mull Class Action Over Barbecue Festival
----------------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reports that the Yaks Barbecue Festival Sydney was
supposed to be "all about meat, smoke, summer and good times".

But hundreds of outraged patrons have taken to social media to
accuse organizers MMJ Events Pty Ltd and Mothership Events of
failing to deliver on their promise with a major shortage of meat
and a remarkable absence of good times in the Sydney Domain on
Jan. 30.

It's the second time in weeks Mothership Events has come under
fire for allegedly mismanaging events, with dozens of revellers
making complaints about the $500-a-head "Above The Harbour" New
Year's Eve debacle at the Sydney Botanic Gardens.

Some of the NYE patrons are in talks with lawyers about a possible
class action.

Mothership Events, which had to refund $100 a head to furious
customers, was involved with the disastrous Sydney Barbecue
Festival at the Domain on the weekend.

More than 5,000 people paid $35 to join the American-style barbie
on Jan. 30, only to face huge queues, no shelter and no food.
One of many disgruntled patrons who turned to Facebook to discuss
their experiences at the event, wrote:

"This was the most disappointing event I have ever experienced. No
food, limited alcohol choices. Even the stalls were pathetic."
Another wrote:

"What a waste of $30.  All you got was entry to a plastic covered,
muddy, hot corral! Not a sample bag, not a free drink, not even a
taste of food being cooked! Nothing! Agree with other comments.
Stalls were crap. Went to local pubs and got more entertainment
for free! Rubbish event."

Customer Kerri Clarke attended the festival with her partner and
two friends at $30 per head.

She told news.com.au the event was a disaster.

"We were quite excited to see the cooking demonstrations as well
as eating some of the barbecue food," Ms. Clarke said.

"But when we arrived at 12.30pm we noticed straight away there was
hardly any shelter despite the sun beating down in the middle of
summer, lines incredibly long that weren't even moving, sold out
signs everywhere and ordinary beers for $9 a cup.

"We looked around for the demonstrations but there wasn't much
happening, and there was very little engagement from organisers
and no announcements about anything."

Ms. Clarke said the group stayed for only one-and-a-half hours
after queuing for "chips on a stick" and then going to a local pub
for lunch.

"I've been to a lot of events before and I've never seen one this
badly organized," she said.

According to the Daily Telegraph, festival organizer MMJ Events
Pty Ltd is refusing to give its enraged customers their money
back.

"We had weather issues which meant a lot of the food traders were
unable to keep up with the capacity," a spokesman said.  "We are
not issuing refunds because we delivered the event as advertised."

The spokesman said it would go ahead with a similar event at
Melbourne's Flemington Racecourse.

News.com.au contacted Mothership Events for comment but has not
yet received a response.

That company also made headlines when it was trading as Mothership
Music and lost a legal battle against Flo Rida after the rap star
failed to show at the 2011 Fat As Butter Festival in Newcastle.

Mothership Music was placed in voluntary liquidation, owing almost
$200,000 to the Australian Taxation Office, as well as smaller
debts to a handful of other unsecured creditors.
Liquidator Scott Turner told the Newcastle Herald that the company
at the time, of which FAB promoter Brent Lean was director, went
into liquidation because of the failure of Flo Rida, aka Tramar
Dillard, to perform at the event.

Mr. Turner said Mr. Lean and his business partner, Justin Nyker,
were shareholders of the company and that its liquidation was
linked to the failure of Flo Rida, aka Tramar Dillard, to perform
at the 2011 event in Newcastle.


MYRON GREEN: "Turner" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Turner, and all others similarly situated v. Myron Green
Corporation dba Treat America Food Services, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00482 (E.D. Tex., December 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant provides full-service vending and office coffee
programs in Kansas City, Wichita, Indianapolis, Omaha, and Des
Moines. It prepares meals and serves various organizations, such
as business and industry, education, and the public sector; and
offers full service vending services that include snacks,
sandwiches and dairy products, refreshing beverages, and salads.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew L. Mintz, Esq.
      ANDREW L. MINTZ, PLLC
      2603 Augusta, Suite 880
      Houston, TX 77057
      Tel: (713) 780-7100
      Fax: (713) 780-7111
      E-mail: andrew@almintzlawfirm.com

          - and -

      Joseph Y, Ahmad, Esq.
      AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS,
      ALAVI & MENSING P.C.
      1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460
      Houston, TX 77010
      Tel: (713) 655-1101
      E-mail: joeahmad@azalaw.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Seifert Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seifert Holdings, Inc. (d/b/a Third Base), for itself and for all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. National Football
League, Inc.; NFL Enterprises LLC; DirecTV, LLC; and DirecTV
Holdings LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-09944-FMO-FFM (C.D.
Cal., December 29, 2015), seeks to secure monetary, equitable and
injunctive relief against Defendants for violating the Sherman Act
and Clayton Act.

DirecTV Holdings is a Delaware limited liability company and has
its principal place of business at El Segundo, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mike Arias, Esq.
          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          Arnold C. Wang, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE & TORRIJOS, LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 844 9696
          Facsimile: (310) 861 0168
          E-mail: mike@asstlawyers.com
                  alfredo@asstlawyers.com
                  arnold@asstlawyers.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622 1851
          Facsimile: (216) 241 8175
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
                  bhollowell@karonllc.com


NISHANT INC: "Alvarado" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Alvarado, Evelyn Alvarado, Barry Brick And Matthew Smith,
each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
the Plaintiffs, v. Nishant, Inc., individually and d/b/a
Super 8 Hotel Of Russellville, Arkansas; and Nimesh "Nick" Patel
the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00004-JLH (E.D. Ark., Western
Division, January 1, 2016), seeks to recover declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil
penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards and Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act.

Nishant is an Arkansas for-profit business, conducting business
primarily as a hotel lodging facility operating under the business
name Super 8 Hotel of Russellville, Arkansas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Allison Koile, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          LITTLE ROCK, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: allison@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


NOVA RESTORATION "Drag" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pawel Drag and Lezek Kaczmzarczyk, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Nova Restoration of
NY Inc., Andrzej Janczyk, and Ireneusz Janczyk,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00026-ENV-JO (E.D.N.Y., January
4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees from Defendants
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor Law.

Established in 1995 and incorporated in New York, Nova Restoration
employs a staff of approximately 30.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
          ROBERT WISNIEWSKI PC
          225 Broadway, Suite 1020
          New York, New York 10007
          Telephone: (212) 267 2101
          E-mail: www.rwapc.com


ORACLE CORP: Dodges Class Suit Over No-Poaching Agreements
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Oracle joined Microsoft on Feb. 2 in successfully dodging an
antitrust class action in San Francisco over its agreements not to
recruit workers from other tech firms.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh dismissed the suit with prejudice on
Feb. 2, finding the employees failed to show Oracle entered into
any "no-poaching" deals after the four-year statute of limitations
clock started ticking in October 2010.

Lead plaintiff Greg Garrison sued Oracle in October 2014, three
days before lead plaintiff Deserae Ryan sued Microsoft on similar
antitrust claims.

Just as she ruled in the suit against Microsoft this past
November, Koh again rejected theories that criminal
investigations, lawsuits against co-conspirators, alleged
concealment of deals and renewing of agreements froze the
limitations period.

"Although plaintiffs allege that Oracle continued to enter into
new secret agreements and add companies to the 'no-hire' list
'well into 2012,' plaintiffs fail to identify a single new
agreement after 2009," Koh wrote in her 51-page ruling.

Koh found a Justice Department probe into Oracle's anticompetitive
deals from 2009 to October 2014 did not freeze the limitations
period. The judge pointed to Ninth Circuit precedent that holds
the limitations period begins tolling when the government files a
complaint, not when it opens an investigation.

The DOJ never filed a complaint against Oracle.

Koh said the Justice Department's antitrust lawsuits against
Adobe, Lucasfilm and eBay also failed to stop the clock because
none of those complaints mentioned Oracle by name.

Claims that Oracle lied about its commitment to obeying antitrust
laws in public Securities and Exchange Commission filings and its
employee handbook were also found insufficient to allege
fraudulent concealment.

"The court is not aware of, and plaintiffs do not cite, any case
finding that a defendant's statements in routine public filings
that the defendant obeys antitrust laws and participates in a
competitive market alone suffice to show fraudulent concealment,
absent other evidence that the defendant attempted to conceal its
alleged antitrust behavior," Koh wrote.

She also found the employees lacked specifics to support claims
that Oracle's human resources staff misled them about compensation
and benefits by hiding the existence of its no-poaching deals.

The second amended complaint contained no details as "to whom
plaintiffs spoke at Oracle, where these conversations took place,
the date or time of the alleged conversations, or the content of
the conversations," Koh wrote.

Koh dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, finding the employees
failed to cure statute of limitations issues in their second
amended complaint and that any further amendment would be
"futile."

Class attorney Bonny Sweeney of Hausfeld and Oracle attorney
Daniel Wall of Latham & Watkins, both in San Francisco, did not
immediately return phone calls and emails seeking comment on the
suit's dismissal Feb. 3.

Oracle's media relations team also did not immediately return an
email seeking comment Feb. 3.

Last September, Koh approved a $415-million settlement and $42
million in attorneys' fees for employees that filed a similar
antitrust class action against Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe over
their no-poaching agreements.

The case captioned, GREG GARRISON, et al., Plaintiffs, V. ORACLE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-04592-LHK (N.D. Cal.)


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Class Suit in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear Of California, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8,
2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the
case, Charles Pfeiffer, individually and on behalf of other
aggrieved employees vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and
Pacific Sunwear Stores Corp., Superior Court of California, County
of Riverside, Case No. 1100527, is in the discovery phase.

On January 13, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit
against the Company under California's private attorney general
act alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime,
meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other
things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties.

The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding
the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses. The Company
is currently in the discovery phase of this case.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Class Cert. Bid in "Beeney" Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear Of California, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8,
2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a
California court has certified a class with respect to two of the
plaintiff's claims and refused to certify a class with respect to
the plaintiff's three remaining claims in the case, Tamara Beeney,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and
Pacific Sunwear Stores Corporation, Superior Court of California,
County of Orange, Case No. 30-2011-00459346-CU-OE-CXC.

On March 18, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of
California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break
rules and regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks
class certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class
representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties.

The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding
the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses.

On February 21, 2014, the plaintiff filed her motion to certify a
class with respect to several claims. The Company's opposition to
such motion was filed on June 30, 2014 and the plaintiff's reply
to such opposition was filed on November 4, 2014. The hearing on
the plaintiff's motion was held on November 24, 2015. At such
hearing, the Court certified a class with respect to two of the
plaintiff's claims and refused to certify a class with respect to
the plaintiff's three remaining claims.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Broadstone" Case Stayed Until Status Conference
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8,
2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the
case, Shayna Broadstone, an individual, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, vs. Pacific Sunwear of California,
Inc., Pacific Sunwear Stores Corp, and Does 1-100, Superior Court
for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No.
BC594799, is stayed until the date of the first status conference.

On September 16, 2015, the plaintiff in this matter filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleging claims
for four violations of California's wage and hour rules and
regulations with regard to the Company's "on call" shifts for its
retail associates. The complaint seeks class certification,
appointment of the plaintiff as a class representative, and an
unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The action is stayed
until the date of the first status conference.

The Company believes that three of the plaintiff's four claims are
barred by the relevant statutes of limitation, and that all of the
claims are subject to a valid arbitration agreement which
prohibits the plaintiff from pursuing her claims on a collective
basis.


PAYPAL: Class Action Settlement Payouts Face Problems
-----------------------------------------------------
Ina Steiner, writing for EcommerceBytes.com, reports that PayPal
agreed to settle a class action lawsuit involving its practice of
account holds, but many sellers may miss out on receiving their
share of the $4 million settlement fund, for several reasons.

PayPal users receive an enormous amount of spoof emails on a
regular basis from fraudsters posing as the payments company.  As
a result, users are skeptical about the email that PayPal sent out
telling them they need to file a claim if they wish to
participate.

People are discussing the email on niche industry boards, from
Rolex watches to guns.  Many people believe the email is a spoof
and some even are mocking those who ask if it's legitimate, so
sure are they that the email is bogus.

Compounding the problem: sellers have to enter their name,
address, phone number, and the email address associated with their
PayPal account on an unknown website -- without knowing for sure
who is behind it.  The website is registered privately -- that
means you can't use the WhoIs database to verify that the URL was
set up by the settlement administrator.

Also unknown is whether the administrator set up the site securely
to protect the information that users must provide in order to
submit a claim.  A recent case involving an Amazon account
takeover shows just how valuable a person's name, address, and
email address are -- that information can be used by scammers to
commit fraud using social engineering techniques, for example.

Another impediment to ensuring sellers get their fair share of the
settlement: the very fact that PayPal accountholders have to take
action.  In other ecommerce-related class action lawsuit
settlements, sellers have received funds without having to take
any action.

In addition, sellers may believe they must know the details of the
account holds that had been placed on their accounts in order to
file a claim -- while that's not the case, they do have to be
certain that such a hold or reserve had been placed on their
accounts during the relevant time period.

EcommerceBytes Blog reached out to PayPal and to Epiq Systems, the
court-appointed administrator of the claims process. PayPal has
yet to respond.

Here is Epiq Systems's response when EcommerceBytes asked about
the security measures in place to safeguard the data being
collected; who has access to it; and what will happen to the
database after the settlement.

"By way of background, Epiq is a leading provider of legal
technology solutions and services for law firms, corporations, and
trustees worldwide.  We are publicly traded company listed on the
NASDAQ (EPIQ) and our main business lines are electronic
discovery, bankruptcy, and settlement administration.

"I recommend having a look at our website for information
regarding our data security practices and our claims
administration services."


PEP BOYS: Faces Class Suits over Bridgestone Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
The Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack is facing class action lawsuits
filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania related to the Company's merger deal with Bridgestone
Retail Operations, LLC, Pep Boys said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015.

The Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of October 26, 2015, by and among the Company, Bridgestone Retail
Operations, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company -- Parent --
and TAJ Acquisition Co., a Pennsylvania corporation -- Purchaser.
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, and on the terms and subject to
the conditions in the Merger Agreement, Purchaser commenced a
tender offer on November 16, 2015, to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the Company's common stock at a purchase
price of $15.00 per share, net to the holders thereof, in cash,
without interest thereon, less any applicable tax withholding.

Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement, putative
shareholder class action/derivative complaints relating to the
Offer and the Merger were commenced.

On November 10, 2015, purported Company shareholder Stephen
Bushansky filed a putative class action and derivative lawsuit on
behalf of himself and a putative class of public Company
shareholders, as well as on behalf of the Company derivatively
(the "Bushansky Complaint"), in the Court of Common Pleas in
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

On November 24, 2015, purported shareholder Henry Tindel filed a
similar putative class action and derivative lawsuit on behalf of
himself and a putative class of public Company shareholders, as
well as on behalf of the Company derivatively (the "Tindel
Complaint"), in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania.

In addition, on November 30, 2015, purported shareholders David
Katz and John Solak each filed a similar putative class action and
derivative lawsuit on behalf of himself and a putative class of
public Company shareholders, as well as on behalf of the Company
derivatively (the "Katz Complaint" and the "Solak Complaint",
respectively, and together with the Bushansky Complaint and the
Tindel Complaint, the "State Court Complaints"), in the Court of
Common Pleas in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

The State Court Complaints name the Company as a nominal defendant
and allege claims for breach of fiduciary duties against the
Company's directors (the "Individual Defendants") and claims
against Bridgestone Americas, Inc., Parent and Purchaser for
aiding and abetting the Individual Defendants' purported breaches
of fiduciary duties in connection with entering into the Merger
Agreement and effecting the Transactions. The Tindel Complaint,
the Katz Complaint and the Solak Complaint also allege that the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by filing a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 that was
allegedly materially misleading and incomplete.

Despite being titled a Shareholder Class Action Complaint and
including several paragraphs of class action allegations, the
Solak Complaint only contains claims asserted derivatively and
does not allege any claim on behalf of a class of Company
shareholders. The State Court Complaints generally seek, among
other relief, declaratory and injunctive relief, including an
order (a) enjoining the Defendants from finalizing the Offer and
consummating the proposed transaction until the purported breaches
of fiduciary duty are remedied, and (b) rescinding the Merger
Agreement or any actions taken under the terms of the Merger
Agreement or granting rescissory damages. The State Court
Complaints further seek costs and reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees.


PEP BOYS: Faces "Edwards" Merger Suit in E.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------
The Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8,
2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that
purported Company shareholder Jack Edwards filed on November 24,
2015, a shareholder class and derivative action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The Edwards Complaint names the Company as a nominal
defendant and alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties
against the Company's directors -- the Individual Defendants --
and claims against Bridgestone Americas, Inc., Bridgestone Retail
Operations, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company -- Parent --
and TAJ Acquisition Co., a Pennsylvania corporation -- Purchaser -
- for aiding and abetting the Individual Defendants' purported
breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with entering the
Merger Agreement and effecting the Transactions. The Edwards
Complaint also alleges claims against the Defendants for
violations of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and against the
Individual Defendants for violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act in connection with the filing of the
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9.


PERRY ELLIS: Settlement Reached in "Ordaz" Case
-----------------------------------------------
Perry Ellis International, Inc. has reached a settlement in the
lawsuit filed by Humberto Ordaz, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015.

"We were a defendant in Humberto Ordaz v. Perry Ellis
International, Inc., Case No. BC490485 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2012),
involving claims for unpaid wages, missed breaks and related
claims, which was originally filed on August 17, 2012 by a former
employee in our California administrative offices," the Company
said.  The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of damages. The
lawsuit was pleaded but not certified as a class action.

The parties reached a settlement on August 12, 2015. The
settlement amount was provided for in the Company's results of
operations for fiscal 2015.


PETROBRAS: N.Y. Judge Allows Shareholder Class Suit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a lawsuit against Petrobras for hiding a bribery scheme for years
while selling $98 billion in securities can proceed as a class
action for thousands of shareholders, a federal judge in Manhattan
ruled.

More than a dozen lawsuits poured into the Southern District of
New York late last year after the Securities and Exchange
Commission said it was investigating Brazil's largest corporation
over bribery allegations.

The consolidated class action led by the Liverpool-based pension
fund Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) places the class
period between Jan. 20, 2010, to March 19 this year.  Shortly
before the latest iteration of the lawsuit in March 2015, millions
of Brazilians took to the streets to call for the impeachment of
their president, Dilma Rousseff, who served as chairwoman of
Petrobras between 2003 and 2010.

A corruption probe of thousands produced more than 40 indictments.
The most recent conviction brought down the company's former
director Jorge Zelada on Feb. 1, the BBC reported.

On Feb. 2, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff certified the
consolidated lawsuit against the company into multiple class
actions representing "thousands of class members, dispersed across
the globe."

The judge appointed North Carolina, Hawaii, and USS as class
representatives for claims under the Securities Act and the
Securities Exchange Act, and allowed the Manhattan-based firm
Pomerantz to serve as their counsel.

Petrobras argued that the hundreds of shareholders who filed "opt-
out" individual actions against the company made class
certification unfeasible.

For Rakoff, this argument ignored important context.

"The context of this particular case is that Petrobras was among
the world's largest companies during the class period," he wrote
in a 49-page ruling. "Hundreds of opt-outs is a large number, but
a conservative estimate would place the size of the proposed
classes in the thousands. Judicial economy will be served by a
joint trial because of the similarities between the individual
actions and the present action, but, contrary to defendants'
suggestion, this would not extend to a joint trial for thousands
upon thousands of individual actions."

Lead class counsel Jeremy Lieberman, a partner at Pomerantz, said
the firm is "very pleased" with the ruling.

"The fraud conducted by Petrobras during the class period has
eviscerated billions of dollars in shareholder value as well as
hobbled the political and economic structure of Brazil, one of the
world's largest economies," he said in an email. "Today's ruling
represents a significant milestone in plaintiffs' efforts to
recoup a significant portion of the losses incurred by defendants'
unprecedented scheme."

Petrobras representatives did not immediately respond to email
requests for comment.

The case captioned, In re: PETROBRAS SECURITIES LITIGATION,
14-cv-9662 (JSR)(S.D.N.Y.).


PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Kentucky's Abortion Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Newman, writing for NanoNews, reports that the lawsuit will
now continue as a class action, though U.S. District Judge
Kristine Baker has not yet applied the injunction to the entire
class.  Once that happens, it will prevent the state from ending
Medicaid coverage of Planned Parenthood services to Medicaid
patients in the state.

"Our country is at a crisis point for women", one ad says,
according to The Hill.

"We were under the impression, from what we had been told, that we
were operating in accordance with the procedures of the Office of
the Inspector General", she said, a claim the Bevin administration
is investigating.

And then there was that bill to defund Planned Parenthood, the
next chapter in an ongoing debate over abortion issues that leaves
little room for compromise on either side.

A Planned Parenthood spokeswoman responded that the organization
"applied for an abortion facility license and commenced services
under the guidance of the Office of the Inspector General, the
state office that is responsible for licensing health facilities".

Planned Parenthood opened a clinic in Louisville and began
performing abortions January 21.

The high court has agreed to decide whether Texas would violate
women's constitutional reproductive rights with a law that would
force closure of most of the state's abortion clinics by imposing
various medical requirements, such as requiring them to meet
hospital standards and requiring their doctors to have admitting
privileges at local hospitals.

"Ohio Right to Life is on the cusp of de-funding Planned
Parenthood thanks to the hard work and compassion of our pro-life
leaders", said Stephanie Ranade Krider, executive director of Ohio
Right to Life.

Kentucky has abortion clinics in Louisville and Lexington, the
state's two largest cities.

The ads argue that access to abortion and other priorities are at
risk if a Republican is elected, but that Clinton has "the
strongest record on women's health of anyone, ever".

"I think they're part of the solution", Selznick said.

A group with the imaginative name of Center for Medical Progress
tried to entrap Planned Parenthood officials, posing as
representatives of a company looking for fetal tissue to conduct
medical research.

"I'm excited about it.  From what I understand, Kentucky would be
the first state to incorporate a Telehealth component into
informed consent", Julie Raque Adams said.  The bill has no chance
of passing in the Democratic-led Assembly, but other states have
successfully banned funding to the organization.  This morning,
the Senate Committee on Government Oversight and Reform approved
the legislation, 9-3.  Ms. Adams, would require a woman to receive
counseling in person rather than by phone as the law now allows.

She added: "At the end of the day, she's the one we trust to go
head to head with the extreme anti-abortion politicians hell-bent
on rolling back the progress we've made for women".  "That saddens
me", she said.  It is surrounded by privacy walls and fencing with
a secured entrance.

Sen. Max Wise, R-Campbellsville, a sponsor of Senate Bill 7, told
CN/2, "there's no doctoring or editing to those at all", referring
to the videos, while Sen. "Security, safety, and privacy was of
paramount importance", she said.


PREMIERE GLOBAL: Pangea Merger Closed; Class Suit Dropped
---------------------------------------------------------
Premiere Global Services, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015,
that a putative class action lawsuit relating to a merger deal was
filed on November 10, 2015, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia. On December 4, 2015, the
plaintiff filed with the court a notice of voluntary dismissal of
the action without prejudice.

Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
September 10, 2015, by and among Premiere Global Services, Inc., a
Georgia corporation (the "Company"), Pangea Private Holdings II,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), and Pangea
Merger Sub Inc., a Georgia corporation and wholly owned subsidiary
of Parent ("Merger Sub"), on December 8, 2015 (the "Closing
Date"), Merger Sub was merged with and into the Company, with the
Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the
"Merger"). Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of Siris Capital
Group, LLC ("Siris").


PRICE MASTER: "Coulibaly" Suit Seeks Payment of Lost Wages, Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adama Coulibaly, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Price Master Corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00027-NGG-VMS (E.D.N.Y., January
4, 2016), seeks lost wages, treble and/or liquidated damages,
interest, costs, attorney's fees, and other such legal and
equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper under Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Price Master distributes convenience products. The Company offers
automotive suppliers, cigarette, tobacco, batteries, consumer
electronics, general merchandise, health and beauty aids,
household, and novelty products. The Company is based in Woodside,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Alexander Bernstein, Esq.
          Bernstein, P.C.
          175 Varick Street, 1st Fl.
          New York, NY 10014
          Telephone: (646) 308 1515
          E-mail: jbernstein@jbernsteinpc.com


PSSP NY: "Camas" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Wages, OT
-------------------------------------------------------
Luis Camas, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. PSSP NY Inc. d/b/a Sofia's of
Little Italy and Nelson Shaked, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00012S (S.D.N.Y., January 4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
statutory damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and all
other appropriate legal and equitable relief pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York State Labor Law.

This Little Italy eatery offers traditional fare in a space decked
out with murals & wine bottles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
          NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC
          2747 Cone Island Ave.
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 808 2224
          E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


RED RIVER: Former Employees Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Gene Johnson, writing for SETexasRecord.com, reports that two
former employees of a Fort Worth-based oil field services company
are suing their employer for overtime time wages that were
allegedly not paid out.

Tarlton Pittard and Nathan Bernardino filed a class-action lawsuit
Dec. 30 against Red River Oilfield Sevices LLC, doing business as
Red River Technical Services LLC, in the Houston Division of the
Southern District of Texas alleging a violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Mr. Pittard, while working for Red River Oilfield as an EMI helper
assisting with electromagnetic inspections from September 2014 to
Dec. 4, 2014, claims he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, and in fact, worked regularly in excess of 80 hours per week
-- and paid on an hourly basis.

Bernardino, working in the same position from June 2014 to
November 2015, alleges that he regularly worked in excess of 80
hours per week, paid on an hourly basis, and was not paid for all
of his regular and overtime hours, which forced him to work "off
the clock" and to not be paid for all hours worked during most
workweeks.  Both men claim they are entitled to be paid their
regular wages and to be paid an overtime premium for all work
performed during the hours worked over 40 each week.

Messrs. Pittard and Bernardino seek judgment for an amount equal
to their alleged unpaid overtime wages at an applicable rate,
costs and attorney's fees.  They are represented by attorney Josef
F. Buenker of Houston.

Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Court Case
number 4:15-cv-03753


RED RIVER: "Carranza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harley Carranza, and all others similarly situated v. Red River
Oilfield Services, LLC dba Red River Technical Services, LLC, Case
No. 4:15-cv-03631 (S.D. Tex., December 15, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's
fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Red River is a company that provides services to the oil and gas
industry, providing, in addition to other services, tubular
inspection services and premium hard banding services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SACRAMENTO, CA: Judge Allows Citizens to Opt Out of Fire Fee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Petersen, writing for My Mother Lode, reports that a ruling
from a Sacramento Superior court judge allows citizens to either
join in or opt out of the $150 fire fee lawsuit. However, no
determination on whether the fee is a tax, as critics claim, was
made.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Legal Secretary Lorice Strem
states that this is just one of several legal hoops that need to
be jumped, explaining, "The hoop we had to get through was to get
the courts approval on how we propose to notify people that they
are in our class action. That is important because once we notify
people there is a period of time where people can opt out or
decide that they don't want to be part of our lawsuit. If we don't
do that, we cannot move forward on our lawsuit. Also, nothing was
decided on the merits of the case."

The fee passed by a simple majority vote of the Legislature in
2011. It charges residential property owners in rural areas $150
for each habitable structure located on their land. Property
owners who pay for local fire protection will receive a $35
reduction. Strem says those that want to join the lawsuit must
meet these criteria, stating, "People who have filed a petition
for redetermination protesting the fire fee and have paid the fire
fee, because the court does not allow us to represent people who
have not paid and protested." She adds that those that fit that
description do not need to do anything to qualify for the lawsuit.

As the fire fee bills go out intermittently throughout the year to
more than 825,000 property owners, it is not too late to file a
protest and join the lawsuit. All is required is that the owner
file within 30 days of the billing date, according to Strem.

Mother Lode Senator Tom Berryhill has been a vocal opponent of the
fire fee. He cheers that the courts finally deliver some good news
indicating that this could be the beginning of the end of the fire
fee. "I have always thought this was an illegal tax and an
atrocious overreach on the part of the state to squeeze additional
money out of taxpayers in rural areas," comments Berryhill.


SALE SLASH: FTC Shuts Down Business Over Fake Diet Pill Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Glendale, California, company
shut down 10 months ago will pay about $10 million to settle
claims by the Federal Trade Commission that it wildly exaggerated
the results of its diet supplements, used fake endorsements from
people like Oprah Winfrey and hired marketers to send millions of
spam emails.

FTC Midwest Region attorney Matthew H. Wernz said the $43 million
settlement allows $33 million to be suspended if the defendants
comply with conditions of the settlement.  If they fail to comply,
the full amount will be reinstated.

A court-appointed attorney liquidated the company, called Sale
Slash and Purists Choice, Mr. Wernz said.  There was no listing
for Sale Slash.  A call to Purists Choice went to a recording; a
message was not returned. The attorney said two of the corporate
defendants fought the settlement in court, but three did not show
up so default judgments will be sought against them.

The FTC sought to recover money to repay those who bought
supplements with names like Premium Green Coffee and Pure Garcinia
Cambogia.

The FTC alleges the defendants used affiliate marketers to send
illegal spam emails and post banner ads so it looked like a news
sites where celebrities, including Winfrey and members of
syndicated television program "The Doctors," were interviewed by a
consumer reporter instead of a paid advertiser.  In all cases, the
celebrities were interviewed about their dramatic weight loss.

The defendants have been selling the supplements since 2012.

The original claim was filed and a temporary restraining order
issued in federal district court on April 27 of 2015.  The
receiver took possession of the defendants' property two days
later.

Mr. Wernz said most of the $10 million will come from real estate
and assets frozen in bank accounts.

The court spelled out for the corporate defendants what practices
they could engage in, prohibited them from making weight-loss
claims unless they had competent and reliable evidence, prohibited
them from using celebrity endorsements unless they actually had
those endorsements, and instructed them on how they could use
email.


SECRET TO LIFE: Coach Couple Sued Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Spector, writing for NBC News, reports that a class-action
lawsuit filed in Colorado is focusing new attention on the "life
coaching" industry, a quickly growing but unregulated field that
attracts many practitioners who lack any training or
certification.

Coral Rose Grant and her husband Gary McGonagle "Mac" Grant II,
who ran a life coaching business in Windsor, Colorado, called The
Secret to Life Coaching, and other affiliated businesses, are
accused in the lawsuit of running a Ponzi scheme that brought in
"$8 million to $20 million," according to Courthouse News Service,
which first reported on the case.

Former clients April Fisher and Cheri Lucas, who filed the suit on
Jan. 18 in Texas, allege that Coral Grant has been using her
companies since 2010 to sign up independent coaches, promising
them a commission or fee for each life coaching client or coach
they signed up.

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

Prison Meditation Program Helps Inmates Rebuild Minds, Restart
Lives

Fisher and Lucas are seeking $30 million from the Grants and
business associate, Heather Suzanne Perdue, on behalf of
themselves and other coaches and clients.

Phone and email messages from NBC News to the Grants and Perdue
seeking comment were not returned. Attorneys for Fisher and Lucas
also did not return calls seeking comment.

While illicit activity can happen in any industry, life coaching
is particularly susceptible because it is unregulated and anyone
can say they're a life coach establish a practice, experts say.

"There is so much snake oil out there in the self-help industry,
and people should definitely keep their BS detectors up," Anna
Kunnecke, chief commercial officer of Declare Dominion, a life
coaching service in Portland, Oregon.

It's also big business. A study by the International Coaching
Federation (ICF), a nonprofit industry group that offers
certification programs for life coaches, estimated that total
industry revenue was $1.979 billion in 2012. And according to the
Department of Labor statistics analyzed by CareerTrends, there
were 202,360 "self-enrichment education teachers" -- a category
that includes life coaches -- in the U.S. as of 2014.

Unlike a doctor or a counselor, life coaches don't have to back up
their titles with a degree. They can also earn some kind of
certificate in just a couple of days.

"Unfortunately, some certifications can be earned in a weekend,"
Mary Allen, a life coach in Laguna Niguel, California, told NBC
News. "The International Coach Federation certifies coaches at
three levels -- ACC, PCC and MCC. These are the credentials to
look for."

For people interested in hiring or becoming a life coach, a little
research also goes a long way, said Samantha Ettus, a work-life-
balance practitioner.

In addition to being accredited by the ICF, life coaches should
have positive testimonials from former clients who should be
identifiable to ensure that the endorsements aren't bogus, she
said.

"Don't rely just on social media or what a friend says," she said,
recommending that prospective clients speak directly to those
providing endorsements. "There's nothing wrong with asking to
speak to a couple former clients, who you should then Google to
make sure they are not they're not a next-door neighbor (of the
life coach)."

Despite such advice, most prospective clients are very trusting
when they enter a relationship with a life coach.

"In over a decade of private coaching, I have never once been
asked for either (credentials or references)," said Nancy Koenig,
a singles, dating and relationship coach in Long Beach, New York.

"I specialized with addictions for many years and even worked with
high-profile clients," Koening said. "I was on private jets with
people who put their life or the lives of a loved one in my hands
without finding out if I was qualified to help them. Because
coaching has become so mainstream, it doesn't occur to people that
you don't need training or experience to start a business."

Another reason that people may pick a life coach without doing the
research is because they are emotionally vulnerable. And when
people are feeling lost, they tend to lose sight of the fact that
they do have something to lose if they make a bad choice, said
Ettus.

"A lot of it has to do with recognizing that when you're
struggling, it's good to look for help, but be smart about it,"
she said. "There's a happy medium between being insular with your
problems and going outward looking for help blindly. This is as
important as making a medical decision."


SECURITY ONE SOURCE: "Ventura" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Marvin Ventura and Saul Padilla Rodriguez, the Plaintiffs, v.
Security One Source, LLC and Tam Le Cragg, the Defendants, Case
No. 8:15-cv-03986-TDC (D. Md., December 30, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid wages for overtime hours pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act and Maryland Wage and Hour Law.

Security One Source is the premier organization for security
professionals. SOS is dedicated to increasing the effectiveness
and productivity of security services. The Company is based in
Silver Spring, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          836 Bonifant Street,
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587 9373
          Facsimile: (301) 287 9397
          E-mail: ggrenberg@zagfirm.com


SKV INVESTMENTS: "Montes" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wage
------------------------------------------------------------
Guillermo Montes on behalf of himself individually, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Sky Investments, L.L.C. the
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00006 (S.D. Tex., Houston Division,
January 4, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wage, unpaid overtime
wages, equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, taxable costs of court, and post-judgment
interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sky Investments, L.L.C. is a Domestic Limited Liability Company
(LLC) in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Williams, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS
          & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          810 Highway 6 South, Suite 111
          Houston, Texas 77079
          Telephone: (832) 230 4125
          Facsimile: (832) 230 5130


SOCAL GAS: California AG Files Suit Over Natural Gas Leak
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Melley and Ellen Knickmeyer, writing for The Associated
Press, report that California's attorney general added her name on
Feb. 2 to the long list of parties suing a utility company for the
massive nonstop natural gas leak that has driven thousands of Los
Angeles residents from their homes and spewed more than 2 million
tons of climate-changing methane.

Attorney General Kamala Harris said Southern California Gas Co.
violated several state laws and failed to report the leak to the
necessary agencies for three days after its discovery in October
near the Porter Ranch section of Los Angeles.

The leak that has been out of control nearly 15 weeks has created
a public health and statewide environmental emergency, Harris
said.

"The impact of this unprecedented gas leak is devastating to
families in our state, our environment, and our efforts to combat
global warming," Ms. Harris said in a statement.  "Southern
California Gas Company must be held accountable."

A company spokeswoman said it doesn't comment on pending
litigation and was focused on stopping the leak, which it expects
to plug by the end of the month.

SoCalGas is facing more than two dozen lawsuits -- including
potential class-actions from residents and businesses over the
leak as well as from regional air regulators and city and county
authorities.  Ms. Harris, a Democrat running for U.S. Senate, is
the first state official to sue, though her suit incorporates
elements of lawsuits filed by the city and county of Los Angeles.

Several state agencies are investigating the blowout and have
issued orders to the gas company to stop it and turn over records
of the 60-year-old well and others from the field that is the
largest natural gas storage facility in the West.

The company said the leak was detected Oct. 23, though residents
weren't immediately notified and those who complained to the
company about the nauseating smell were initially told it was part
of routine maintenance.

The company didn't report the leak to the appropriate agency or
the Office of Emergency Services until Oct. 26, Ms. Harris said in
the suit that claims the company created a nuisance and violated
health and safety codes and the state's unfair competition law.

The suit seeks unspecified damages.

Residents have reported symptoms including headaches, nosebleeds
and rashes, among other woes.

Public health officials have blamed the maladies on odorant added
to make the gas detectable.  They have said the leak -- mostly
methane but including trace elements of the carcinogen benzene --
is not expected to cause long-term health problems.

California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both
Democrats, introduced a legislative amendment on Feb. 2 that would
ask the U.S. Department of Energy to investigate and stop the
Aliso Canyon leak, and prevent similar disasters at the nation's
more than 400 underground natural-gas storage sites.

Sen. Boxer stood by a dramatic infrared photo that showed the
otherwise invisible plume of methane-laced natural gas from the
blowout.  She told fellow senators in a speech on the Senate floor
that the leak was a "nightmare."

The Aliso Canyon may be only the first of countless gas fields at
risk, the California senator said.  "We better deal with it, and
figure out how to deal with it," Sen. Boxer said.

Rep. Brad Sherman, a Democrat who lives in the Porter Ranch
neighborhood, announced on Feb. 2 that he's introducing
legislation aimed at preventing future gas leaks by directing the
federal Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to set
safety standards for natural gas storage facilities.


SOCAL GAS: Los Angeles DA Files Charges Over Natural Gas Leak
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Melley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Los Angeles prosecutors filed misdemeanor criminal charges on Feb.
2 against a utility for failing to immediately report a natural
gas leak that has been gushing nonstop for nearly 15 weeks.

District Attorney Jackie Lacey said the charges aren't a solution
to the problem, but Southern California Gas Co. needs to be held
responsible for the leak that has uprooted more than 4,400
families.

The charges came the same day the state attorney general joined a
long line of others in suing the gas company for the blowout that
has spewed more than 2 million tons of climate-changing methane
since October.

Lawmakers in Congress have urged the U.S. secretary of energy to
investigate the leak, and federal regulators are crafting new
safety standards for underground natural gas storage facilities.

The criminal complaint charges the company with three counts of
failing to report the release of a hazardous material and one
count of discharge of air contaminants.

The company didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

If convicted, the company could be fined up to $1,000 per day for
air pollution violations and up to $25,000 for each of the three
days it didn't notify the state Office of Emergency Services of
the leak.

The company said it discovered the leak Oct. 23 and notified state
gas and oil regulators.

But it failed to let state emergency officials know until
Oct. 26, Attorney General Kamala Harris said in the latest of more
than two dozen lawsuits filed against SoCalGas.

The leak has created a public health and statewide environmental
emergency, Ms. Harris said.  The lawsuit, which doesn't specify
damages, says the company created a nuisance and violated health
and safety codes and the state's unfair competition law.

A spokeswoman said the company doesn't comment on pending
litigation and was focused on stopping the leak, which it expects
to plug by the end of the month.

SoCalGas is facing more than two dozen lawsuits -- including
potential class-actions from residents and businesses over the
leak as well as from regional air regulators and city and county
authorities.

Harris, a Democrat running for U.S. Senate, is the first state
official to sue, though her lawsuit incorporates elements of
lawsuits filed by the city and county of Los Angeles.

Several state agencies are investigating the blowout and have
issued orders to the gas company to stop it and turn over records
of the 60-year-old well and others from the field that is the
largest natural gas storage facility in the West.

The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
got involved for the first time on Feb. 2, saying it is working to
propose new regulations for gas storage and directing operators to
"inspect and take immediate actions to ensure the safety of
underground natural gas storage facilities across the country."

U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, a Democrat who lives in the Porter Ranch
neighborhood that has been most affected by the gas leak, said the
agency's advisory amounted to a note to industry saying, "not just
please, but pretty please" follow the American Petroleum
Institute's recommended practices for gas storage.

"At a very minimum, those practices should be mandatory
immediately," said Mr. Sherman, who is working on legislation that
would require Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration to set safety standards for natural gas storage
facilities.

The agency's advisory said gas storage operators should check for
leaks and identify potential failures from corrosion and other
damage.  The agency said the SoCalGas gas leak probably came from
a well casing.

State regulators are investigating the cause of the leak, but they
said they won't know until the well is plugged, which is expected
by the end of the month.

Residents have reported symptoms including headaches, nosebleeds
and rashes, among other woes.

Public health officials have blamed the maladies on odorant added
to make the gas detectable.  They have said the leak -- mostly
methane but including trace elements of the carcinogen benzene --
is not expected to cause long-term health problems.

California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both
Democrats, introduced a legislative amendment passed on Feb. 2
that would ask the U.S. Department of Energy to investigate and
stop the Aliso Canyon leak and prevent similar disasters at the
nation's more than 400 underground natural-gas storage sites.

Boxer stood by a dramatic infrared photo that showed the otherwise
invisible plume of methane-laced natural gas from the blowout.
She told fellow senators in a speech on the Senate floor that the
leak was a "nightmare."


SPARK NETWORKS: "Hoffman" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------
Harold M. Hoffman, and all others similarly situated v. Spark
Networks USA, LLC, Case No. BER-L-10569-15 (N.J. Super. App. Div.,
December 14, 2015), seeks damages for Defendant's alleged
violations of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action for redress for a deliberate,
calculated, fraudulent scheme and conspiracy hatched by Defendant
and its electronic marketing partner, MJT Marketing, Inc., a known
marketing scammer, which no longer even exists as a legal entity,
having had its corporate charter administratively dissolved by the
State of Oregon.

The Defendant is a company headquartered in California that claims
to offer online personal communities for single adults that offer
convenient and safe places to meet. It owns, operates and markets,
among other services, a dating service for Jewish singles under
the domain name JDATE.COM.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harold M. Hoffman
      240 Grand Avenue
      Englewood, NJ 07631
      Tel: (201) 569-0086
      Fax: (201) 221-7890
      E-mail: hoffman.eso@verizqn.net


SUN FUNG: Recalls Japanese Style Anchovy Due to Gluten
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 11, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Sun Fung Foods (Canada) Inc.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10233

  Brand    Common     Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name     name       ----    product       ---
  -----    ------             ----------
  Marine   Japanese   130 g   All packages  4 891214 595576
  Food     Style              where gluten
           Anchovy            is not
                              declared on
                              the label.


SYNTHES USA: Recalls SynReam Medullary Reamer Head 13.5mm
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 7, 2015
Posting date: January 7, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56458

The affected part number (352.135) and lot (F-17180) listed is
etched as dimension 13.5mm while the actual dimension is 14mm.

Affected products:
A. SynReam Medullary Reamer Head 13.5mm
Lot or serial number: F-17180
Model or catalog number: 352.135

Manufacturer: Synthes USA LLC
              1101 SYNTHES AVENUE
              Monument
              80132
              Colorado
              UNITED STATES


TECHNICAL CONSUMER: Recalls LED Parabolic Aluminized Reflectors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 8, 2015
Posting date: December 8, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Electrical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56138

The recall involves the LED parabolic aluminized reflector ("PAR")
38 wet location light bulb sold for use in outdoor fixtures and
security lights. It was sold in Canada under the TCP brand name.

The following TCP item numbers and manufacturing date codes were
affected.

  Item Number        Date Code
  -----------        ---------
  L14P38D30KFL       1523211
                     1523212
  L14P38D50KFL       1524211

Both the item number and the date code are stamped permanently on
the white plastic housing of the lamp. The date codes indicate
they were manufactured during the period from May 25, 2015 through
July 17, 2015.

Water may get into the light bulb posing a shock hazard to the
consumer if they touch the bulb when powered.

Neither Health Canada nor Technical Consumer Products has received
any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use
of these light bulbs.

Approximately 1,354 units were sold in Canada and about 25,000
were distributed in the United States.

The recalled products were sold in Canada and the United States
from July 2015 to October 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Zhenjiang Qiangling Electronics Co LTD
              Zhenjiang, Jiangsu
              CHINA

Distributor: Technical Consumer Products, Inc.
             Aurora
             Ohio
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled light bulbs
and contact Technical Consumer Products for a replacement product
that conforms to the design specifications.

For more information, consumers may contact Technical Consumer
Products by telephone at 1-800-324-1496 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday, by email or visit the company's website and
click on "Recall".

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/k9q80F


TILLY'S INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Christiansen" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a court has denied
plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case, Kirstin
Christiansen, Shellie Smith and Paul Haug, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated vs. World of Jeans & Tops,
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-
2013-139010.

"On January 29, 2013, the plaintiffs in this matter filed a
putative class action lawsuit against us alleging violations of
California Civil Code Section 1747.08, which prohibits requesting
or requiring personal identification information from a customer
paying for goods with a credit card and recording such
information, subject to exceptions. The complaint seeks
certification of a class, unspecified damages, injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees," the Company said.

"In June 2013, the Court granted our motion to strike portions of
the plaintiffs' complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.
Plaintiffs have amended the complaint. The parties have completed
class certification discovery and briefing, and a hearing was held
on August 13, 2015."

On September 17, 2015, the Court issued an order denying
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

"We intend to defend this case vigorously," the Company said.


TILLY'S INC: "Rebolledo" Parties Reached Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the parties have
attended a mediation proceeding and reached a resolution of the
case, Maria Rebolledo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and on behalf of the general public vs.
Tilly's, Inc.; World of Jeans & Tops, Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2012-00616290-CU-OE-
CXC

"On December 5, 2012, the plaintiff in this matter filed a
putative class action lawsuit against us alleging violations of
California's wage and hour, meal break and rest break rules and
regulations, and unfair competition law, among other things," the
Company said.

An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2013, to add a
claim for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General
Act.

"In March 2013, we filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was
denied in June 2013 and later affirmed on appeal. In October 2014,
we filed an answer to the amended complaint. The parties recently
attended a mediation proceeding and reached a resolution that will
be presented to the Court for approval," the Company said.


TILLY'S INC: To Defend Against "Whitten" Class Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Company intends
to defend vigorously the case, Karina Whitten, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's Inc.,
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC
548252.

"On June 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a putative class action and
representative Private Attorney General Act lawsuit against us
alleging violations of California's wage and hour, meal break and
rest break rules and regulations, and unfair competition law,
among other things," the Company said. "The complaint seeks class
certification, penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint on December 3, 2014, removing the expense reimbursement
claim. We answered the complaint on January 8, 2015."


TILLY'S INC: To Defend Against "Ward" Class Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. intends to defend vigorously the case, Skylar Ward,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v.
Tilly's, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, Case No. BC595405, Tilly's said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8,
2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015.

"On September 1, 2015, plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against us, alleging violations of California's wage and
hour rules and regulations and unfair competition law," the
Company said. "The complaint seeks certification of a class,
unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and
attorneys' fees."


TRI-STATE: Acadia Fights Bauer Policy Coverage Counterclaim
-----------------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for MadisonRecord.com, reports that
for a Maine-based insurance company is suing because it believes
the claims against a defendant, a former client, aren't coverable
under the policy it had with it.

Acadia Insurance Co. filed the suit Jan. 26 in U.S. District Court
of the Southern Division of Illinois against Tri-State Water
Treatment Inc., Michael Bauer and Stacey Bauer.

According to the complaint, on June 5, the Bauers filed a class-
action counterclaim against defendant Tri-State in Madison County
Circuit Court, which is referred to as the Bauer Counterclaim.
That suit states that Tri-State's marketing tactics for its water
purification systems are unfair, unjust and deceptive.  It further
states that the class will ultimately consist of several thousand
members in Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana and
Texas.

The plaintiff issued a multi-peril commercial lines policy to Tri-
State for the period of Sept. 11, 2014, to Sept. 11, 2015. The
policy provides commercial general liability coverage, commercial
liability umbrella coverage and commercial excess liability
coverage, and also includes commercial property damage, commercial
auto coverage and commercial inland marine coverage, the suit
states.

However, the lawsuit claims, the Bauer Counterclaim does not seek
damages that would activate coverage under those portions of the
policy and are not germane to this complaint for declaratory
judgment.  One of the damages it seeks, for example, is for
"personal and advertising injury," the suit states.

The plaintiff seeks from the court a determination of the rights
and liabilities with respect to the policy; that the Bauer
Counterclaim does not allege an injury sufficient to trigger
coverage, in addition to the other claims in the lawsuit; find and
declare that the plaintiff has no duty under the policy to
defendant Tri-State against the Bauer Counterclaim; and grant the
plaintiff other relief the court deems proper.

The plaintiff is represented by Kent J. Cummings and Dana A. Rice
of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP of Chicago.

U.S. District Court of the Southern Division of Illinois case
number 16-cv-94


TWO WAYS RESTAURANT: "Perez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT & Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Agustin Perez, On Behalf Of Himself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, The Plaintiff, v. Two Ways Restaurant Inc. d/b/a
Evergreen Diner, John Argenas, Ilias Argenas, Ioannis Argenas and
Athanusios Maurikis, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00019-RA-SN
(S.D.N.Y., January 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid pay "spread of hours" premium,
statutory penalties, damages for unreasonably delayed payments,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs and disbursements of the
action under the FLSA and the New York Labor Law.

Two Ways Restaurant Inc. is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of New York, with a principal place of
business and address at New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


U.S. COURTS: Overcharges PACER Fees, "Fisher" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Bryndon Fisher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. James C. Duff, in his official
capacity as the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts, Administrative Office of
the United States Courts, and The United States of America,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-05944-BHS (W.D. Wash. (Tacoma),
December 29, 2015), seeks to recover compensation for overcharge
payments in using the Public Access to Court Electronic Records
system (PACER).

The PACER allegedly claims to charge users $0.10 for each page in
a docket report, up to a maximum charge of $3.00 per transaction.
These overcharge payments allegedly constitute an illegal exaction
in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution.

The PACER is an electronic public access service that allows users
to obtain case and docket information online from federal
appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts.  PACER is provided by
the Federal Judiciary in keeping with its commitment to providing
public access to court information via a centralized service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


U.S. WELL SERVICES: Faces "Lackie" Wage-and-Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Jeff Lackie And William Crandell, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Daniel Layton;
Cornelius Dupre II; Gregg Falgout; Steve Orlando; Brian Stewart;
Edward S. Self III; Jeffrey Mcpherson; and Kenneth Sill, c/o U.S.
Well Services, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-03126-ALM-NMK
(S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division, December 30, 2015), seeks to recover
liability against the policies and practices of Defendants that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, and Ohio and Pennsylvania
wage-and-hour statutes.

Lackie worked for U.S. Well Services, LLC, and for the Defendants
as an hourly employee in Cambridge, Ohio

U.S. Well Services, LLC provides drilling services and equipment
to shale oil and gas operations in the northeastern United States.
The company's corporate headquarters in Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER, LLC
          4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Suite 201
          Canton, OH 44718
          Telephone: 330-470-4428
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
          CHAGRIN LAW
          46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104
          Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022
          Tel: 440-973-9000
          E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven G. Thomakos, Esq.
          STEVEN G. THOMAKOS, LLC
          P.O. Box 944
          221 Front Avenue, S.W.
          New Philadelphia, OH 44663
          Telephone: (330) 308 0500
          E-mail: thomakoslaw6@aol.com


UBER TECH: Skimmed Drivers' Tips, "Ortega" Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
Jose Ortega and Joce Martinez, on their own behalf, and on behalf
of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Uber Technologies
Inc., Rasier LLC, Uber USA LLC, Uber New York LLC, Uber
Transportation LLC, John Doe "Uber Affiliates," fictitious name
used to identify presently unknown entities, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:15-cv-07387 (E.D.N.Y., December 29, 2015), seeks
compensatory, consequential, liquidated, statutory, and punitive
damages against the Defendants.

Defendants have also violated New York state law by failing to
remit gratuities to the plaintiffs which UBER riders believe they
have paid as part of the quoted and charged fare.

Uber Technologies is a foreign corporation organized and existing
by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, is authorized to
transact business in the State of New York, with its principal
place of business located in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip M. Hines, Esq.
          Marc J. Held, Esq.
          Scott B. Richman, Esq.
          HELD & HINES, LLP
          2004 Ralph Avenue
          Brooklyn, NY 11234
          Telephone: (718) 531 9700
          Facsimile: (718) 444 5768
          Email: phines@heldhines.com
                 mheld@heldhines.com
                 srichman@heldhines.com


UBER TECH: Drivers Sue in N.Y. over Exclusionary Requirements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that midway through a minimum-
compensation offer for drivers last year, Uber introduced new
exclusionary requirements -- involving monthly opt-in emails and
completing one trip per hour -- three New Yorkers claim in a
federal class action in Brooklyn.


UBER TECH: Calif. Court Hears Arguments in Drivers' Tips Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Francisco, on Feb. 3, did not appear to buy
an Uber attorney's arguments that he should dismiss a class action
accusing the company of withholding tips from drivers.

Uber attorney Theodore Boutrous -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, told U.S. District Judge Edward Chen that
the class led by former Uber driver Hakan Yucesoy has not pleaded
an essential element in its third amended complaint: how Uber's
marketing campaign about tips being included persuaded riders not
to give them.

Without such specificity, Boutrous said, the class doesn't have a
claim.

Yucesoy's original complaint, filed in Massachusetts in 2014,
accused Uber of misinforming customers that tips are included in
the fare. He said that without this misinformation, customers
would tip, as is customary in the taxi industry. Yucesoy et al.
claimed that Uber ran a pervasive online ad campaign that told
riders they need not tip their drivers because gratuities are
included in the cost of the ride.

Uber calls those claims "vague and generic," and says drivers must
show exactly where and when Uber made the statements and whether
riders saw them and relied on them.

Plaintiffs' attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com --
told Judge Chen that in her 15 years of litigating the
Massachusetts tips law, she has never encountered an instance in
which plaintiffs were required to, in essence, prove their claims
at the pleading stage.

"No court has required that degree of specificity," Liss-Riordan
said. "Under Massachusetts tips law, the standard is what a
reasonable customer believes to be the case, if they believe the
charge at issue to be a gratuity. We don't need to find every
customer who rode with Mr. Yucesoy and ask them what they knew. It
will be for a jury to determine whether a reasonable customer
would have believed that this was a tip."

But Boutrous said the standard for pleading should be higher in a
case where the deception is attenuated: i.e., where riders are the
ones being deceived about whether drivers receive their share of
the supposedly included tip.

"If Mr. Yucesoy came in and said there were statements on a
website and people may have been exposed to them and might not
have given me a tip, that's not a claim. There's no allegation of
exposure or that any individual was exposed to these statements,"
Boutrous said. "These are much sketchier allegations. They can't
connect the dots."

Chen took the arguments under submission. He said he would weigh
whether there was enough public exposure to Uber's representations
about tips.

But the judge added: "It seems unrealistic to require that degree
of specificity that you have to show that a particular passenger
was exposed and relied upon a specific representation. It seems to
me there's enough specificity to get the next stage."


UBER TECH: Taxi Drivers Seek Injunction to Halt Quebec Service
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Wilton, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that taxi
drivers are stepping up their battle against the ride-sharing
service Uber.  The drivers' union will seek a court injunction to
try to stop Uber from operating in Quebec and force the company to
shut down its Uber X mobile application service in the province.

Drivers and union leaders say they have to get help from the
courts because the Quebec government continues to allow Uber and
its drivers to flout provincial laws governing the taxi industry.

About 600 taxi drivers gathered at College Maisonneuve on Jan. 31
to come up with a plan to fight Uber.  Several taxi drivers who
spoke to the Montreal Gazette said their earnings have dropped
between 30 and 35 per cent since Uber came to Montreal only two
years ago.  "My gross salary used to be about $35,000 and now it's
about $24,000 or $21,000," said taxi driver Farhat Dan.  "Uber can
only offer cheaper fares because they don't have the same expenses
as us.  It's like illegal cigarettes.  People buy it because it's
cheaper, not because it's safer."

He and his fellow taxi drivers say Uber is putting their
livelihood in jeopardy because they're losing fares and the value
of their taxi permits has plummeted.

On Feb. 10, taxi drivers will hold a protest in Montreal and will
track down Uber drivers and "denounce them to authorities," said
Benoit Jugand, a spokesperson for the steelworkers union, which is
representing about 4,000 taxi drivers in their legal action.

Uber provides ride-sharing services through a mobile application.
The UberX service allows car owners to offer lifts to passengers
and charge them a fee.  The fee is taken though credit cards, and
is generally lower than fees charged by taxis.  Taxi drivers have
complained Uber engages in unfair competition since UberX drivers
don't pay for expensive taxi permits, which in Montreal can cost
as much as $200,000.

"We want to stop Uber everywhere in Quebec because they are
illegal," said Alain Croteau, director of the steelworkers union
in Quebec.  "The taxi drivers have rights and they have to be
respected."

Uber operates in more than 300 cities worldwide.  In November,
Uber said more than 20,000 Montrealers are downloading their app
each month.

Recently, the city of Edmonton legalized the service after failing
to shut down Uber with a court injunction.  The city of Toronto
also failed to obtain a court order to close Uber.

Montreal's Taxi Bureau has been going after individual UberX
drivers and has seized about 300 of their cars. Drivers are fined
$500, and then must pay about $1,000 to get their cars out of an
impound lot.  However, nearly every time a car has been seized,
the driver has contested the action in court, as Uber has said it
will provide a lawyer for the affected drivers.  The Taxi Bureau
is using a section of a provincial law governing transport by taxi
-- which states anyone being remunerated for transporting someone
with a car needs to have a taxi license -- to justify the
seizures.

The union representing taxi drivers said it has already filed an
application for a class-action lawsuit against Uber and the Quebec
government to defend Quebec laws governing the taxi industry and
to seek compensation to cover drivers' lost wages, said lawyer
Marc-Antoine Cloutier.

Uber Canada issued the following statement about the class action-
lawsuit.  "This protectionist class-action lawsuit is without
merit, especially since some Quebec taxi companies are saying they
had a record year in 2015," the statement reads.  "As we have seen
from court rulings across Canada, Uber is a business model
distinct from traditional taxi services."


UBER TECH: "Berger" Suit in Calif. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Berger, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-
cv-00041-MEJ (N.D. Cal., January 1, 2016), seeks restitution in
the amount of unpaid wages earned and due as advertised in Uber's
"Winter Warmup" promotion and such other legal and equitable
relief from Defendants' alleged unlawful and willful conduct as
Court deems just and proper, pursuant to Unfair Competition Law.

Uber Technologies provides a smartphone application that connects
drivers with people who need a ride. The company's application
enables users to arrange and schedule transportation and/or
logistics services with third party providers. Uber Technologies
serves customers in North, Central, and South Americas, as well as
Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. The company
has a strategic partnership with Alexandria Real Estate Equities,
Inc. Uber was formerly known as UberCab Inc. and changed its name
to Uber Technologies, Inc. in October 2010. The company was
founded in 2009 and is based in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          Amy T. Wootton, Esq.
          HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APC
          555 W. 5th Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA, 90013
          Telephone: (213) 533 4160
          Facsimile: (213) 533 4167
          E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com
                  awootton@hamnerlaw.com


UNCLE T: Recalls Frozen Fish Products Due to Egg and Gluten
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 11, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Gluten
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Uncle T Food Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10236

Uncle T Food Ltd. is recalling Hai Pa Wang brand Frozen Fish
Dumpling with Cuttlefish from the marketplace because it contains
egg and gluten which are not declared on the label. People with an
allergy to egg or gluten should not consume the recalled product
described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to egg or gluten, do not consume the
recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening
reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand     Common       Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name      name         ----    product       ---
  -----     ------               ----------
  Hai Pa    Frozen Fish  110 g   2016.04.24    4 710572 001256
  Wang      Dumpling
            with
            Cuttlefish

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


UNITED CAPITAL: "Carollo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Deanna Carollo and Diana J. Owens, on behalf of themselves and all
other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. United Capital Corp., AFP Management Corp. and AFP 101 CORP,
the Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-00013-GLS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., January
5, 2016), seeks to recover damages in the form of unpaid wages as
well as injunctive relief and declaratory relief pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Minimum Wage Act

United Capital is a foreign business corporation licensed to
conduct business in the State of New York. It is based in Great
Neck, New York. The Company has annual gross volume of sales made
or business done exceeding $500,000, exclusive of excise taxes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
          Michael J. Lingle, Esq.
          Sarah E. Cressman, Esq.
          Jessica L. Lukasiewicz, Esq.
          THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
          693 East Avenue
          Rochester, New York 14607
          Telephone: (585) 272 0540
          E-mail: nthomas@theen1ploymentattorneys.com
                  mlingle@theemploymentattorneys.com
                  scressman@theemploymentatorneys.com
                  jlukasiewicz@theemploymentattorneys.com


URANIUM ENERGY: Defending "Stephens" Securities Action
------------------------------------------------------
Uranium Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that Heather M. Stephens
filed on June 29, 2015, a class action complaint against the
Company and two of its executive officers in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas, with an amended class
action complaint filed on November 16, 2015 (the "Securities
Case"). The Securities Case seeks unspecified damages and alleges
the defendants violated Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of
1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Cold-FX Study Results Not Published
------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Blackwell, writing for National Post, reports that the makers
of Cold-FX have sat for years on a study that suggested Canada's
most popular cold and flu remedy was no more effective than a
placebo in treating symptoms of the viruses.

The 2004 trial was conducted by Dr. Gerry Predy, a top Alberta
public-health official, at a time when the supplement's makers
told consumers the product would bring fast relief from the
effects of such ailments.

Dr. Predy continued to do other research on Cold-FX -- based on
people taking it over months as a preventive measure -- and spoke
of its prophylactic benefits well after 2004.

But it appears neither he nor the manufacturers have ever publicly
divulged results of the short-term treatment trial.

The study has just surfaced in a class-action lawsuit against
Valeant Pharmaceuticals, the Quebec drug giant that now owns the
product after buying Edmonton's Afexa Life Sciences in 2011.

"If true, this kind of information should have been disclosed,"
argues John Green, the Vancouver lawyer spearheading the class
action.  "If it had been disclosed, it would probably have been
the end of Afexa Life Sciences."

Companies like Afexa and Valeant are not legally obliged in this
country to release any trial results.  The Cold-FX report was
filed with Health Canada, according to the court document, but the
government is barred from making such proprietary information
public.

Other, more positive Cold-FX studies, looking at its effects when
taken preventively over a number of months, have been published in
peer-reviewed journals.

Renee Soto, a spokeswoman for Valeant, said the company would not
discuss any matter related to ongoing litigation.

Dr. Predy, who is now Alberta's senior medical officer of health,
said he can't recall if the study was submitted to a journal for
publication and rejected or "if we decided not to submit it given
that it was not likely to be published given the results."

Cold-FX, invented in Edmonton and promoted by sports celebrities
like Hockey Night in Canada's Don Cherry, had Canadian sales in
2011 of more than $117 million, suggests data disclosed in the
lawsuit.  The substance is based on a specially prepared Ginseng
extract and, unlike most natural-health products, has actually
undergone fairly rigorous scientific study.

Some of the resulting evidence suggests that if people take the
supplement daily for two months or more, the number and severity
of respiratory illnesses they suffer will be modestly reduced.

But the lawsuit Mr. Green is handling alleges the company misled
consumers until the last few years by suggesting Cold-FX could
treat colds and flu after they start.

Packaging and other marketing, for instance, used to say the
supplement could "stop cold and flu in their tracks," "help
provide effective relief" or bring "immediate relief" of symptoms.

Until now, no studies have surfaced publicly that actually
addressed the pills' value in treating -- rather than preventing -
- bugs.


VERIZON: Sonoma Agencies Join Statewide Suit for Overcharging
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McCallum, writing for The Press Democrat, reports that three
Sonoma County government agencies have joined a class-action suit
claiming the nation's largest wireless carriers have overcharged
them more than $600,000.

Santa Rosa, Sonoma County and the Sonoma County Water Agency are
part of the suit in Sacramento County Superior Court alleging that
Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile overcharged at least 42
California public agencies more than $100 million.

The lawsuit has been working its way through the courts for three
years, but only was unsealed in December.  The case alleges that
the carriers failed to provide the government agencies cellular
services at the lowest cost, as called for in their contracts.

"We've done enough of an investigation to believe that we have
been damaged in excess of $500,000 over the course of the last
five years due to the carriers' failure to comply with the terms
of the contract," Deputy County Counsel Phyllis Gallagher said.

Santa Rosa's initial estimate is that it was overcharged about
$100,000 over the same period, City Attorney Caroline Fowler said.

The public agencies involved range from huge entities such as the
city of Sacramento and Orange County to smaller school, water,
library and fire districts around the state.

Entities with numerous mobile devices and wireless plans such as
big businesses and government agencies typically don't have the
expertise to analyze whether they are getting the lowest-cost plan
to which are entitled, said Wayne Lamprey, a San Francisco-based
attorney who is representing a wireless contractor that acted as
the whistleblower in the case.

So the public agencies put that burden back on the wireless
carriers, requiring them to automatically provide quarterly
reports showing them how they could get the best deal, he
explained.

"The contract is completely clear," Lamprey said.

And yet the carriers in most cases never provided the rate
optimization reports, which could have reduced most agencies'
bills by 20 to 30 percent, Lamprey said. By skipping the reports,
the carriers were able to generate higher revenues than they were
entitled to, he said.

"This is public money. This is taxpayer dollars we're talking
about," Lamprey said.

The case began in 2012 after OntheGo Wireless, LLC, a contractor
for Verizon that provided plan optimization analysis, claimed the
carrier initially planned to perform the reports for government
customers but backtracked, Lamprey said.

The lawsuit was filed under the California False Claims Act, which
provides penalties when false claims for payment are submitted to
state agencies. It was filed under seal to allow the Department of
Justice and local agencies to investigate and decide if they
wanted to participate, Lamprey said.

The Santa Rosa City Council and Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
in 2015 held closed-door meetings to discuss the case, then
described only as "Under Seal v. Under Seal" out of Sacramento
County.

By joining the case, the agencies stand to reap a larger share of
any funds or damages recovered, Gallagher explained.  "By
intervening, there's just not a lot to lose and everything to
gain," she said. Most of the county's wireless accounts are with
Verizon, she said.

Heidi Flato, a Verizon spokeswoman, said the company had complied
with its contractual obligations.


VIRTUOSO SOURCING: Collection Practices Illegal, "Sperber" Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meyer Sperber, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Virtuoso Sourcing Group,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-07390-CBA-JO (E.D.N.Y.,
December 29, 2015), seeks to recover damages against Defendant's
alleged abusive, deceptive and unfair collection practices while
attempting to collect on debt pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Defendant is a debt collector with principal place of business
located in Glendale, Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


VITAL DRUGS: "Canela" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benny Canela, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Booth Memorial Ave Drugs
Inc.; Vital Drugs, Inc.; Vital Pharmacies Inc. D/B/A Vital Drugs;
Shahzad Nawaz; jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No.
1:15-cv-07419-WFK-RML (E.D.N.Y, December 30, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid or underpaid overtime compensation, and such other
relief available by law, as a result of Defendants' alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Minimum Wage Act, and
New York Labor Law.

The plaintiff worked in excess of forty hours each workweek, yet
the defendants willfully failed to pay the plaintiff and party
plaintiffs overtime compensation of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay.

The defendants are all New York business corporation with its
offices in Queens County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
          Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER,
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229 2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229 2246
          E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
                  bsherr@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com


VITAL THERAPIES: Faces "Halverstadt" Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Beach Halverstadt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vital Therapies, Inc., Terry
Winters, and Michael V. Swanson, the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-
02951-BTM-WVG (S.D. Cal., December 30, 2015), seeks to recover
damages against the Defendants for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Vital Therapies is Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located at San Diego, California. Terry Winters has
been Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company since
June 2003. Michael V. Swanson ("Swanson") has been Chief Financial
Officer of Vital Therapies since August 2013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          468 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 532 6449
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Marc Gorrie, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY10016
          Telephone: (212) 661 1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661 8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  mgorrie@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697 6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697 7296
          Email: peretz@bgandg.com


VIZIO INC: Faces "Jewett" Suit Over TV Tracking Software
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Jewett, David Quintanar, Ivee Tolbert, Charon Wright, and
Rory Zufolo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Vizio, Inc., Vizio Holdings, Inc.,
Vizio Inscape Services, LLC, Vizio Inscape Technologies, LLC, and
Cognitive Media Networks, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-
06281-JD (N.D. Cal., San Fracisco/Oakland Division, December 29,
2015), seeks to prevent Defendants from continuing to operate and
maintain their Smart TV Tracking Software and further seeks an
award of damages (actual, liquidated, and/or punitive), reasonable
attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred,
and such other preliminary and equitable relief appropriate under
the circumstances to remedy Defendants' wrongdoing alleged
Violations.

The Defendants violated the Video Privacy Protection Act; Cal.
Civ. Code; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code; Fraudulent Omission; Negligent
Omission; and Unjust Enrichment.

Vizio, Inc., a California corporation, is one of the leading
manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and marketers of Internet-
connectable televisions in the United States, commonly known and
referred to as Smart TVs. Vizio's Smart TVs offer integrated
Internet capability that supports streaming of movies, television
shows, and other programs from the Internet and popular
application-based content providers such as Netflix, Amazon
Instant Video, Hulu, YouTube, Pandora, and Spotify. VIZIO Holdings
is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters and principal
place of business located at Irvine, California.
Vizio Inscape Services is a Delaware limited liability company
with its headquarters and principal place of business located at
Irvine, California. Vizio Holdings and Vizio Inscape Services do
business throughout the United States and the State of California

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Dustin L. Schubert, Esq.
          Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
          Kathryn Y. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788 4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788 0161
          E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
                  dschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
                  nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
                  kschubert@schubertlawfirm.com


VIZIO INC: Faces "Pagorek" Suit Over TV Tracking Software
---------------------------------------------------------
Stanley W. Pagorek, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vizio, Inc., a California
corporation, and Cognitive Media Networks, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-00472-JD-PRC (N.D.
Ind., Hammon Division, December 30, 2015), seeks injunctive and
monetary relief as a result of Defendants' alleged surreptitious
inclusion of tracking software on their high-definition internet
connected televisions.

The Vizio tracking software works by analyzing bits of the video
and other visual programming its customers are watching, in real
time. The technology then allows Vizio to determine the date,
time, channel of  programs, and whether customers watched this
programming in real time or from a recording.

Vizio, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place
of business located at Irvine, California. Cognitive Media
Networks is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at San Francisco, California 94103. The
Defendants do business throughout the United States and the State
of Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Pavich, Esq.
          Ian H. Levin, Esq.
          John J. Pavich, Esq.
          PAVICH LAW GROUP, P.C.
          30 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1310
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 690 8400
          E-mail: rpavich@pavichlawgroup.com
                  ianhlevin@gmail.com
                  jpavich@pavichlawgroup.com

               - and -

          David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341 0400
          E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
                  brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                  caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Walid J. Tamari, Esq.
          Catherine Towne, Esq.
          TAMARI LAW GROUP, LLC
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2370
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 368 5000
          E-mail: wtamari@tamarilaw.com
                  ctowne@tamarilaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Recalls Audi A3 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 7, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 239
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015583TC
ID number: 2015583
Manufacturer recall number: 74C9

Certain vehicles may have been manufactured with an incorrect or
out of specification stitching in the driver and/or front
passenger seat cover. In the event of a crash, this could prevent
the side impact airbag from deploying correctly which could
increase the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will replace the
driver and/or passenger seat back covers as necessary.

  Make     Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----     ----------------------
  AUDI     A3        2015


VTECH ELECTRONICS: "Donnell" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Donnell and A.D. and T.D., minors, and all others similarly
situated v. VTech Electronics North America, LLC and VTech
Holdings Limited, Case No. 1:15-cv-11280 (N.D. Ill., December 15,
2015), seeks damages against the Defendants for violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
breach of contract and negligence.

The Plaintiff alleged that because VTech's security was
inadequate, on November 14, 2015, hackers obtained personal
information from more than 2.8 million children in the United
States, as well as their parents. VTech confirmed and admitted
that an "unauthorized party accessed VTech customer data."

The Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of digital
learning toys. Their products allow children to browse the
Internet and communicate with each other. Parents can also
download educational content for their children, including
learning games and e-books.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      Tyler J. Story, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 346-2222
      E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
              aek@wexlerwallace.com
              tjs@wexlerwallace.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

      Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
      LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN
      & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Tel: (212) 355-9500
      E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com

          - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      800 South Gay Street
      Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Tel: (865) 247-0080
      E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com


WAL-MART CANADA: Recalls Seasonal Lights Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 11, 2015
Posting date: December 11, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56258

This recall involves various seasonal lights. The affected product
names, model numbers and CSA file numbers are listed
below.

  Description           Model #          CSA File #
  -----------           -------          ----------
spruiked  Holiday Time 25       HPCAL25WCX/1S,   241989
  LED (C7) Light        HPCAL25WAX/1S,
  Set  - Various        HPCAL25WX/1S
  Colours
  Holiday Time 25       HPCAL25WCX/1S,   241989
  LED (C9) Light        HPCAL25WAX/1S,
  Set  - Various        HPCAL25WX/1S
  Colours
  Holiday Time 25       HPCAL25WCX/1S,   241989
  LED (QUICK CLIP)      HPCAL25WAX/1S
  Light Set  -
  Various Colours       HPCAL35WAX/1S,   241989
  Holiday Time 35       HPCAL35WX/1S,
  LED  (C6) Light       HPCAL35WCX/1S
  Set  - Various
  Colours
  Holiday Time 50       HPCAL35WAX/1S,   241989
  Mini Light Set        HPCAL35WCX/1S
  Indoor/Outdoor
  Holiday Time 50       HPCA50WBX/1S     241989
  Mini Light Set
  Indoor/Outdoor
  Holiday Time 50       HPCAL50WAX/2S,   241989
  LED (M5) Light Set    HPCAL50WCX/2S
  - Various Colours
  Holiday Time 50       HPCAL50WAX/2S    241989
  LED (G12) Light Set
  - Various Colours
  Holiday Time 500      HPCA250WBX/5S    241989
  (2x250)CT Mini
  Light set
  Holiday Time 70       HPCAL70WAX/2S,   241989
  LED (C6) Light Set    HPCAL70WCX/2S,
  - Various Colours     HPCAL70WX/2S
  Holiday Time          HPCAL70WAX/2SN,  241989
  LED RIBBON Light      HPCAL70WCX/2SN
  Set  - Various
  Colours
  Holiday Time 80       HPCAL80WCX/2S,   241989
  LED (C9) Light Set    HPCAL80WAX/2S
  - Various Colours
  Holiday Time 100      HPCAL100WAX/4S,  241989
  LED M5 Light Set      HPCAL100WCX/2S
  - Various Colours
  Holiday Time 100      HPCA100BX/2S     241989
  Mini Light Set
  Holiday Time 100      HPCA100WBX/2S    241989
  INC Light Set
  (Multi Colour and
  Clear)
  Holiday Time 100      HPCA100WBX/2SI   241989
  Outdoor Curtain
  Light Set - Various
  Colours
  Holiday Time 150 CT   HPCA150WBX/3S    241989
  7FT INC GARLAND
  Light Set (Multi
  Colour and Clear)
  Holiday Time 150 CT   HPCA150WBX/3SI   241989
  INC ICICLE Light Set
  (Multi Colour and
  Clear)
  Holiday Time 200      HPCA200WBX/4S    241989
  Outdoor INC Light
  Set
  Holiday Time 300      HPCA150WBX/3S    241989
  CT Outdoor INC
  Light Set (Multi
  Colour and Clear)
  Holiday Time 140      HPCA140WBX/3SC   241989
  LED 3F SUPER BRITE
  MEMORY LITE SET
  20 CT Indoor Light    HPCA20WX/1S      241989
  Set - Various Colours
  50 CT Outdoor Light   HPCA50WBX/1S     241989
  Set - Various Colours
  100 CT Light Set      HPCA100WBX/2S    241989
  Indoor/Outdoor
  - Various Colours

Consumers can find the model number, CSA file number 241989, and
the manufacturing date 06/2015 on the white tag affixed to the
wire.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program, as well as
testing completed by Wal-Mart Canada Corp., has determined that
the seasonal lights may pose an overheating and fire hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Wal-Mart Canada Corp. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these products.

Approximately 487,041 units of the seasonal lights were sold at
Walmart Canada retail stores across Canada.

The recalled products were sold from August 2015 to November 2015.
Manufactured in China.

Importer: Wal-Mart Canada Corp.
          Mississauga
          Ontario
          CANADA

Manufacturer: Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns Co. Ltd.
              Zhejiang
              CHINA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled seasonal
lights and return them to a Walmart Canada retail store for a full
refund.

For additional information, contact Wal-Mart Canada Corp. customer
service toll-free at 1-800-328-0402 from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
EST, Monday through Friday.

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

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

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

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


WALT DISNEY: Hired Cheaper, Foreign Workers, Class Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Pickett, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
two former theme park workers claim in court that Walt Disney
World conspired with two consulting companies to replace U.S.-born
employees with cheaper, foreign workers.

Former Disney employees Dena Moore and Leo Perrero filed separate
class action lawsuits against Disney, Cognizant Technology
Solutions and HCL Incorporated, alleging not only that the
companies conspired to get rid of them, but that the entertainment
giant made its U.S.-born employees train foreign workers before
firing them.

The two former IT workers were among hundreds of theme park
workers laid off by Disney last year.

Moore and Perrero claim the companies used H-1B visas to hire the
new foreign workers. The H-1B visa allows U.S. companies to employ
foreign professionals in industries short on qualified workers for
a short period of time. The new workers do not become green card
holders or citizens. But federal law also places certain
stipulations on the visas, such as prohibiting companies from
using H-1B visas to displace U.S. workers.

According to the complaint, HCL and Cognizant sponsored the
incoming foreign workers and Disney filed the visa petitions.
Among the conditions of the visa petition: "The job opportunity
has been and is clearly open to any qualified U.S. worker."

Moore and Perrero claim Disney management told hundreds of
employees in the company's IT department to begin training visa
holders in October 2014 before layoffs the coming January. If the
employees did not stay and train their replacements, they would
not receive bonuses or a severance.

According to the complaint, Disney management told employees there
would be job openings for them, but only a few former workers were
ultimately hired.

Sara Blackwell of Sarasota-based The Blackwell Firm, who is
representing the plaintiffs, said this is a problem not just with
Disney but companies across the country.

"It is so prevalent but Americans don't know about it," she said.
"Hundreds of thousands of Americans have been losing their jobs
this way. . .  If you look at the tech field, the salaries are
super low and job security is really bad. Many Americans aren't
able to compete because of companies bringing these foreign
workers."

In a statement, Disney called the lawsuit "completely and utterly
baseless."

"The fact is that, since our reorganization, Disney Parks has
hired more than 140 US IT workers, and is currently recruiting
candidates to fill over 100 more IT positions," the statement
reads. "Additionally, we also rehired more than 100 workers
affected by the reorganization into other roles in the company.
The complaints by one of the plaintiffs, Ms. Moore, that she was
not offered a position are completely false -- she was offered a
position at comparable pay and turned it down. Those are the
facts."

Blackwell said Moore applied for "over a hundred jobs," but never
landed a position. Six months into a new job, Moore received a
call from Disney for a temporary project, Blackwell said, but the
start date was moved, so Moore stayed with her current employer.

Blackwell also questions Disney's claim of 100 rehirings.

"Show them to me," she said. "Send the jobs over!"

HCL and Cognizant did not respond to e-mailed requests for
comment.

H-1B visas have gained wider notice recently after Republican
presidential candidates Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump
tussled over the issue. The H-1B visa is the most popular work
visa and some of the candidates contend companies regularly abuse
them to hire cheap labor.

The lawsuit against Disney's use of H-1B visas is a first in the
country, said Blackwell, but probably won't be the last.

"I have more plaintiffs waiting in the queue," Blackwell said.
"All of these companies are on my hit list."


WASHINGTON COUNTY, UT: Sued Over Public Defender System Problems
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Miller, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that
one attorney has filed a proposed class action lawsuit on behalf
of criminal defendants who were given public defenders in
Washington County.  The lawsuit claims public defenders who work
those contracts are overworked, underpaid and are not given the
proper support to defend their clients.

The national standard case load for felony cases is 150 per year,
according to Hart.  But in 2015, one public defender said he and
another attorney in Washington County closed out 712 cases, and
540 of those were felony cases.  They were paid, on average, $140
per case.

Washington County administrator Dean Cox said they won't be making
any changes to their public defender contracts until they see what
happens at the Legislature, but pointed out that his county does
have a separate fund for defense experts and other expenses which
public defenders have access to.

"This is something that I take very seriously," Mr. Cox said.  "I
know that the county commission does, as well.  It benefits no one
when defendants are inadequately represented."


WAYFAIR: Gives Bogus "Discounts," Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Wayfair, an Internet
merchant specializing in furniture, offers bogus "discounts" from
false "original" prices, a class action claims in Los Angeles
Federal Court.


WEB.COM GROUP: Faces Class Suit over August Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Web.com Group's inadequate
security allowed a data breach of millions of people's credit
records and other personal information in August last year, a
class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court.


WHOLE FOODS: Calif. Judge Tosses PETA Suit with Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Francisco dismissed a fraud class action
against Whole Foods led by the People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, over ads touting the supermarket chain's high animal-
welfare standards.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins said the complaint brought
by the animal rights group was short on details about which ads
were misleading, but said they could file a third amended
complaint and try again.

PETA and Whole Foods shopper Lori Grass sued Whole Foods in
September 2015, targeting the high-end grocer's five-step animal
welfare rating system for meat suppliers as a "sham."

Whole Foods rolled out its five-step rating system developed by
the Global Animal Partnership in 2009, and expanded it nationwide
in 2011. All its suppliers must meet Step 1 standards to sell
products in Whole Foods stores, which say its suppliers use "no
crates, cages or crowding."

But PETA says suppliers fail to live up to even the lowest
standard, and Whole Foods only requires that they submit to one
scheduled audit every 15 months.

Neither Whole Foods nor PETA attorneys returned requests for
comment.

In dismissing PETA and Grass' false advertising claims with leave
to amend, Cousins said they must be more specific as to which ads
Grass relied on when buying meat at Whole Foods.

"For example, plaintiffs attach multiple exemplar photographs to
the complaint, but it is not clear in the photographs which
placards and signs they allege are illegal, are not preempted, and
were relied on by Grass," Cousins wrote.

Relying on a ruling by the California Supreme Court in In re
Tobacco II Cases, PETA's lawyers had argued that the group is not
required to prove individualized reliance on specific false
statements as long as they can show those ads were part of a long-
running ad campaign and that Grass relied on the campaign's
"cumulative message."

The argument did not convince Cousins, who wrote on Jan. 29 that
while PETA claims Whole Foods inundated its customers with signs,
placards and napkins for four years, "it is not clear from the
second amended complaint which signs and placards were deceptive
advertising, over what time period they were placed in the store
and Grass was exposed to them, and therefore whether the alleged
advertising campaign rises to the level required under Tobacco II.

PETA has until Feb. 16 to file an amended complaint.

The case captioned, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS
and LORI GRASS, Plaintiffs, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.15-cv-04301 NC (N.D. Cal.).


WORD ALIVE: Recalls Ceramic Mugs Due to Burn Hazard
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 10, 2015
Posting date: December 10, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Burn Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56220

This recall involves the following two styles of ceramic mugs:
Pastor's Wife model number 18208 and Serve with Gladness model
number 18209.

The Pastor's Wife mug is cream colour on the outside and teal on
the inside with the phrase "Pastor's Wife" on one side and "We
Always Thank God and Pray For You" on the other side.

The Serve with Gladness mug is cream colour inside and outside
with the phrase "Serve with Gladness" on one side and "Anyone who
loves is a child of God" inside a multi-coloured floral
arrangement on the other side.

Model number 18208 or 18209 is printed on a UPC sticker on the
bottom of the mug.

Hot liquids can seep through hairline cracks, posing a burn
hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Word Alive, Inc. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to
the use of this product.

The American importer, Lighthouse Christian Products, has received
one report of a consumer incident related to this product in the
United States.  Lighthouse Christian Products is not aware of any
injuries to consumers related to the use of this product.

Approximately 48 units of the "Pastor's Wife" and 18 units of the
"Serve with Gladness" recalled ceramic mugs were distributed in
Canada.

The recalled products were sold online from July 2015 through
October 2015 in Canada through Word Alive, Inc.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Chaozhou Fengxi Yuemang Ceramics Craft Manufactory
              GuangDong Province
              Fengxi Chaozhou City
              CHINA

Importer: Lighthouse Christian Products Co.
          Schaumburg
          Illinois
          UNITED STATES

Distributor: Word Alive, Inc.
             Winnipeg
             Manitoba
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ceramic mugs
and contact Word Alive, Inc. for return instructions to receive a
full refund.

For more information, consumers can contact Word Alive, Inc. toll-
free at 1-800-665-1468 between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CST, Monday
through Friday, or by email.

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/SX2OXZ


ZILLOW: Court Rejects Disclosure-Only Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
AllAboutAlpha reports that the Delaware Court of Chancery has
become increasingly hostile of late to lawsuits that challenge
corporate mergers on fiduciary grounds.  This is important,
because the course of recent decades certain boilerplate sorts of
lawsuits have become a regular feature of the mergers-and-
acquisitions landscape in the U.S.  The law has allowed certain
attorneys to make a regular and lucrative practice out of
challenging acquisitions, then quickly settling their challenges
on terms that involve some additional undramatic disclosures, six-
figure fees for the plaintiffs' attorneys, and little or nothing
else.

If the Chancery Court can force a cut back on that practice, it
will have redefined the M&A world, and the sorts of arb play that
operate within that world.

Zillow and Trulia

In the Trulia case, issued Jan. 22, the court continued this
trend, rejecting a disclosure-only settlement of a stockholder
class-action lawsuit challenging Zillow's acquisition of Trulia.
Each was an online real-estate database company.  They announced
the acquisition in July 2014.

Soon after that public announcement, four Trulia stockholders
filed what the court calls "essentially identical complaints"
saying that Trulia's directors had breached their fiduciary
obligation by approving the deal.  Before four months had passed,
though, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle on
settlement.

The complaints, and the settlement, are of a sort that has become
suspect because . . . well, it doesn't seem to help anybody other
than the plaintiff's lawyers.  The settlement agreement provides
for the lawyers' fees, but otherwise no money changes hands.

Does something else valuable change hands? Like, say  . . .
information? The settlement is structured to give that impression,
anyway.  It's a disclosure settlement: Trulia agreed to supplement
the already-released proxy materials with some additional
information.

But Chancellor Andre Bouchard concluded in his review of the
proposed settlement that "none of the supplemental disclosures
were material or even helpful to Trulia's stockholder's, and thus
the proposed settlement does not afford them any meaningful
consideration to warrant providing a release of claims to the
defendants.  Accordingly, I decline to approve the proposed
settlement."

Morgan's Analysis

The supplemental disclosure involved an analysis of the deal
drafted by JPMorgan.  What it added to the proxy disclosure that
had come about regardless of the lawsuit were the releases of
certain "synergy" numbers, comparable transaction multiples,
public trading multiples, and implied terminal EBITDA multiples
for a relative discounted cash flow analysis.

Some of that new information was not really new. Let's look at the
first item.  There were two synergies figures involved in Morgan's
analysis.  One was used as part of its "intrinsic value approach"
to valuation, the other as part of its "market based approach."
Both figures were present in the original proxy materials,
although the market based figure of $100 million was easier to
find.  The $175 million figure, pursuant to the intrinsic value
approach, was present in a table titled "Trulia Management
Estimated Synergies."  The "disclosure" of the $175 million figure
pursuant to the settlement amounted to the repetition of that
figure in another, more prosaic and methodological, context.

Chancellor Bouchard's opinion rejecting the settlement in this
particular case also cautioned attorneys who bring such actions,
and accept such settlements, quite generally, that they can expect
that the Chancery Court "will be increasingly vigilant in
scrutinizing" such proposals going forward.

A Fair Summary is a Summary

Plaintiffs originally made sweeping charges, going far beyond the
disclosure issue.  They maintained that Trulia's board had failed
to get the highest exchange ratio available in the stock-for-stock
deal, and that it had agreed to preclusive provisions that impeded
its ability to consider alternative, possibly superior proposals.
But, Chancellor Bouchard observes, the brief filed in support of
the motion for an injunction against the acquisition didn't argue
for the other issues, it focused entirely on the disclosure
claims, as if seeking simply to provide a platform for the
disclosure-centered settlement.

In December 2014, Trulia's shareholders provided overwhelming
support for the deal: 79.52% of the shares outstanding, and 99.15%
of those that were voted, voted in favor.  The deal closed in
February 2015.

This is, for Bouchard, a token of a type.  He writes that his
court's "willingness in the past to approve disclosure settlements
of marginal value and to routinely grant broad releases to
defendants and six-figure fees to plaintiffs' counsel in the
process have caused deal litigation to explode in the United
States beyond the realm of reason."

Was the J.P Morgan data that became public as a consequence of
this lawsuit of value to Trulia's stockholders in making up their
minds how to vote? Chancellor Bouchard cited a 2002 decision in
which the court found that when a board of directors relies on an
advisor in making a decision that then requires shareholder
approval, those shareholders are entitled to receive "a fair
summary of the substantive work performed by the investment
bankers."  But the fair summary is still a summary.  It need not
involve all the information on which the investment bank, Morgan
in this case, relied.

Chancellor Bouchard found that "the supplemental disclosure may
have added confusion more than anything else, because it lacks
explanatory context and does not clearly describe the nature of
management's estimate of synergies that was described in the
original Proxy."


* Data Breach Litigation Decisions Show Competing Trends
--------------------------------------------------------
Devin Chwastyk, Esq. -- dchwastyk@mwn.com -- of McNees Wallace &
Nurick LLC, in an article for Metroplitan Corporate Counsel,
reports that new decisions from two federal courts may allow
defendants in data breach class action litigation to breathe
somewhat easier, following a run of adverse decisions last year.
These decisions illustrate an emerging trend of district courts
dismissing such privacy claims for lack of standing.  Those
decisions run directly counter to some court rulings last year
that made it easier for plaintiffs to state a claim where their
information has been compromised.  These competing trends may
bring data breach litigation to the U.S. Supreme Court in the near
future.

Judicial decisions in 2015 brought plenty of bad news for
companies that collect and store personally identifiable
information of customers and employees.  As noted in the November
2015 issue of Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, last year saw the
Seventh Circuit rule that victims of data breaches may have their
day in court even where they suffered no actual fraud losses as a
result of their information being exposed.  In that case against
Neiman Marcus, the court found that efforts to prevent possible
future fraud, such as credit monitoring, are sufficient as damages
to provide plaintiffs with standing to sue.

Perhaps equally as troubling from a defense perspective, the U.S.
District Court for Minnesota last year certified a data breach
class action for the first time.  The court allowed financial
institutions to proceed as a class against Target for losses
incurred when hackers accessed payment card information belonging
to millions of customers.

Meanwhile, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals last year found that
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had authority to bring
enforcement actions against companies that are victims of hacking
attacks, on the basis that corporate security failures amount to
unfair and deceptive trade practices.

The new year, however, opens with some cause for optimism for
organizations threatened by the risk of data exposure litigation.
Two recent federal court decisions illustrate a trend to dismiss
cases where the individuals affected cannot show they suffered
actual financial harm due to fraud on their accounts.  The
contrast of these two decisions with the pro-plaintiff rulings
from last year may indicate potential for circuit split that would
allow a data breach case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

The federal court for the Eastern District of New York issued one
decision in favor of data breach defendants in the final days of
2015. In Whalen v. Michael [sic] Stores, Inc., the Michaels chain
of arts and crafts stores had been sued after hackers used malware
to retrieve customers' credit and debit card information from its
systems.  The complaint alleged that the class representative had
experienced two attempted fraudulent charges to her credit card,
but those transactions were not approved, and she cancelled her
card thereafter.  She further alleged damages in the form of lost
time and money associated with credit monitoring and card
replacement, and potential future harm arising from the continuing
risk of identity theft once her information had been exposed to
hackers.

The Michaels court held that class plaintiffs lack standing when
they assert only the potential risk of future harm. First, the
court noted that Whalen had not suffered any unreimbursed charges
to her accounts.  Even if the attempted fraudulent transactions
had been processed, the court noted, she would have been
reimbursed under the zero-fraud liability terms set by card
issuers.  Next, the court rejected as cognizable damages the
alleged loss of time and money associated with credit monitoring,
holding that plaintiffs may not manufacture standing by their
efforts to avoid potential future harm.

In a direct departure from last year's analysis by the Seventh
Circuit in Neiman Marcus, the New York court in Michael ruled that
the risk of future identity theft is not sufficient to establish
standing to sue.  Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's now familiar
Clapper standard (which was announced in a case challenging
government wiretaps), the court held such risk must be imminent
and substantial rather than merely possible to allow a lawsuit to
overcome a motion to dismiss.

Likewise, the U.S. District Court for Minnesota (the same court
that last year certified the Target class of financial institution
plaintiffs) started 2016 by dismissing, for lack of standing,
consumer claims against a retailer.  In the SuperValu class
action, 16 named plaintiffs brought claims alleging the grocer
defendants had negligently failed to protect the plaintiffs'
payment card information after hackers accessed the defendants'
systems.

The SuperValu decision, like the Michael ruling, dismissed the
putative class action for lack of standing because none of the
named class plaintiffs had alleged that they suffered actual fraud
losses as a result of the breach.  The court was especially
troubled by the numerous variables upon which the plaintiffs'
allegations of future harm rested, which included whether hackers
indeed still had possession of the stolen personal information,
and whether those hackers would in the future use the particular
card data belonging to the named class plaintiffs.

Of note, the SuperValu decision came from the same court that
allowed the Target data breach litigation to proceed over motions
to dismiss filed earlier in that case.  The distinguishing factor
appears to be the artful pleading of the plaintiffs' lawyers in
Target, who suggested that actual fraud losses had occurred that
may not have been remedied by the zero-fraud protection of
consumers.  In contrast, the complaint in SuperValu made clear
that only one of the 16 plaintiffs had seen an actual fraudulent
transaction on their payment card, and that transaction had been
cancelled, so there had been no real financial injury to that
plaintiff.

Although the Target and Neiman Marcus decisions may provide
adequate support for plaintiff's counsel to continue to bring
class actions whenever a data breach becomes public, the Michael
and SuperValu decisions are illustrative of a predominant trend:
Most federal courts are dismissing such claims in the absence of
actual fraud losses, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Clapper.  At least a dozen district courts have dismissed putative
data breach class actions for lack of actual injury since 2014.

Privacy lawyers now await an appellate court ruling affirming this
trend in the district courts.  A federal circuit court decision
that data breach claims cannot be maintained based on the threat
of future fraud against the plaintiffs would stand in direct
contrast to the Seventh Circuit's ruling in Neiman Marcus. This
would set up a circuit split, which might lead to a grant of
certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court
then would be left to decide whether the reasoning of its Clapper
decision has been properly applied in the context of data breach
litigation, and perhaps, to decide whether data breach claims will
have a future at all.




                            *********

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  * * *