CAR_Public/160210.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wendesday, February 10, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 29


                            Headlines


A SURE: Sued for Violating FLSA, Illinois Minimum Wage Law
ABM PARKING SERVICES: "Allman" Suit Hits Deceptive Park Signs
ACADIANA COMMUNITY: "Butler" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Motion to Dismiss Ariz. Case Pending
ALLIED REVENUE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hengesbach" Suit Says

ANAVEX LIFE: Faces "Cortina" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l. Reports
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Roberts" Suit Over Data Breach
ASHLEY FURNITURE: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks Compensatory Damages
ASURION INSURANCE: "Lee" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Declines Class Status in "Esquivel"

BANNER LIFE: Faces Junk-Fax Class Action in New Jersey
BAYER AG: Sued Over Defective Dr. Scholl's Orthotic Inserts
BIG HEART: To Vigorously Defend Pet Treats Class Action
BIG LOTS: Bid to Dismiss Ohio Securities Suit Pending
BIOMET: Judge Addresses "Commonality" Issue in Class Action

BONILLA & SONS: "Gonsalez" Suit Seeks Payment of OT, Unpaid Wages
BROADWAY REGENCY: "Omar" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum, OT Wages
CALERES INC: Scheduled to Make $1.5-Mil. Settlement Payment
CAMERON INTERNATIONAL: "Jones" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Court Takes Away Class Action Defense Tool

CAPELLON PHARMA: Faces "Family Care" Suit Over TCPA Violation
CASA FIESTA RESTAURANT: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Min., OT Wages
CAYMAN ISLANDS: Police Officers File Class Action v. RCIPS
CHARLOTTE SCHOOLS: Faces "Gadway" Suit for FLSA Violation
CHILDRESS DIRECTIONAL: "Leiker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

CIVITAN CENTER: Faces "Donadio" Suit Under FLSA, Ark. Wage Act
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Case Management Conference Pushed Back to May
COLLETON COUNTY, SC: Court Tosses Inmates' Suit
COMPLETION EQUIPMENT: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Payment of OT Wages
CONCIERGE APARTMENTS: Tenants File Fair Housing Law Class Action

CONSTANT CONTACT: "Myers" Sues Over Proposed Endurance Merger
CONTRA COSTA: 9th Cir. Reinstates Suit Against Public Attorneys
CREATIVEXTERIORS INC: Faces Suit in Colo. for Breach of Contract
CVB FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Revives Shareholder Class Action
CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over Dietary Supplement

D&P RECYCLE: Faces "Morocho" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DIAMOND FOODS: Settlement in Tortilla Chips Suit Granted Final OK
DIAMOND FOODS: Defending Class Suits over Snyder's-Lance Merger
EAGLEVILLE HOSPITAL: "Snyder" Suit Seeks Recover Unpaid Wages
EL SALTO: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages

EOS PRODUCTS: Social Media Pressure Prompts Lip Balm Settlement
FIFTH STREET: "Linde" Suit Seeks Recovery of Damages & Interest
FINISAR CORPORATION: 9th Cir. Revives Securities Class Suit
FIRST NATIONAL: "Norman" Suit Seeks to Recover Damages & Costs
FLINT, MI: Class Action Seeks Water Bill Refund

FLINT, MI: Faces New Class Action Over Water Crisis
FLORIDA ENERGY: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Tweedy" Suit Claims
FLUIDMASTER INC: "Smith" Suit Hits Defective Water Lines
FMA ALLIANCE: "Goldstein" Suit Seeks Redress Under FDCPA
FOOT LOCKER: Appeal in ERISA Class Suit Still Pending

FOOT LOCKER: Settlements in Employee Class Suits Approved
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Faces $900,000 Fine on Pollution Charges
FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Faces Derivative Class Action in Arizona
FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Settlement in Welfare Benefits Class Suit OK'd
G. WADE: Faces "Dickerson" Suit Seeking OT Wages Under FLSA

GC SERVICES: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
GC SERVICES: Faces "Guerrero" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies
GENERAL NUTRITION: Jury Selection in Class Action Trial Begins
GENERAL REVENUE: "Ortega" Suit Seeks to Recover Damages
GUAM: Seeks Supreme Court Review of Tax Refund Class Action

GULER INC: "Cabanas" Suit Seeks Recovery of Unpaid Overtime Pay
H&R BLOCK: Appeal in Compliance Fee Litigation Still Pending
H&R BLOCK: 8th Cir. Denies Petition for Rehearing in "Perras"
HEARTWARE INT'L: Robbins Arroyo Files Shareholder Class Action
HOME CARE: "Stewart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Pay

IMPERIAL BUFFET: Faces "Han" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
INSURANCE SERVICES: Law Firm Files Concrete Scheme Class Action
INTL FCSTONE: 2nd Amended Complaint in Securities Case Dismissed
JD PARKER: Doesn't Properly Pay Truck Drivers, "Laura" Suit Says
JOHN HANCOCK: Sued in New York Over Excessive Cost of Insurance

JOHN C HEATH: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hasanzadeh" Suit Says
JOVANI FASHION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
KANA HOTELS: Faces "Swiney" Suit Over Alleged Sexual Harassment
KLX ENERGY: Faces "Fortmann" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Class Action Over False Sale Prices Dismissed

LIBERTY TAX: Funded $5.3-Mil. Settlement Fund
LIBERTY TAX: Awaits Final OK of TCPA Class Action Settlement
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Defending "Gathmann-Landini" Class Suit
LYFT: Drivers Still Classified as Independent Contractors
MANGUAL'S GENERAL: Faces "Melendres" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MANTECH INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Breach
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss "Weigand" Overtime Suit Denied
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Bailey" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Reed" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Ribeiro" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Watson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Causey" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MCDONALD'S CORP: Sued Over Alleged Racial Discrimination
MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Class Action Over Mozzarella Sticks
MDL 2474: Form 8863 Cases Stayed Pending Arbitration

MERCEDEZ BENZ: Response Deadline in Digby Case Moved to March 14
MIDWESTERN WHEELS: Faces "Webb" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces JS Suit Over Sunday Afternoon Games
NATIONAL OILWELL: Faces "Stone" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NEW MIAMI, OH: Appeals Court OKs Speed Camera Class Action

NEW YORK: Truck Registration Fees Unconstitutional, Court Rules
NISEN SUSHI: Faces "Zeng" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bard" Suit Claims
PALMER SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Twining" Suit Claims
PETROBRAS: Must Face Class Action Over Bribery, Kickbacks Scandal

PRIORITY 1: Faces "Landry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Two Law Firms Settle Insurance Class Action
PRO PAINT: "Castro" Suit Seeks Recovery of Unpaid Overtime Pay
RED RIVER: "Pittard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT, Min. Wages
ROBONGI INC: "Zhang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Min., OT Wages

ROSS STORES: Wage & Hour Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
SCOT MURPHY: "Dones" Suit Seeks OT, Hits Illegal Termination
SEAGATE: Faces Class Action Over 3TB Consumer Hard Drives
SEAWORLD PARKS: Status Reports in "Anderson" Due April 11
SEMPRA ENERGY: SoCalGas Defending Class Suits over Leak

SHORTY'S SEAFOOD: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Hui" Suit Says
STAR PENN: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SYNDICAT DES COLS: Must Pay C$2 Million in Punitive Damages
TRANS UNION: "Dennis" Suit Proceeds; Bid to Stay Case Rejected
UNITED COLLECTION: Judge Says "Abplanalp" Case Should Be Stayed

URBAN LENDING: "Ragano" Seeks Payment of Backwages, Missed Breaks
UTI WORLDWIDE: Court Tosses "Angley" 2nd Amended Complaint
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over OrthoK Buttons-Price Hike
WATSCO INC: Sued in Fla. Over Unlawful Voting Power Transfer
WELLS FARGO: Judge Allows Calif. Mortgage Class Action to Proceed

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Pinkerton Law Files Class Action in Oklahoma
XOMA CORP: Response Deadline in "Fieser" Moved to Feb. 19


                            *********


A SURE: Sued for Violating FLSA, Illinois Minimum Wage Law
----------------------------------------------------------
Derissa Davis and Jennifer Johnson, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated known and unknown v. A Sure
Wing LLC, Diversified Restaurant Holdings Inc. and AMC Wings Inc.
Case 3:15-cv-01384 (S.D.Ill., December 18, 2015), arises under the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act for
Defendants' alleged failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly-
situated tipped employees all earned minimum wages.

A Sure Wing previously owned and operated 18 franchised
restaurants in Illinois and Missouri under the trade name "Buffalo
Wild Wings."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
     Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
     Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
     WERMAN SALAS P.C.
     77 West Washington, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 419-1008
     E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             msalas@flsalaw.com
             sarendt@flsalaw.com
             zflowerree@flsalaw.com


ABM PARKING SERVICES: "Allman" Suit Hits Deceptive Park Signs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Allman, individually and the class of those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ABM Parking Services, UCLA Medical
Parking Operations and John Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No.
SC125164 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, December 21, 2015),
seeks declaratory, injunctive and punitive damages and attorney's
fees for violation of the Los Angeles Valet Parking Laws and the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Plaintiff alleges the Defendant placed deceptive parking signages
in the guise of valet services and charge unknowing drivers $12.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laura B. Fleming, Esq.
      PAYNE & FEARS LLP
      Jamboree Center
      4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Tel: (949) 797-1221
      Fax: (949) 851-1212
      Email: lf@paynefears.com


ACADIANA COMMUNITY: "Butler" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lunda Joyce Butler, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Acadiana Community Based Services,
Inc., and Acadiana Alternatives Staffing, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 6:16-cv-00017 (W.D. La., Lafayette Division, January 7,
2016), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, compensation, and
credit for all unrecorded and uncompensated work required or
permitted by the Defendants, liquidated and/or other damages as
permitted by applicable law, and attorney's fees and costs.

Acadiana Community Based Services is a Louisiana corporation
domiciled in and with its principal place of business in
Lafayette, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth D. St. Pe, Esq.
          KENNETH D. ST. PE, LLC
          311 West University Avenue, Suite A
          Lafayette, LA 70506
          Telephone: (337) 534 4043


ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Motion to Dismiss Ariz. Case Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 9, 2015, that defendants await a court decision on their
motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "In March 2015, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court,
District of Arizona, against us and certain of our officers and
directors alleging that we made false or misleading statements or
material omissions in our previous disclosures regarding the
ID/AST System. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint
on July 21, 2015, which is pending before the Court.

"We believe the case is without merit and intend to defend it
vigorously. However, an adverse result could have a material
adverse effect upon our financial condition or results of
operations."


ALLIED REVENUE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hengesbach" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Hengesbach, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Allied Revenue Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01328-
GJQ-RSK (W.D. Mich., December 22, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Allied Revenue Services, LLC owns and operates a debt collection
firm in Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael O. Nelson, Esq.
      1104 Fuller Ave. NE
      Grand Rapids, MI 49503
      Telephone: (616) 559-2665
      E-mail: mike@mnelsonlaw.com


ANAVEX LIFE: Faces "Cortina" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l. Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Cortina, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Anavex Life Sciences Corp., Christopher U.
Missling, Sandra Boenisch and Athanasios Skarpelos, Defendants,
Case No. 1:15-cv-10162 (S.D.N.Y, December 30, 2015), seeks
damages, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs and other and further
relief in violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 promulgated thereunder.

Anavex is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery and
development of drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease,
central nervous system diseases, and various cancers. It is
headquartered in 51 West 52nd Street, 7th Floor, New York, New
York and the company shares are traded on NASDAQ.

Anavex had allegedly used a paid stock promoter to artificially
inflate the Company's share price and Anavex's public statements
were materially false and misleading. Anavex stock declined after
a series of public disclosures.

Cortina acquired Anavex securities at artificially inflated prices
lost susbtantially upon the revelation of the alleged corrective
disclosures.

Missling served as the Company's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
and President. Boenisch served as the Company's Principal
Financial Officer since October 2015 while Skarpelos is a director
of the Company and served as the Company's Principal Executive
Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Marc Gorrie, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, New York 10016
      Tel: (212) 661-1100
      Fax: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             mgorrie@pomlaw.com

- and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, Illinois 60603
      Tel: (312) 377-1181
      Fax: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Roberts" Suit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Lauren Roberts, Frank Bailey and Hank Maurer, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Anthem, Inc., and BCBSM, Inc. d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Minnesota, Defendants, Case No. 0:15-cv-04592-DSD-SER (D. Minn.,
December 30, 2015), seeks actual, punitive, treble, statutory and
exemplary damages, equitable relief, restitution, attorney's fees,
statutory costs, disgorgement of profits, and such other and
further relief under the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.
Sec. 45), Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1302d et. seq.) and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 6801).

In 2014 and 2015, Anthem, Inc. experienced one of the largest data
security breaches in history wherein cyber-attackers stole the
personal information of approximately 80 million Americans.

Plaintiffs enrolled in a Blue Cross and Blue Shield health plan
and paid premiums.

Anthem serves its medical members through its Blue Cross Blue
Shield licensee affiliates. They collect their clients' personal
information in their database.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
      Tel: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
             kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com


ASHLEY FURNITURE: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks Compensatory Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Alvarez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated; Silvia Rico, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., Ashley Homestores, Ltd.,
and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC604793 (Cal.
Super. Ct., County of Los Angeles, December 22, 2015), seeks
compensatory or exemplary damages as a result of Defendants'
actions of fraud by Concealment, unjust enrichment, breach of
implied, and warranty of merchant ability pursuant to the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False
Advertising Law.

Ashley Furniture Industries is the largest United States home
furnishings maker and retailer, headquartered in Arcadia,
Wisconsin. The company is owned by father and son team Ron and
Todd Wanek. Ashley Furniture manufactures and distributes home
furniture products throughout the world. Ashley HomeStores
operates as a home furnishings retailer. It offers living room
furniture, such as living room sets, sectionals, sofas/couches,
sofa sleepers, loveseats, chaises, accent chairs, chairs/ottomans,
recliners, futons, accent tables, media storage, and living room
accessories; bedroom furniture, such as bedroom sets, beds,
nightstands, chests, dressers/mirrors, armoires, benches, bedroom
storage, and bedroom accessories; and dining room furniture,
including kitchen/dining room sets, kitchen/dining room tables,
chairs/benches, barstools, and kitchen/dining room storage. The
Defendants are all Wisconsin corporations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mike Arias, Esq.
          Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
          ARIAS, SANGUINETTI,
          STAHLE & TORRIJOS, LLP
          6701. Center Drive West, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 844 9696
          Facsimile: (310) 861 0168
          E-mail: mike@asstlawyers.com
                  mikael@asstlawyers.com


ASURION INSURANCE: "Lee" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora Lee and Douglas Williams, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated individuals v. Asurion Insurance
Services, Inc., and Asurion Corp., Case No. 2:15-cv-02606-PGR (D.
Ariz., December 22, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of offering insurance coverage
and warranty support services against loss, theft, damage, and
malfunction of mobile devices, electronics, appliances, jewelry,
eyewear, sporting goods, fitness equipment, and outdoor power
equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen I. Leshner, Esq.
      STEPHEN I. LESHNER, P.C.
      1440 East Missouri Ave, Suite 265
      Phoenix, AZ 85014
      Telephone: (602) 266-9000
      Facsimile: (602) 266-9134
      E-mail:  steve@steveleshner.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      30 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail:  tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
               jrusch@johnsonbecker.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Declines Class Status in "Esquivel"
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Garland E. Burrell of the Eastern District of
California denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
the case ANTONIO ESQUIVEL and BEATRIZ ESQUIVEL, individually, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
No. 2:12-cv-02502-GEB-KJN (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Antonio and Beatriz Esquivelfell behind on their
mortgage payments and applied to Bank of America for an affordable
loan modification in order to avoid defaulting on their loan.
After successful completion of Bank of America's application
process and a three-month Temporary Payment Plan, the Bank offered
Plaintiffs a permanent Federal Housing Administration's Home
Affordable Modification Program (FHA HAMP) via an offer letter.

Plaintiffs contend that the offer constitutes a legally binding
offer of a permanent loan modification to each FHA loan borrower,
provided only that the borrower provides a notarized signature and
returns or returned the commitment letter, modification agreement,
and subordinate note. Plaintiffs contend a class-wide common issue
exists that plaintiff construes Bank of America's offer letter as
a legally binding offer, that the members of the class accepted.

Plaintiffs contend Bank of America breached the loan modification
agreement by failing to timely implement the terms of the
modification agreement, and that since such breaches are
systematic occurrences their motion should be granted. Plaintiffs
essentially argue that Bank of America fails to treat each
agreement as binding until the terms of the agreement are input
into its servicing system, even though the effective date of each
agreement is when it is or was executed.

Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that the Bank's delay in
implementing the terms of the FHA-HAMP modifications, whilst
continuing to collect unmodified loan payments, and reporting any
payment delinquencies to credit reporting agencies, constitutes a
breach of contract, and violates the Consumer Reporting Agencies
Act (Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1785, et seq., CRAA), the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1788,
et seq., the Rosenthal Act), and the Unfair Competition statute
(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections17200, UCL).

Plaintiffs seek class certification under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the following class: "All
California residential mortgage loan borrowers who, since August
15, 2009, signed and returned Bank of America's offer of a
permanent FHA HAMP modification agreement where Bank of America
recorded a lien in favor of the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development pursuant to the modification agreement.

Defendants opposed the motion.

A copy of Judge Burrell's order dated January 6, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/cbwEvlfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Joseph Mulligan --
dan@jmglawoffices.com -- at Jenkins Mulligan & Gabriel LLP; Eric
Andrew Mercer -- eric@ericmercerlaw.com -- at Mercer Legal; Noah
Zinner -- nzinner@heraca.org -- at Housing and Economic Rights
Advocates

Defendants, represented by Alyssa A. Sussman --
asussman@goodwinprocter.com -- James W. McGarry --
mmcgarry@goodwinprocter.com -- Steven A. Ellis --
sellis@goodwinprocter.com -- at Goodwin Procter LLP


BANNER LIFE: Faces Junk-Fax Class Action in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq. -- dklein@kleinmoynihan.com -- of Klein
Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on
January 27, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against a number of insurers, including Banner Life Insurance
Company and William Penn Life Insurance Company of New York
(collectively, the "Insurers"), alleging that they had violated
federal and New Jersey State junk-fax laws. Specifically, the
plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protect Act ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of
2005 (the "JFPA"), and the New Jersey Fax Statute.  Although none
of the defendants have made an appearance in the TCPA class
action, plaintiff has already filed a motion to certify a class.

How are the Insurers Alleged to have Violated the TCPA?

According to the complaint, the plaintiff, a New Jersey state
limited liability company, received an allegedly unsolicited fax
advertisement from the Insurers on February 21, 2013. According to
the complaint, the fax advertisement sent by or on behalf of the
Insurers is missing statutorily required "opt-out" language, in
violation of the JFPA provisions of the TCPA. The plaintiff seeks
to certify a class of:

All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of
this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of
material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any
property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and
(3) which Defendants did not have prior express permission or
invitation, or (4) which did not display a proper opt-out notice.

In the TCPA class action complaint, plaintiff makes the allegation
that any prior permission the Insurers may have had was negated by
the sending of a fax without proper opt-out language.  The
Insurers have until March 7, 2016 to oppose the plaintiff's
pending motion for class certification.


BAYER AG: Sued Over Defective Dr. Scholl's Orthotic Inserts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lowell Scott Weil, DPM and Weil Foot and Ankle Institute, LLC, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bayer AG, Bayer HealthCare LLC, Bayer Consumer Care,
LLC, Merck & Co., Inc. and MSD Consumer Care, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-11519 (N.D. Ill., December 22, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' developing, manufacturing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, distributing, labeling, and selling a product, known as
Dr. Scholl's Custom Fit Orthotic Inserts, which is, by its very
name purported to be a "custom fit orthotic" device, which it is
not.

The Defendants operate a life sciences and healthcare company,
which markets Dr. Scholl's foot care and other consumer product
businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael H. Moirano, Esq.
      Claire Gorman Kenny, Esq.
      Stephen A. Gorman, Esq.
      MOIRANO GORMAN KENNY, LLC
      135 S. LaSalle St., Suite 3025
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 614-1260
      E-mail: mmoirano@mgklaw.com
              cgkenny@mgklaw.com
              sgorman@mgklaw.com

         - and -

     Steven M. Levin, Esq.
     Margaret P. Battersby, Esq.
     Cari F. Silverman, Esq.
     LEVIN & PERCONTI
     325 North LaSalle Street, Suite 450
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Telephone: (312) 332-2872
     E-mail: sml@levinperconti.com
             mpb@levinperconti.com
             csilverman@levinperconti.com

         - and -

      William T. McGrath, Esq.
      DAVIS MCGRATH, LLC
      125 S Wacker Dr., Suite 1700
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 332-3033
      E-mail: wmcgrath@davismcgrath.com


BIG HEART: To Vigorously Defend Pet Treats Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
manufacturer of Milo's Kitchen dog and cat treats will "vigorously
defend" itself against allegations of label misrepresentation in
U.S. District Court, a company spokesperson said.

The allegations are part of a class action lawsuit filed Jan. 11
by Susan Fitzpatrick of Placer County, Calif., in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California.  The
lawsuit against Milo's Kitchen manufacturers Big Heart Pet Brands
and J.M. Smucker Co. disputes label claims that the dog and cat
treats are made in the United States.

The lawsuit claims this is not true because at least some of the
ingredients used to make Milo's Kitchen pet treats are produced
outside the United States.

This, the lawsuit claims, violates California's Unfair Competition
Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

"We will not be able to comment on pending litigation.  However,
we are planning to vigorously defend the case," said
Maribeth Burns, Smuckers head of corporate communications.

"I can confirm there are no other similar cases pending."

Smuckers acquired Big Heart Pet Brands in a $5.8 billion dealm
that included $2.6 billion of net debt, announced in February
2015. The acquisition marked Smuckers' expansion into the pet food
and snack market.  In addition to Milo's Kitchen, Smucker's also
acquired other pet food and snack brands, including Meow Mix,
Milk-Bone, Kibbles 'n Bits, 9Lives and Gravy Train.

While no other such lawsuit is pending against Big Heart Pet
Brands and Smuckers, the allegations are very similar to those in
another class action lawsuit also filed by Fitzpatrick and others
in the same court on the same day.

In the other case, Fitzpatrick is suing Tyson Foods, claiming
Tyson also is in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  That suit disputes claims by
Tyson on the labels of certain of its own pet products that those
treats as made in the United States.

The lawsuit claims that tapioca and vitamin, mineral, and amino
acid packs in those treats are sourced from outside the United
States.

At the heart of these allegations is how much of any product must
be entirely made in the United States before "Made in the USA" may
be included on its label. Only automobile, textile, wool, and fur
product manufacturers are required to disclose U.S. origin
content, according to information from the Federal Trade
Commission's website.

"There's no law that requires most other products sold in the U.S.
to be marked or labeled Made in USA or have any other disclosure
about their amount of U.S. content," says the FTC's website.

The FTC is the government commission that works to prevent
deception and unfairness in the marketplace.

However, other manufacturers that choose to make these claims must
also comply with the FTC's "Made in USA" policy.  Those policies
include how much and many of a product's components may be
produced outside the U.S., but assembled in the country, and still
bear the "Made in the USA" label.

Plaintiffs in the Big Heart Pet Brands and the J.M. Smucker Co
case are asking for a jury trial, actual and punitive damages,
monetary relief, interests, attorney fees and costs of the suit.
In the Tyson case, more than $5 million in monetary relief, actual
and punitive damages, interests, attorney fees and other costs is
being sought.

John E. Norris -- jnorris@davisnorris.com -- of Davis & Norris in
Birmingham, Ala., and by attorney Benjamin P. Tryk of Tryk Law in
Fresno, Calif., are the attorneys representing plaintiffs in both
cases.


BIG LOTS: Bid to Dismiss Ohio Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, 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' motion
to dismiss a securities class action complaint remains pending.

The Company said, "On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who acquired our
common shares between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012. This
lawsuit was filed against us, Lisa Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Mr.
Fishman and Mr. Haubiel. The complaint in the putative class
action generally alleges that the defendants made statements
concerning our financial performance that were false or
misleading. The complaint asserts claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees and
expenses."

"The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 4, 2013,
which added Mr. Johnson as a defendant, removed Ms. Bachmann as a
defendant, and extended the putative class period to August 23,
2012. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the putative
class action complaint, and that motion is fully briefed and
awaiting a decision."


BIOMET: Judge Addresses "Commonality" Issue in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Horkins, Esq. -- chorkins@casselsbrock.com -- of
Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports
that in a class action certification decision released on December
18, 2015, Justice Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice addressed what he called "the most contentious issue in
the certification of class actions, and especially product
liability class actions" -- the issue of commonality, and
specifically the level of merits-based evidence which is
appropriate to determine the issue for the purpose of class
certification.

What degree of evidence on the merits of the case is required to
determine commonality for certification? This question has been
hotly contested in product liability class actions.  In the
opening paragraphs of Dine v. Biomet, Justice Belobaba succinctly
described his view of the differing approaches taken by plaintiff
and defence counsel, stating:

Class counsel generally understands that only a minimal amount of
evidence is needed to satisfy the commonality requirement. Defence
counsel generally does not and presents far too much merit-based
evidence that has no place at certification and is better left for
trial.

This view clearly set the tone for his decision granting
certification of the class action.

Background to the Case

Biomet is a class action arising from three separate large head
metal-on-metal hip implant products manufactured by the Biomet
defendants which are alleged to have been inherently unsafe,
harmful to adjacent tissue and the cause of higher than average
levels of revision surgeries.

The only aspects of the certification test challenged by the
defendants were commonality and whether a class proceeding was the
preferable procedure. Justice Belobaba was dismissive of the
defendants' arguments that a class action was not preferable,
finding that the common issues presented were no different from
other certified medical product class actions in Ontario and that
their adjudication would meaningfully advance the issues
regardless of the ultimate outcome of the case.  As such, the
focus of his decision was commonality.

A Low Bar to Certification: Commonality and the "Some Basis In
Fact" Test

In addressing commonality, Justice Belobaba broke down the "some
basis in fact" test into two parts generally applicable to product
liability class actions: (a) whether there is some evidence
supporting the existence of a defect, and (b) whether there is
some evidence of class-wide commonality.  Stressing the low
evidentiary bar to certification, Justice Belobaba found that the
plaintiff had discharged its duty to show some evidence of both a
defect and commonality.

Although Justice Belobaba noted the defendants had filed
"extensive" and "compelling" evidence rebutting the plaintiffs
position on the merits of the case, he found this evidence to be
"irrelevant at the certification stage of the proceeding" and
stated that any adjudication on the merits should be reserved for
trial or summary judgment.

Aside from one common issue asking whether the defendants should
be compelled to establish a monitoring regime, which was not
certified, and a suggested amendment to clarify the common issue
with respect to punitive damages, all common issues were
certified.

Key Take-Away Principle

Justice Belobaba's decision raises an ever-present and troubling
issue for defence counsel in product liability cases.  If the
evidentiary bar to certification is really so low and if
extensive, and compelling evidence led to rebut the plaintiff's
evidence will be cast aside as "irrelevant", is there any value in
vigorously contesting motions for certification at all? Justice
Belobaba's decision seems to suggest not.  However, contrasted
with the decision released one day earlier by Justice Perrell in
Vester v. Boston Scientific Ltd. (also summarized above in this
newsletter), it appears that a degree of merits-based evidence by
the defence may be capable of defeating the "some basis in fact"
test for commonality after all.  This will most certainly continue
to be a hotly contested issue in future cases.


BONILLA & SONS: "Gonsalez" Suit Seeks Payment of OT, Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Santiago Gonsalez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bonilla & Sons, Inc., d/b/a Bonilla &
Sons, Inc. Construction, Alfonso Bonilla, and Manuel Bonilla, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00050 (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages,
interests, attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Bonilla & Sons is a construction company with its main office
located at Maspeth, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BROADWAY REGENCY: "Omar" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum, OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abubokkkor Omar, Khalid Ahmad, Saer Abdolkarim, Jorge Galindo, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. Broadway Regency Restaurant, LLC,
d/b/a PHD Terrace at Dream Midtown, Tao Licensing, LLC, and
Strategic Hospitality Group, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-00139-GBD (S.D.N.Y., January 7, 2016), seeks to recover minimum
wages, overtime pay, and wages for all time worked, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Broadway Regency Restaurant LLC operates a restaurant in New York,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeanne M. Christensen
          Tanvir H. Rahman
          WIGDOR LLP
          85 Fifth Avenue
          Telephone: (212) 257 6800
          Facsimile: (212) 257 6845
          E-mail: jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com
                  trahman@wigdorlaw.com


CALERES INC: Scheduled to Make $1.5-Mil. Settlement Payment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caleres, 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 during 2014, the
Company signed a settlement agreement to resolve a putative class
action lawsuit involving wage and hour claims in California for an
amount not to exceed $1.5 million. The court has granted final
approval of the settlement, pursuant to which the Company will pay
$1.0 million in attorneys' fees, costs of administering the
settlement and settlement payments to class members who submitted
claims. The Company was scheduled to make the payments necessary
to satisfy the settlement terms in the fourth quarter of 2015. The
reserve for this matter as of October 31, 2015 is $1.0 million.


CAMERON INTERNATIONAL: "Jones" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kustuss Jones, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Cameron International Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-
01140 (W.D. Tex., December 21, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Cameron International Corporation is a provider of pressure
control, processing, flow control and compression systems as well
as project management and aftermarket services for the oil and gas
and process industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Court Takes Away Class Action Defense Tool
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Gallimore, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
defendants can't moot class action lawsuits by offering to pay the
named plaintiff's claim in full, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
January.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v Gomez, the defense argued that since it
had offered to pay everything the plaintiff demanded, there was
nothing left for the court to decide on and the case should be
dismissed.

"The court took away a class action defense tool that we couldn't
really use anyway," said Mark W. Batten -- mbatten@proskauer.com -
- partner at Proskauer and co-head of the Class and Collective
Actions Group.  "It's not going to have a huge impact."

This defense rested on a 2013 ruling in Genesis HealthCare Corp. v
Symczyk.  In that case, the defendant had offered to pay the
plaintiff, and she had conceded that this mooted her personal
claim, but still sought to continue as a class representative.

The court said that she could not be class representative without
a personal claim.

"People were wondering whether the court might allow parties
defending class actions to just knock out the case by making a
full offer to the plaintiff," Mr. Batten said.  "That always
seemed to me like an extreme result that was not likely to be
sustained."

This theory was tested in Gomez.  The case involved Campbell-Ewald
Company, which had secured an agreement with the U.S. Navy to
develop a multimedia recruiting campaign aimed at young adults who
had opted-in to receive marketing text messages.

A subcontractor, Midmatics LLC, generated a list of 18 to 24 year
olds who had opted-in and transmitted the message to more than
100,000 recipients.

One of these was Jose Gomez, who was 40 years old and alleged that
he had not opted-in to receive text messages.  Mr. Gomez filed a
lawsuit claiming that Campbell had violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, which prohibits companies from using an automatic
dialing system to contact consumers without the recipients'
express written consent.

Campbell proposed to settle the claim by paying Gomez the full
amount.  He declined.  Campell moved to dismiss the case, claiming
that the offer mooted Mr. Gomez's claim.  The lower courts
rejected this argument.

""A lot of courts were not very sympathetic to that and not really
interested in allowing that to happen, in effect predicting that
would not work in front of the Supreme Court," Mr. Batten said.
"It appears that the lower courts who were hesitant to allow these
cases to be mooted were right."

In the Supreme Court's opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote,
"An unaccepted settlement offer has no force.  Like other
unaccepted contract offers, it creates no lasting right or
obligation."

The court was divided in this decision.  A dissenting opinion,
offered by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by justices
Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, stated, "Campbell has offered to
pay Gomez that amount, but it turns out he wants more.  He wants a
federal court to say he is right.  The problem for Gomez is that
the federal courts exist to resolve real disputes, not to rule on
a plaintiff's entitlement to relief already there for the taking."

Mr. Batten said the court didn't give an opinion on what would've
happened if the defendant paid.

"A lot of commentators are saying, well there's your answer,
instead of making the offer, just deposit the money somewhere," he
said.

"I think it's something that's not going to work and people are
reading way too much into this little loophole that the court left
open."


CAPELLON PHARMA: Faces "Family Care" Suit Over TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Family Care Partners of Northeast Florida, LLC, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Capellon Pharmaceuticals, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-
00007-RH-CAS (N.D. Fla., January 6, 2016), seeks to enjoin the
Defendant from engaging in future telemarketing in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; and seeks relief as is just
and equitable under the circumstances.

Capellon Pharmaceuticals is a foreign corporation with a principal
place of business at Worth, Texas.

          The Plaintiff is represented by:
          Tim Howard, Esq.
          HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          2120 Killarney Way, Suite 125
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Telephone: (850) 298 4455
          Facsimile: (850) 216 2537
          E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com

               - and -

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone(617) 738-7080
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com


CASA FIESTA RESTAURANT: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Min., OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Lopez, individually & on behalf of all similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Casa Fiesta Restaurant, Inc. & Jose Chavez,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA (ED. Ken.,
Frankfort Division, January 6, 2016), seeks minimum wage, unpaid
wages, overtime wage, and statutory damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Casa Fiesta Restaurant, Inc. offers authentic Mexican cuisine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
          Morgan & Morgan
          20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Tel: (407)420 1414
          Email bmazaheri@forthepeople.com


CAYMAN ISLANDS: Police Officers File Class Action v. RCIPS
----------------------------------------------------------
Cayman News Service reports that the Royal Cayman Islands Police
Association and 13 named officers have filed a human rights
petition in the Grand Courts against the police commissioner and
the attorney general claiming the enforced retirement of some
police officers at the age 55 and others at the age of 60 is
discriminatory.  The RCIPA also claims that officers recruited
from the UK are being treated differently when it comes to
retirement and that any officer who continues on contract after
retirement is forcibly demoted, which is also a breach of their
human rights.

The difference in retirement ages is as a director result of
changes to the police law, which means that anyone below the rank
of chief inspector who joined the RCIPS before November 2010 has a
fixed retirement age of 55, while their colleagues joining any
time after are not forced to retire until they are 60 years old.

The RCIPA as well as the serving and former police officers who
have filed the action said that officers from the UK are also
being given special treatment, since even those who joined before
2010 are not being forced to retire and are retaining their ranks
passed the retirement age while their local and Caribbean
colleagues are being demoted.

According to the petition, the police association claims that the
requirement, imposed by section 21(7) of the current police law,
that serving police officers retire at just 55 is not just
discriminatory but it interferes with the right to a private and
family life, claiming that as they said "private life" encompasses
the right to develop relationships with other people, including
those of a professional nature.

"It is in the course of their working lives that the majority of
adults have the opportunity to develop personal relationships,"
the police association stated in the legal action.  "In the case
of police officers, the nature of their occupation is such that
many of the relationships formed during their working lives are
particularly close and significant.  Members of the police force
form a small and close knit community where members provide each
other with mutual support . . . The requirement to retire at age
55 has tangible consequences for the material and emotional
well-being of the individual officers and their families."

The RCIPA has also raised the concern that officers who are being
forced to retire are able to continue to serve post retirement but
all of them are demoted.

"The requirement that any re-engagement must be at a reduced rank
of Constable or Senior Constable necessarily affects those of
higher rank by their loss of status and professional reputation,"
the police association said.  "By contrast with the Caymanian
officers and other officers recruited from Caribbean
jurisdictions, officers recruited to the RCIPS from the United
Kingdom before November 2010, and who are British by nationality
and non-gazetted officers are not required to retire at age 55.
Alternatively, if they are required to retire at age 55 they have
in practice been re-engaged without loss of rank."

The police association said the advantageous treatment of British
officers directly discriminates against their non-British
colleagues.  As a result of this discrimination, the rights of
non-UK officers under section 9 of the Bill of Rights have also
been breached, the lawsuit stated.

The petitioners describe the action by the police management as
"unlawful, irrational and disproportionate".  All of the officers
involved in the class action claim they want to continue serving
until they reach the age of sixty and at their attained rank, and
where officers have been required to resign and accept a demoted
position on contract, they did so "in reasonable mitigation of
their loss" since their personal relationships with work
colleagues had been adversely affected by the reduced rank.

The petition is asking the court to declare that the relevant
section of the police law is incompatible with sections 9, 16 and
19 of the Bill of Rights and are seeking damages for financial
losses arising out of their demotion.


CHARLOTTE SCHOOLS: Faces "Gadway" Suit for FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Gadway, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Charlotte County Public Schools, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00010-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla., Ft Myers Division,
January 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, minimum
wages, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Charlotte County Public Schools operates all public K-12 schools
in Charlotte County, Florida. It covers Port Charlotte, Punta
Gorda, Englewood, Rotonda West, Babcock Ranch and surrounding
areas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bill B. Berke, Esq.
          BERKE LAW FIRM PA
          4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
          Cape Coral, FL 33904
          Telephone: (239) 549 6689
          E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com


CHILDRESS DIRECTIONAL: "Leiker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Leiker, and all others similarly situated under 29 USC
216(B) v. Childress Directional Drilling, LLC, & Raymond C.
Childress, Case No. 4:15-cv-03694 (S.D. Tex., December 22, 2015)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are involved in oilfield services throughout the
country and specifically provide horizontal and directional
drilling services through oilfield workers and do more than
$500,000.00 per year in business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Telephone: (214) 706-0834
      Facsimile: (469) 339-0204
      E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz

         - and -

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      J. Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: info@l-b-law.com


CIVITAN CENTER: Faces "Donadio" Suit Under FLSA, Ark. Wage Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Caralee Donadio, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Civitan Center d/b/a Civitan Services, Case
4:15-cv-00774-BSM (E.D.Ark., December 18, 2015), seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, civil penalties and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant Civitan is a private, nonprofit domestic corporation,
managing the care provided to disabled persons through direct care
workers throughout the State of Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Caralee Donadio, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Case Management Conference Pushed Back to May
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, ordered the parties to
continue the initial case management conference, reset related
deadlines, and extend defendants' time to respond to the complaint
as modified by the court in the case JOHN MORAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. CLOVIS
ONCOLOGY, INC., PATRICK J. MAHAFFY, and ERLE T. MAST, Defendants,
Case No. 3:15-cv-05323-RS (N.D. Cal.)

On November 20, 2015, plaintiff John Moran filed a putative class
action complaint against defendants Clovis Oncology, Inc., Patrick
J. Mahaffy, and Erle T. Mast alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act),
15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.10b-5.

Related actions also arising under the Exchange Act and the PSLRA
have been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado alleging similar claims and facts against
some or all of the same defendants:

     1. Medina v. Clovis Oncology, Inc., et al., Case No.
        1:15-cv-2546 (D. Colo.; Filed November 19, 1015);

     2. Kimbro v. Clovis Oncology, Inc., et al., Case No.
        1:15-cv-2547 (D. Colo.; Filed November 19, 2015); and

     3. Rocco v. Clovis Oncology, Inc., et al., Case No.
        1:15-cv-2697 (D. Colo.; Filed December 14, 2015).

The parties agree that, in the interest of efficiency and the
conservation of resources, defendants' deadline to file a
responsive pleading to the complaint should be extended until
after the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The
parties believe that, in order to avoid the needless waste of the
court's and the parties' resources, it would be prudent to defer
the initial case management conference and related deadlines
including ADR deadlines until after the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.

The parties have stipulated and agreed that defendants Clovis
Oncology, Patrick J. Mahaffy, and Erle T. Mast accept service.
Defendants' deadline to file a responsive pleading to the
complaint is vacated and further, that, within 10 days following
appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, the parties will
confer and submit a proposed scheduling order to the court which
includes deadlines for lead plaintiff to serve a consolidated
complaint, and defendants to file any responsive pleadings.

The case management conference presently scheduled for February
18, 2016, along with any associated deadlines under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules including ADR deadlines,
is continued to May 12, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

The stipulation is entered into without prejudice to any party
seeking any interim relief. No party is waiving any rights,
claims, or defenses of any kind and the parties reserve the right
to seek further extensions of time as circumstances may warrant.
The parties have not sought any other extensions of time and the
parties do not seek to reset the dates for the purpose of delay.

Judge Seeborg approves the parties' stipulation and proposed order
and adopts the same as his stipulation and order.

A copy of Judge Seeborg's stipulation and order dated January 7,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/Z3zYSDfrom Leagle.com.

John Moran, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- at
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Defendants represented by Aaron Christopher Humes --
ahumes@sycr.com -- John Francis Cannon -- jcannon@sycr.com -- at
Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, P.C.


COLLETON COUNTY, SC: Court Tosses Inmates' Suit
-----------------------------------------------
District Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks of the District of South
Carolina adopts a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation,
and dismisses without prejudice the case, We the People,
Plaintiff, v. Andy Strickland, Jodie Taylor, Matthew Walker, David
Matthew, Colleton County Sheriff's Officer, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 6:15-cv-00698-BHH (D. S.C.)

Twenty-four prisoners at the Colleton County Detention Center,
proceeding pro se, initiated a civil rights action on behalf of
the unincorporated association "We the People". Plaintiff alleged
that defendants Andy Strickland, Jodie Taylor, Matthew Walker,
David Matthew, and Colleton County Sheriff's Officer violated the
First, Fifth, Sixth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The suit was then referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin
F. McDonald, for pretrial handling and a Report and
Recommendation.

Magistrate Judge McDonald has recommended that the court dismiss
the complaint without prejudice.

Plaintiff filed its objection, as well as a motion to
amend/correct the complaint. Plaintiff wishes to pursue a class
action lawsuit, but realizes that it was done not in the right
form. Plaintiff asks to amend the complaint to hopefully correct
the matter.

Judge Hendricks adopts the Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendation and denies plaintiff's motion to amend.  Judge
Hendricks dismisses the suit without prejudice and without
issuance and service process.

A copy of Judge Hendricks' opinion and order dated January 7,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/4y5GW7from Leagle.com.

We the People, Plaintiff, represented by We the People Pro Se

Jimmy Duncan, Plaintiff, Pro Se


COMPLETION EQUIPMENT: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Payment of OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Completion Equipment Rental, Inc. and
Richard A. Prudhomme, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00521 (S.D.
Tex., Corpus Christi Division, December 30, 2015), seeks to
recover withheld back wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and other and further
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec.
201.

Completion Equipment Rental, Inc. is a Texas corporation doing
business in the State of Texas. It is an oilfield company
specializing in rental equipment and services for the oil and gas
industry throughout South Texas and the surrounding Eagle Ford
Shale area where Hernandez worked as a flow-back
operator/supervisor. He was paid a fixed salary plus job bonus/day
rate, but did not receive time and a half for all hours worked in
excess of forty hours in a workweek.

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
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com
             aanderson@phippsandersondeacon.com


CONCIERGE APARTMENTS: Tenants File Fair Housing Law Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to KMSP's Maury Gloverin November, Fox 9 reported on
some changes coming to one of the largest apartment complexes in
the metro.  Now some of the tenants are fighting back with a
federal lawsuit.

The Concierge Apartments in Richfield are getting granite counter
tops, a golf simulator, and even a pet spa.  Now, a new federal
class action lawsuit claims the nearly 700 unit complex is getting
its facelift at the expense of some of the residents who already
live there.

"It's been like living in a construction zone," said
Linda Soderstrom who has lived at the Concierge Apartments,
formerly known as the Crossroads, for five years.  Now she says
she has to find a new place to live because the new owners will no
longer accept Section 8 vouchers.

"I don't know why he had to get rid of everybody. Eventually
everyone has to leave," Ms. Soderstrom said.

She is one 35 current and former tenants filing a federal lawsuit
claiming the new owner and management company are violating the
Fair Housing Act.  The suit says by raising the rent 30%, refusing
to participate in government programs, and requiring a minimum
credit score of 625, the owner is not only trying to upgrade the
buildings, but the tenant population as well.

"What they are trying to do is remarket the building to young
urban professionals and force out the large number of disabled,
minorities, low income, and people dependent on government
programs," said Tim Thompson of the Housing Justice Center.

The suit wants the owner, Soderberg Apartment Specialists, to back
off the stricter requirements that could force up to half of the
people who live there to move out by the end of May.

"The question is whether they could achieve their business goals
which are making a good profit and rate of return for investors
without causing all the discrimination and displacement and we
think they can do that," said Thompson.

Ms. Soderstrom has until her lease runs out at the end of October,
but she'd rather not move if she doesn't' have to.

"My first choice would be to stay here in my home and if I were to
move it would be at the time and place of my own choosing."

The housing justice center may also seek a temporary injunction to
prevent Soderberg from acting on their new rental requirements
until the case is heard in court.


CONSTANT CONTACT: "Myers" Sues Over Proposed Endurance Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
David V. Myers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Gail Goodman, Robert P. Badavas, John
Campbell, Jay Herratti, Julie M. B. Bradley, William S. Kaiser,
Daniel T. H. Nye, Lisa Weinstein, Constant Contact, Inc.,
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. and Paintbrush
Acquisition Corporation, Case No. 58324616 (Del. Ch., December 21,
2015), seeks injunctive relief, damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees and further equitable relief for breach of fiduciary duties.

Constant Contact is to be acquired by Endurance International
Group Holdings, Inc. and its stockholders will receive $32.00 per
share in cash. Plaintiff is a stockholder of Constant Contact and
believes that the merger undervalues Constant Contact and that the
consideration is inadequate.

Constant Contact is a Delaware corporation that maintains its
principal executive offices at 1601 Trapelo Road, Waltham,
Massachusetts 02451. It is a provider of online marketing tools
that are designed for small and medium sized businesses and non-
profit organizations to include e-mail, social media, events,
local deals, online listings and surveys. Gail Goodman, Robert P.
Badavas, John Campbell, Jay Herratti, Julie M. B. Bradley, William
S. Kaiser, Daniel T. H. Nye and Lisa Weinstein are members of the
Board of Directors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

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

            - and -

      Alfred G. Yates, Jr.
      Gerald L. Rutledge
      LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
      519 Allegheny Building
      429 Forbes Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 391-5164


CONTRA COSTA: 9th Cir. Reinstates Suit Against Public Attorneys
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed in
part, reversed in part and remanded the appealed case JOHN FARROW
and JEROME WADE, on their behalf, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROBIN LIPETZKY,
Contra Costa County Public Defender, Defendant-Appellee, No. 13-
16781 (9th Cir.)

John Farrow and Jerome Wade appeal from a district court order
granting Robin Lipetzky's motion to dismiss their putative class-
action complaint. Plaintiffs allege that defendant arbitrarily
withheld legal representation to indigent, in-custody, criminal
defendants in felony and misdemeanor matters for a period of 5 to
13 days after their initial court appearance, and sometimes
longer, as a matter of policy, thereby violating their
constitutional rights to counsel, due process, and equal
protection.

Plaintiffs rely on California Penal Code Section 859b, which
provides that a defendant is entitled to a preliminary examination
within 10 court days of the date the defendant is arraigned or
pleads, whichever occurs later.

Their complaint also alleges that Lipetzky deprived Wade of
counsel for seven days after his initial appearance, deprived
Farrow of counsel for 13 days after his initial appearance, and
sometimes withheld counsel from indigent defendants for periods
exceeding 13 days.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in par the
district court's decision; and remanded the case for further
consideration.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's memorandum dated January 8, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/4exlhcfrom Leagle.com.

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit panel consists
of Circuit Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, William A. Fletcher and
Margua.


CREATIVEXTERIORS INC: Faces Suit in Colo. for Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
Venancio Torres-Vallejo, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Creativexteriors, Inc.
and Jeffrey Miller, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-02832 (D. Colo.,
December 30, 2015), seeks statutory damages resulting from breach
of contract, overtime premium in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Colorado Constitution Art. XVIII Sec. 15.

Defendant CreativExteriors, Inc. is a corporation organized under
the laws of the State of Colorado engaged in the business of
providing landscaping services. Venancio Torres-Vallejo worked as
a landscape laborer from 2012-2015.

Plaintiff did not receive the mandatory overtime premium for hours
rendered in excess of 40 per workweek, usually in the form of pre-
shift and post-shift work. They also performed work not described
in their Forms 9142, being Mexican in nationality, and received
salaries lower than the prevailing wage applicable to those jobs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris Hoffman, Esq.
      HOFFMAN, SHEFFIELD, SAUSEDA & HOFFMAN PLLC
      600 Grant St., Ste 450
      Denver, CO 80203
      Tel: (303) 333-2200
      Fax: (806) 376-5345
      Email: choffman@hsshlaw.com

            - and -

      Edward Tuddenham, Esq.
      228 W. 137th St.
      New York, New York 10030
      Tel: (212) 234-5953
      Fax: (512) 532-7780
      Email: etudden@prismnet.com

            - and -

      Gregory Schell, Esq.
      FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
      508 Lucerne Ave.
      Lake Worth, FL 33460
      Tel: (561) 582-3921
      Fax: (561) 582-4884
      Email: greg@floridalegal.org


CVB FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Revives Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
appeals court on Feb. 1 revived a proposed class action lawsuit
accusing CVB Financial Corp, the parent of California's Citizens
Business Bank, of defrauding shareholders by concealing troubled
loans it made to its largest borrower.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California,
said the announcement of a Securities and Exchange Commission
probe related to an alleged misrepresentation, coupled with a
later revelation that the misrepresentation was indeed inaccurate,
can amount to a "corrective disclosure" for the purpose of showing
that fraud caused shareholder losses.


CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over Dietary Supplement
--------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a proposed
class action lawsuit filed on Feb. 5 accuses CVS Pharmacy Inc of
falsely claiming that a dietary supplement has been proven to
improve memory.

New York resident Jeffrey Worth and Florida resident Robert Burns
brought the suit in federal court in Central Islip, New York. Both
purchased the supplement, Algal-900 DHA, and found that it did not
work as advertised, the complaint said.


D&P RECYCLE: Faces "Morocho" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glenda Morocho, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. D&P Recycle Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
07294-ILG-VMS (E.D.N.Y., December 22, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

D&P Recycle Inc. owns and operates a recycling center located at
5313 97th Pl, Corona, NY 11368.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      Marisol Santos,Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com
              msantos@hanglaw.com


DIAMOND FOODS: Settlement in Tortilla Chips Suit Granted Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Foods, 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 settlement
reached in the labeling class actions related to the Company's
TIAS tortilla chip product has been granted final approval.

On January 3, 2014, Deena Klacko first filed a putative class
action against Diamond in the Southern District of Florida,
alleging that certain ingredients contained in the Company's TIAS
tortilla chip product were not natural and seeking damages and
injunctive relief. The lawsuit alleged five causes of actions
alleging violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied
warranty for particular purpose, breach of express warranty and
the Magnuson-Warranty Act. The complaint seeks to certify a class
of Florida consumers who purchased TIAS tortilla chips since
January 3, 2010.

On January 9, 2014, Dominika Surzyn brought a similar class action
against Diamond relating to the TIAS tortilla chips in federal
court for the Northern District of California. Surzyn purports to
represent a class of California consumers who purchased said
Kettle TIAS products since January 9, 2010.

On April 2, 2014, Richard Hall filed a putative class action
against the Company in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging that
certain ingredients contained in the Company's Kettle Brand chips
and TIAS tortilla chips are not natural and seeking damages and
injunctive relief. The complaint purports to assert seven causes
of action for alleged violations of California's Business and
Profession's Code, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
for restitution based on quasi-contract/unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff purports to bring this action on his own behalf, as well
as on behalf of all consumers in the United States, or
alternatively, California, who purchased certain of Diamond's
Kettle Brand Chips or Kettle Brand TIAS tortilla chips within four
years of the filing of the complaint.

The Company denies all allegations in these cases. Following
mediation and settlement discussions among plaintiffs' counsel in
Klacko, Surzyn and Hall, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement, and it is expected that this settlement will resolve
all claims on a nationwide basis and include: Diamond to take
certain injunctive relief measures to confirm labeling compliance
matters; establishment of a $3.0 million common fund for claims
made available to the class and for the payment of class
administration and attorneys' fees; and any funds unclaimed by the
class to be provided cy pres to a charity as a food donation. The
Company recognized the related settlement charges within the
consolidated financial statements for fiscal 2014.

On October 30, 2014, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and on July 20, 2015 the court granted final approval
of the settlement.


DIAMOND FOODS: Defending Class Suits over Snyder's-Lance Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Foods, 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 in connection with
the announcement of the proposed merger with Snyder's-Lance, Inc.,
beginning on November 10, 2015, the first of several putative
class action complaints was filed on behalf of purported Diamond
stockholders; three in the Superior Court of California, San
Francisco County and one in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. The complaints variously name as defendants Diamond, the
members of the Diamond board of directors, Snyder's-Lance, Merger
Sub I and Merger Sub II. The complaints generally allege, among
other things, that the members of the Diamond board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Diamond stockholders in
connection with negotiating, entering into and approving the
proposed merger agreement, and that Diamond, Snyder's-Lance, and
the merger subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches of
fiduciary duties. The complaints seek, among other relief,
injunctive relief, including to enjoin completion of the proposed
merger, certain other declaratory and equitable relief, damages,
and costs and fees.


EAGLEVILLE HOSPITAL: "Snyder" Suit Seeks Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Snyder, Adrienne Galt and Nancy Murphy, for themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Eagleville Hospital,
Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-06851-CMR (E.D. Penn., Miami Division,
December 31, 2015), seeks compensatory damages, unpaid wages and
prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and litigation costs,
injunction and further relief in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq. and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, 43 P.S. Sec. 333.101, et
seq.

Snyder worked as a full-time mental health tech for the Defendant
whose primary work responsibilities included admitting patients,
taking vital signs, providing patient care, completing paperwork
and responding to emergency situations. Galt and Murphy worked as
full-time registered nurses for the Defendant.

Plaintiffs claim to have missed meal periods on numerous occasions
because of the nature of their profession.

Defendant is a Pennsylvania non-profit and non-stock corporation
operating a certified 308-bed acute care hospital that provides a
wide range of services relating to the treatment of substance use
disorders. It operates in Montgomery County, PA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Cohen, Esq.
      604 Spruce Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Tel: (215) 873-4836
      Email: dcohenlaw@comcast.net


EL SALTO: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gladys Baires v. El Salto, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03911-JKB (D.
Md., December 22, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

El Salto, Inc. operates a restaurant on Richie Highway in Ann
Arundel County, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen B. Lebau, Esq.
      Gregg H. Mosson, Esq.
      LEBAU & NEUWORTH, LLC
      606 Baltimore Avenue- Suite 201
      Baltimore, MD 21204
      Telephone: (410) 296-3030
      Facsimile: (410) 296-8660
      E-mail: sl@joblaws.net
              gm@joblaws.net


EOS PRODUCTS: Social Media Pressure Prompts Lip Balm Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Forshee, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that in
early January, the trendy lip balm company Eos Products LLC was
hit with a class action lawsuit alleging its product causes severe
dryness, bleeding and blistering. Accompanying the news was a
selfie of the lead plaintiff, Rachael Cronin, in which her lips
appeared red, dry and swollen, a photo that went viral across
Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Eos made headlines again on Jan. 28 by announcing it settled the
case less than three weeks after Cronin sued.  The settlement
terms, which must be approved by a judge, are not yet public so
it's unclear if Eos made a cash payment.  In a statement, Cronin's
famed lawyer, Mark Geragos, did say that Eos will be "adding more
information about their lip balm products on packaging so that
buyers can make informed choices."

Eos likely settled because it couldn't afford more bad publicity,
says Paul Sweeney Jr., a commercial litigator with K&L Gates in
Los Angeles who wasn't involved in the case.  Mr. Sweeney notes
that Eos uses extensive social media to advertise and promote its
product.  "Any company that lives by that media can also die by
that media," he says.

Eos likely also felt additional pressure to settle because it has
a roster of powerful celebrity spokeswomen such as Miley Cyrus,
Kim Kardashian, Emma Roberts and Taylor Swift.  "[Eos] can't
afford to put those celebrity endorsers in jeopardy," Ms. Sweeney
says.  And if they ditch Eos, the company could struggle to find
future endorsers.

Mr. Geragos' firm filed similar suits against Eos in four other
states: Florida, Illinois, New York and Ohio.  But based on his
statement, settlements could very well be underway in those cases
as well.  In addition to praising Eos for amending its
advertising, Mr. Geragos said the company "makes great products"
and has been "responsive to the concerns of their customers."
That's quite a reversal, considering that his complaint on behalf
of Cronin claimed that "Eos lip balm has caused a massive health
crisis."

According to Mr. Sweeney, Eos' decision to agree to corrective
advertising was wise.  The new language lets customers know there
are unique instances where Eos' products can cause a reaction.
Also, it signals to regulators that the company has nothing to
hide.  "It's the best way to put it behind you," he says.

Eos declined to comment for this article but said in a statement
that "we love our customers and their enjoyment of our products is
our top priority."


FIFTH STREET: "Linde" Suit Seeks Recovery of Damages & Interest
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald K. Linde, Maxine H. Linde, the Ronald and Maxine Linde
Foundation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Fifth Street Asset Management
Inc., Leonard M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C.
Frank, Steven M. Noreika, Wayne Cooper, Mark J. Gordon, Thomas L.
Harrison And Frank C. Meyer, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
00025 (D. Conn., January 7, 2016), seeks to recover damages and
interest, rescissory damages, reasonable costs and attorneys'
fees, and equitable/injunctive or other relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.

Fifth Street Asset Management is a nationally recognized asset
manager that provides credit solutions to small and mid-sized
businesses.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan P. Whitcomb, Esq.
          DISERIO MARTIN O'CONNOR
          & CASTIGLIONI LLP
          One Atlantic Street
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 358 0800
          Facsimile: (203) 348 2321
          E-mail: jwhitcomb@dmoc.com

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392 0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392 0029


FINISAR CORPORATION: 9th Cir. Revives Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, reversed the
dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings, the case entitled
In re: Finisar CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION. OKLAHOMA
FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff-Appellant.
v. FINISAR CORPORATION; JERRY s. RAWLS; EITAN GERTEL; KURT ADZEMA,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 13-17199 (9th Cir.)

Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System
alleged that, between September 8, 2010, and March 8, 2011,
defendants Finisar Corporation, Eitan Gertel, Jerry S. Rawls, and
Kurt Adzema made statements denying that they knew that Finisar's
customers were building inventory beyond actual production demand.
Plaintiff brought a putative class action under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

Plaintiff's first amended complaint alleged that the denials were
materially false and misleading because, during annual contract
negotiations between defendants and Finisar's customers, customers
would have discussed inventory levels and defendants would have
learned that customers were stockpiling inventory.

The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to adequately
plead falsity. Plaintiff appealed.

The Ninth Circuit said the Plaintiff adequately pleaded falsity
even under the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(b)(1).

A copy of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit's
memorandum dated January 8, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/1fWcoafrom Leagle.com.

The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Kim McLane
Wardlaw, Susan Graber and Margua.

                           *     *     *

Finisar said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 10, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended November 1, 2015, that several securities class action
lawsuits related to the Company's March 8, 2011 earnings
announcement alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, have been filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased
stock between December 1 or 2, 2010 through March 8, 2011. The
named defendants are the Company and its Chairman of the Board,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. To date, no
specific amount of damages has been alleged. The cases were
consolidated, lead plaintiffs were appointed and a consolidated
complaint was filed.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. On January 16,
2013, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
and granted the lead plaintiffs leave to amend the consolidated
complaint. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on February
6, 2013. Thereafter, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss
the case.

On September 30, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's
motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. On October 25, 2013,
the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the District
Court's dismissal ruling, and the appeal is pending. Oral
arguments were scheduled for December 10, 2015.


FIRST NATIONAL: "Norman" Suit Seeks to Recover Damages & Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emanuel Norman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. First National Collection Bureau,
Inc., and National Credit Adjustment Group, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00065-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., Indianapolis Division,
January 6, 2016), seeks to recover actual and statutory damages,
costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees under Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA).

First National Collection Bureau (FNCB), Nevada Corporation, is a
family-oriented, privately held corporation that is based in
Northern Nevada. FNCB has expanded its presence across the country
due to its reputation for consistent success in helping its
clients improve their cash flow via cutting-edge technology,
advanced systems, creative customer-solutions, exemplary customer
service and dedicated, efficient personnel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road,  Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974 2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974 2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  angiekrobertson@aol.com

               - and -

          John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
          STEINKAMP LAW
          5214 S. East Street
          Suite D1
          Indianapolis, Indiana 46227
          Telephone: (317) 780 8300
          Facsimile: (317) 217 1320
          E-mail: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


FLINT, MI: Class Action Seeks Water Bill Refund
-----------------------------------------------
Roberto Acosta, writing for MLive, reports that a class-action
lawsuit filed Feb. 2 is seeking $150 million to help refund water
bills to thousands of Flint residents and money to repair lead
pipes leading to homes.

The lawsuit, filed against Gov. Rick Snyder, his emergency
managers, the state and city of Flint, alleges officials were
aware of problems with the city's water supply, but took steps to
keep residents from finding out.

Baltimore attorney William "Billy" Murphy, Jr. said he was
contacted in regards to "explore the possibility of filing a
lawsuit that would compensate the citizens of Flint, Michigan for
paying for water which was incredibly dangerous and was not what
they were supposed to be getting for their money."

He said the suit includes $75 million for a refund of water bills
to more than 30,000 residents and an additional $75 million to aid
in replacement of pipes leading to homes and incidental damage to
items such as water heaters and water pumps caused by lead.

"For the refunds not to have already taken place just as an act of
Christian charity, because the city, the state, the local
government officials, the governor all know that this was
catastrophically wrong and that the citizens should not be made to
add insult to injury by having to pay for dangerous, dirty, non-
drinkable, non-usable water," said Mr. Murphy.

Officials put city residents in "continuous and ongoing danger by
misrepresenting that the toxic water was safe and fit for human
use and consumption," according to the lawsuit.

The claims point to recent documents released that show state
employees in Flint were receiving bottled water while officials
continued to tell residents the city's water system was fine.

Dave Murray, press secretary for Snyder, said in a statement that
"It would be inappropriate to discuss pending litigation."

"Gov. Snyder remains focused on helping the people of Flint,
committed to addressing immediate needs as well as challenges
residents may face long into the future," he said.

Mr. Murphy said part of their theory behind the 12-count suit is
that "when the government creates a harm to its citizens, the
citizens are entitled to fair compensation as a result of the
injury caused by that harm."

In regards to filing the suit as a class action, attorney
Susan L. Burke said the course of action fits "because there are
so many people it would be inappropriate to bring them one at a
time."

"You wouldn't want to file 31,000 lawsuits separately each to get
back the refund," she said, as part of the legal team behind the
lawsuit that includes attorney Val Washington.

Ms. Washington added "There are common issues of law and fact that
arise out of the breach, the conduct, the misconduct that apply to
everyone that's in the class (action lawsuit)."

No response has been filed in the case.


FLINT, MI: Faces New Class Action Over Water Crisis
---------------------------------------------------
Gary Ridley, writing for MLive, reports that a new class-action
lawsuit has been filed claiming state and local leaders conspired
to deny any trouble with the city's water supply while
discriminating against residents by providing clean water to state
office workers here.

The lawsuit was filed Jan. 31 in Detroit U.S. District Court by
Flint attorney Valdemar L. Washington and Baltimore-based attorney
Susan L. Burke.  It is expected to be announced during a press
conference Feb. 2.

The lawsuit, filed against Gov. Rick Snyder, his emergency
managers, the state and city of Flint, alleges officials were
aware of problems with the city's water supply, but took steps to
keep residents from finding out.

Officials put city residents in "continuous and ongoing danger by
misrepresenting that the toxic water was safe and fit for human
use and consumption," according to the lawsuit.

The claims point to recent documents released that show state
employees in Flint were receiving bottled water while officials
continued to tell residents the city's water system was fine.

Documents released Jan. 28, by Progress Michigan include a
"facility notification" advising state employees that they would
be provided water coolers on each occupied floor of the State
Office Building, 125 E. Union St.

The notice was issued just days after Flint officials warned water
customers of elevated levels of total trihalomethanes (TTHM) in
the water supply.

During the same period, lead-in-water levels were also on the
rise, according to Flint's own testing, eventually leading to the
declaration of a federal emergency in the city because of concerns
about lead poisoning and damaged infrastructure.

The suit is also seeking damages for residents who continued to
pay for safe, clean water but were instead delivered potentially
toxic water.

"Defendants' acts, under color of law, without legal justification
or constitutional authority, acts that unilaterally lead-polluted
and Legionella-infected the city's water supply, turning it into
poison in the process, thus interfering with the class'
constitutional right to contract for the purchase of safe and
potable water," the lawsuit alleges.

Nine people have died and nearly 80 others were victimized by a
Legionella outbreak in the Flint area since the beginning of 2014.
Officials have investigated a potential link to the city's water
supply, but a source of the outbreak has not yet been identified.

"It would be inappropriate to discuss pending litigation," said
Snyder's Press Secretary Dave Murray.  "Gov. Snyder remains
focused on helping the people of Flint, committed to addressing
immediate needs as well as challenges residents may face long into
the future."

No response has been filed in the case.


FLORIDA ENERGY: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Tweedy" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Arla Tweedy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Florida Energy Water & Air, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-
02148-GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla., December 21, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited telemarketing calls to
the telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for
all persons injured by its conduct.

Florida Energy Water & Air, Inc. provides air conditioning,
insulation, air purification, solar energy, and bathroom
remodeling services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC
      201 S. Biscaynve Blvd., 28th Floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

         - and -

      Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
      WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
      3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80201
      Telephone: (720) 213-0675
      E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com


FLUIDMASTER INC: "Smith" Suit Hits Defective Water Lines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
8:15-cv-02173 (S.D. Cal., Southern Division, December 30, 2015),
seeks equitable and injunctive relief, damages and enhanced
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and other and further relief in violation Of
California Unfair Competition Law, Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
U.S.C. Section 2201, et seq., common law breach of express
warranty and in breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

Fluidmaster, Inc. is a California corporation with its corporate
headquarters and principal place of business located at 30800
Rancho Viejo Road, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675.

Smith purchased a NO-BURST Line connected to a faucet which
allegedly ruptured during the course of normal use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
      Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
      AGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Tel: (213) 330-7150
      Fax: (213) 330-7152
      Email: elaine@hbsslaw.com
             christopherp@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

      Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq.
      Jeniphr Breckenridge, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Tel: (206) 623-7292
      Fax: (206) 623-0594
      Email: tony@hbsslaw.com
             Jeniphr@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
      Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Fax: (215) 875-4604
      Email: scarson@bm.net
             ldeutsch@bm.net
             gabramson@bm.net

          - and -

      Simon Bahne Paris
      Patrick Howard
      Charles J. Kocher
      SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
      One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
      1650 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 575-3986
      Email: sparis@smbb.com
             phoward@smbb.com
             ckocher@smbb.com

          - and -

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, Illinois 60603
      Tel: (312) 346-2222
      Fax: (312) 346-0022
      Email: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
             aek@wexlerwallace.com

          - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      First Tennessee Plaza
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Tel: (865) 247-0080
      Fax: (865) 522-0049
      Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
             lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

          - and -

      Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1144 W. Lake Street, Suite 400
      Oak Park, IL 60301
      Tel. (708) 628-4949
      Fax. (708) 628-4950
      Email: dank@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

      Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
      Todd. A. Seaver, Esq.
      BERMAN DEVALERIO
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 433-3200
      Fax: (415) 433-6282
      Email: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
             tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

          - and -

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
      Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 333-8844
      Fax: (612) 339-6622
      Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
             awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
             rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

          - and -

      Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
      Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
      Ria C. Momblanco, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, P.C.
      One South Broad St., 23rd Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Tel: (215) 567-6565
      Fax: (215) 568-5872
      Email: dperelman@finekaplan.com
             gdever@finekaplan.com
             rmomblanco@finekaplan.com


FMA ALLIANCE: "Goldstein" Suit Seeks Redress Under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Goldstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FMA Alliance, Ltd, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00061-ERK-RER (E.D.N.Y., January 6,
2016, seeks redress for illegal practices of the Defendant in
connection with the collection of a debt allegedly owed by the
consumer in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

FMA Alliance is a receivables management company, and provides
debt collection services. It serves hospitals, other large banks,
catalog order firms, and retail businesses. The company was
founded in 1983 and is based in Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
          383 Kingston Ave. #113
          Brooklyn, New York 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651 1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464 0012


FOOT LOCKER: Appeal in ERISA Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc.'s appeal from an adverse court decision in the
ERISA class action lawsuit remains pending, the Company 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.

The Company and the Company's U.S. retirement plan are defendants
in a class action (Osberg v. Foot Locker Inc. et ano., filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) in
which the plaintiff alleges that, in connection with the 1996
conversion of the retirement plan to a defined benefit plan with a
cash balance formula, the Company and the retirement plan failed
to properly advise plan participants of the "wear-away" effect of
the conversion. Plaintiff's claims were for breach of fiduciary
duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended, and violation of the statutory provisions governing the
content of the Summary Plan Description.

The trial was held in July 2015 and the court issued a decision in
September 2015 in favor of the class on the foregoing claims. The
court ordered that the Plan be reformed.

The Company is appealing the court's decision, and the judgment
has been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. As a result of
this development, the Company has determined that it is probable a
liability exists.

The Company's reasonable estimate of this liability is a range
between $100 million and $200 million, with no amount within that
range more probable than any other amount. Therefore, in
accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company recorded a charge of $100
million pre-tax ($61 million after-tax) in the third quarter of
2015. This amount has been classified as a long-term liability.

The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself in this
case. In light of the uncertainties involved in this matter, there
is no assurance that the ultimate resolution will not differ from
the amount currently accrued by the Company.


FOOT LOCKER: Settlements in Employee Class Suits Approved
---------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, 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 and
plaintiffs in several employee class action lawsuits have entered
into settlement agreements that have been approved by the
respective courts.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries were defendants in a number
of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various
class action allegations under federal or state wage and hour
laws, including allegations concerning unpaid overtime, meal and
rest breaks, and uniforms.

In Pereira v. Foot Locker, filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the plaintiff alleged that
the Company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws and sought
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs. Additional purported wage and hour
class actions were filed against the Company that asserted claims
similar to those asserted in Pereira and sought similar remedies.

With the exception of Hill v. Foot Locker filed in state court in
Illinois, Kissinger v. Foot Locker filed in state court in
California, and Cortes v. Foot Locker filed in federal court in
New York, all of these actions were consolidated by the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation with Pereira
under the caption In re Foot Locker, Inc. Fair Labor Standards Act
and Wage and Hour Litigation.

The Company and plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement
resolving Hill and the consolidated cases that was approved by the
court during the second quarter of 2015. Additionally, during the
third quarter of 2015, the Company and plaintiffs in Cortes and
Kissinger entered into settlement agreements that have also been
approved by the respective courts.


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Faces $900,000 Fine on Pollution Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
John Raby, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
bankrupt chemical company responsible for a spill that
contaminated a West Virginia river and fouled the drinking water
supply of 300,000 residents was fined $900,000 on pollution
charges on Feb. 4, with a judge noting that Freedom Industries
likely could never pay it.

"I might as well enter the maximum fine," U.S. District Judge
Thomas Johnston said.  "It's all symbolic anyway."

Judge Johnston said there were millions more in claims against the
company than the listed assets of $2 million to $2.5 million. He
said the fine would be collected only if those other claims are
processed in full.

"There's no way that fine will ever be paid," he said.

The company also received five years' probation.

The January 2014 spill of a coal-cleaning agent into the Elk River
got into a water company's intake and prompted a tap-water ban in
nine counties for up to 10 days.

Freedom filed for bankruptcy eight days after the spill.  Last
October, a federal bankruptcy judge approved a liquidation plan
for the company that will distribute more than $2 million to
residents and businesses affected by the spill.

The plan also provides $1.4 million to the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection and environmental firms for
continued cleanup work.  Freedom's parent, Chemstream Holdings, is
adding $1.1 million for the cleanup under an agreement with the
agency.

The plan's funding sources include about $2.7 million in sale
escrow fund proceeds, $300,000 from a settlement with convicted
ex-Freedom President Gary Southern and $3.1 million from a
settlement with Freedom's insurer, AIG.

At a separate hearing on Feb. 4, former plant manager
Michael Burdette became the third Freedom official to be fined and
sentenced to probation.  The 61-year-old Burdette was fined
$2,500, with Johnston citing his cooperation in the federal
investigation, undisclosed health issues and the fact that he's
unemployed.

Judge Johnston also noted Mr. Burdette had asked his superiors to
repair a retaining wall at the site but was turned down for
financial reasons.

"You are probably the least culpable defendant of all," Judge
Johnston told Mr. Burdette.

Both Mr. Burdette, who also was placed on three years' probation,
and an attorney representing the company apologized for the spill
at the separate hearings.

Mr. Burdette's voice shook briefly as he explained that he was
born in South Charleston and his family lives in the area
downstream from the spill site.

"I have learned some valuable life lessons at a significant
personal cost," Mr. Burdette said.

An environmental consultant and a former Freedom owner were
sentenced.  Southern and two other former company officials will
be sentenced later this month.


FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Faces Derivative Class Action in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody  on Feb. 2 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired
the shares of Freeport-McMoRan Inc. between February 27, 2015 and
January 15, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").

SS&B is also investigating whether allegations in the class action
were also breaches of fiduciary duties by the officers and
directors of Freeport-McMoRan.  An action for breaches of
fiduciary duty can be brought as a derivative action by a
shareholder who held Company stock at the start of the Class
Period and who continues to hold Company stock until the
derivative action has concluded.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the chief executive officer of its Indonesian
unit, Maroef Sjamsuddin, had discussed, with senior officials in
the Indonesian government, bribing government officials in return
for an extension of Freeport's right to operate in the country;
(ii) that Freeport had violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
("FCPA"); and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Freeport's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.  Both Freeport McMoran's chairman and Mr.
Sjamsuddin have resigned.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Michael J. Klein, Esq. at Stull,
Stull & Brody by e-mail at FCX@ssbny.com by calling toll-free 1-
800-337-4983 x147, or by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing to
Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017.  You
can also visit our website at www.ssbny.com

Stull, Stull & Brody has litigated many class actions for
violations of securities laws and breaches of fiduciary duty on
behalf of defrauded investors over the past 40 years and has
obtained court approval of substantial settlements on numerous
occasions.  Stull, Stull & Brody has offices in New York and
Beverly Hills.


FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Settlement in Welfare Benefits Class Suit OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Presently before the Court is the Joint Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement.  The Parties submitted a Memorandum of
Law in Support of Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement.  A substantial number of Class Members object to the
proposed Settlement.  Counsel for Plaintiffs Anthony J. Zanghi, et
al., and for Defendants Freightcar America, Inc., et al.,
submitted separate responses to the objections.  Counsel for the
Parties and members of the Class appeared before the Court for a
Hearing on the Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement on January 5, 2016.

This case stems from ten years of litigation concerning the rights
to continued medical coverage and life insurance benefits under an
employee benefit plan.

In a Memorandum Opinion and Order January 19, 2016, which is
available at http://is.gd/Hj7lrcfrom Leagle.com, Judge Kim R.
Gibson of the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania held that the proposed settlement meets
the requirements for settlement approval under applicable law and
granted the Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement.  The Court dismissed the operative complaint, and all
claims asserted therein are dismissed with prejudice and without
costs to any of the settling parties other than as provided for in
the Settlement Agreement.

Class Counsel's requested fee and expense award of $1.3 million is
approved.  The Court awards to Class Counsel reimbursement of
their litigation expenses in the total amount of $27,931.23,
including $25,621 for Feinstein Doyle Payne and Kravec, LLC,
$142.81 for Brian Zimmerman of B. Zimmerman Law, and $2,167.42 for
attorneys from Cornfield and Feldman, LLP. The Court awards
$1,272,068.77 to Class Counsel as a reasonable attorneys' fee.
Defendants shall make a payment in the total amount of $1.3
million to the law firm of Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec LLC
within ten days of the Effective Date, as that term is defined in
the Settlement Agreement.

The case is ANTHONY J. ZANGHI et al., Plaintiffs, v. FREIGHTCAR
AMERICA, INC. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:13-146.

ANTHONY J. ZANGHI, Plaintiff, represented by Brian L.
Zimmerman, Stephen M. Pincus, Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC,
William T. Payne, Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, Joel R.
Hurt, Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC & Pamina G. Ewing,
Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC.

FREIGHTCAR AMERICA, INC., Defendant, represented by Nancy G. Ross,
Mayer Brown LLP, Samuel P. Myler, Mayer Brown LLP, Vincent J.
Connelly, Jr., Mayer Brown LLP, Brian D. Netter, Mayer Brown LLP,
James Clark Munro, II, Spence, Custer, Saylor, Wolfe & Rose, LLC,
Michael J. Parrish, Jr., Spence, Custer, Saylor, Wolfe & Rose &
Ronald P. Carnevali, Jr., Spence, Custer, Saylor, Wolfe & Rose.

FreightCar America, Inc. manufactures a wide range of railroad
freight cars, supplies railcar parts, leases freight cars through
its JAIX Leasing Company subsidiary and provides railcar
maintenance and repairs through its FreightCar Rail Services, LLC
subsidiary. FreightCar America designs and builds high-quality
railcars, including coal cars, bulk commodity cars, covered hopper
cars, intermodal and non-intermodal flat cars, mill gondola cars,
coil steel cars and boxcars. It is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois and has facilities in the following locations: Cherokee,
Alabama; Danville, Illinois; Grand Island, Nebraska; Hastings,
Nebraska; Johnstown, Pennsylvania; and Roanoke, Virginia. More
information about FreightCar America is available on its website
at www.freightcaramerica.com.


G. WADE: Faces "Dickerson" Suit Seeking OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jo Laverne Dickerson v. G. Wade Compton, Inc., Case 8:15-cv-03879-
TDC (D.Md., December 18, 2015), seeks owed overtime wages from
Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage
and Hour Law, and Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Defendant G. Wade Compton, Inc. operates buses for clients.  The
corporate Defendant provides bus services to clients, including
but not limited to providing bus service to and from Kennedy
Krieger.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard Neuworth, Esq.
     Lebau & Neuworth, LLC
     606 Baltimore, MD 21204
     Phone: (410) 296-3030
     Fax: (410) 296-8660
     E-mail: rn@joblaws.net

        - and -

     Gregg H. Mosson, Esq.
     LEBAU & NEUWORTH, LLC
     606 Baltimore Avenue-Suite 201
     Phone: (410) 296-3030
     Fax: (410) 296-8660
     E-mail: rn@joblaws.net


GC SERVICES: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Willie Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No.
1:15-cv-07325 (E.D.N.Y., December 23, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

GC Services Limited Partnership is a privately-held outsourcing
provider of call center management and collection agency services
in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      SANDERS LAW, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 50
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7600
      Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
      E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


GC SERVICES: Faces "Guerrero" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willie Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No.
2:15-cv-06103-DRH-AKT (E.D.N.Y., December 23, 2015) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

GC Services Limited Partnership operates a privately-held
outsourcing provider of call center management and collection
agency services in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      SANDERS LAW, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 50
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7600
      Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
      E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


GENERAL NUTRITION: Jury Selection in Class Action Trial Begins
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hoffman Employment Lawyers on Feb. 2 announced jury selection
starts February 5, 2016 in a class action lawsuit against General
Nutrition Corporation, better known as GNC.  The outcome of the
trial will resolve the claims of over 8,000 current and former
employees of GNC.  The lawsuit alleges that; GNC failed to provide
its employees with meal and rest periods, that GNC failed to
reimburse its employees for time and expenses incurred in making
bank deposits after closing the store, and that GNC failed to
issue final paychecks to terminated employees in a timely manner
consistent with California law.  The lawsuit also alleges that
GNC's paystubs violate California law because they fail to
disclose information required under California law.  The Court has
already ruled in favor of GNC's employees on the paystub claim and
the amount of damages owing to the class for these violations will
be determined at trial.

The case, initiated by former employee Charles Brewer in 2011, is
the first in a series of wage and hour lawsuits brought by GNC
employees against GNC.  "Rather than treating its employees as
valuable assets and making a good-faith effort to follow the law,
GNC has implemented policies designed to circumvent compliance.
These policies have the effect of padding GNC's pockets at the
expense of its employees, many of whom are earning the minimum
wage," said Plaintiffs' counsel Leonard Emma.

Plaintiff's claim that GNC's own corporate records will prove
their claims and that GNC cannot provide adequate documentation to
support its Defenses.  "GNC's time records show hundreds of
thousands of noncompliant meal and rest periods" argued the
plaintiffs' attorney Stephen Ilg of Hoffman Employment Lawyers.
Plaintiffs' counsel Chad Pradmore added that "GNC has no
documentation demonstrating that it has actually reimbursed
employees for automobile expenses."

"GNC continues to reap the benefits, year after year, of short-
changing its employees by withholding millions of dollars in
unpaid wages and premiums to its employees," said attorney Michael
Hoffman.  After four and half years of litigation, GNC's employees
are about to get their day in Court.

The law firm representing the employees, Hoffman Employment
Lawyers, is encouraging current and former employees to contact
them by emailing the attorneys directly at: gnccase@employment-
lawyers.com.

The case is Brewer v. General Nutrition Corp., case number 4:11-
cv-03587, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


GENERAL REVENUE: "Ortega" Suit Seeks to Recover Damages
-------------------------------------------------------
Yasmin Ortega, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. General Revenue Corporation and John
Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00067-KM-JBC (D.N.J.,
January 6, 2016), seeks to recover damages, and declaratory and
injunctive relief against Defendant's actions of using unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

General Revenue Corporation is a United States debt-recovery
organization that specializes in the recovery of defaulted student
loans and consumer loans. GRC is a subsidiary of SLM Corporation,
commonly known as Sallie Mae.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 6953282
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: info@marcuszelman.com


GUAM: Seeks Supreme Court Review of Tax Refund Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Kroh and Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, report that the
government of Guam on Feb. 1 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to
review the Ninth Circuit's holding in a class action that the
territory had acted illegally by withholding citizens' tax refunds
to balance its budget, saying it has profound implications for
territorial governments and their officials.

The Ninth Circuit decision flies in the face of the high court's
1990 holding in Ngiraingas v. Sanchez, in which the court said
territorial officials cannot be sued under 42 U.S. Code section
1983, which provides for civil action for the deprivation of
rights, Guam said in its certiorari petition.

"The Ninth Circuit's reasoning ignores the entire basis for the
Ngiraingas decision," Guam said.  "This court determined that
Sec. 1983 categorically does not apply to territorial officials."

The appellate court also misinterpreted a requirement of the law
that the actions being challenged be undertaken "under color of"
state or territorial law, Guam said. Under the Ninth Circuit's
interpretation, a territorial official can never act under color
of federal law, the territory said.

The officials, however, were enforcing a federal law, the Guam
territorial income tax, Guam said.  According to the Ninth
Circuit, Congress can make territorial officials responsible even
for actions required by federal law, the territory said.

Representatives of the citizen taxpayers could not immediately be
reached for comment.

In August, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision to
issue a permanent injunction against Guam, setting a six-month
deadline for the territory to issue the refunds to its taxpayers
and issuing an order for the government to pay the plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees of nearly $1.7 million.

In the Ninth Circuit appeal, Guam had challenged the taxpayers'
claim that an expedited tax refund program initiated by the
government, which devolved into a system of arbitrariness and
favoritism, had violated their equal protection rights.

The territory argued that the claim wasn't cognizable since none
of the defendants could be considered a person as the definition
applies to section 1983.  Guam also argued that it was entitled to
immunity under the same extent accorded to the federal government.
Both claims were rejected by the Ninth Circuit panel.

Guam has struggled for years with chronic budget deficits and has
tried to solve this financial problem by refusing to refund over-
withheld income taxes, according to the Ninth Circuit opinion.

Taxpayers facing medical or funeral expenses are moved to the
front of the line and granted funds without waiting for Guam to
meet its obligations, the opinion said.

The process was also opaque and tedious, according to the opinion,
and Guam never formally approved or rejected requests for
expedited refunds.  Some taxpayers stood in line at Guam's
Department of Revenue and Taxation office day after day to check
on the status of their refund requests.

DRT employees also successfully expedited their own refunds, and
those of family and friends, often without filling out the
purportedly required form, submitting documentation or visiting
the department's offices.

Guam is represented by Michael F. Williams of Kirkland & Ellis
LLP.

Representation information for the Guam taxpayers was not
immediately available.


GULER INC: "Cabanas" Suit Seeks Recovery of Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Cabanas and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. Guler Inc. and Duran T. Guler, individually
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-24784-MGC (S.D. Fla., Miami Division,
December 31, 2015), seeks damages for unpaid overtime wages and
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Guler Inc. is a restaurant doing business under the name of The
Garden Bar & Grill located at 1131 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach,
Florida, owned by Duran T. Guler. The Plaintiff works as a
restaurant employee.

Cabanas worked an average of 73.5 hours a week and claims to have
received the same rate for overtime rendered without the
corresponding premium. Defendants did not use any time-keeping
method and did not keep track of hours worked by the Plaintiff and
did not issue any pay slips.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33156
      Tel: (305) 446-1500
      Fax: (305) 446-1502


H&R BLOCK: Appeal in Compliance Fee Litigation Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, 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's appeal
in a compliance fee litigation remains pending.

The Company said, "On April 16, 2012, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Missouri styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et
al. (Case # 1216CV12290) concerning a compliance fee charged to
retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff
seeks to represent all Missouri citizens who were charged the
compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, money had and received, and unjust
enrichment. We filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 2011
claims. The court denied the motion. We filed an appeal."

"On May 6, 2014, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District,
reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for
further consideration of the motion. On March 12, 2015, the trial
court denied the motion on remand. We filed an appeal, which
remains pending.

"We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is
probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this
matter."


H&R BLOCK: 8th Cir. Denies Petition for Rehearing in "Perras"
-------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, 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 Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals has denied a petition for rehearing in the case
filed by Ronald Perras.

The Company said, "On April 19, 2012, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri styled Ronald Perras v. H&R
Block, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK) concerning a
compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012
tax seasons. The plaintiff seeks to represent all persons
nationwide (excluding citizens of Missouri) who were charged the
compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of various state
consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment."

"In November 2013, the court compelled arbitration of the 2011
claims and stayed all proceedings with respect to those claims. In
June 2014, the court denied class certification of the remaining
2012 claims. Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals, which was denied on June 18, 2015. The Eighth
Circuit denied plaintiff's subsequent petition for rehearing on
August 7, 2015.

"We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is
probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this
matter," the Company said.


HEARTWARE INT'L: Robbins Arroyo Files Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Bonacci, writing for Worcester Business Journal, reports that
a class action lawsuit has been filed against HeartWare
International, alleging that company officials misled shareholders
as to the viability of a new technology by saying that the company
had adequately addressed concerns by U.S. Food and Drug
Administration revolving around their technology.

The lawsuit, filed by Robbins Arroyo LLP of San Diego, alleges
that HeartWare shareholders were misled about the commercial
viability of the company's new ventricular assist device (VAD).
According to the complaint, HeartWare officials said that the new
device would revolutionize the VAD market and be the key driver
for HeartWare's future growth.

However, the suit alleges that the company failed to adequately
address concerns raised by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
surrounding HeartWare's products even though company officials
told shareholders that they were being addressed.  These concerns
included issues at the company's Florida manufacturing facility as
well as the company's alleged failure to take proper corrective
action regarding 27 complaints that included reports of "2 deaths
and 4 serious injuries" related to HVAD, according to a letter
from the FDA sent on June 2, 2014.  On June 10, 2014, according to
the suit, HeartWare publicly assured investors that it was
addressing its regulatory failures and that those failures posed
no risk to timely MVAD approval.

The suit alleges that the company never adequately addressed FDA
concerns and on Sept. 9, 2015 announced it was halting the
enrollment of the HVAD in a trial because of the same issues
raised by the FDA in 2014.  Since that announcement, shares have
dropped from a Sept. 10, 2015 high of $65.24 to a low on Jan. 13
of $24.46.

In response to a request for comment, a Heartware spokesperson
said that it is company policy to not comment on legal matters.


HOME CARE: "Stewart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Stewart and Lawrence Washington, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Act Fast
Delivery Of West Virginia, Inc. and Home Care Pharmacy, LLC d/b/a
Omnicare Of Nitro and/or Omnicare Of Nitro, West Virginia,
Defendants., Case No. 2:15-cv-16569 (S.D.W. Va., Charleston
Division, December 30, 2015), seeks overtime compensation for all
unpaid hours worked in excess of forty, unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, recovery
for all unauthorized and/or unlawful deductions and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Defendants deliver pharmaceutical and medical products to
customers of Omnicare where Defendants employed Plaintiffs as
route drivers. They were paid a pre-determined fee for the
particular route driven. They claim to have rendered in excess of
40 hours per work week to include waiting time and processing
required paper work without overtime compensation. They claim to
have an employer-employee relationship instead of as a contractor
as claimed by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard D. Owen, Esq.
      Elise N. McQuain, Esq.
      GOODWIN & GOODWIN LLP
      300 Summers Street, Suite 1500
      Charleston, West Virginia 24328
      Tel: (304) 356-7000
      Fax: (304) 344-9692


IMPERIAL BUFFET: Faces "Han" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gen Wang Han, Individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Imperial Buffet Inc. d/b/a Imperial China
Buffet, Duke Chen, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" # 1-10, Case No.
1:15-cv-00311-BR (W.D. Penn., December 22, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Buffet restaurant located at 5138
Peach St. Erie, PA 16509.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


INSURANCE SERVICES: Law Firm Files Concrete Scheme Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aysha Mahmood, writing for, reports that a Manchester law firm has
filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against 111 out-of-
state insurance companies and the association to which the
companies belong, Insurance Services Office Inc., claiming the
insurance firms "have engaged in a concerted scheme to deny
homeowners coverage for failing concrete basement walls."

Ryan Barry of Barry & Barall LLC filed the class action lawsuit on
Jan. 29 on behalf of four homeowners in Manchester, Andover,
Ellington, and Stafford -- all living in houses whose basement
walls are showing signs of concrete cracking.

The cracking is a result of defective concrete supplied by the
Stafford-based J.J. Mottes & Company, the lawsuit states.
Barry said engineering studies show that when the defective
concrete -- which contains iron sulfide and pyrite minerals --
rusts, it produces a chemical reaction that "breaks the bonds of
concrete and literally just destroys the foundation."

"This is a continuous and irreversible condition," the complaint
states.  "Ultimately, the plaintiffs' homes will fall into their
basements," and the walls, experts say, need to be replaced.
The lawsuit states the plaintiffs in the class action have either
been denied their claim for coverage, filed a claim for coverage
with their insurance company, which has expressed an intent to
deny the claim, or have considered making a claim.

Even if a plaintiff or a future class member submits an insurance
claim, "each and every claim will be denied," the complaint
states.  Submitting the claim, it adds, is "an exercise in
futility."

While on notice of defective concrete claims in northeastern and
north central Connecticut, the insurance companies, as well as the
Insurance Services Office, "deliberately changed the language of
insurance policies to avoid liability for potential claims," the
lawsuit alleges.

By changing the language of the policy, the lawsuit states, the
companies breached their contracts with those insured and violated
the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act "by failing to
attempt in good faith to effectuate prompt and fair settlements in
which liability has become reasonably clear."

The companies also violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act by "denying meritorious claims based on their misleading,
deceptive, delayed, and unscrupulous denials."

The lawsuit states the plaintiffs want the insurance companies and
the Insurance Services Office to remove their existing basement
walls and build brand-new ones.

The lawsuit alleges the plaintiffs "have homes that are
practically impossible to sell, practically impossible to
refinance, and eventually will be impossible to safely live in."

Experts have concluded that the cost of replacing the basement
walls is generally between $100,000 and $250,000, the lawsuit
states.  But rather than having the court look into every
basement, the lawsuit suggests the court can establish a set price
per square foot for which to reconstruct the basement walls and
multiply that price by the total square footage of the basement.

Mr. Barry said he believed the class action was the "clear path to
take," referencing a class action suit in 2014 in Canada in which
multiple plaintiffs were awarded $158 million dollars because
their homes were affected by pyrite.

"A class action is the right course because the only other course
is to take what they give you and that's a small percentage of
what the damages actually are," he said.  "It's not a path of last
resort, it's the path of first resort in a situation like this."

Mr. Barry also said he hopes the class action will give other
people who are going through the same problem an opportunity to
make the same complaint.

"I hope that we are able to provide relief for my clients and also
for other people who have had these same problems but cannot
afford a lawyer," he said, "and who would therefore otherwise miss
the statute of limitations to bring an action in court."


INTL FCSTONE: 2nd Amended Complaint in Securities Case Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
INTL FCStone Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 9, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that the second amended
complaint in a securities class action lawsuit has been dismissed
without leave to replead.

"In January 2014, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of our officers and directors. The
complaint alleged violations of federal securities laws, and
claimed that the Company issued false and misleading information
concerning its business and prospects. The action sought
unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's shares between February 17, 2010 and December 16, 2013,"
the Company said.

The lead plaintiff's amended complaint was filed in June 2014.

"Our motion to dismiss the complaint was filed in July 2014," the
Company said. "At the court hearing on February 4, 2015, our
motion was granted and the amended complaint was dismissed,
however the lead plaintiff was given leave to amend its complaint.
The lead plaintiff's second amended complaint was filed on March
6, 2015, and it narrowed the purported class to persons who
purchased Company's shares between December 15, 2010 and December
16, 2013."

"On March 27, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. The lead plaintiff's memorandum in opposition
was filed on April 13, 2015, and our reply in support of its
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was filed on April
27, 2015. The matter was heard on July 9, 2015 and on July 13,
2015 the second amended complaint was dismissed in its entirety,
with prejudice and without leave to replead."


JD PARKER: Doesn't Properly Pay Truck Drivers, "Laura" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Laura, individually & on behalf of all similarly situated
v. J.D. Parker & Sons Co., Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-02914-JDW-EAJ
(M.D. Fla., December 22, 2015) is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay its garbage truck drivers overtime wages in
accordance to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

J.D. Parker & Sons Co., Inc. is a private company that collects
garbage in Pasco County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
      Christina J. Thomas, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3487
      E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com
              cthomas@forthepeople.com


JOHN HANCOCK: Sued in New York Over Excessive Cost of Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
37 Besen Parkway, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company
(U.S.A.), Case No. 1:15-cv-09924-PGG (S.D.N.Y., December 22, 2015)
is brought on behalf of all the policyholders who have been forced
to pay unlawful and excessive cost of insurance ("COI") charges by
John Hancock, and policyholders who have been charged unlawful and
excessive premiums under an "Age 100 Waiver of Charges Rider."

John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.) provides insurance
and financial services products including life insurance, 401(k)
plans, and mutual funds.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth Ard, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      560 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 336-8330
      Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
      E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
      Frances Lewis, Esq.
      Glenn Bridgman, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
      Telephone: (310) 789-3100
      Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
      E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
              flewis@susmangodfrey.com
              gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com


JOHN C HEATH: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hasanzadeh" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Ramona Hasanzadeh, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. John C. Heath, Attorney at Law, PLLC, et al, Case No.
5:15-cv-02617-MWF-DTB (C.D. Cal., December 22, 2015) seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls to consumers'
wireless telephones.

John C. Heath, Attorney at Law, PLLC is engaged in providing legal
advisory services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John P Kristensen, Esq.
      David Levi Weisberg, Esq.
      KRISTENEN WEISBERG LLP
      12304 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 507-7924
      Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
      E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
              david@kristensenlaw.com


JOVANI FASHION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Valdez-Mendoza and Roman E. Valdez-Mendoza, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jovani Fashion
Ltd., S&A Manufacturing, LLC, and John Doe 1-5, Case No. 1:15-cv-
07261-ILG-RML (E.D.N.Y., December 22, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a dress manufacturing facility
located at 1177 Flushing Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
      ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      One Corporation Drive, Suite 103
      Bohemia, NY 11716
      Telephone: (631) 589-7242
      Facsimile: (631) 563-7475
      E-mail: szabell@laborlawsny.com


KANA HOTELS: Faces "Swiney" Suit Over Alleged Sexual Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela G. Swiney, Plaintiff, v. Kana Hotels, Inc. and Lyons
Human Resources, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 7:15-cv-02358-TMP
(N.D. Ala., Western Division, December 30, 2015), seeks
compensation for hours worked in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act, including back pay, front pay, compensatory,
liquidated and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and other
compensation as well as damages resulting from sexual harassment,
invasion of privacy, gender discrimination and retaliation.

Angela Swiney worked as Sales and Catering Manager for Kana
Hotels, Inc. at the Hilton Garden Inn in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. John
Schoenhals was her direct supervisor and the general manager of
the hotel.

Lyons Human Resources, Inc. is an agent of Kana Hotels for all
human resources decisions.

Plaintiff alleges the Defendant tolerated sexual advances made by
a co-employee towards her.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey C. Smith, Esq.
      ROSEN HARWOOD, P.A.
      Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35403
      Tel: (205) 344-5000
      Fax: (205) 758-8358
      Email: jsmith@rosenharwood.com


KLX ENERGY: Faces "Fortmann" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Fortmann, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KLX Energy Services, LLC D/B/A LT Energy Services,
Case 4:15-cv-03669 (S.D.Tex., December 18, 2015), seeks to recover
the unpaid overtime wages owed to Defendant's workers under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is in the oilfield services business and maintains
locations throughout the United States providing various basic
employees such as laborers, roustabouts, and others to various
drilling projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Class Action Over False Sale Prices Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
James B. Saylor, writing for The Ad Law Access, reports that on
February 1, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts dismissed a consumer class action alleging that
Kohl's Department Stores advertises false sale prices.  The
plaintiff in Mulder v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., 15-cv-11377
(D. Mass.), asserted causes of action for fraud, breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Law upon allegations that she was induced to
purchase merchandise from Kohl's that was deceptively advertised
as on sale from "comparison prices" that she alleged were never
charged by Kohl's or other retailers in the marketplace.

The plaintiffs' bar has increasingly focused on retail sale
prices, particularly those for outlet and discount stores, and
Congress and the FTC have even taken action, with a January 2014
letter by four members of Congress to the FTC Chairwoman
expressing concerns that consumers are being deceived by pricing
at retail and outlet stores and asking the FTC to investigate
potential violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act and the FTC's
Guides Against Deceptive Pricing.  State regulations also contain
complex rules on how sale prices can be advertised to consumers,
with many specifying how long an item must be sold at its "non-
sale" price, or how retailers must disclose a source of
comparison.

The court in Mulder found that, even accepting plaintiff's
allegations as true, she had "not suffered an economic injury"
cognizable under Massachusetts law: "among other things, she has
suffered no loss, and there is no sum of money that could be
awarded to her that could 'compensate' her without providing a
windfall."  Put simply, the court found that the plaintiff had
purchased goods for an advertised price, and that it appeared
those goods were, in fact, worth the advertised price she paid.
The court applied this same "benefit of the bargain" logic to
plaintiffs' claims for fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of
contract.  In dismissing the case with prejudice, the court also
denied plaintiffs' motion to amend and motion to certify questions
relating to legally cognizable injury to the Supreme Judicial
Court of Massachusetts.

The Mulder decision is a welcome interpretation of injury in
deceptive sale price class actions for retailers in Massachusetts
and other jurisdictions with strong "economic loss" or
"ascertainable loss" requirements.  Last year, the District of
Massachusetts granted dismissal of similar claims brought against
Nordstrom Rack on the grounds that the plaintiff had
insufficiently pled injury, a decision which is currently on
appeal in the First Circuit.


LIBERTY TAX: Funded $5.3-Mil. Settlement Fund
---------------------------------------------
Liberty Tax, 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
funded a $5.3 million settlement fund in the class action lawsuit
over the issuance of electronic refund checks.

The Company was sued in November 2011 in federal courts in
Arkansas, California, Florida, and Illinois, and additional
lawsuits were filed in federal courts in January 2012 in Maryland
and North Carolina, in February 2012 in Wisconsin, and in May 2012
in New York and Minnesota.

In April 2012, a motion to consolidate all of the then-pending
cases before a single judge in federal court in the Northern
District of Illinois was granted, and in June 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a new complaint in the consolidated action. The consolidated
complaint alleges that the Company's refund transfer products
formerly called electronic refund checks ("ERC") represent a form
of refund anticipation loan ("RAL") because the taxpayer is
"loaned" the tax preparation fee, and that the refund transfer
product is, therefore, subject to federal truth-in-lending
disclosure and state law requirements regulating RALs. The
plaintiffs also allege disclosure violations related to the ERC
fees paid by RAL customers. The plaintiffs, therefore, claim
violations of state-specific RAL and other consumer statutes. The
lawsuit purports to be a class action, and the plaintiffs allege
potential damages in excess of $5.0 million.

The Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit a ruling that certain of the plaintiffs' claims
were not subject to arbitration. Following mediation, the parties
entered into a settlement agreement in June 2015 pursuant to which
the Company has funded the establishment of a settlement fund of
$5.3 million, inclusive of settlement administration costs and
plaintiffs' counsel fees. The claims process has begun and
following the conclusion of that process the Company anticipates
that the final approval of the trial court will be sought.

The Company has preserved potential claims against a financial
product partner that was responsible for the design of a portion
of the ERC programs in the years at issue in the cases. The
Company accrued the proposed settlement amount during fiscal 2015.


LIBERTY TAX: Awaits Final OK of TCPA Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Tax, 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 still
awaits final approval of the settlement in the class action
litigation alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Company was sued in September 2013 in federal court in
Illinois in connection with alleged TCPA violations. Plaintiff
alleges that the Company inappropriately made auto dialed
telephone calls to cellular telephones, seeks the certification of
a nationwide class action, and claims statutory damages of $500-
$1,500 per violation. The Company tendered the defense of this
litigation to a third party entity that had contracted with us to
solicit potential franchisees, and that third party entity
acknowledged its defense and indemnification obligations to the
Company. However, because the third party did not have the
financial resources to satisfy its defense and indemnity
obligations, the Company concluded that it could not rely upon the
fulfillment of those obligations.

In September 2014, the Company and the plaintiffs reached a
tentative settlement of this litigation pursuant to which the
Company has funded the establishment of a settlement fund of $3.0
million, inclusive of settlement administration costs and
plaintiffs' counsel fees. This settlement received the preliminary
approval of the court and notices to class members have been sent,
but the settlement remains subject to final court approval. The
Company accrued the proposed settlement amount during fiscal 2015.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Defending "Gathmann-Landini" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended November 1, 2015, that current and
former hourly employees of the Company filed on October 9, 2015, a
class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of New York entitled
Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc. The lawsuit
alleges that the Company violated various New York labor codes by
failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime compensation.
The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages. The
Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.


LYFT: Drivers Still Classified as Independent Contractors
---------------------------------------------------------
Jane Mundy, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that
while the recent Lyft class-action settlement addresses certain
California labor laws that will benefit its drivers, those drivers
are still classified as independent contractors rather than
employees.

The misclassification class action was first filed in 2013. Lyft
driver Patrick Cotter claimed the company treated its drivers as
employees rather than independent contractors, including taking 20
percent off their tips as an "administrative fee," which is a
violation of California labor laws.

On January 29, Lyft e-mailed its drivers saying that "no driver
likes a price change . . . with recent price changes from the
competition [Uber], we need to take action."

Lyft spokesperson Paige Thelen told DNAinfo that "Lyft is the only
ridesharing platform that offers tipping and the opportunity for
drivers to earn back some of the commission we take through the
Power Driver Bonus."  But is this what drivers want? When Uber
announced price cuts, its drivers protested in Long Island City,
with signs and chanting "Shame on Uber," and "How Dare You?" The
drivers complained that they will earn less with the price cuts,
while still paying the same amount of commission to Uber.

Because drivers filed the lawsuit seeking to be classified as
employees, this $12.25 million settlement is hardly a win.
Instead, the driver terms and conditions will "more accurately
reflect the independent contractor designation," according to the
New York Times.

Here are a few terms of the settlement:

   -- Lyft will concede its right to terminate drivers at will
(Lyft has surrendered its at-will termination right, meaning that
drivers will now be able to turn down rides without fear of their
account being deactivated).

   -- Lyft will provide drivers with additional information on
prospective riders such as their passenger ratings.

   -- Lyft will create a "favorite" driver option in which riders
can designate their preferred drivers, and, as such, give them
additional benefits.

   -- Lyft will pay the costs to arbitrate drivers' grievances and
implement a pre-arbitration process

Lyft drivers -- like Uber drivers -- who are not happy with the
new "price changes," might want to schedule an arbitration sooner
than later: there may be a long lineup.  Lyft has obviously
crunched numbers and found it more beneficial to pay arbitrators
than classify its drivers as employees, which would mean paying
minimum wage and California overtime requirements.  Sure, there
are advantages to working in this "sharing economy," such as
freedom and flexibility. But who can afford the luxury of freedom
when you can't pay the rent?

While the Lyft settlement remains subject to court approval, other
sharing economy businesses and independent contractors are likely
wondering how and if it will affect them . . .


MANGUAL'S GENERAL: Faces "Melendres" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge R. Melendres and all others similarly situated v. Mangual's
General Services, Inc. and Jose E. Mangual, Case No. 1:15-cv-
24691-JLK (S.D. Fla., December 21, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate s small organization in the
services industry located in Miami, FL.

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


MANTECH INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Huebner, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. ManTech International Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-09889-PA-SS
(C.D. Cal., December 23, 2015) is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

ManTech International Corporation is a provider of technology
solutions in information systems, environment, telecommunications,
defense, and aeronautics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexandria R. Kachadoorian, Esq.
      Justin K. Kachadoorian, Esq.
      Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq.
      COUNSELONE PC
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 277-9945
      Facsimile: (424) 277-3727
      E-mail: alexandria@counselonegroup.com
              justin@counselonegroup.com
              anthony@counselonegroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jennifer L. Mora, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON PC
      2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 553-0308
      Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
      E-mail: jmora@littler.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss "Weigand" Overtime Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the Western District of
Missourri, Central Division, denied defendant's motion to dismiss
or strike in the case ROBERT WEIGAND, individually and on, behalf
of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. MAXIM
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, No. 2:15-cv-04215-NKL (W.D.
Mo.)

Robert Weigand alleges that his former employer, Maxim Healthcare
Services failed to pay overtime compensation to him and other
Maxim staffing recruiters, in violation of Missouri's minimum wage
law, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 290.505.1. Weigand alleges that on
information and belief, the number of salaried Staffing Recruiters
in Missouri numbers over 50 individuals, and that joinder of all
class members would be impracticable. He also alleges that it is
economically infeasible for class members to prosecute individual
actions of their own given the relatively small amount of damages
at stake for each individual along with the fear of reprisal by
their employer. Weigand further alleges that he and the proposed
class are entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance
of the full amount of the overtime pay for all hours worked.

Maxim submitted the affidavit of its Manager of Employee
Relations, Ricky Santico, with its suggestions in support of its
motion. Santico states that based on Maxim's personnel records,
the proposed class is composed of 25 individuals. He further
states that on September 19, 2013, Maxim rolled out a mandatory
mutual arbitration agreement applicable to all new hires. All
individuals hired after that date were required to sign the
agreement in connection with the hiring process.

In February 2014, Maxim extended the mandatory mutual arbitration
requirement to all then-current employees. Maxim's vice president
for human resources sent an email to all employees, directing them
to log into their personnel accounts to review the mandatory
arbitration agreement. Employees were instructed to sign and
return a hard copy of the agreement to the human relations
department, or ratify the agreement through their continued
employment beyond March 11, 2014.

Maxim has moved to dismiss or strike Weigand's class action
allegations at the pleading stage, under Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), 12(f), 23(c)(1), and 23(d)(1). Maxim argues
Weigand cannot meet Rule 23(a)(1)'s numerosity requirement. Maxim
additionally argues that Weigand is not an adequate class
representative, because he is not subject to mandatory arbitration
and therefore cannot represent individuals who are subject to it.

Judge Laughrey denied defendant's motion to dismiss or strik the
class action allegations as the court cannot conclude that
dismissal of the class claims is proper, even if the class is
limited to no more than 25 persons.

A copy of Judge Laughrey's order dated January 11, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/cuuzrUfrom Leagle.com.

Robert Weigand, Plaintiff, represented by Jason J Thompson --
jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Jesse L. Young -- jyoung@sommerspc.com
-- at Sommers Schwartz PC; Brendan J. Donelon --
brendan@donelonpc.com -- at DONELON, P.C.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jocelyn
Cuttino -- jcuttino@morganlewis.com -- Joyce E. Taber --
jtaber@morganlewis.com -- Kaiser Chowdhry --
kchowdhry@morganlewis.com -- Lincoln O. Bisbee --
lbisbee@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP; Patrick
F. Hulla -- patrick.hulla@ogletreedeakins.com -- at Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Bailey" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Bailey v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
03899-GLR (D. Md., December 22, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours during a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Reed" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Reed v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
03902-MJG (D. Md., December 22, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours during a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Ribeiro" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Ribeiro v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-03908-RDB (D. Md., December 22, 2015) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess
of 40 hours during a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Watson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Kirah Watson v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
03904-GLR (D. Md., December 22, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours during a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Causey" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor Causey v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-03906-JFM (D. Md., December 23, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours during a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MCDONALD'S CORP: Sued Over Alleged Racial Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Elam, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. McDonald's Corporation, and Richard Espizito, Case No.
0:15-cv-62674-UU (S.D. Fla., December 22, 2015) seeks to put an
end to the Defendants' discriminatory practices on the basis of
race.

McDonald's Corporation is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in
Illinois, that does business in this District, including through
its restaurant chains.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cullin O'Brien, Esq.
      CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
      6541 NE 21st Way
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
      Telephone: (561) 676-6370
      Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
      E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com

         - and -

      Zeljka Bozanic, Esq.
      BOZANIC LAW, P.A.
      1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1800
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 643-1040
      Facsimile: (305) 356-7154
      E-mail: Zeljka@bozaniclaw.com

         - and -

      Sue-Ann Robinson Caddy, Esq.
      ROBINSON CADDY LAW GROUP, P.A.
      633 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 101
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 399-2746
      Facsimile: (954) 527-4228
      E-mail: sueann@robinsoncaddylaw.com


MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Class Action Over Mozzarella Sticks
----------------------------------------------------------
Irish Salem, writing for CBSLA.com, reports that McDonald's Corp.
is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit over allegations the
fast-food chain falsely advertised its mozzarella sticks as being
made with "100% real cheese."

The lawsuit filed in a federal court in California in January
alleges McDonald's violated the state's unfair competition law and
false advertising law, among others.

The complaint points to the product's packaging in several states
which the complaint alleges indicated the product is "made with
real mozzarella."

The complaint alleges that Chris Howe of Riverside County, the
suit's lead plaintiff, would not have purchased the sticks from a
Rancho Mirage location in December "if he had known they were
misbranded and adulterated."

The 32-page complaint goes on to allege that "the sticks are
filled with a substance that is composed (in part) of starch."

The suit claims that by doing so the fast-food chain was able to
cut the costs of production "by limiting its reliance on actual
dairy products necessary to make mozzarella, contrary to what the
law requires for products labeled as 'mozzarella.' "

"Inserting filler in its sticks allows McDonald's to save money
and increase its profits," the complaint alleges.  "The inclusion
of starch in a product purporting to be 'mozzarella' therefore
constitutes a violation of federal food labeling law."

McDonald's, according to the suit, began selling the product,
which costs about $1.29 for three sticks, last summer in Wisconsin
and then nationwide, including in California.

The complaint seeks to have the court certify the class and other
relief.

In a statement, McDonald's denied the allegations, according to
Law360.com.

"Our mozzarella cheese sticks are made with 100 percent low-
moisture part-skim mozzarella cheese," a spokesperson for the
fast-food chain reportedly said.  "We intend to defend ourselves
vigorously against these allegations."

CBS Los Angeles left a message for one of Howe's attorneys, who at
the time of publication had not yet responded to a request for
comment.


MDL 2474: Form 8863 Cases Stayed Pending Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, 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 remaining cases in
the so-called Form 8863 Litigation are stayed with respect to the
individual plaintiffs who agreed to arbitration.

The Company said, "A series of putative class action lawsuits were
filed against us in various federal courts and one state court
beginning on March 13, 2013. Taken together, the plaintiffs in
these lawsuits purport to represent certain clients nationwide who
filed Form 8863 during tax season 2013 through an H&R Block office
or using H&R Block At Home(R) online tax services or desktop tax
preparation software, and allege breach of contract, negligence
and violation of state consumer laws in connection with
transmission of the form. The plaintiffs seek damages, pre-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs."

"In August 2013, the plaintiff in the state court action
voluntarily dismissed her case without prejudice. The Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation subsequently granted our
petition to consolidate the remaining federal lawsuits for
coordinated pretrial proceedings in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri in a proceeding styled
IN RE: H&R BLOCK IRS FORM 8863 LITIGATION (MDL No. 2474/Case No.
4:13-MD-02474-FJG).

"On July 11, 2014, the MDL court granted our motion to compel
arbitration for those named plaintiffs who agreed to arbitrate
their claims. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint in October 2014.

"We filed a motion to strike the class allegations relating to
those clients who agreed to arbitration, which the court granted
on January 7, 2015. The cases remain stayed with respect to the
individual plaintiffs who agreed to arbitration.

"A portion of our loss contingency accrual is related to this
matter for the amount of loss that we consider probable and
reasonably estimable," the Company said.


MERCEDEZ BENZ: Response Deadline in Digby Case Moved to March 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, granted the parties' requests
to extend certain dates in the case DIGBY ADLER GROUP, LLC, dba
BANDAGO LLC, and BENJAMIN ROBLES, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
MERCEDES-BENZ U.S.A., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-02349 (N.D.
Cal.)

Digby Adler Group LLC filed a putative class action in San
Francisco County Superior Court. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC was served
with the summons and complaint on April 21, 2014. On May 21, 2014,
MBUSA removed the case from San Francisco County Superior Court to
the present court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Sections 1331(a)(1) and 1331(d)(2)(A).

On April 28, 2015, Digby Adler filed a third amended complaint
(TAC) and on May 26, 2015, MBUSA filed a motion to dismiss the
TAC, which the court on September 1, 2015, ruled on MBUSA's motion
to dismiss the TAC, granting the motion in part and dismissing it
in part.

On September 15, 2015, the court granted the parties' request to
extend MBUSA's deadline to file its answer to the TAC until
December 14, 2015. On December 11, 2015, the parties filed a
stipulation permitting plaintiffs to file a fourth amended
complaint (FAC) and requesting an extension of MBUSA's time to
respond until 30 days after service of the FAC. Plaintiffs filed
and served the FAC on December 14, 2015 and on the next day, the
court granted the parties' request to extend MBUSA's deadline to
file its answer to the FAC until January 13, 2016.

Counsel for the parties have met and conferred; and agreed that
MBUSA shall have until March 14, 2016 to file its response to the
FAC and the case management conference scheduled for January 25,
2016, is continued until March 21, 2016.

A copy of Judge Henderson's order dated January 11, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/mPKlCOfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Steven Aaron Kronenberg --
s.kronenberg@veenlaw.com -- Anthony Lawrence Label --
a.label@veenfirm.com -- William Louis Veen -- at The Veen Firm,
P.C.; Dan Leo Gildor -- dan@chavezgertler.com -- Jonathan E.
Gertler -- jon@chavezgertler.com -- Samuel Price Cheadle --
sam.cheadle@gmail.com -- at Chavez & Gertler LLP

Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC, Defendant, represented by Steven Edward
Swaney -- sswaney@cbmlaw.com -- Eric J. Knapp -- eknapp@cbmlaw.com
-- Jenny Grantz -- jgrantz@cbmlaw.com -- Troy Masami Yoshino --
tyoshino@cbmlaw.com -- at Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP


MIDWESTERN WHEELS: Faces "Webb" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gorgio Webb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Midwestern Wheels, Inc., and William J. Wallschlaeger,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01538 (E.D. Wis., December 22, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate Avis and Budget Rent A Car branded
locations across Wisconsin and Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Timothy Maynard, Esq.
      Summer Murshid, 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: ljohnson@hq-law.com
              tmaynard@hq-law.com
              smurshid@hq-law.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces JS Suit Over Sunday Afternoon Games
------------------------------------------------------------
JS Entertainment, Inc. d/b/a Upper Cut, et al. v. National
Football League, Inc., NFL Enterprises LLC, DirecTV, LLC; DirecTV
Holdings LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-09794 (C.D. Cal., December 21,
2015) seeks to enjoin the ongoing unreasonable restraint of trade
that Defendants have implemented through DirecTV's exclusive
arrangement to broadcast all Sunday afternoon out-of-market games.

National Football League, Inc. an unincorporated association of 32
American professional football teams in the United States.

NFL Enterprises, LLC was organized to hold the broadcast rights of
the 32 NFL teams and license them to providers and other
broadcasters.

DirecTV Holdings, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and
has its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway,
El Segundo, California. DirecTV is a direct broadcast satellite
service provider and broadcaster.

DirecTV, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company that has
its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway, El
Segundo, California. DirecTV, LLC issues bills to its subscribers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Caleb Marker, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 500
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (877) 500-8780
      Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
      E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

         - and -

      Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
      Jason R. Lee, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      1100 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 341-0400
      Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
      E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
              jason.lee@zimmreed.com

         - and -

      Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
      Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
      James W. Anderson, Esq.
      HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
      310 Clifton Avenue
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Telephone: (612) 338-4605
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
      E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com
              vesades@heinsmills.com
              janderson@heinsmills.com

         - and -

      Patrick R. Burns, Esq.
      BURNS LAW FIRM PLLC
      1624 Harmon Place, Suite 300
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Telephone: (612) 877-6400
      E-mail: patrick@burns-law.mn


NATIONAL OILWELL: Faces "Stone" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel Stone, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees and former employees v. National Oilwell Varco,
L.P., Case No. 4:15-cv-03686 (S.D. Tex., December 22, 2015) is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

National Oilwell Varco, L.P. is engaged in the manufacture and
sale of equipment and components used in oil and gas drilling and
production operations, and the provision of oilfield services to
the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      G. Scott Fiddler, Esq.
      Andrew W. Reed, Esq.
      FIDDLER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1004 Congress, 2nd Floor
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 228-0070
      Facsimile: (713) 228-0078
      E-mail: scott@fiddlerlaw.com
              areed@fiddlerlaw.com


NEW MIAMI, OH: Appeals Court OKs Speed Camera Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Sewell, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a state
appeals court approved class action status on Feb. 1 for thousands
of motorists fined for speeding in a southwest Ohio village with
citations issued from automatic camera enforcement.

The 12th district appeals court ruling comes as New Miami's police
have just launched use of hand-held speed cameras meant to comply
with state legislation.

Attorneys for the drivers plan to ask a judge to order New Miami
to pay back more than $1 million collected in the less than two
years the cameras operated in the village of some 2,200 people.  A
Butler County judge ruled in 2014 that they violated motorists'
rights to due process and ordered them shut off.

"The good news for the motorists is that the judge already issued
a ruling that the ordinance was unconstitutional," attorney
Josh Engel said.  "We can proceed in the case as a class action
and we can attempt to recover the money for all those motorists."

An attorney for the village, Wilson Weisenfelder, said he hadn't
had time to study the ruling and would need to discuss with
village officials whether they want to seek an appeal to the Ohio
Supreme Court.

Traffic camera enforcement of red lights and speeding violations
has produced court cases around the state in recent years.

The state's highest court has twice affirmed the authority of Ohio
municipalities to use camera enforcement.  The appeals court Feb.
1 said it was only upholding class certification in the case and
wouldn't address for now what impact the latest Supreme Court
ruling, which upheld Toledo camera enforcement in 2014, might have
on the New Miami case.

Mr. Engel is also an attorney for motorists in the Cincinnati area
village of Elmwood Place, where a Hamilton County judge called
traffic cameras a scam and ordered refunds of fines and fees
totaling some $1.8 million.  That case is still under appeal.

Critics say the automated enforcement is aimed at raising revenues
and that the systems often violate motorists' rights. Proponents
say they make roads safer and add to law enforcement resources.

New Miami police have been trying out hand-held speeding cameras
in an effort to comply with state legislation requiring that
police officers be present when cameras are used.

"It's a safety program," said Police Chief Dan Gilbert.  "We're
not running them 24-7, seven days a week.  It is a speeding
issue."

Police have been issuing warnings the past six weeks while trying
out the handhelds, he said, but is set to begin $95 citations,
joining several other Ohio communities in using technology that
Mr. Gilbert predicts will become widespread.

Mr. Gilbert, who became chief in 2014, said he wouldn't have used
the automated enforcement.  But he said the hand-held cameras add
evidence including photos and add efficiency to policing speeders
that he says often far exceed the 35 and 40 mph speed limits
through the village near the county seat of Hamilton.


NEW YORK: Truck Registration Fees Unconstitutional, Court Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Cullen Law Firm on Feb. 2 disclosed that in a class action
challenging New York State's Highway Use Registration and Decal
taxes, the New York State Supreme Court, Albany County, ruled that
the taxes are unconstitutional, and permanently enjoined the State
from collecting the taxes.  The class representatives include the
Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association and individual
operators. Plaintiffs are represented by Paul D. Cullen, Sr.,
Daniel E. Cohen and Joseph A. Black of the Cullen Law Firm, PLLC,
Washington D.C., and Thomas Fallati, Tabner Ryan and Keniry LLP,
Albany New York.

In addition to requiring trucks to pay a per-mile fuel tax, New
York State has required operators to pay a $15 per vehicle
registration fee and a $4 decal fee.  These registration and decal
taxes apply equally to in-state and out-of-state operators,
regardless of the number of miles they travel in New York State.
In its ruling, the Court held that the taxes violate the Commerce
Clause of the U.S. Constitution by discriminating against out-of-
state operators.  Among other things, the Commerce Clause
prohibits states from imposing burdens on interstate commerce.

In addition to its order permanently enjoining that State from
collecting any more fees, the court directed the parties to submit
briefs within sixty days addressing issues pertaining to the
calculation and administration of refunds to class members. It is
estimated that the amount of refunds could exceed $30 million.

Daniel E. Cohen, lead counsel for the class, commented that "The
Court's ruling vindicates the constitutional rights of thousands
of truck owner-operators, who should be reimbursed by the State of
New York for all registration taxes they have been required to pay
in violation of the Constitution."

The Cullen Law Firm specializes in representing plaintiffs in high
profile constitutional law cases and class actions.


NISEN SUSHI: Faces "Zeng" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheng Zeng, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Nisen Sushi of Commack, LLC, Tom Lam, Robert
Beer, John Does and Jane Does # 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-07269
(E.D.N.Y., December 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Nisen Sushi restaurant located at
5032 Jericho Turnpike, Commack, NY 11725.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bard" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Bard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Northland Group Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-07281
(E.D.N.Y., December 22, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Northland Group Inc. operates a debt collection agency with its
principal place of business located at 7831 Glenroy Rd #250,
Minneapolis, MN 55439.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Palace, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
      383 Kingston Avenue, #113
      Brooklyn, NY 11213
      Telephone: (347) 651-1077
      Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
      E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


PALMER SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Twining" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell E. Twining, on behalf of himself and of all others
similarly situated v. Palmer Systems Inc., d/b/a Sonoma County
Credit Service, Case No. 8:15-cv-02147 -JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.,
December 23, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Palmer Systems Inc. is a legal services company based at 555 S E
St, Santa Rosa, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael John Manning, Esq.
      Phillip Bao Nghiem, Esq.
      THE MANNING LAW OFFICE APC
      4667 MacArthur Boulevard Suite 150
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 200-8755
      Facsimile: (866) 843-8308
      E-mail: mike@manninglawoffice.com
              philn@manninglawoffice.com

         - and -

      Joseph Richard Manning Jr., Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH R MANNING JR APC
      4667 MacArthur Boulevard Suite 150
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 200-8755
      Facsimile: (866) 843-8308
      E-mail: info@manninglawoffice.com


PETROBRAS: Must Face Class Action Over Bribery, Kickbacks Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian reports that a US judge has ordered Petrobras, the
state-run Brazilian oil company, to face class-action litigation
by investors seeking to recoup billions of dollars in losses
stemming from a bribery and political kickback scandal.

In a decision made public on Feb. 2, US district judge Jed Rakoff
in Manhattan certified two classes of plaintiffs, saying their
claims are similar enough to be pursued as groups.

One class bought various Petrobras securities from January 2010 to
July 2015 and will be led by Germany's Union Asset Management
Holdings AG.  The other bought debt securities from offerings in
2013 and 2014, and will be led by North Carolina's treasurer and
the Employees' Retirement System of Hawaii.

"Petrobras was a massive company with investors around the globe,"
Judge Rakoff wrote in a 49-page decision.  "Notwithstanding
Petrobras's size and its numerous and far-flung investors, the
interests of the class members are aligned and the same alleged
misconduct underlies their claims."

Class certification can make it easier for investors to recoup
larger sums than if they sued individually, though it does not
guarantee they will be recover.

Petrobras, whose formal name is Petroleo Brasileiro SA, has been
accused of inflating the value of more than $98bn of its stock and
bonds through years of corruption.

Its market value has plunged to below $20bn from nearly $300bn
fewer than eight years ago, Reuters data show.

Judge Rakoff appointed the law firm Pomerantz LLP to represent
both investor classes.  It would share in any recoveries.


PRIORITY 1: Faces "Landry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Landry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Priority 1 Air Rescue Operations, Arizona LP, Case No.
2:15-cv-06979 (E.D. Lo., December 22, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Priority 1 Air Rescue Operations, Arizona LP provides paramedics,
hoist operators, and other personnel for air ambulance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      S. Bradley Rhorer, Esq.
      Alexander T. Reinboth, Esq.
      RHORER LAW FIRM
      10566 Airline Highway
      Baton Rouge, LA 70816
      Telephone: (225) 292-2767
      Facsimile: (225) 292-2769
      E-mail: bradr@rhorerlaw.com
              alexr@rhorerlaw.com

         - and -

      Daniel B. Davis, Esq.
      ESTES DAVIS LAW
      850 North Boulevard
      Baton Rouge, LA 70802
      Telephone: (225) 336-3394
      Facsimile: (225) 384-5419
      E-mail: dan@estesdavislaw.com


PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Two Law Firms Settle Insurance Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Johnson, writing for MassLive, reports that two
Springfield law firms have settled a federal class-action lawsuit
against Progressive Insurance that has the potential to see a
payment of more than $8 million to 4,300 Massachusetts residents
in an ongoing dispute over auto insurance coverage.

The two firms, Alekman DiTusa LLC and Connor, Morneau and Olin
LLC, filed suit against Progressive Direct Insurance Company,
claiming that between 2008 and 2010, the insurance company
deceptively had customers agree to an $8,000 deductible for injury
claims resulting from car accidents.

Ryan Alekman said the settlement, agreed to on Jan. 29, brings to
an end a four-year dispute affecting 4,311 people in
Massachusetts.

Each of the people listed in the suit, named "Wanda Estrada, et al
v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company," is eligible for a
payment of $1,875 provided they file by the end of the month.  If
all of the claims are filed, the payout by Progressive will be
$8.08 million.

In addition to the money for claims, Progressive also agreed to
pay all legal fees.

According to court documents, the company agreed to the settlement
to bring an end to the court action but admitted to no wrongdoing.
A spokesman for Progressive Direct Insurance could not be reached
for comment.

The 4,311 class action members were all people who purchased
Progressive Insurance between 2008 and 2010 and who submitted an
injury claim as a result of an accident but had it denied.

Each has already received written notification they are eligible
for a share of the payment, but each needs to file a claim by Feb.
28 through the website https://masspipclaims.com

The suit involved a dispute over a portion of car insurance
policies known as personal injury protection, or PIP, coverage.
Under Massachusetts law, all auto insurance policies are required
to provide PIP coverage to the licensed driver of the car and all
occupants.

It covers the driver and all occupants for medical costs, lost
wages and even funeral expenses related to injuries suffered in a
car accident.

The suit contended that Progressive had affixed an $8,000
deductible to many policies for many PIP claims.  That is, if
someone filed a claim for a medical expense related to an auto
accident, Progressive would make payment only after the claimant
paid the first $8,000.

Mr. Alekman said anyone in Massachusetts purchasing auto insurance
online from Progressive between 2008 and 2010 would be asked if
they had separate health insurance.  Since Massachusetts had had
already begun requiring health insurance for residents, most
people would click yes.

But doing so would automatically change the policy to include the
$8,000 deductible.

"It was then up to the applicants to know this and change it
back," Mr. Alekman said.
Someone clicking "no" would be getting a policy with no deductible
for PIP claims.

"I've never seen an insurance policy with an $8,000 PIP deductible
until Progressive started doing business in Massachusetts," DiTusa
said.

The deductible was included only between 2008 and 2010. Policies
since then have not had it included, he said.

According to court documents, the lead plaintiffs, Wanda and
Walter Estrada, of Holyoke, purchased insurance online through
Progressive on Aug. 3, 2009.  They were in an accident four days
later, and both Estradas and their two children were injured.

Each incurred medical bills of between $3,000 and $7,400, but when
they filed claims with Progressive, they were denied because of
the $8,000 deductible.

DiTusa said that at the heart of the issue is purchasing insurance
online instead of through a face-to-face discussion with an
insurance agent.  "Insurance is a fairly complicated product.
When you start getting the average consumer online buying this
fairly complex product, you are going to run into problems,"
DiTusa said.

"It totally created a problem for a lot of people because a lot of
people bought their policies online," Mr. Alekman said.


PRO PAINT: "Castro" Suit Seeks Recovery of Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Castro, individually and all other similarly situated
persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. Pro Paint, Inc., Auto
Renew Group, LLC, Mark Nussbaum, individually, Michael Barr,
Individually and Scott Greenberg, Individually, Defendants, Case
No. 1:15-cv-11861 (N.D. Ill., Eastern Division, December 30,
2015), seeks recovery of overtime wages due, statutory damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and other and further relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law.

Plaintiff worked more than forty hours in a week without overtime
premium and alleges the Defendants failed to keep proper time
records to post a notice of rights. He performed body works on
cars in the Defendant's car shop where Barr and Greenberg are the
managers and co-owners of Auto Renew while Nussbaum was the
president of Pro Paint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Susan J. Best, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Tel: (312) 878-1263
      Email: sbest@yourclg.com


RED RIVER: "Pittard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT, Min. Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tarlton Pittard and Nathan Bernardino, Individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Red River
Oilfield Services, LLC d/b/a Red River Technical Services LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-03753 (S.D. Tex., December 30, 2015),
seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorney's
fees in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Red River provides services to the oil and gas industry, and
tubular inspection services and premium hard banding services.

Pittard and Bernardino worked for Defendant as EMI helpers,
assisting with electromagnetic inspections including, but were not
limited to, assisting inspectors by setting up trailers and
pipeline racks for inspections, using tools like drills, high
speed and side grinders, cleaning and maintaining tools and
equipment for inspections. They regularly worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek without overtime compensation and claim to
have been underpaid.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROBONGI INC: "Zhang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Min., OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Guo Liang Zhang, Zhi Qiang Zhang, Chang Ming Li, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Robongi Inc., Yu Lin
Zheng, "A Long" Doe, John Doe and Jane Doe #1-10, Case No. 2:15-
cv-08792-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., December 21, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum, unpaid overtime, reimbursement for expenses
relating to tools of the trade, improper diversion of tips,
liquidated damages and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Japanese restaurant located at
520 Washington St, Hoboken, NJ 07030.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keli Liu, Esq.
      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave. Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


ROSS STORES: Wage & Hour Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, 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 like many retailers,
the Company has been named in class action lawsuits, primarily in
California, alleging violation of wage and hour laws and consumer
protection laws. Class action litigation remains pending as of
October 31, 2015.


SCOT MURPHY: "Dones" Suit Seeks OT, Hits Illegal Termination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Dones, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff
(s), v. Scot Murphy Plastering Inc. and Bobby S. Murphy,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:15-cv-62723-BB (S.D.Fla.,
December 30, 2015), seeks damages resulting from termination
resulting from his retaliation in violation of 29 U.S.C. 215(a);
liquidated damages and consequential damages for all back wages
due, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of this suit and other
and further relief; reinstatement and promotion and injunctive
relief; damages from emotional distress and humiliation, pain and
suffering; and front wages until retirement pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201-219.

Scot Murphy Plastering is a general commercial contracting company
that specialized in drywall installation and drywall repair.

Dones is a security employee and claims to have rendered in excess
of 40 hours per workweek and still received the regular rate of
$14/hours instead of the $21/hour inclusive of overtime premium.
He also alleges the Defendant did not employ proper time-keeping
facilities. Dones alleges the Defendant fired him in retaliation
of his constant complaints regarding the matter.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd.
      Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33156
      Tel: (305) 446-1500
      Fax: (305) 446-1502
      Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


SEAGATE: Faces Class Action Over 3TB Consumer Hard Drives
---------------------------------------------------------
Jared Newman, writing for PCWorld, reports that Seagate is facing
a class action lawsuit over its 3TB consumer hard drives, which by
some accounts have suffered unusually high failure rates.

The lawsuit, filed on February 1 in the U.S. District Court for
Northern California, primarily cites reliability data from
Backblaze, a cloud backup provider that builds its own storage
pods from consumer hard drives.  In Backblaze's experience,
Seagate's 3TB HDDs failed at much higher rates than other drives,
prompting the storage provider to phase out those drives by mid-
2015.

"In terms of raw percentages, approximately 32 percent of the
[Seagate] Drives deployed in 2012 failed by early 2015," the
lawsuit says.  ". . . Accordingly, only 68 percent of the Drives
deployed in 2012 were operational after three years, which was
well below Backblaze's overall drive survival rate of 80 percent
after four years."

The lawsuit also points to user reviews on Newegg.com for
Seagate's 3 TB Desktop HDD, which totals more than 700 reviews
with two or fewer stars.  That's more than the number of reviews
with four or five stars.

As for the actual plaintiff, named Christopher Nelson, the lawsuit
says he purchased a Seagate Backup Plus drive in 2012, and it
"suffered a catastrophic failure with little to no forewarning" in
2014.  Although Nelson wasn't able to recover his data, the drive
was under a two-year warranty and Seagate sent a replacement. This
drive, apparently a refurbished model, also failed less than a
year later.  The lawsuit alleges that because all of Seagate's 3TB
drives were prone to high failure rates, replacing those drives
with the same model was not an effective solution.

The law firm Hagens Berman is still seeking people to join the
class action lawsuit, and has posted a contact form for affected
Seagate users on its website.


SEAWORLD PARKS: Status Reports in "Anderson" Due April 11
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion
to remand in the case MARC ANDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
SEAWORLD PARKS AND ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-
02172-JSW (N.D. Cal.)

Marc Anderson and Ellexa Conway filed a complaint in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the City and County of San
Francisco. The case is one of four putative class actions pending
against SeaWorld regarding its representations about its treatment
of orcas or killer whales, at its various theme parks. The other
three cases have been consolidated and are pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California as
Hall v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-660-CAB-RBB.

SeaWorld then removed the action to the present court and asserted
that the court had jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).

Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand to which Judge Conti denied,
finding that SeaWorld met its burden to show the value of
injunctive relief exceeded CAFA's jurisdictional minimum of
$5,000,000 and the potential preclusive effect of the case on the
Hall litigation created a conflict with CAFA's intent, making
remand improper. The latter finding was based on the court's
conclusion that the plaintiffs were intimately involved the Hall
litigation.

Plaintiffs move to reconsider the order denying remand on the
basis that the court manifestly failed to consider material facts
and dispositive legal arguments. Specifically, plaintiffs argue
that any attempt to measure the specific impact on SeaWorld of an
injunction directed towards advertising statements, including the
court's attempt, is inherently speculative. They also contend that
the court's factual assumption that they had any involvement with
preparing or filing the Hall litigation is erroneous.

Judge White granted, in part, and denied, in part, plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs previously filed a request
to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking leave to
appeal the order denying remand, and that appeal remains pending.
Judge White said the district court will defer ruling on the
motion to dismiss and will defer setting a case management
conference pending a ruling from the Ninth Circuit.

The parties shall file a joint status report on April 11, 2016,
and every 90 days thereafter, until the Ninth Circuit has either
denied plaintiffs' request for permission to appeal or granted
plaintiffs' request for leave to appeal and issued a final order
on the issue of remand.

A copy of Judge White's order dated January 12, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/KaVPyQfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Christine Saunders Haskett --
chaskett@cov.com -- Tracy Olivia Zinsou -- tzinsou@cov.com -- at
Covington & Burling LLP

SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc., Defendant, represented by
John Morgan Simpson -- john.simpson@nortonrosefulbright.com --
Michelle C. Pardo -- michelle.pardo@nortonrosefulbright.com --
Rebecca E Bazan -- rebecca.bazan@nortonrosefulbright.com -- at
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP; Lawrence Yale Iser --
liser@kwikalaw.com -- Gregory Steven Gabriel --
ggabriel@kwikalaw.com -- Kristen Louise Spanier --
kspanier@kwikalaw.com -- at Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert
LLP


SEMPRA ENERGY: SoCalGas Defending Class Suits over Leak
-------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy and Southern California Gas Company said in their
Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on December 10, 2015, that Southern California Gas Company, an
indirect subsidiary of Sempra Energy, is defending class action
lawsuits related to the leak at its natural gas storage facility.

On October 23, 2015, Southern California Gas Company (the
"Company"), an indirect subsidiary of Sempra Energy, discovered a
leak at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, located in
the northern part of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles
County.  The Aliso Canyon facility, which has been operated by the
Company since 1972, is situated in the Santa Susana Mountains.
The storage field provides important system reliability to ensure
service to customers in the Los Angeles Basin.  The leaking well
is more than one mile away from and 1,200 feet above the closest
homes.  It is one of more than 100 injection and withdrawal wells
at the storage facility, and the leak is not impacting the
Company's ability to safely and reliably provide natural gas to
its customers.

The Company's top priority is to safely and expeditiously stop the
leak, mitigate neighborhood impacts and reduce the amount of
natural gas being emitted into the environment.  Mitigation
includes relocation of certain impacted customers as directed by
the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and in response
to claims made in civil lawsuits.

The Company has been working closely with several of the world's
leading experts to stop the leak.  In the interim, the Company is
also working to reduce the flow of natural gas into the air and
the impact of the odorant that is required to be added to the
natural gas for safety purposes.  On December 4, 2015, the Company
began drilling a relief well that is designed to intercept the
leaking well so that the leak can be stopped.  This activity is
expected to take three to four months.  The Company continues to
withdraw natural gas from the storage facility to serve customers.
These withdrawals reduce the overall pressure in the storage
facility, which also should reduce the amount of natural gas that
is emitted from the impacted well.  In addition, the Company is
evaluating other mitigation measures with outside experts.

The Company does not believe it is possible at this time to
accurately measure the amount of natural gas being lost from the
leak.  Any estimates published in the news media or elsewhere on
the potential scale of the leak and any costs of this incident are
premature and purely speculative. Once the gas leak is terminated,
the Company will conduct an objective measurement of natural gas
lost from the leak and provide that information to the relevant
regulatory bodies.

Various regulatory agencies have issued notices to the Company
directing it to stop the leak and control the release of natural
gas into the air, and the Company may face fines or other
penalties as a result of this incident.  The Company has been
working in close cooperation with these agencies.

In addition, three complaints have been filed asserting causes of
action for negligence, nuisance and trespass, among other things.
All three complaints seek class action status, compensatory and
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees, and two of them also seek
injunctive relief.  The Los Angeles City Attorney has also filed a
complaint against the Company for public nuisance, restitution and
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.  That
complaint seeks an order to abate the public nuisance and civil
penalties.  All of these complaints are currently being reviewed
by the Company and outside legal counsel.

The Company has at least four types of insurance policies that it
believes will cover many of the current and expected claims,
losses and litigation (collectively, "Claims") associated with the
natural gas leak at Aliso Canyon.  The total combined limit
available under all of these policies is in excess of $1 billion.
The Company has put these insurers on notice about the leak, the
nature of potential losses and the filing of lawsuits and is
actively pursuing coverage with these carriers.  These policies
are subject to various policy limits depending on the type of
Claim and are subject to various exclusions and other coverage
limitations.


SHORTY'S SEAFOOD: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Hui" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ming Hui, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly
situated v. Shorty's Seafood Corp., Shorty's Seafood Corp.,Lufei
Lee, Hua Long Ji, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-
07295 (E.D.N.Y., December 22, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a seafood brokerage business at
143-51 Roosevelt Ave. Ste. 1G, New York, NY 11354.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STAR PENN: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Miller and Teodoro Vinhar, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Star Penn Pool Service, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-06726-JS (E.D. Penn., December 21, 2015) is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Star Penn Pool Service, Inc. operates a swimming pool repair
service company located at 1424 Easton Rd, Warrington, PA 18976.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Murphy, Esq.
      MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
      Eight Penn Cenrer,Suite 1803
      1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (267) 273-1054
      Facsimile: (215) 525-0210
      E-mail: murphy@phillvemploymentlawyer.com


SYNDICAT DES COLS: Must Pay C$2 Million in Punitive Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ilia Kravtsov, Esq. -- ilia.kravtsov@blakes.com -- and Claude
Marseille, Esq. -- claude.marseille@blakes.com -- of Blake,
Cassels & Graydon LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that in
the recent decision Biondi c. Syndicat des cols bleus regroupes de
Montreal (SCFP-301), the Superior Court of Quebec (Court) ordered
the Syndicat des cols bleus regroupes de Montreal (Union) to pay
C$2-million in punitive damages to the plaintiff class.  Although
Quebec courts can award punitive damages when expressly provided
for in a statute, this remains an exceptional measure and courts
are reluctant to award significant amounts under this head of
damages.  That being said, class actions often lead to claims for
punitive damages, the amount of which can be significant given the
junction of all class members' claims in a single proceeding.

CONTEXT

This decision is a chapter in the judicial saga resulting from the
delay from the City of Montreal (City) to de-ice sidewalks of
downtown Montreal during the illegal strike of the members of the
Union in the winter of 2004.  The class action joined the claims
of victims who fell on icy sidewalks in the City during the
illegal strike.

In 2010, the Court allowed the action and ordered the City and the
Union to compensate the victims for the damages they suffered.  In
addition, it ordered the Union to pay the plaintiff class a sum of
C$2-million in punitive damages.  In 2013, the Court of Appeal of
Quebec (Court of Appeal) confirmed the judgment as to the
liability of the City and the Union, but overturned the order for
punitive damages to enable their
re-evaluation when the amount of compensatory damages is known.

When the amount of the individual claims was determined, the
plaintiff class returned to the Court to seek an order that the
Union pay C$2.5-million in punitive damages.  The plaintiff class
contended that the amount should be increased from the 2010
decision because the amount obtained in compensatory damages
turned out to be lower than expected and the subsequent actions of
the Union showed that the previous award did not have the desired
dissuasive effect.

REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT

The Court once again confirmed that the Union must pay C$2-million
in punitive damages, concluding that the assessment made
previously was appropriate.  Indeed, the order for punitive
damages was made under sections 1 and 49 of the Canadian Charter
of Human Rights and Freedoms (Charter) given the breach of the
victims' right to security and inviolability of their person.  The
Court applied the evaluation criteria for punitive damages set out
by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), in Cinar Corporation c.
Robinson, in the context of an action for copyright infringement.
The Court considered the following elements in its analysis:

The gravity of the fault
The importance of the damages caused by it
The Union's capacity to pay
The fact that the amount of compensatory damages turned out to be
lower than expected at the time of the first judgment in 2010
The lack of apology from the Union
Following the example of the Court of Appeal in Brault & Martineau
inc. c. Riendeau and of the SCC in de Montigny v. Brossard
(Succession), the Court confirmed that punitive damages can be
awarded in Quebec even in the absence of an award for compensatory
damages.

CONCLUSION

This decision illustrates the scale that punitive damages can
reach in the context of class actions.  It demonstrates that
courts will not hesitate to grant substantial punitive damages,
where otherwise appropriate, to sanction serious and intentional
violations of a right protected by the Charter, or in cases of an
intentional violation of another law providing for the award of
punitive damages, such as the Consumer Protection Act.  Here, the
Court concluded that the behavior of the Union was "conduct that
violates the basic rules of life in society" and that its
recklessness was "serious, deliberate and antisocial", which
justified the substantial amount of punitive damages.  Class
actions are changing the landscape of amounts awarded as punitive
damages in Quebec.


TRANS UNION: "Dennis" Suit Proceeds; Bid to Stay Case Rejected
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter of the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania denied defendant's motion to stay in the case
DEIDRE L. DENNIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action
No. 14-2865 (E.D. Pa.)

Plaintiff Deidre Dennis filed a complaint against defendant Trans
Union, LLC for its failure to accurately and completely disclose
the true source of its public records information about plaintiff
in her consumer file disclosure in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section
1681(g) and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681n and 1681o, for
its failure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure maximum
possible accuracy of the report it prepared about plaintiff, in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e(b) and pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
Sections 1681n and 1681o and for its failure to conduct a
reasonable re-investigation after receiving plaintiff's notice of
dispute, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681i(a)(1)(A) and
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1681n and 1681o.

Defendant filed a motion to stay pending the decisions from the
United States Supreme Court in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo,
135 S.Ct. 2806 (2015) and Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 135 S.Ct. 1892
(2015).

Senior District Judge Buckwalter denied defendant's motion to stay
without prejudice to renewal following any motion by plaintiff to
obtain class certification.

A copy of Senior District Judge Buckwalter's memorandum dated
January 12, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/X3DKBZfrom
Leagle.com.

DEIDRE L. DENNIS, Plaintiff, represented by JOHN SOUMILAS --
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- DAVID A. SEARLES --
dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- LAUREN KW BRENNAN --
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com -- JAMES A. FRANCIS --
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- at FRANCIS & MAILMAN P.C.

TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendant, represented by ALISA M. TAORMINA --
ataormina@stroock.com -- BRIAN C. FRONTINO --
bfrontino@stroock.com -- STEPHEN J. NEWMAN -- snewman@stroock.com
-- at STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP; ANDREW M. LEHMANN --
alehmann@schuckitlaw.com -- CAMILLE R. NICODEMUS --
cnicodemus@schuckitlaw.com -- ROBERT J. SCHUCKIT --
rschuckit@schuckitlaw.com -- WILLIAM R. BROWN --
wbrown@schuckitlaw.com -- at SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES PC; CASEY GREEN
-- cg@greatlawyers.com -- at SIDKOFF, PINCUS & GREEN, P.C.


UNITED COLLECTION: Judge Says "Abplanalp" Case Should Be Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler of the Western District of North
Carolina, Charlotte Division, granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion in the case ZEENATH ABPLANALP, Plaintiff, v.
UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:15-
CV-203-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.)

Zeenath Abplanalp filed a complaint against United Collection
Bureau, Inc. (UCB) in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina, on March 30, 2015.

Defendant filed a notice of removal of civil action with the
federal district court on May 5, 2015. Defendant noted that
plaintiff asserts three causes of action purporting to arise under
N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 58-70-90, et seq., the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq.,
and (3) the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) 47 U.S.C.
Section 227 et seq.

The court issued a pretrial order and case management plan on June
24, 2015. On October 30, 2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss
and to compel arbitration, or, in the alternative, to stay the
proceedings. Defendant requests that the court issue an order
dismissing plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and compelling
plaintiff to submit her claims to arbitration. Or, in the
alternative, defendant requests that the court stay the
proceedings pending resolution of challenges currently before the
Federal Communications Commission and class action settlement in
Graff v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 2:12-CV-02402 (E.D.N.Y.).

Magistrate Judge Keesler recommends that defendant's motion to
dismiss and to compel arbitration, or, in the alternative to stay
the proceedings be granted in part and denied in part. Magistrate
Judge Keesler recommends that the request to dismiss and/or compel
arbitration be denied, but that the request to stay be granted.

Judge Keesler directed the parties to file a status report,
jointly if possible, on April 1, 2016, and every 90 days
thereafter, until this action is closed.

The parties in the case may file written objections to the
magistrate judge's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and recommendation.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Keesler's memorandum and recommendation
and order dated January 7, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/XaY2nsfrom Leagle.com.

Zeenath Abplanalp, Plaintiff, represented by:

     M. Shane Perry, Esq.
     COLLUM & PERRY, PLLC
     109 West Statesville Avenue
     Mooresville, NC 28115
     Telephone: 704-663-4187
     Facsimile: 704-663-4178

United Collection Bureau, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ethan
Geoffrey Ostroff -- ethan.ostroff@troutmansanders.com -- Dennis
Kyle Deak -- kyle.deak@troutmansanders.com -- at Troutman Sanders
LLP


URBAN LENDING: "Ragano" Seeks Payment of Backwages, Missed Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Ragano, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Urban Lending Solutions, LLC, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 8C604856 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles County, December 21, 2015), seeks overtime wages
and/or the applicable minimum wage under the California Labor
Code, damages resulting from the failure to provide meal and/or
rest periods, failure to pay all compensation owed at the time of
termination per California Labor Code Sec. 201, 203, 204, 510 and
1198, failure to provide time-keeping records, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, failure to pay all compensation for meal
and/or rest periods denied in violation of the Business &
Professions Code Sec. 17200, et seq., interest thereon and
penalties, injunctive relief and restitution, and reasonable
attorneys' fees pursuant to California Labor Code Sec. 218.5
and/or California Civil Code Sec. 1021.5 and 15.

Urban Lending Solutions does business within the state of
California providing mortgage fulfillment services, home retention
solutions, appraisals and valuation services, title and settlement
services, call center and collection services and document
fulfillment services.

Anita Ragano was a call center employee of the Plaintiff and has
yet to receive back wages upon her termination of employment. She
also missed out break periods on numerous occasions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
      Nathan R. Yannone, Esq.
      SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
      1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
      Oakland, California 94612
      Tel: (510) 891-9800
      Fax: (510) 891-7030
      Email: mbainer@scalaw.com
             nyannone@scalaw.com


UTI WORLDWIDE: Court Tosses "Angley" 2nd Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a California court
has dismissed with prejudice the second amended complaint in the
class action lawsuit filed by Michael J. Angley.

On March 17, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company and certain of its executives in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. As amended, the complaint, which is captioned Michael
J. Angley, individually and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. UTi Worldwide Inc., Eric W. Kirchner,
Richard G. Rodick, Edward G. Feitzinger and Jeffrey W. Misakian,
No. 2:14-cv-02066, generally alleged that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(Exchange Act), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act by misstating or failing to disclose, in
certain public statements made and in filings with the SEC between
March 28, 2013 and February 26, 2014, material facts relating to
the Company's liquidity position, financial condition, financial
covenants, financial systems and freight forwarding operating
system.

On November 12, 2015, the Court in this matter granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss and Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action
Complaint was dismissed with prejudice.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over OrthoK Buttons-Price Hike
------------------------------------------------------------
Tru-Form Optics, Inc., on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
08824-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., December 22, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged monopoly to implement large across-the-board
price hike on OrthoK buttons for the use of patients in the Unites
States.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. is a multi-billion
dollar pharmaceutical company registered under the laws of the
Province of British Columbia with international headquarters in
Lava, Quebec.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
      Newwark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 623-3000
      Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
      E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      Stuart M. Paynter, Esq.
      THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
      1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 626-4486
      Facsimile: (866) 734-0622
      E-mail: stuart@paynterlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Celeste H.G. Boyd, Esq.
      THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
      1340 Environ Way
      Chapel Hill, NC 27517
      Telephone: (919) 307-9991
      Facsimile: (866) 734-0622
      E-mail: cboyd@paynterlawfirm.com


WATSCO INC: Sued in Fla. Over Unlawful Voting Power Transfer
------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson R. Gaskins, individually on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated shareholders of Watsco, Inc. v. Watsco, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-24707-FAM (S.D. Fla., December 22, 2015) seeks to
recover on behalf of the Company and its minority shareholders the
value of the overpayment and damages resulting from the improper
transfer of voting power from the Company's minority shareholders
to Albert H. Nahmad.

Watsco, Inc. is a distributor of air conditioning, heating and
refrigeration equipment and related parts and supplies in the
HVAC/R ("HVAC/R") distribution industry and operates from more
than 570 locations in the United States, Canada, Mexico and Puerto
Rico, with additional market coverage to Latin America and the
Caribbean on an export basis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Emily C. Komlossy, Esq.
      Ross A. Appel, Esq.
      KOMLOSSY LAW P.A.
      2131 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 408
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Telephone: (954) 842-2021
      Facsimile: (954-416-6223
      E-mail: eck@komlossylaw.com
              raa@komlossylaw.com.

         - and -

      Steven J. Purcell, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: spurcell@zlk.com


WELLS FARGO: Judge Allows Calif. Mortgage Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Avalosg, writing for San Jose Mercury News, reports that
Wells Fargo must defend itself against a class-action lawsuit
brought by homeowners who accuse the banking giant of failing to
modify mortgages that the residents sought to change amid the
foreclosure crisis unleashed by the Great Recession, attorneys
said on Feb. 2.

The plaintiffs in the case believe that Wells Fargo did not keep
the promises it had made to homeowners in terms of modifying the
terms and conditions of their mortgages.

San Francisco-based Wells Fargo and numerous other big banks have
come under fire because the financial titans received a federal
bailout to stabilize the banking system at the height of the
financial crisis.  The banks also received economic incentives
from the federal government to modify residential loans under the
Home Affordable Mortgage Program, known as HAMP.

"Wells Fargo brought a whole bunch of people into the HAMP system,
knowing that they would not be able to complete the process," said
Tim Blood, a managing partner with San Diego-based Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon, a law firm representing the class of plaintiffs in the
legal action.  "The bank knew that all those loans wouldn't be
handled in time."

Frequently, the HAMP process took so long that the homes often
went into foreclosure and were sold at auction, with no
resolution, leaving the homeowners with no place to live.

The judge's ruling certified as a class only plaintiffs from
California, not the entire United States.

"This ruling in no way addresses any of the underlying issues in
the cases," said Mariana Phipps, a Wells Fargo spokeswoman. She
didn't elaborate.

Numerous homeowners contacted this newspaper during the recession
to complain that an array of banks, including Wells Fargo, Chase
and Bank of America, were forcing them into a bureaucratic maze in
their attempt to modify their loans.  A number of those homeowners
lost their houses to foreclosures.

"The proposed class consists largely of financially distressed
people -- people who have been having trouble making their
mortgage payments," U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria wrote
in his court order to establish the class.  "It is likely that the
large majority of these people would be unable to pursue a claim
of any sort if required to proceed on their own."


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Pinkerton Law Files Class Action in Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pinkerton Law, P.C. on Feb. 2 disclosed that on January 14, 2016,
it filed a class action lawsuit, John Bumgarner v. The Williams
Companies, Inc. and Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., Case No. 16-cv-
26-GKF-FHM, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma, which is located at 333 W. 4th Street, Suite
411, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74103.  The Honorable United States District
Judge Gregory K. Frizzell was assigned to the case.  An Amended
Class Action Complaint was filed on February 1, 2016.

The alleged class is comprised of the holders of the common stock
of The Williams Companies, Inc. as of September 28, 2015, and
after, though it excludes any individual or entity affiliated with
any Defendant.  The Amended Complaint alleges the knowing
misrepresentation by one or more executive officers and certain
directors of The Williams Companies, Inc. ("Williams"), and one or
more of the executive officers of Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.
("ETE"), in a joint press release on September 28, 2015 of there
being an increase in earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA") in excess of $2 billion
per year in synergies arising from the proposed merger of The
Williams Companies, Inc. into Energy Transfer Corp. L.P. pursuant
to the merger agreement announced that day.  Apart from the
alleged misrepresentation of in excess of $2 billion in annual
synergies, certain specifics within it are challenged in the
Complaint:

An uplift to EBITDA from commercial synergies in the Northeast
liquids business of the combined companies.  It is claimed that
200-300 thousand barrels per day ("BPD") of natural gas liquids
("NGL") volume with ethane rejection, and up to 500,000 BPD with
full ethane recovery, can be diverted onto pipelines operated by
ETE (and its affiliates), while potentially base-loading a new
project with NGL volumes currently controlled by Williams.  This
assumption accounts for $350-850 million of the projected $2
billion in commercial synergies, depending upon ethane
rejection/recovery, but is materially overstated by a factor of 10
or more, depending on the purported ability of Williams (through
its master limited partnership affiliate, Williams Partners LP, or
"WPZ") to entice uncontrolled barrels onto ETE pipelines.

A forecast for $300-400 million of increased EBITDA that
Williams/ETE claim can be achieved by diverting 60 thousand BPD of
incremental Williams volume in the Rockies region to baseload a
new pipeline that connects with ETE's Godley processing plant and
Mont Belvieu.  This is alleged to not be probable or even
possible, because of the disclosed sales by WPZ West, and because
WPZ's Rockies plants already have access to Williams' Conway and
Oneok's Bushton fractionator, and because the market spreads
between Conway and Mont Belvieu are less than $0.08 per gallon.
Guidance from Williams/ETE for projections of $250 million in
incremental EBITDA from bringing compression services in-house.
Such services are already mostly in-house due to the merger of
Access Midstream Partners with WPZ in 2014.

$160 million of EBITDA projected to be generated by connecting
ETE's Transwestern System with WPZ's Northwest Pipeline system
("NWPL"), and adding by-directional capability to the network.
This is an alleged misrepresentation because the pipes are already
connected via piping at the outlet of various processing plants in
the San Juan Basin.  Moreover, NWPL is already fully subscribed by
existing customers for an average remaining life of nine years
according to the May 13, 2015 Williams' Analyst Day package on
page E-9. Virtually all of the $160 million in EBITDA ascribed to
this "synergistic" idea is unattainable or would be enjoyed by
NWPL shippers who hold/control the capacity.

It is further alleged that with respect to each of the above so-
called EBITDA increases from synergies, there is no statement of
which entity is the beneficiary of any actual EBITDA increase.

Additional misrepresentations by ETE and the contrary evidence are
alleged: (i) the statement in the September 28, 2015 press release
that there was "no expected impact to WPZ's credit ratings," when
there was a same credit rating day impact that had to be known
through a meeting by ETE with Fitch Rating Service; (2) the
statement that there were potential operational cost savings of up
to $400 million per annum with WPZ joining the Energy Transfer
Shared Service Model, which failed to consider the 50% IDR from
WPZ; and (3) the statement by Mr. Jamie Welch, CFO of ETE, that
its business had a ratio of debt to EBITDA of 4.5, when public
financial disclosures contradict it.

The misrepresentations by Williams and ETE are alleged as
continuing in the draft S-4 Registration Statement filed with the
SEC on November 24, 2015 (the "S-4").  In addition, a pre-
effective amendment was filed to the S-4 on January 12, 2016 (the
"Amendment").  This Amendment includes an alleged virtual
admission by Williams of the misrepresentation that synergies will
exceed $2 billion annual increase in EBITDA.  In addition, a
material omission is alleged in the S-4 and the Amendment with
respect to the lack of information at the time of the merger
agreement concerning a reversal of a 2015 tax benefit for Energy
Transfer Partners LP, which at the time of the merger vote gave a
distribution coverage ratio of 1.03.  After the reversal of the
tax credit announced on November 4, 2015, the distribution
coverage ratio would have been 0.94.  An ongoing distribution
coverage ratio below 1.0 is considered to be unsustainable.

The above misrepresentations are alleged to be in violation of
Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The lawsuit further alleges entitlement to a preliminary and a
permanent injunction, because of irreparable harm to Williams'
shareholders, the likelihood of success on the merits, the balance
of equities in favor of the Plaintiff, and the public interest.
No actual damages are alleged at present.

You have the right to apply to serve as a lead Plaintiff,
depending upon your shareholdings in Williams, which motion must
be filed not later than 60 days from the date this notice is
published.

Should you be a member of the alleged class, you will at an
appropriate time be given an opportunity to opt out, if you wish.
Similarly, there will be further notice with respect to filing a
claim in the case.

You may inquire concerning this lawsuit by contacting: Laurence L.
Pinkerton, Pinkerton Law, P.C., Penthouse Suite, 15 E. 5th Street,
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, telephone (918) 587-1800, pf@att.net


XOMA CORP: Response Deadline in "Fieser" Moved to Feb. 19
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the Northern District of
California pushed back certain schedules in the case, DEBORAH A.
FIESER, derivatively on behalf of XOMA CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v.
W. DENMAN VAN NESS, WILLIAM K. BOWES, JR., PETER BARTON HUTT,
JOSEPH M. LIMBER, KELVIN M. NEU, PATRICK J. SCANNON, JOHN VARIAN,
TIMOTHY P. WALBERT, PAUL D. RUBIN AND JACK L. WYSZOMIERSKI and
Nominal Defendant XOMA CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 4:15-CV-
05236-KAW (N.D. Cal.)

Joseph Markette filed a securities class action lawsuit against
XOMA, John Varian, and Paul Rubin relating to XOMA's EYEGUARD-B
study in the United States Court for the Northern District of
California, captioned Markette v. XOMA Corp., et al., 3:15-CV-
3425-HSG, on July 24, 2015.

Plaintiff Deborah A. Fieser filed a related shareholder derivative
action, captioned Fieser v. W. Denman Van Ness, et al., Case No.
4:15-CV-05236, in the present court on November 16, 2015.

The defendants' responses to the Fieser complaint were due by
January 19, 2016.

Plaintiff and defendants agree to extend defendants' deadline to
respond to the Fieser complaint to February 19, 2016, to provide
the parties with additional time to reach agreement. They further
agreed that the initial case management conference should be
rescheduled for March 22, 2016 and that all associated deadlines
including ADR deadlines be rescheduled accordingly.

Judge Westmore held that the defendants shall have no obligation
to respond to the Fieser complaint until February 19, 2015. The
scheduled initial case management conference will be rescheduled
to March 22, 2016 and all related deadlines will be adjusted
accordingly.

A copy of Judge Westmore's order dated January 11, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/5fcj3Vfrom Leagle.com.

Deborah A. Fieser, Plaintiff, represented by Robert S. Green --
rsg@classcounsel.com -- James Robert Noblin -- at Green and
Noblin, P.C.

Defendants, represented by Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria --
jsantamaria@cooley.com -- Amanda Alison Main -- amain@cooley.com -
- Brett Hom De Jarnette -- bdejarnette@cooley.com -- John C. Dwyer
-- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- at Cooley LLP


                            *********

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  * * *