CAR_Public/160215.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 15, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 32


                            Headlines


144 NINTH: Faces "Benitez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
ACTAVIS PLC: Faces Suit Over Memantine HCL Monopoly
AFFINION GROUP: Filed Sur-Reply to Support Class Cert. Objection
AFFINION GROUP: Brief Due April 15 in Class Action Appeal
AFFINION GROUP: Filed Answering Brief in 9th Cir. Appeal

AFFINION GROUP: Massachusetts Class Action Dismissed
AIRGAS INC: Faces "Wojcicki" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Briefing Completed in Checked Bag Fees Action
ALEX FIGLIOLIA: Faces "Campoverde" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AMAZON.COM INC: "Blagman" Class Suit Still Pending

AMERICAN APPAREL: "Rodriguez" Shareholder Action Dismissed
AMERICAN APPAREL: Bankruptcy Stays Ex-Employees' Suit in Calif.
AMERICAN APPAREL: Calif. Suit over Collection of E-mails Stayed
AMSTERDAM PRINTING: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims
ANTHEM GROUP: "Bell" Suit Alleges Retirement Fund Mismanagement

ANTHONY C COLUZZI: Illegally Collects Debt, "Rosado" Suit Claims
APPLE INC: iPhone Crashed on iOS 9 Upgrade, "Williams" Suit Says
ARETE GROUP: Otto Group Seeks Payment for Subcontract Job
ARGENTINA: Bondholders' Lawyer Not Included in Settlement Talks
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Upholstery

ASTRO PAK: "Wright" Sues to Recover Upaid Overtime Pay
B&B AMBULETTE: Faces "Bishun" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BABY DOLLS: Stripper Files Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Wants "Gnipp" Complaint Amended by Feb. 29
BERTUCCI'S GROUP: Faces "Kappotis" Over Gift Card Redemption

BIOGEN INC: Defending Securities Litigation in D. Mass.
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued in Cal. Over Defective N63 Engines
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Can't Alter Resin in Vaginal Mesh Products
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Wins Transvaginal Mesh Suit
BRINKER INT'L: "Hohnbaum" Case Resulted in $5,800,000 Charge

BULLZEYE OILFIELD: "Furlow" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BUTH NA-BODHAIGE: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Dismissed from Direct Purchasers' Class Suit
CAL-MAINE FOODS: 3rd Cir. Stays Appeal from Damages-Class Ruling
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Hearing This Month on Summary Judgment Bids

CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over "Fire Prevention" Fee
CALNET INC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Ahmadi" Suit Says
CAMPBELL EWALD: Ruling May Drastically Change Pickoff Tactic
CAPITAL ADVANCE: Faces "Menichiello" TCPA Class Suit
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Consolidation of Kinney & Grooms Cases Sought

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces Probe Into Food Safety Practices
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Sued for Misrepresenting Vitamin Products
CIENA CORP: Briefing Underway on Bid to Dismiss Delaware Suit
CIENA CORP: Still Facing Calif. Suit over Cyan Acquisition
CITIFINANCIAL INC: Still Defends "Lightner" Action

CLEAR WATER: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Aragon" Suit Says
CLIFFS NATURAL: Settles Securities Class Action in Ohio
CMRE FINANCIAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CONNECTICUT: Class Action Mulled Over Unlawful Ebola Quarantine

CONQUEST COMPLETION: Faces "Albert" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CRACKER BARREL: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
CSX: Sued for Contributing to Gills Creek Flooding
DESTINATION CHIC: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
DEVRY EDUCATION: Law Firm Mulls Securities Class Action

DIXON GOLF: Faces "York" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DREW ECKL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Felberbaum" Suit Claims
EAGLE MATERIALS: Summary Judgment Bid Pending in Wallboard Case
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Word" Suit Over FCRA Violation
FARMERS INSURANCE: Female Attorneys Sue Over Pay Discrimination

FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Settlement Completion Deadline Extended
FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Motion to Dismiss "Ludwick" Action Pending
FLECK FLECK: "Alibrandi" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
FLINT, MI: Suits Pile Up Over Water Crisis
FOOD EXPRESS: Court Approves Settlement, Slashes Counsel Fees

FOOTHILL/EASTERN: "Cohen" Suit Stayed Pending Spokeo Decision
FRESH TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
FTS USA: "Taylor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
GATEWAY GENOMICS: "Main" Sues Over Inaccurate Pregnancy Test
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Beaver Water Suit Over LAS-Price Fixing

GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Siloam Springs Suit Over LAS-Price Fixing
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Springdale Suit Over LAS-Price Fixing
GENERAL CHEMICAL: St. Paul Water Services Hits Overpriced Alum
GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Lawyers Respond to Criticisms
GENERAL MOTORS: 121 Recall Class Actions Pending Through Jan. 27

GENERAL MOTORS: Oral Argument in 2nd Cir. Appeal Set for March 16
GENERAL MOTORS: April 20 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
GENERAL MOTORS: 2nd Bellwether Trial to Commence in March 2016
GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal in Canada Dealers' Claim Pending
GLOBAL TRAVEL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Tye" Action Claims

GOOGLE INC: Court Dismisses Class Action Over CAPTCHA
GOPRO INC: Faces Securities Class Action After Stock Slump
GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Former Students Sue Over Alleged Abuse
HAPPY ANGEL: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Moreno" Suit Says
HBH GOURMET: "Maye" Action Seeks OT, Tips, Spread of Hours Pay

HEALTH CANADA: Women Mull Class Action Over Anti-Nausea Drug
HEDGEPATH PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit v. Accentia, Biovest Settled
HENRY INDUSTRIES: Faces "Hose" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HIGHER ONE: Faces "Hall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: To Seek Dismissal of Merger Class Action

ISE RESTAURANT: Faces Suit in N.Y. Seeking Unpaid Wages & Damages
ITALY: Solicitor Mulls Class Action Over Juventus Travel Ban
JL BARNES: "Blake" Sues over Unsolicited Fax Messages
KEANE GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Frazier" Suit Claims
KEURIG GREEN: Faces "Kaufmann" Suit Over Merger With Acorn

KEURIG GREEN: Facing Class Suits in Delaware over Acorn Merger
KEURIG GREEN: Facing Class Suits in Vermont over Acorn Merger
LE MACARON: "Herrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LOS ARCOS: $178,928 Settlement in Labor Suit Has Initial Okay
MAGELLAN SOLUTIONS: "Hayford" Suit Seeks Pre-shift Overtime Pay

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Eley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Mitchell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NANT DISTILLERY: Investors Mull Class Action
NURSERY ELEGUA'S: Faces "Bonilla" Wage-and-Hour Suit
PATRIZIO BENVENUTI: Arrested in Italy Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
POST OFFICE: Subpostmaster Mulls Class Action

QUICKEN LOANS: Court Dismisses "Arace" Suit over Tax Service Fee
SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Morris" Suit Hits Illegal Collection Methods
SEASONS HOSPICE: "Lopez" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Tips
SEE'S CANDY: Red Heart Chocolates Are Not Kosher, Suit Claims
SNAK-KING CORP: "Parga" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

SOLERA HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
SOUTHAVEN, MS: Troy Goode's Family Files Class Action
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: D.C. Court Has Yet to Issue Scheduling Order
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defendant in British Columbia Class Action
SPECIAL TOUCH: Faces "Matala-De-Mazza" Wage-and-Hour Suit

ST. LOUIS RAMS: Faces Second Class Action Over Seat Licenses
TAMKO BUILDING: Faces "Snyder" Suit Over Defective Shingles
THOMSON REUTERS: "Furey" Stays in N.D. Cal.; Discovery Okayed
TREMOR VIDEO: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Medina" Complaint
TRIVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action

U.S. FOODSERVICE: Brinker Received $2,000,00 from Settlement
UBER: Drivers' Cases Over Employment Status Won't Go to MDL
UNITED AIRLINES: Hausfeld Named Lead Counsel in Price-Fixing Suit
UNITED STATES: Girard Named Lead Counsel in OPM Data Breach Case
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA: Alumni Files Data Breach Suit

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: New Jersey Files Suit Over Emissions Fraud
WASHINGTON: Inmate's Civil Rights Suit Denied Class Status

* Securities Class Action Filings Rise to 234 in 2015, NERA Says


                            *********


144 NINTH: Faces "Benitez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Benitez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 144 Ninth Gotham Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Gotham Pizza,
Michael Shamailov, and Lana Shamailov, Case No. 1:15-cv-10062-AT
(S.D.N.Y., December 28, 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 pizzeria located at 144 9th
Avenue, New York, NY 10011.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACTAVIS PLC: Faces Suit Over Memantine HCL Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Actavis, PLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-10083 (S.D.N.Y., December 28, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' unlawful scheme to maintain a monopoly in the United
States market of branded and generic versions of memantine
hydrochloride.

Actavis, PLC markets a broad portfolio of branded and generic
pharmaceuticals and has commercial operations in more than 60
countries around the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth A. Silva, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
      E-mail: esilva@faruqilaw.com

           - and -

      Peter Kohn, Esq.
      Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
      Neill W. Clark, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Telephone: (215) 277-5770
      Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
      E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
              jlukens@faruqilaw.com
              nclark@faruqilaw.com


AFFINION GROUP: Filed Sur-Reply to Support Class Cert. Objection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10 General Form For
Registration Of Securities filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 29, 2016, that the defendants in a class
action lawsuit have filed a sur-reply in support of their
objection to the motion for class certification of the case.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative
nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with
the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including
claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"),
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for
unjust enrichment.

On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. On
February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion. On March
28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of appeal in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
appealing the district court's denial of their motion to compel
arbitration. On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit affirmed the
decision of the district court denying arbitration.

While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceeded in the
district court. There was written discovery and depositions.
Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class
certification that called for the completion of class
certification briefing on May 18, 2012. However, on March 28,
2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due
to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The first of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the
Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A.,
Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United
Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD
Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp.,
People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten
USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc.

The second of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the
same defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc.,
Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co.

These two cases assert similar claims as the claims asserted in
the earlier-filed lawsuit in connection with the sale by
Trilegiant of its membership programs. On April 26, 2012, the
court consolidated these three cases. The court also set an
initial status conference for May 17, 2012.

At that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file
a consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the
three previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the
class certification briefing schedule that had been set
previously.

On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting substantially the same legal claims. The
consolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, Chase
Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added three
new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten as
Defendants. On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions
seeking to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to
strike certain portions of the complaint. Plaintiff's response
brief was filed on February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefs
were filed on April 5, 2013.

On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on the motions
to dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the court ruled on the motions to
dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in part. The court
dismissed the Plaintiffs' RICO claims and claims under the
California Automatic Renewal Statute as to all defendants. The
court also dismissed certain named Plaintiffs as their claims were
barred either by the statute of limitations and/or a prior
settlement agreement. Certain Defendants were also dismissed from
the case. The court also struck certain allegations from the
consolidated amended complaint, including certain of Plaintiffs'
class action allegations under CUTPA.

As to the Company and Trilegiant, the court denied the motion to
dismiss certain Plaintiffs' claims under ECPA and for unjust
enrichment, as well as certain other claims of Plaintiffs under
CUTPA.

Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these
consolidated cases filed an additional action in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut. That case is
identical in all respects to this case except that it was filed by
a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action
complaint previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800-
Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November
10, 2010). On

January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate that
case into the existing set of consolidated cases. On June 13,
2013, the court entered an order staying the date for all
Defendants to respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the
court ruled on the motion to consolidate. On March 28, 2014, the
court entered an order granting the motion to consolidate.

On May 12, 2014, remaining Defendants in the consolidated cases
filed answers in which they denied the material allegations of the
consolidated amended complaint. On April 28, 2014, Plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking interlocutory appellate review of portions
of the court's order of March 28, 2014. Briefing on the motion was
completed on June 5, 2014.

On March 26, 2015, the court denied Plaintiff's motion for
interlocutory appeal. On May 29, 2015, the court issued a
scheduling order indicating that discovery was to commence
immediately and be completed by December 31, 2015.

On May 29, 2015, the court also set deadlines for dispositive
motions, which are due February 29, 2016. If no dispositive
motions are filed, a joint trial memorandum would be due by April
1, 2016, and jury selection would take place on May 3, 2016. If
dispositive motions are filed, the joint trial memorandum would be
due by October 3, 2016, and jury selection would take place on
November 1, 2016.

On June 16, 2015, the court set a schedule for class
certification, with plaintiffs' motion for class certification due
on September 15, 2015, and with briefing to be completed by
November 30, 2015.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on September
15, 2015, and Defendants filed an opposition brief on December 15,
2015. Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on December 22, 2015, and
Defendants filed a sur-reply on December 29, 2015.


AFFINION GROUP: Brief Due April 15 in Class Action Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10 General Form For
Registration Of Securities filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 29, 2016, that the the Company's answering
brief must be filed by April 15, 2016, in an appeal in a
Connecticut class action lawsuit against Webloyalty.

On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card
associations in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation,
fraud and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act violation (the
"Connecticut Action"). This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's
alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008.

On November 1, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss the initial
complaint, which plaintiff then amended on November 19, 2010. On
December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a second motion to dismiss
this lawsuit.

On May 15, 2014, the court heard oral argument on plaintiff's
motion to strike the Company's request for judicial notice of the
plaintiff's membership enrollment documents filed in support of
the Company's second motion to dismiss. On July 17, 2014, the
court denied plaintiff's motion to strike. The court, at the same
time, dismissed those claims grounded in fraud, but reserved until
further proceedings the determination as to whether all of
plaintiff's claims are grounded in fraud and whether those claims
not grounded in fraud are dismissible. The court permitted the
plaintiff until August 15, 2014 to amend his complaint and allowed
the parties the opportunity to conduct limited discovery, to be
completed by September 26, 2014, concerning the issues addressed
in its dismissal order. All other discovery was stayed in the
case.

The July 17, 2014 order indicated that the court would set a
further motion to dismiss briefing schedule following the
conclusion of this limited discovery. The plaintiff amended his
complaint as scheduled, and the parties conducted limited
discovery as ordered. After this limited discovery, the parties
proposed a motion to dismiss briefing schedule calling for the
defendants to file their opening briefs on January 9, 2015.

The plaintiff filed his opposition brief on March 24, 2015, and on
April 24, 2015, the defendants filed their reply briefs in
response to that opposition. On October 15, 2015, the court
entered a judgment dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims with
prejudice and without further leave to amend.

On November 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of
the dismissal decision, but no further dates for that appeal have
been scheduled. Plaintiff's opening appeals brief must be filed by
February 10, 2016. The Company's answering brief must be filed by
April 15, 2016. Plaintiff will then have 14 days in which to file
a reply brief if he chooses. The Court has not scheduled a date
for a hearing.


AFFINION GROUP: Filed Answering Brief in 9th Cir. Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc.  said in its Form 10 General Form
For Registration Of Securities filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 29, 2016, that the the Company
filed its answering brief on January 19, 2016, in a California
class action appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against
Webloyalty that was factually similar to the Connecticut Action.
The action claims that Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business
practices in violation of California Business and Professional
Code Sec 17200, et seq. and in violation of the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act. Both claims are based on allegations that in
connection with enrollment and billing of the plaintiff,
Webloyalty charged plaintiff's credit or debit card using
information obtained through a data pass process and without
obtaining directly from plaintiff his full account number, name,
address, and contact information, as purportedly required under
Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act.

On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety and the court scheduled a hearing on the
motion for January 14, 2013. Webloyalty also sought judicial
notice of the enrollment page and related enrollment and account
documents. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 12, 2012,
and Webloyalty filed its reply submission on January 7, 2013.
Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the court cancelled the
previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that
it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without
the need for a hearing.

On August 28, 2013, the court sua sponte dismissed plaintiff's
complaint without prejudice with leave to amend by September 30,
2013. The plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 30,
2013, adding purported claims under the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act and for unjust enrichment, money had and received,
conversion, civil theft, and invasion of privacy.

On December 2, 2013, the Company moved to dismiss plaintiff's
amended complaint. Plaintiff responded to the motion on January
27, 2014. On February 6, 2014, the court indicated that it would
review the submissions and issue a decision on plaintiff's motion
without oral argument. On September 29, 2014, the court dismissed
the plaintiff's claims on substantive grounds and/or statute of
limitations grounds. The court has allowed the plaintiff 28 days
to file a motion demonstrating why a further amendment of the
complaint would not be futile. On October 27, 2014, the plaintiff
filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and attached a
proposed amended complaint. The Company responded to the motion on
November 10, 2014.

On June 22, 2015, the court entered a final order and judgment
denying plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims
with prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice.
On July 10, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal
decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company
responded to the motion on November 10, 2014.

On June 22, 2015, the court entered a final order and judgment
denying plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims
with prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice.
On July 10, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal
decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiff
filed his opening appeal brief on November 19, 2015, and the
Company filed its answering brief on January 19, 2016.


AFFINION GROUP: Massachusetts Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10 General Form For
Registration Of Securities filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 29, 2016, that the parties in a consumer
class action lawsuit in Massachusetts have filed a joint
stipulation of dismissal.

On February 7, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and one of its clients in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts alleging, among other things,
violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, money had and
received, conversion, misrepresentation, violation of the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and equitable relief. Claims
are based on allegations that plaintiff was enrolled and billed
for a package program without plaintiff's proper consent and
knowledge.

On April 4, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. A hearing
on that motion was held on July 24, 2014. On March 11, 2015, the
magistrate judge to whom the motion was referred by the district
court judge issued a report and recommendation granting in part
and denying in part the motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge
granted the motion to dismiss on the fraud claim, which was
dismissed as time-barred, but denied the remainder of the motion.

On March 25, 2015, the Company filed objections to the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation. Briefing on the objections
concluded on April 9, 2015. On June 4, 2015, the court accepted
and adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge
over the Company's objections. The Company filed its answer to the
complaint on July 2, 2015.

A scheduling conference was held with the court on August 11,
2015. The court entered an order providing that fact discovery is
to be completed by March 31, 2016.

On October 2, 2015, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to withdraw
as counsel. On October 20, 2015, the court granted the motion of
plaintiff's counsel to withdraw as counsel.

On October 21, 2015, plaintiff and the Company agreed to settle
plaintiff's claims on an individual, non-class basis for a payment
of $25,000.  In connection with such settlement, plaintiff
released the Company and its affiliates from all claims that
plaintiff had against such parties related to such lawsuit. On
November 12, 2015, the parties filed a joint stipulation of
dismissal.


AIRGAS INC: Faces "Wojcicki" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Wojcicki, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Airgas, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06787-PBT (E.D.
Penn., December 23, 2015) alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Airgas, Inc. is a producer and supplier of industrial, medical and
specialty gases, and hard-goods, such as welding equipment and
related products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Banko, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      101 Greenwood Ave. Suite 600
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Telephone: (215) 277-5770
      Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
      E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com

           - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      James M. Wilson Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl.
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
      E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
              jwilson@faruqilaw.com


AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Briefing Completed in Checked Bag Fees Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit against Delta Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran Holdings,
LLC, have completed briefing on defendants' motions for summary
judgment, plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and the
motions to exclude the opinions of experts, and those motions have
been submitted to the Court for decision.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran Holdings, LLC, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on
May 22, 2009. The complaint alleged, among other things, that
AirTran attempted to monopolize air travel in violation of Section
2 of the Sherman Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-
per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble
damages on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in
the United States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees
on domestic flights beginning December 5, 2008.

After the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly
identical complaints also seeking certification as class actions
were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia;
Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were
consolidated before a single federal district court judge in
Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the
consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the
allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to
reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise prices in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

In addition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage fees
paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint
seeks injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged
anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion
to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta have opposed. The
parties have submitted briefs on class certification, and the
parties have filed motions to exclude the class certification
opinions of each other's expert. The parties engaged in extensive
discovery, and discovery has now closed.

On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that
plaintiffs have abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta
conspired to reduce capacity.

On August 31, 2012, AirTran and Delta moved for summary judgment
on all of plaintiffs' remaining claims, but discovery disputes
between plaintiffs and Delta delayed further briefing on summary
judgment.

On August 5, 2015, the Court entered an order granting class
certification, which was vacated on August 17, 2015, to permit
further briefing on class certification and AirTran's motion to
exclude plaintiffs' expert. Thereafter, the parties filed motions
to exclude the opinions of the other parties' experts.

On January 8, 2016, the parties completed briefing on defendants'
motions for summary judgment, plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and the motions to exclude the opinions of experts,
and those motions have been submitted to the Court for decision.
While AirTran has denied all allegations of wrongdoing, including
those in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend
vigorously any and all such allegations, results of legal
proceedings such as this one cannot be predicted with certainty.

Southwest Airlines Co. (the "Company") operates Southwest
Airlines, a major domestic airline. The Consolidated Financial
Statements include the accounts of the Company and its wholly
owned subsidiaries, which include AirTran Holdings, LLC. On May 2,
2011 (the "acquisition date"), the Company acquired all of the
outstanding equity of AirTran Holdings, Inc. ("AirTran Holdings"),
the former parent company of AirTran Airways, Inc. ("AirTran
Airways").


ALEX FIGLIOLIA: Faces "Campoverde" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Segundo Marcial Saeteros Campoverde, individually and in behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Alex Figliolia Water &
Sewer LLC and Alexander Figliolia, Case No. 1:15-cv-07353-ENV-RML
(E.D.N.Y., December 28, 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 plumbing company doing business
as Alex Figliolia Water & Sewer LLC and located at 420 Carroll
Street, Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
              bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              jazeller@zellerlegal.com


AMAZON.COM INC: "Blagman" Class Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Amazon.Com, Inc. continues to defend against the class action
lawsuit filed by Norman Blagman, the Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

In July 2012, Norman Blagman filed a purported class-action
complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. for copyright infringement in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Amazon.com,
Inc. sells digital music in its Amazon MP3 Store obtained from
defendant Orchard Enterprises and other unnamed "digital music
aggregators" without obtaining mechanical licenses for the
compositions embodied in that music. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action, statutory damages, attorneys'
fees, and interest.

"We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend
ourselves vigorously in this matter," the Company said.


AMERICAN APPAREL: "Rodriguez" Shareholder Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
American Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a Delaware court
has granted the voluntary dismissal of a shareholder class action
lawsuit filed by Eliana Gil Rodriguez.

On April 30, 2015, former employee and purported shareholder
Eliana Gil Rodriguez filed a putative class action lawsuit against
Company directors, a former Company officer, and Standard General
L.P. in the Delaware Chancery Court (Case No. 10944). The lawsuit
alleges breach of fiduciary duty claims in connection with the
Company's 2014 annual meeting, its secondary offering, the
Standstill Agreement, the 2014 adoption of a rights plan, and
certain amendments to the bylaws against the former and current
Company directors and the named former Company officer. In
addition, the lawsuit alleges that Standard General aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff seeks
declaratory relief and requests that the Court order a revote of
the Class A directors. On September 18, 2015, the Court granted
plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.

American Apparel, including its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer,
distributor, and retailer of branded fashion basic apparel
products and designs.  In addition, the Company operates an online
retail e-commerce website. At September 30, 2015, the Company
operated a total of 227 retail stores in 19 countries including
the U.S. and Canada.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Bankruptcy Stays Ex-Employees' Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a class action
lawsuit filed by former employees has been stayed due to its
bankruptcy filing.

On April 16, 2015, former employees Carlos Hirschberg, Cesar
Antonio Palma Cordero, and Dominga Valencia filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:15-CV-
02827), asserting: (i) violation of the WARN Act (29 U.S.C. Sec.
2101 et seq.); (ii) violation of the California WARN Act (Labor
Code Sec.1400 et seq.), and (iii) unfair business practices under
California Business and Professions Code Sec.17200 et seq.). The
judge in this matter has since dismissed Mr. Hirschberg as a
plaintiff.

The Company believes that all such claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously dispute the validity of these claims. This
matter is currently stayed with respect to the Company, pursuant
to the automatic stay effected by its bankruptcy filing on October
5, 2015. The Company is unable to predict the financial outcome of
this matter at this time, and any views formed as to the viability
of these claims or the financial exposure which could result may
change from time to time as the matter proceeds through its
course. Accordingly, adjustments, if any, that might result from
the resolution of this matter have not been reflected in the
consolidated financial statements. However, no assurance can be
made that this matter together with the potential for reputational
harm, will not result in a material financial exposure, which
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

American Apparel, including its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer,
distributor, and retailer of branded fashion basic apparel
products and designs.  In addition, the Company operates an online
retail e-commerce website. At September 30, 2015, the Company
operated a total of 227 retail stores in 19 countries including
the U.S. and Canada.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Calif. Suit over Collection of E-mails Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a class action
lawsuit over the Company's practice of collecting e-mail addresses
in connection with credit card transactions has been stayed due to
its bankruptcy filing.

On April 2, 2015, a purported customer of the Company filed a
putative class action, (in San Diego Superior Court (Case No. 37-
2015-00011243), for violations of California Civil Code Sec.
1747.08 relating to the Company's alleged practices for collecting
e-mail addresses in connection with credit card transactions at
its retail stores. This matter is currently stayed with respect to
the Company, pursuant to the automatic stay effected by its
bankruptcy filing on October 5, 2015.

The Company intends to aggressively defend against this matter.
The Company is unable to predict the financial outcome of this
matter at this time, and any views formed as to the viability of
these claims or the financial liability which could result may
change from time to time as the matter proceeds through its
course. Accordingly, adjustments, if any, that might result from
the resolution of this matter have not been reflected in the
consolidated financial statements. However, no assurance can be
made that this matter together with the potential for reputational
harm, will not result in a material financial liability, which
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

American Apparel, including its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer,
distributor, and retailer of branded fashion basic apparel
products and designs.  In addition, the Company operates an online
retail e-commerce website. At September 30, 2015, the Company
operated a total of 227 retail stores in 19 countries including
the U.S. and Canada.


AMSTERDAM PRINTING: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Counseling, Inc. d/b/a Snelling Staffing Services, a
South Carolina corporation, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Amsterdam Printing &
Litho, Inc., Taylor Corporation and John Does 1-10, Case No. 3:15-
cv-05061-CMC (D.S.C., December 28, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles without the
recipient's prior express invitation or permission.

The Defendants operate a business that markets and sells
promotional products to businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John G. Felder Jr., Esq.
      McGOWAN, HOOD & FELDER, LLC
      1517 Hampton Street
      Columbia, SC 29201
      Telephone: (803) 779-0100
      Facsimile: (803) 256-0702
      E-mail: jfelder@mcgowanhood.com

           - and -

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


ANTHEM GROUP: "Bell" Suit Alleges Retirement Fund Mismanagement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Bell, Janice Grider and Cindy Prokish, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons of the
Anthem 401(k) Plan (formerly the We1lPoint 401(k) Retirement
Savings Plan), Plaintiffs, v. Anthem, Inc., Pension Committee of
ATH Holding Company, LLC, Board of Directors of Anthem, Inc.,
Joseph R. Swedish, George A. Schaefer, Jr., R. Kerry Clark, Robert
L. Dixon, Jr., Lewis Hay III, Julie A. Hill, Ramiro G. Peru,
William J. Ryan, Elizabeth E. Tallett, Angela F. Braly, Lenox D.
Baker, Jr., Susan B. Bayh, Sheila P. Burke, William H.T. Bush,
Warren Y. Jobe, Victor S. Liss, Jane G. Pisano, Jackie M. Ward and
John Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-2062-TWP-DML (S.D.
Ind. December 29, 2015), asks the Court:

     -- for damages as a result of excessive management fees in
        breach of fiduciary duties,

     -- to enjoin defendants from future ERISA violations,

     -- for interest and other equitable or remedial relief.

Plaintiff alleges Defendants of charging and/or employing
excessive management and administrative fees for the management of
their retirement plan, failing to use a stable value fund instead
of a money market fund, failing to monitor fiduciaries, and
withholding substantial information regarding their funds.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
      Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
      Troy A. Doles, Esq.
      Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
      Heather Lea, Esq.
      SCHLICTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
      100 South Fourth Street
      St. Louis, MO 63102
      Tel: (314) 621-6115
      Fax: (314) 621-7151 ,
      Email: jschlichter@uselaws.com
             mwolff@uselaws.com
             tdoles@uselaws.com
             kstruckhoff@uselaws.com
             hlea@uselaws.com


ANTHONY C COLUZZI: Illegally Collects Debt, "Rosado" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer T. Rosado, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Anthony C. Coluzzi, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
07335-LDW-SIL (E.D.N.Y., December 24, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Anthony C. Coluzzi, LLC is a full-service debt collection company
that obtains debt payments through fair and legal means.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7600
      Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
      E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com

           - and -

      David M. Barshay, Esq.
      SANDERS LAW, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7600
      Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
      E-mail: dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com


APPLE INC: iPhone Crashed on iOS 9 Upgrade, "Williams" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roslyn Williams, Chaim Lerman, Christina Gonzalez, and James
Vorrasi, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-07381-SJ-LB
(E.D.N.Y., January 18, 2016), alleges violation of New York
General Business Law Sec. 349 and 350 and the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act Sec 56:8-1, et seq.

Plaintiffs owned iPhone 4s units and, when their software was
updated to iOS 9 after Apple released the software to the public,
their phone either crashed and froze completely or slowed down
significantly with delayed responses to touch interactions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      Shimon Yiftach, Esq.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 697-6484
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


ARETE GROUP: Otto Group Seeks Payment for Subcontract Job
---------------------------------------------------------
Otto Group, LLC, for itself and on behalf of all other trust
beneficiaries similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Arete Group Inc.,
Stephan Economou, John Simon and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 604943/2015 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau County, July 31, 2015), alleges
that the defendants breach their obligations under the parties'
contracts by failing to pay the sum of $33,724.53.

Arete Group Inc. is a New York corporation with a place of
business at 580 Muttontown Road, Syosset, New York 11791-2319.
Stephan Economou and John Simon are its owners.

Otto Interiors, Inc., contracted with Arete to perform interior
painting and related services as a subcontractor at the Downing
Residence located at River House, Apt. 12B, in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven Troup, Esq.
      Christopher Tumulty, Esq.
      TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP
      1350 Broadway
      New York, NY 10018
      Tel: (212) 216-8000


ARGENTINA: Bondholders' Lawyer Not Included in Settlement Talks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Wernau and Taos Turner, writing for The Wall Street Journal,
report that an end to a stalemate over Argentina's defaulted debt
faces a number of hurdles despite the country's new $6.5 billion
offer to U.S. bondholders on Feb. 5, said people familiar with the
matter.

An agreement would have to contend with a number of thorny issues
in the U.S. and Argentina as large debt owners haven't yet
signaled their approval, these people said.  Argentina is trying
to settle with these holdouts so it can return to the global bond
market.

The offer represented 75% of the amount bondholders say they are
owed, and any deal is expected to serve as a model for settlement
talks with hundreds of other creditors who have sued the
government.

Most of the U.S. hedge funds that own the debt -- including one of
the biggest creditors, Paul Singer's Elliott Capital Management --
haven't signaled their approval of the offer, say people familiar
with the matter.  Analysts believe that some of these bondholders
feel little pressure to rush to an agreement and may be inclined
to push for better terms.

While newly elected, business-friendly President Mauricio Macri
has pledged to end the standoff between Argentina and bondholders,
he is expected to face strong opposition from much of the
population and some members of Argentina's Congress, who have
derided bondholders as "vultures."

Hundreds of smaller debtholders must also get on board with an
agreement.  There is a risk that these mostly local investors
could try to scuttle a deal that works for big U.S. hedge funds.

Argentina's negotiators have already left New York City, the
setting for the most recent meetings to break the stalemate, a
sign that no immediate agreement is expected, say people briefed
on the matter.

"It's not time to pop the champagne," said Charles Blitzer, an
economist and former senior IMF staffer, who has been involved in
many sovereign-debt restructurings.  "It's this kind of unilateral
offer that got them into trouble five and even 10 years ago. They
need to communicate with more creditors and actually negotiate."

The default issue has been a lingering and painful problem for
Argentina because it effectively bars the government from
borrowing any money in the international capital markets.  The new
administration views a global bond offering as crucial for raising
new capital to stimulate an economy mired in recession.

Mr. Macri has some reasons for optimism. The Finance Ministry said
in a statement that some creditors, including Dart Management and
Montreux Partners, had already agreed to accept the offer.
Representatives of those firms couldn't be reached or declined to
comment.

Even Mr. Singer has said as recently as July that his firm would
be willing to negotiate with Argentine officials and accept a
discount to full value.

"In the past, these hedge funds, particularly Elliott, have said
'we're entitled to full payment,'" said Mark Cymrot, a partner
with BakerHostetler in Washington, D.C.  "The truth is, you can't
get a very determined sovereign to pay."

That Argentine negotiators, including Financial Secretary Luis
Caputo, traveled to New York to meet with bondholders is a step
forward.  Mr. Macri became personally involved, holding a phone
call with the U.S. District Court-appointed mediator.  By
contrast, U.S. bondholders' request last year to resume
negotiations received no response from the former Peronist-led
government.

Yet people on both sides think there is much more work to be done.

Any deal would have to overcome significant political opposition.
Former President Cristina Kirchner made blaming the holdouts a
pillar of her political discourse.  Posters and banners proclaimed
"Fatherland or Vultures," implying that Argentines had to choose
between defending their country or betraying it by siding with the
bondholders.

On social-media networks over the weekend, opponents of the
government's offer accused Mr. Macri of selling out, saying that
even if Argentina paid the holdouts 75% of what they are owed, Mr.
Singer would be making a windfall.

"Being friendly with creditors, taking on debt and seducing Wall
Street ends up leading to banking and currency crises,"
Alejandro Vanoli, Argentina's central bank president under Mrs.
Kirchner, said in a Twitter post on Feb. 6.

Some smaller Argentine debtholders may continue to hold out.

Jennifer Scullion, a partner at Proskauer Rose LLP, representing
bondholders in eight class-action cases in New York, said
Argentina hasn't included them in negotiations.  The two sides are
arguing over how to quantify the size of those classes, and
Ms. Scullion said she would move for an injunction if the
government settles with other bondholders before they have agreed
to a deal with her clients.

"These are literally the same bonds," she said.  "We have the same
rights."

Some think the hedge funds would be wise to make a deal,
considering that 93% of Argentina's bondholders have already
agreed to offers that pay about 30 cents on the dollar.

"They will never find a more market-friendly administration in
Argentina than this one.  So, if they reject what is now on
offer -- say out of greed -- than they will probably have to wait
a whole lot longer to get paid," said Jan Dehn, head of research
at London-based asset manager Ashmore Group, which oversees about
$50 billion.  His firm owns Argentine bonds but isn't part of the
U.S. group dealing with the government.


ASHLEY FURNITURE: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Upholstery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that two people are suing a furniture
manufacturer over claims its brand of upholstery deceives
consumers.

Juan Alvarez and Silvia Rico, individually and for all others
similarly situated, filed a class-action lawsuit Dec. 22 in the
Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles against Ashley
Furniture Industries, Ashley Homestores and Does 1-100, alleging
fraud by concealment, unjust enrichment, breach of implied
warranty and violations of California consumer protection
statutes.

The suit states around April 2008 Ashley began using an upholstery
product in some of its furniture which it marketed as "blended-
leather upholstery" under the trade name DuraBlend.

The suit states this marketing deceives consumers because "blended
leather" appears to be leather, when in fact the suit claims it is
not leather.  Ashley allegedly further concealed the nature of
DuraBlend by not disclosing the percentage of leather scraps or
fibers, if any, it contains, as required by law.

The plaintiffs and others in the class seek restitution,
injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, interests,
attorney fees, costs and expenses.  They are represented by
attorneys Mike Arias -- mike@asstlawyers.com -- and Mikael H.
Stahle -- mikael@asstlawyers.com -- of Arias, Sanguinetti, Stahle
& Torrijos in Los Angeles.

The defendants filed to transfer the case to federal court on
Jan. 28 because there is minimal diversity of citizenship among
the parties, the class exceeds 100 members, and the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Western
Division Case number 2:16-cv-00630-ODW-MRW


ASTRO PAK: "Wright" Sues to Recover Upaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
David Wright, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v.  Astro Pak Corporation and Does
1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. BC604983 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles County, December 21, 2015), seeks actual and liquidated
damages, restitution of all monies illegally gained and disgorged
profits, waiting time penalties, interests, injunctive and
declaratory relief for failing to pay all wages and overtime
compensation and reasonable attorney's fees and cost of suit in
violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business
and Professions Code Section 17200, et. seq.

Wright was employed by the Defendant as an industrial cleaner and
passivationist. He claims to have unpaid overtime as a result of
working off the clock and through meal periods without additional
pay, as well as pay due and owed wages at the time of termination
of employment.

Astro Pak is into passivation precision treatment, high purity and
chemical cleaning as well as related metal surface industrial
treatment. They maintain their corporate headquarters at 270 E
Baker Street, Suite 100, Costa Mesa, CA 92626.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq
      Katherine Odenbreit, Esq.
      MAHONEYLAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Tel: (562) 590-5550
      Fax: (562) 590-8400
      Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
             kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net


B&B AMBULETTE: Faces "Bishun" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Bishun v. B&B Ambulette Corp., K&M Ambulette Corp., Inc.,
and Kenneth J. Milo, Case No. 7:15-cv-09962-NSR (S.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.

The Defendants are in the business of providing medically-related
transportation services to individuals and facilities in New York
State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq.
      Elizabeth A. Ledkovsky, Esq.
      CHARNY & ASSOCIATES
      9 West Market Street
      Rhinebeck, NY 12572
      Telephone: (845) 876-7500
      Facsimile: (845) 876-7501
      E-mail: ncharny@charnyandassociates.com
              eledkovsky@charnyanadassociates.com


BABY DOLLS: Stripper Files Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Silvestrini, writing for The Tampa Tribune, reports that
Alexa Rohlsen says she danced at a strip club to pay her way
through cosmetology school, but these days, it's been a struggle.

Ms. Rohlsen says she likes the work; it's good exercise, she sees
it as art and she likes to be around people.  But the enjoyment
goes down when she has to go home with little or no cash for her
efforts, even though she pays fees to the club and DJ, whether she
made money or not.

"People try and say that dancing isn't a real job," she said.
"But to us it is because we go out there and we're working hard.
We're sweating.  We're busting our butts doing all kind of tricks
and stuff like that. It's crazy. We should get paid for that."

When she injured herself falling off the stripper pole, she had no
insurance and so she was on her own when she had to go to the
hospital.

So Ms. Rohlsen joined a growing number of exotic dancers around
the country, filing a lawsuit against her former employer,
accusing Baby Dolls in Clearwater of violating federal law by
failing to pay her minimum wage and overtime.  The lawsuit, like
others, seeks class-action status on behalf of other dancers in
the same situation.

Strippers say the industry practice of paying them no wages while
charging them money for the privilege of shaking their stuff for
tips is unfair and illegal.

Ms. Rohlsen's lawyer, W. John Gadd, said when he first heard from
dancers that they collect zero wages and actually pay the clubs to
be allowed to dance, he was flabbergasted. There was, he said, a
"cognitive dissonance" on his part because he couldn't believe
what he was hearing.

But strip clubs say the dancers are not employees at all.  They're
independent contractors or lessees, who rent space in the clubs
that generously allow them to earn a very nice living on their own
while the club owners shoulder the legal liabilities and fight the
political battles to keep their businesses open.

But judges around the country have repeatedly sided with
strippers, saying federal law, specifically the Fair Labor
Standards Act, protects their right to be considered employees --
not independent contractors -- and paid wages and given benefits,
including workers' compensation and unemployment insurance.

Judges in California, New York, Georgia and Nevada have come down
on the side of dancers suing strip clubs.  Club owners in other
places, including South Florida, have been sued or forced to pay
settlements.

Lawyer Luke Lirot represents Baby Dolls and other Tampa-area strip
club owners, including the owners of the Mile High clubs in
Pinellas County that were sued for the same thing last year.
Although the Mile High case is pending, Mr. Lirot acknowledges the
courts have been ruling against the owners in the majority of
cases.

But he said dancers do not benefit by being considered employees
because they can make much more money through tips and private
dance fees than they could earn if they got minimum wage.

"If they were employees, the money they make for the dances would
go back to the club," he said.  "There's not a dancer anywhere in
the bay area -- or country for that matter -- if they're diligent
enough to leave the dressing room, that can't make many multiples
of minimum wage with a modicum of effort."

Mr. Lirot has been working to inoculate his clients by drawing up
lease agreements for dancers to sign saying they are temporarily
leasing space in the clubs to ply their trade, similar to an
agreement a hairdresser might make with a salon.  The agreements,
he said, also include a clause requiring the dancers to agree to
give up their right to sue and to take any legal disagreements to
binding arbitration.

Mr. Lirot has filed a motion to dismiss the Mile High case and
send it to binding arbitration, although he could not find
arbitration agreements signed by some of the dancers who sued
those clubs.

Mr. Lirot said he checked and was unable to find an agreement
signed by Ms. Rohlsen, although he said other dancers at Baby
Dolls have signed it.

"To summarize the position of the club owners," he said, "through
their sweat and labor, they develop and maintain these businesses
and generously provide these performers with the opportunity to
make as much money as they can earn lawfully and successfully with
customers.

"Trying to take advantage of a technicality in the Fair Labor
Standards Act is improper because the performers are essentially
trying to double dip.  They've never performed as employees;
they've never contributed as employees; they've never expressed a
desire to be employees."

Typically, he said, dancers collect a small amount of money as a
result of these lawsuits, while attorneys enrich themselves.

"There's no way to stop these guys from filing these lawsuits," he
said.  "They're popping up everywhere all over the country. The
vulnerability (of the club owners) is limited only by the avarice
of the plaintiffs' counsel."

Mr. Rohlsen's lawyer, Mr. Gadd, said it was a "curious notion"
that the dancers' lawyers are getting rich by bringing these
cases.

"After all, we are talking about an entire class of young females
who dance for the entertainment of the male customers that support
these establishments," he added.  "Under the current scheme, these
owners have the audacity to direct these young ladies to reveal
themselves intimately and physically to strangers while the fat
cat owners charge the girls for the privilege of dancing nearly
naked or fully naked for a crowd of men they do not know.

"There is no other comparator for this type of scheme in any other
industry of which I am aware.  I am not aware of any other
business that directs the employment of their employees while
charging the employees to work there."

Mr. Gadd and Ms. Rohlsen said Baby Dolls is an employer because
the club sets the rules for work.  They provided a copy of a
notice posted in the club, which listed various edicts, including
hours for different shifts and the charge for dances -- $20 or two
for $30.  The notice directs dancers to pay the house $17 and DJs
$10 and says, "All entertainers need to wear cover up on floor."

Ms. Rohlsen said club management would also give rules for what
the dancers were supposed to wear; the cloth on the back of their
thong had to be at least a certain width.  And she said she was
told not to go outside during her shift and got in trouble if she
showed up late.

Ms. Rohlsen said she was never given any lease or agreement to
sign. All she signed, she said, were standard job applications,
requiring her name, Social Security number and references.  "If
I'm a contractor, give me a contract," she said.  "Let me sign
that.  Don't tell me what to do."

In addition to setting prices for private dances, the club also
requires dancers to pay DJs a percentage of that fee, depending on
the number of dances they perform, Ms. Rohlsen said.

She said the club tried to get dancers to sell drinks by having
customers buy them for the women.

Ms. Rohlsen said she was fired from Baby Dolls after another
dancer "ratted me out" when she tried to get the dancer to sign a
document to join the lawsuit.

Mr. Lirot said Ms. Rohlsen wasn't fired; her lease was canceled.

Discussing insurance, Ms. Rohlsen said, "They don't give you
nothing.  They claim they care about the girls, but they don't
care about the girls. . . . We're paying them to work there and we
get nothing."

Mr. Gadd scoffed at the notion that the dancers are lessees.
"Trying to interject a property law concept into this fact pattern
borders on the absurd since this is a wage and hour case," he
said.  "I'd love to see a copy of the lease if that is the defense
they are hanging their hat on, as all real property transactions
must be reduced to writing in the State of Florida."

And as for dancers not benefiting from these suits, Mr. Gadd said,
"There appears to be no shortage of dancers who have an interest
in these cases based upon the reception and inquiries I have
received.  These young ladies are working to get paid and make a
living.  Their work is obviously being directed to the club
owners.  Seeking an honest day's pay for an honest day's work is a
concept that goes back to biblical times and there is no shame in
seeking to get paid for the work one does."

Ms. Rohlsen said when she first started dancing in 2011, the money
was good.  She could make more than $300 during a shift.  It was
enough to pay for cosmetology school.

But these days, she said, the money is terrible.  She now has two
children and needs to support them.

"I'm not the best, but I'm good at what I do," she said.

Dancing, she said, is "fun for me.  It's just not fun when you
have to go home with no money, especially for a single parent.
I've got to get my baby some diapers."


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Wants "Gnipp" Complaint Amended by Feb. 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senor District Judge John E. Steele of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida granted Defendant's
motion to dismiss in the case captioned, THOMAS A. GNIPP, as self
trustee under agreement dated January 20, 2005 and any unknown
heirs, devisees, grantees, creditors and other unknown personas or
unknown spouses claiming by, through and under any of the above
named Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., Defendant,
Case No. 2:15-CV-FTM-29CM (M.D. Fla.).

Thomas A. Gnipp, proceeding pro se, filed a three-paragraph
Complaint against Bank of America N.A. on February 13, 2015. The
Complaint purports to seek redress for Defendant's failure to
acknowledge receipt of and respond to Plaintiff's Qualified
Written Request (QWR), in violation of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. Sec. 2600 et seq., and to
respond to Plaintiff's request for debt validation, in violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1692 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that these violations damaged his
credit report. The Complaint also references the commencement of
an "un-warranted" foreclosure action against Plaintiff and
contends that "Defendant comes into court with un-clean hands".

Defendant argues that dismissal is appropriate because the
Complaint does not satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).  Defendant contends that:

     -- the Complaint does not allege any facts to support
        Plaintiff's conclusory allegations that Defendant failed
        to respond a QRW and a debt validation notice from
        Plaintiff;

     -- Plaintiff did not attach a copy of either document to
        the Complaint; and

     -- the RESPA and FDCPA sections cited in the Complaint do
        not address, respectively, QWRs and debt validation
        notices.

Dismissal is warranted, the Bank argues, because:

     -- Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant is a "debt
        collector," as is required to state a claim for a
        violation of the FDCPA;

     -- Plaintiff has not sufficiently plead damages under
        RESPA; and

     -- Plaintiff's claims are barred by the so-called Rooker-
        Feldman doctrine, the abstention doctrine, and the
        litigation privilege.

In his Opinion and Order dated February 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/dd2eYTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Steele found that
Plaintiff's three-paragraph Complaint does not satisfy Rule 8's
pleading requirements. Plaintiff makes only the conclusory
allegations that Defendant violated RESPA and the FDCPA by failing
to respond, respectively, to Plaintiff's QWR and request for debt
validation; he does not allege any facts that would support these
legal theories.

The Court afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended
complaint on or before February 29, 2016.

Bank of Amenrica, NA is represented by Ashlie Nicole Tarpley, Esq.
-- AT@lgplaw.com -- LIEBLER, GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO, PA


BERTUCCI'S GROUP: Faces "Kappotis" Over Gift Card Redemption
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Scott Kappotis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bertucci's, Inc., Bertucci's
Restaurant Corporation, Bertucci's Corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 153821BLS (Mass. Super. Ct., December 18, 2015), seeks
compensatory damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and
further relief due to defendants' breach of contract and 940 Code
of Massachusetts Regulations 6.05(16).

Plaintiff purchase a gift card from the Defendant for $25.00 and
the redemption restrictions were not made clear to him prior the
purchase.

Bertucci's Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized under
the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, maintaining a
principal place of business in Northborough, Worcester County.

Bertucci's Restaurant Corporation is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, maintaining a principal place of business in
Northborough, Worcester County, Massachusetts.

Bertucci's Corporation is a foreign corporation formed under the
laws of the state of Delaware, with a principal office located at
155 Otis Street, Northborough, Massachusetts and a registered
agent located at 44 School Street, Suite 325, Boston
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
      QUAT LAW OFFICES
      929 Worcester Rd.
      Framingham, MA 01701
      Tel: (508) 872-1261
      Email: ken@quatlaw.com


BIOGEN INC: Defending Securities Litigation in D. Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------
Biogen Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company and certain
current and former officers are defendants in In re Biogen Inc.
Securities Litigation, filed by a shareholder on August 18, 2015
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The
amended complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws
under 15 U.S.C. Sec.78j(b) and Sec.78t(a) and 17 C.F.R.
Sec.240.10b-5. The lead plaintiff seeks a declaration of the
action as a class action, certification as a representative of the
class and its counsel as class counsel, and an award of damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees. An estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued in Cal. Over Defective N63 Engines
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Lesieur, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case
No. 3:15-cv-06143-EDL (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015) is brought on
behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased or leased
any model year 2011 to present BMW vehicles equipped with the twin
turbo N63 engine, that contains one or more design and
manufacturing defects that prevents the engine from properly
utilizing and maintaining an appropriate amount of engine oil and,
in fact, causes the improper burn-off, leaking, and abnormally
high consumption of engine oil.

BMW of North America, LLC designs, manufactures, markets, and
sells motor vehicles, parts, and other products for sale in
California and the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Can't Alter Resin in Vaginal Mesh Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that in the 55th
District Court in Houston, Judge Jaclanel McFarland issued an
order barring Boston Scientific, the medical equipment and devices
company, from disposing or altering supplies of a resin material
allegedly used in surgical vaginal mesh products.

Judge McFarland set a hearing for Feb. 13 on a proposed temporary
restraining order that would extend the order.

Steven Mostyn and his Houston-based firm Mostyn Law represent the
plaintiffs who asked McFarland to issue the order.  Steven
Mostyn's clients have filed racketeering and negligence
allegations against Boston Scientific in two companion lawsuits,
the one in the Houston court and another in a Charleston, West
Virginia, federal court.

According to the Mostyn firm, the plaintiffs are women who have
suffered severe discomfort, infections and other complications
from plastic mesh implants used to treat a variety of medical
issues.

Tom Keppeler, a spokesman for Boston Scientific, wrote in an
email: "This is an unnecessary legal maneuver."

Mr. Keppeler said the company had no intention to destroy or alter
evidence, regardless of the ruling.

Amber Mostyn, a shareholder in the Mostyn firm, wrote in an email
that there are approximately a thousand cases of women who
received the vaginal mesh during the time that the material in
question was allegedly used.

"Mostyn Law will be filing claims for those women in the best
venue for those particular clients based on their residences and
the respective laws of their states," Amber Mostyn said.

"Ultimately, Mostyn Law will use whatever remedies are available
to the women harmed by Boston Scientific until Boston Scientific
either voluntarily agrees to take this product off of the market
or it is forced to," she added.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Wins Transvaginal Mesh Suit
----------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that the first trial
against two manufacturers of transvaginal mesh products has ended
in a verdict for both companies.

The jury in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court in Jackson County,
Missouri, which began hearing opening statements in the trial on
Dec. 2, found that both Boston Scientific Corp. and C.R. Bard Inc.
weren't liable for plaintiff Eve Sherrer's injuries. Sherrer's
case is one of 70,000 lawsuits filed against seven companies
alleging their mesh devices, which are surgically implanted to
treat urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, have caused
pain and subsequent surgeries to remove them.

The verdict is a big win for Bard, which lost a $5.5 million
verdict in its only other trial in 2012.  Boston Scientific
previously has won some trials, but its losses involved some of
the largest verdicts to come out of the pelvic mesh litigation,
ranging from $18.5 million to $100 million.

"We believe the jury reached the right decision based on the facts
and the law," wrote Boston Scientific spokesman Tom Keppeler in an
email.  "We are pleased with the verdict."

Boston Scientific was represented by Robert Adams --
rtadams@shb.com -- a Kansas City, Missouri, partner at Shook,
Hardy & Bacon.

A Bard spokesman and its attorney, Lori Cohen -- cohenl@gtlaw.com
-- chairwoman of the pharmaceutical, medical device and health
care litigation practice at Greenberg Traurig in Atlanta, did not
respond to a request for comment.

The case centered on the alleged defective design of Boston
Scientific's Solyx device and Bard's Align product, according to
Courtroom View Network, which videotaped the trial.  Plaintiffs
attorneys Tom Wagstaff -- twwagstaff@wcllp.com -- of Wagstaff &
Cartmell and Grant Davis -- gdavis@dbjlaw.net -- of Davis, Bethune
& Jones, both in Kansas City, did not respond to a request for
comment.


BRINKER INT'L: "Hohnbaum" Case Resulted in $5,800,000 Charge
------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended December 23, 2015, that in the
second quarter of fiscal 2015, the class action lawsuit styled as
Hohnbaum, et al. v. Brinker Restaurant Corp., et al. was finalized
resulting in an additional charge of approximately $5.8 million to
adjust the Company's previous estimate of the final settlement
amount.

Brinker is principally engaged in the ownership, operation,
development, and franchising of the Chili's Grill & Bar
("Chili's") and Maggiano's Little Italy ("Maggiano's") restaurant
brands. At December 23, 2015, it owned, operated, or franchised
1,646 restaurants.


BULLZEYE OILFIELD: "Furlow" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Furlow and Josh Berryhill, each individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Bullzeye Oilfield Service,
LLC, and Keith Maxey, Case No. 5:15-cv-01156-DAE (W.D., Tex.,
December 28, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate an oilfield services company located at 664
CR 307, Tye, Texas 79563.

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


BUTH NA-BODHAIGE: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Flaum, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Buth Na-Bodhaige, Inc. d/b/a The Body Shop, Case No.
0:15-cv-62695-WJZ (S.D. Fla., December 27, 2015) is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Buth Na-Bodhaige, Inc. owns and operates The Body Shop retail
stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick Christopher Crotty, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT D. OWENS
      3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Telephone: (954) 589-0588
      Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
      E-mail: pccrotty@gmail.com

           - and -

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

           - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Manuel Kushner, Esq.
       KAYE SCHOLER LLP
      777 S Flagler Drive
      East Tower- Suite 1000
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6163
      Telephone: (561) 802-3230
      Facsimile: 802-3217
      E-mail: manuel.kushner@kayescholer.com


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Dismissed from Direct Purchasers' Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended November 28, 2015, that a September 2015
class certification ruling in the egg antitrust litigation by
direct purchaser plaintiffs will not impact the Company as it has
been dismissed from the case.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products
directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.
In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the
defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on
behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named
plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they
purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants
-- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously
purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on
behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to
be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the
putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and
indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the
named plaintiffs in each group.

In all of the cases, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and
certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the
domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price
of eggs to artificially high levels.  In each case, plaintiffs
allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of
eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg
exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare
guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs.

The named plaintiffs in the remaining indirect purchaser putative
class action seek treble damages under the statutes and common-law
of various states and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act on
behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the
United States. Although plaintiffs allege a class period starting
in October, 2006 and running "through the present," the Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify classes seeking damages
under the laws of 21 states and denied without prejudice the
plaintiffs' motion to certify an injunctive-relief class.

Five of the original six non-class cases remain pending against
the Company.  In four of the remaining non-class cases, the
plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman
Act.  In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks
damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio
antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act).

The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to
case management, discovery, class certification, summary judgment,
and scheduling.  The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date
for any of the Company's remaining consolidated cases (non-class
and indirect purchaser cases).

The direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  In November 2014 the Court approved the
Company's settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class and
entered final judgment dismissing with prejudice the class
members' claims against the Company.

On September 18, 2015, the Court denied the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' motion against the remaining defendants for an egg
products subclass, but certified in part a direct purchaser
plaintiff shell egg subclass.  The class certification ruling will
not affect the Company since it has been dismissed from this case.

The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company
believes are meritorious and provable.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: 3rd Cir. Stays Appeal from Damages-Class Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended November 28, 2015, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has stayed an appeal by the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs in the Processed Egg Products Antitrust
Litigation from a trial court's decision denying their request for
certification of a damages-class pending the lower court's
resolution of the plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify an
injunctive-relief class.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products
directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.
In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the
defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on
behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named
plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they
purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants
-- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously
purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on
behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to
be similarly situated.

In all of the cases, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and
certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the
domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price
of eggs to artificially high levels.  In each case, plaintiffs
allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of
eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg
exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare
guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs.

The named plaintiffs in the remaining indirect purchaser putative
class action seek treble damages under the statutes and common-law
of various states and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act on
behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the
United States. Although plaintiffs allege a class period starting
in October, 2006 and running "through the present," the Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify classes seeking damages
under the laws of 21 states and denied without prejudice the
plaintiffs' motion to certify an injunctive-relief class.

Five of the original six non-class cases remain pending against
the Company.  In four of the remaining non-class cases, the
plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman
Act.  In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks
damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio
antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act).

The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to
case management, discovery, class certification, summary judgment,
and scheduling.  The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date
for any of the Company's remaining consolidated cases (non-class
and indirect purchaser cases).

The indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  On April 20-21, 2015, the Court held an
evidentiary hearing on the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for
summary judgment that sought either dismissal of the entire case
or, in the alternative, dismissal of portions of the case.  On
July 2, 2015, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for
summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain affirmative defenses
based on statutory immunities from federal and state antitrust
laws.  Briefing on the parties' respective motions for summary
judgment has been completed, and the Court will hear argument on
those motions in February 2016.

On September 18, 2015, the Court denied the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification of 21 separate classes
seeking damages under the laws of 21 states, holding that the
plaintiffs were not able to prove that their purported method for
ascertaining class membership was reliable or administratively
feasible, that common questions would predominate, or that their
proposed class approach would be manageable in a single trial.

In addition to barring any right to pursue a class monetary remedy
under state law, the Court also denied indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' request for certification of an injunctive-relief
class under federal law.  However, the court allowed the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs to renew their motion for class certification
seeking a federal injunction.  The plaintiffs filed their renewed
motion to certify an injunctive-relief class on October 23, 2015.
The Company joined the other defendants in opposing that motion on
November 20.

The plaintiffs also filed a petition with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking the court to hear an
immediate appeal of the trial court's denial of the motion to
certify 21 state-law damages classes.  On December 3, 2015, the
Third Circuit entered an order staying its consideration of the
plaintiffs' request for an immediate appeal of the damages-class
ruling pending the trial court's resolution of the plaintiffs'
renewed motion to certify an injunctive-relief class.

The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company
believes are meritorious and provable.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Hearing This Month on Summary Judgment Bids
------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended November 28, 2015, that the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is
scheduled to hear arguments on the motions for summary judgment
filed by parties in non-class action lawsuits that have been
consolidated in the Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products
directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.
In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the
defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on
behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named
plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they
purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants
-- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously
purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on
behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to
be similarly situated.

In all of the cases, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and
certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the
domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price
of eggs to artificially high levels.  In each case, plaintiffs
allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of
eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg
exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare
guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs.

The named plaintiffs in the remaining indirect purchaser putative
class action seek treble damages under the statutes and common-law
of various states and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act on
behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the
United States. Although plaintiffs allege a class period starting
in October, 2006 and running "through the present," the Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify classes seeking damages
under the laws of 21 states and denied without prejudice the
plaintiffs' motion to certify an injunctive-relief class.

Five of the original six non-class cases remain pending against
the Company.  In four of the remaining non-class cases, the
plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman
Act.  In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks
damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio
antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act).

The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to
case management, discovery, class certification, summary judgment,
and scheduling.  The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date
for any of the Company's remaining consolidated cases (non-class
and indirect purchaser cases).

Six of the cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a
class have been consolidated with the putative class actions into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation,  No. 2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The Company chose not to appeal the
court's order granting direct action plaintiffs Kraft Foods
Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The
Kellogg Company September 14, 2015, more time to opt out of the
direct purchaser case settlement. The court granted with prejudice
the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the non-class
plaintiffs' claims for damages arising before September 24, 2004.

On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for
summary judgment that sought either dismissal of all of the claims
in all of these cases or, in the alternative, dismissal of
portions of these cases.  On July 2, 2015, the non-class
plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal
of certain affirmative defenses based on statutory immunities from
federal antitrust law. Briefing on the parties' respective motions
for summary judgment has been completed, and the Court will hear
argument on those motions in February 2016.

The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company
believes are meritorious and provable.


CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over "Fire Prevention" Fee
---------------------------------------------------------
Marc Benjamin, writing for Firehouse, reports that money from a
controversial "fire prevention" fee paid by many California
foothill and mountain residents will be used to cut down trees
that are dead or dying because of the drought and bark beetle
infestation.

Local counties got $1.75 million from the State Responsibility
Area fee.

About 37,700 home and business owners pay into the parcel fee that
ranges from $117 to $152 annually.  The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers'
Association filed a class-action lawsuit against the state arguing
that the fee actually was an illegal tax.

The association contends that, as a tax, the fire prevention fee
violates Proposition 13 because it would require two-thirds
approval in the state Legislature to pass.  The association wants
the fee refunded.

But that fee is critical to making the Sierra safer from
catastrophic fires, said Daniel Berlant, a Sacramento-based Cal
Fire spokesman.

"If we can prevent fires in the first place, then you are really
saving money," Mr. Berlant said.

Six counties from Kern to Tuolumne are facing some of the highest
fire risks from dying trees, Mr. Berlant said.

Issuing grants to clear trees was a high priority.  In 2014, there
were about 3.3 million dead or dying trees in the Sierra.  Last
year, Mr. Berlant said, that number skyrocketed to 29 million.

"Those six counties are suffering and have an increased wildfire
risk because of all the dead trees," he said.

The projects include cutting down dead trees and increasing the
distance between trees in fire-prone areas.  In North Fork, the
money will pay for a 10-acre site to store logs at the old timber
mill.  Other projects include cutting down dead and dying trees
near Bass Lake.

In Fresno County, about $400,000 is paying for dead tree removal
and removing combustible materials in Miramonte, near Shaver Lake
and Meadow Lakes.

Pat Gallegos, project manager for the Highway 168 Fire Safe
Council, said the removal projects are a start.  The fire safe
council pays contractors to clear the sites.

"We are looking at a couple hundred thousand trees dying in our
corridor," she said.  "We consider them a hazard because they can
fall on a house or people, and they are very susceptible to
wildfires."

Other counties getting tree-cutting project money are Mariposa,
Kern, Tulare, and Tuolumne.


CALNET INC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Ahmadi" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ratib Ahmadi, Sayed Anwar, Amahn Assiaban, Niloufar Badie, Abdul
Farzam, Wahid Jelani, Musa Karimi, Mustafa Khan, Ahmed Magdi,
Bariqlay Quraishi, Anil Saleh, Mohammad Saleh, Reshad Saleh,
Roxana Suitan, Tariq Zakriya, Mohd Osman Zaman, individually v.
Calnet, Inc., Acclaim Technical Services, Inc., and Parsons
Government Services, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-02636 (C.D. Cal.,
December 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 hours per week.

The Defendants provide Irwin Military Base and National Training
Center in California with the native role-players and interpreters
who would aid the soldiers in these realistic pre-deployment
training Rotations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dennis Evans, Esq.
      Trey Dayes, Esq.
      PHILLIPS DISABILITY PC
      PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC
      3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: 1-800-JOB-LAWS
      E-mail: docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com


CAMPBELL EWALD: Ruling May Drastically Change Pickoff Tactic
------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Halcom, writing for Crain's Detroit Business, reports that
the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against Detroit-based Campbell Ewald
Co. could close off or drastically change a tactic businesses
nationwide sometimes use to defuse employee class-action lawsuits,
before they can gain traction.

Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez is not itself an employment lawsuit -- the
ad agency is accused of violating the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act via mass-marketing text messages through
subcontractor Mindmatics LLC to mobile phone users, on behalf of
the U.S. Navy.

But the court majority in that decision in January switched its
position on a 2013 employment case and said companies cannot get
certain kinds of suits tossed out just by making offers to
individual employees in the early stages of litigation.

At issue was whether lawsuit defendants can make an "offer of
judgment" to an individual with a proposed class-action or
collective-action lawsuit, and then get the case dismissed even if
the offer goes unanswered.

It's a strategy sometimes called a "pickoff" in class-action or
collective-action cases: A person brings a suit on behalf of
himself and others he claims have suffered the same violation.
But the class isn't a class until a judge says so by certifying
one in court, and defendants sometimes offer to pay the individual
claim before that happens.  Why? To head off much more expensive
class-action litigation.

Pickoffs can take various shapes, but one approach is to make an
offer of judgment, where an employer will accept a court judgment
against itself and pay the highest sum an employee stands to gain
in court.  If the employee doesn't respond in two weeks, the
company can ask the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that
the offer made the controversy moot, even if it was not accepted
or paid.

The justices had previously found in Genesis HealthCare Corp. v.
Szymczyk that an employment lawsuit in Philadelphia over meal
break time for nurses could be dismissed that way.  But local
attorneys said other rulings were split about that subject, and
the court in the Campbell Ewald case found an offer that wasn't
accepted is void -- essentially taking that defense strategy off
the table.

It's unclear whether Campbell Ewald will continue to fight the
text messages lawsuit at a California court.  The Navy moved its
advertising account to rival firm Young & Rubicam Inc. of New York
in 2015, and Campbell Ewald parent company Interpublic Group fired
the ad shop's CEO, Jim Palmer, Jan. 29 after an unrelated racist
email by a staffer at its San Antonio office became public.

Kevin Wertz, the agency president who has replaced Palmer as CEO,
did not respond to requests for comment on the case.  Laura
Wytsma, lead attorney for Campbell Ewald at Loeb & Loeb LLP in Los
Angeles, also could not be reached.

Jason Thompson, head of the complex litigation department at
Sommers Schwartz PC in Southfield, and partner Deborah Brouwer of
Detroit-based Nemeth Law PC, both said the dismissal tactic used
in Campbell-Ewald is not widespread.  But employers sometimes use
it if a case is nearly past the statute of limitations to be heard
in court, or if no other employee at the same company is likely to
bring a similar lawsuit later.

"It's a strategy that works well in wage and hour cases because
they're very susceptible to a party being able to figure out
exactly what is owed to one person," Ms. Brouwer said.  "And that
area is one of the hottest in employment law right now, for a
couple of reasons.  They're very predisposed to class actions, and
if there is a class, there's incentive for plaintiff firms to take
the cases.

"But I don't think this (dismissal) tactic is all that common,
because it would really be limited to cases where there is
unlikely to be another plaintiff."

Mr. Thompson said his law firm has handled at least 100 lawsuits
under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act nationwide, like
Genesis Healthcare, since the court made that ruling in 2013, and
he estimates five or fewer tried to use that specific strategy.
But it is an occasional defense strategy for "running out the
clock," or settling with individuals until the alleged violation
was too far back in the past for a new class action to be filed,
he said.

"When Genesis Health came out, a lot of us in the plaintiff's bar
were screaming that the sky was falling, and companies were going
to pick off a lot of suits this way, and that didn't really
happen," he said.  "For one thing, they have to allow the judgment
to be entered against them in federal court, where other parties
can reference it, and not many attorneys are comfortable with
that."

Both attorneys also said the ruling may have eliminated one
pickoff strategy, but it remains to be seen if the court will
allow a different approach -- like actually attempting to pay the
judgment, not just offering one, by depositing the sum into an
escrow account or with a court clerk.

Mr. Thompson said he actually had a potential class action under
the same Telephone Consumer Protection Act law get dismissed just
in the past few months, after a client actually accepted an
individual offer and left the case without a controversy.

"(Putting up the money) might not succeed as an actual strategy,
but someone's probably going to try it.  Because the Supreme Court
almost invited it, by the way the ruling was made," Ms. Brouwer
said.


CAPITAL ADVANCE: Faces "Menichiello" TCPA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Joseph Menichiello and Jason Alan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Capital Advance
Solutions, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-02163-SVW-KES (C.D.
Cal., December 29, 2015), seeks statutory damages in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq.

Defendants allegedly called the Plaintiff without his prior
consent using an autodialer, offering a loan.  Plaintiff incurred
a charge for these incoming calls.

Capital Advance Solutions, LLC provides loans to small and mid-
sized businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
             abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


CAPSTONE TURBINE: Consolidation of Kinney & Grooms Cases Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Turbine Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that several
shareholders filed motions to consolidate the Kinney and Grooms
actions and for appointment as lead plaintiff.

Two putative securities class action complaints were filed against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California under the following captions: David Kinney, etc. v.
Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-08914 on November 16, 2015
(the "Kinney Complaint") and Kevin M. Grooms, etc. v. Capstone
Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-09155 on December 18, 2015 (the
"Grooms Complaint").

The putative class in the Kinney Complaint is comprised of all
purchasers of the Company's securities between November 7, 2013
and November 5, 2015. The Kinney Complaint alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding
BPC and the likelihood that BPC would not be able to fulfill many
legal and financial obligations to the Company. The Kinney
Complaint also alleges that the Company's financial statements
were not appropriately adjusted in light of this situation, and
were not maintained in accordance with GAAP, and that the Company
lacked adequate internal controls over accounting. The Kinney
Complaint alleges that these public statements and accounting
irregularities constituted violations by all named defendants of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as
well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the
individual defendants.

The Grooms Complaint makes allegations and claims that are
substantially identical to those in the Kinney Complaint, and both
complaints seek compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount.

On January 16, 2016, several shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the Kinney and Grooms actions and for appointment as
lead plaintiff. The Court has not yet issued a decision on those
motions. The Company has not recorded any liability as of December
31, 2015 since any potential loss is not probable or reasonably
estimable given the preliminary nature of the proceedings.

Capstone Turbine develops, manufactures, markets and services
microturbine technology solutions for use in stationary
distributed power generation applications, including cogeneration
(combined heat and power ("CHP"), and combined cooling, heat and
power ("CCHP")), renewable energy, natural resources, critical
power supply, transportation and marine. In addition, the
Company's microturbines can be used as battery charging generators
for hybrid electric vehicle applications. The Company was
organized in 1988 and has been producing its microturbine
generators commercially since 1998.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces Probe Into Food Safety Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that a
federal criminal investigation into food safety practices at one
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. restaurant in Simi Valley, California,
was a troubling enough development for the embattled Denver-based
burrito maker.  But now that investigation has ballooned.  While
releasing financials for the fourth quarter of 2015 on Feb. 2,
Chipotle revealed that the whole company is now subject to a
subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Chipotle says it will have to produce documents and information
related to its food safety practices dating back to the beginning
of 2013.  The switch to a companywide subpoena signals DOJ
interest in looking for widespread and systemic problems that
could have led to a series of food-borne illness outbreaks traced
to Chipotle's restaurants during the second half of 2015.  And
given the recent aggressive stance of the DOJ and the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration on food safety prosecutions, both Chipotle
and its executives could be in the crosshairs.

Chipotle, a company that has long branded its food as wholesome
and local, made the wrong kind of headlines last year.  In July,
customers in Seattle got sick from e.coli traced to its food, and
the situation grew more dire as salmonella and norovirus outbreaks
were linked to Chipotle locations from coast to coast.  In total,
the company was linked to six outbreaks in just six months.

"That in and of itself sort of underscores the fact that the
wheels of the bus had come off," says Bill Marler, managing
partner of Marler Clark, a food safety firm suing Chipotle on
behalf of consumers.  "And I think the federal government is
looking at it and going: this can't be right. There's got to be a
structural problem in management that allowed for something like
this to happen."

When the DOJ digs through Chipotle's documents and data, experts
say it will likely be looking to determine whether complaints
about food safety and contamination were raised and didn't get
properly addressed.  Since the subpoena goes back three years,
data could also reveal a lot about other safety issues not
publicly known.

"In part, the government is focused in finding the cause for what
happened," says Shawn Stevens of Food Industry Counsel, a firm
representing defendants in food safety matters.  "But on the other
hand, they are really on a fishing expedition to see if they can
shake the bushes and see if anything else falls out that would
support criminal charges."

Chipotle and its executives could be charged with violations of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which protects consumers
from adulterated and misbranded food and drugs.  In the past, the
DOJ rarely used the statute for food safety cases.  But that has
changed recently as both companies and executives have been
charged.

When carrying out the investigation, both the government and
Chipotle will have to contend with the fact that the sources of
contamination are widespread.  Jim Neale --
jneale@mcguirewoods.com -- a partner at defense-side firm
McGuireWoods, says the Chipotle outbreaks aren't physically
connected to the same source, but there's still room to find the
company responsible.

"I'm sure there is pressure to link those events, but they are
different root cause events and there is certainly no commonality
in the origin of those events," Mr. Neale says.  "Where there may
be some commonalities is in the shortcomings of the responses to
those events."

There are also complications posed by Chipotle's supply chain.  As
Neale explains, with a company such as Chipotle, where each
restaurant uses many local food providers and then commingles
ingredients in the restaurant, it's hard to have as much certainty
about where a particular pathogen came from.  So without another
source to name, Chipotle could wind up taking the heat for
contamination it didn't directly cause. "Once it gets into their
restaurant, they bought the problem," Mr. Neale says.


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Sued for Misrepresenting Vitamin Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Hargett, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two
Illinois men are suing a vitamins and supplements manufacturer
over claims it misrepresents its products as being made in the
U.S.

Jack Wambach and Jason Finn, individually and for all others
similarly situated, filed a class-action lawsuit Jan. 26 in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern
Division against Church & Dwight Co., alleging violations of
consumer protection statutes in Illinois and several other states.

The defendant manufactures the Vitafusion brand of vitamins,
including Vitafusion Multivites, the suit states.

The suit states the defendant represents that its products are
made in the U.S., when in fact the products contain ingredients,
such as vitamin C, that are sourced in foreign countries.

The plaintiffs and others in the class seek actual, compensatory
and punitive damages, plus injunctive relief, attorney fees and
costs, together to exceed $5 million.  They are represented by
attorney John E. Norris -- jnorris@davisnorris.com -- of Davis &
Norris in Birmingham, Alabama, and by attorneys Gerald Bekkerman
and Jennifer Bekkerman of Bekkerman Law Offices in Chicago.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern
Division Case number 1:16-cv-01183


CIENA CORP: Briefing Underway on Bid to Dismiss Delaware Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ciena Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2015, that briefing is to be
completed in March 2016 on the defendants' renewed motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit in Delaware related to
the Company's acquisition of Cyan, Inc.

From May 15 through June 3, 2015, five separate putative class
action lawsuits in connection with Ciena's then-pending
acquisition of Cyan, Inc. ("Cyan") were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware:

     -- Luvishis v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11027-CB, filed
        May 15, 2015

     -- Poll v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11028-CB, filed
        May 15, 2015

     -- Canzano v. Floyd, et al., C.A. No. 11052-CB, filed
        May 20, 2015

     -- Kassis v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11069-CB, filed
        May 27, 2015

     -- Fenske v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11090-CB, filed
        June 3, 2015

Each of the complaints named Cyan (except for the Canzano
complaint), Ciena, Neptune Acquisition Subsidiary, Inc., a Ciena
subsidiary created solely for the purpose of effecting the
acquisition ("Merger Sub"), and the members of Cyan's board of
directors as defendants.

On June 23, 2015, each of these lawsuits was consolidated into a
single case captioned In Re Cyan, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
Consol. C.A. No. 11027-CB. On July 9, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
verified amended class action complaint, which named as defendants
Ciena, Merger Sub, and the members of Cyan's board of directors.

On August 5, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint which named as defendants the members of Cyan's board of
directors. Cyan, Ciena, and Merger Sub were not named as
defendants. The second amended complaint generally alleges that
the Cyan board members breached their fiduciary duties by engaging
in a conflicted and unfair sales process, failing to maximize
stockholder value in the acquisition, taking steps to preclude
competitive bidding, and failing to disclose material information
necessary for stockholders to make an informed decision regarding
the acquisition.

The second amended complaint seeks (i) a declaration that the
plaintiffs are entitled to a quasi-appraisal remedy, (ii)
rescissory damages, (iii) recovery through an accounting of all
damages caused as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties, (iv) compensatory damages, and (v) costs including
attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

On October 15, 2015, the defendants filed a renewed motion to
dismiss. A briefing schedule for these motions has been set, with
briefing to be completed in March 2016.


CIENA CORP: Still Facing Calif. Suit over Cyan Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------
Ciena Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
defend a consolidated securities class action in California
related to its acquisition of Cyan Inc.

As a result of the Company's acquisition of Cyan in August 2015,
Ciena became a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit. On
April 1, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, against Cyan, the members of Cyan's board of directors,
Cyan's former Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of
Cyan's initial public offering. On April 30, 2014, a substantially
similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same
defendants.

The two cases have been consolidated as Beaver County Employees
Retirement Fund, et al. v. Cyan, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-14-
538355. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of
purchasers of Cyan's common stock pursuant or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus for Cyan's initial public
offering in April 2013, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief.

In July 2014, the defendants filed a demurrer to the consolidated
complaint, which the court overruled in October 2014 and allowed
the case to proceed. On May 19, 2015, the proposed class was
certified.

On August 25, 2015, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings based on an alleged lack of subject matter
jurisdiction over the case, which motion was denied on October 23,
2015.

Ciena believes that the consolidated lawsuit is without merit and
intends to defend it vigorously.


CITIFINANCIAL INC: Still Defends "Lightner" Action
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by Paul Lightner against
CitiFinancial, Inc., remains pending, and a new judge has been
assigned to the case, OneMain Holdings, Inc. said in an exhibit to
its Form 8-K/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 29, 2016.

In 2006, Paul Lightner filed a counter-claim class action
complaint seeking recovery under West Virginia's Consumer Credit
and Protection Act against CitiFinancial, Inc. (WV) for selling
insurance with allegedly inflated premiums and for allegedly
taking impermissible security interests in household goods. In
2008, the trial court certified a class under both claims and
denied CitiFinancial, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on both
claims. CitiFinancial, Inc. appealed the denial of summary
judgment on the insurance claim, and in 2009 the West Virginia
Supreme Court reversed the trial court, and held that
appropriateness of insurance rates was a matter to be decided by
the West Virginia Insurance Commissioner.

In 2010, the West Virginia Insurance Commissioner ruled in
CitiFinancial, Inc. (WV)'s favor, and plaintiffs appealed this
decision. In June 2014, the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled in
CitiFinancial, Inc. (WV)'s favor, and affirmed the decision of the
Insurance Commissioner. The matter has been remanded back to the
trial court, where a new judge has been assigned to the matter.

CitiFinancial, Inc. (WV) is subject to the prior judge's 2008
certification order, and is seeking to have the remaining claim
for taking impermissible security interests in household goods
decertified. Additional information concerning this matter is
publicly available in court filings under Lightner v.
CitiFinancial, Inc., Case No. 02-C0723 (Cir. Ct. Marshall Co. WV).

OneMain Financial Holdings, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of
CitiFinancial Credit Company ("CCC" or "Parent"), which is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Associates First Capital Corporation,
an indirect subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. ("Citigroup").


CLEAR WATER: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Aragon" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Aragon, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. Clear Water Products LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02821 (D. Colo., December 28, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Clear Water Products LLC operates an oilfield service company
providing solids control services in Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
      123 North College Avenue, Suite 200
      Fort Collins, CO 80524
      Telephone: (970) 212-4665
      Facsimile: (303) 539-9812
      E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com


CLIFFS NATURAL: Settles Securities Class Action in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. on Feb. 7 disclosed that the Company
has reached agreements in principle to settle both the putative
federal securities class action pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and the combined
shareholder derivative actions pending in the Court of Common
Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio.  The lawsuits were brought against
the Company and/or a number of its former directors and officers
in 2014 before the change of control which occurred coincident
with the July 2014 annual shareholder meeting.  These lawsuits
were based, among other things, on the alleged dissemination of
false or misleading information by the previous management and
previous board of directors regarding the Company's former Bloom
Lake mine in Canada, the impact of those operations on the
Company's financial outlook, including the sustainability of the
common stock dividend, and alleged failures to maintain internal
controls and appropriately oversee and manage the development of
the Bloom Lake mining operation.

The settlement agreements contain no admission of liability or
wrongdoing and include a full release of all defendants in
connection with the allegations made in the lawsuits. The
settlements are subject to definitive documentation, shareholder
notice, and court approval.

The settlement of these lawsuits will have no impact on the
Company's financial position or operations.  The agreement in the
securities action provides for a settlement payment to the class
of $84,000,000, the totality of which will be paid by the
Company's third party insurance carriers.  Under the terms of the
settlement for the derivative actions, the Company has agreed to
adopt a number of changes to its corporate governance policies,
protocols and practices.  In addition, the Company's insurance
carriers will pay $775,000 for plaintiff's attorneys' fees and
costs, subject to court approval.

               About Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.

Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. --
http://www.cliffsnaturalresources.com-- is a mining and natural
resources company in the United States.  The Company is a major
supplier of iron ore pellets to the North American steel industry
from its mines and pellet plants located in Michigan and
Minnesota.  Cliffs also operates an iron ore mining complex in
Western Australia.


CMRE FINANCIAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anand Patel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CMRE Financial Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 2:15-cv-08878-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., December 26, 2015) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

CMRE Financial Services, Inc. owns and operates an accounts
receivable management company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
David Oughton, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Communications Unlimited Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-
cv-01937 (E.D. Miss., December 29, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Communications Unlimited Inc. owns and controls business entities
that perform cable television and internet installation and repair
services in Missouri, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and
Washington DC, including services performed in the greater St.
Louis area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eli Karsh, Esq.
      LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH
      230 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 1200
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 862-3333 ext. 13
      Facsimile: (314) 862-0605
      E-mail: elikarsh@aol.com


CONNECTICUT: Class Action Mulled Over Unlawful Ebola Quarantine
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Cuda, writing for News Times, reports that multiple people
quarantined in the state following the panic surrounding an Ebola
outbreak in West Africa plan to file a lawsuit in U.S. District
court on Feb. 1.

According to a news release sent out on Feb. 7, the plaintiffs are
suing over what they call a "pattern and practice of unlawful
quarantine of travelers from countries affected by Ebola."  Those
suing include one current and one former Yale University public
health student quarantined upon their return from a humanitarian
trip to Liberia in fall 2014; a West African family of six
quarantined in October 2014; the aunt in whose house the family
was quarantined; a religious leader who travels between churches
in West Haven and Liberia and his wife; the Liberian Community
Association of Connecticut; and a physician who specializes in
emergency medicine and has treated Ebola patients in West Africa.
The suit was set to be officially announced at noon on Feb.8
during a news conference at the Legal Services Organization at
Yale Law School.

The quarantines took place in the midst of an Ebola epidemic in
West Africa that killed thousands of people in that region.
During the health scare, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy granted the
Department of Public Health the authority to quarantine anyone who
may have been exposed to or infected with the virus.  Though there
was at least one person tested for Ebola in Connecticut, no one
tested positive for the disease in the state.

However, multiple people were quarantined, including Laura Skrip,
a student at the Yale School of Public Health, who was quarantined
in October 2014 after she returned home from a trip to provide
technical assistance to the Liberian government.

"Being quarantined made me feel like a criminal," said Ms. Skrip
in a news release announcing the lawsuit.  "If I had posed any
threat to the public, I would have voluntarily quarantined myself.
But there was no scientific reason to confine me to my apartment,
with no visitors and a police officer parked outside my door for
two weeks."

The plaintiffs will file a proposed class action against Malloy,
Acting Commissioner of the state Department of Public Health Raul
Pino, and former Commissioner of the Department of Public Health
Dr. Jewel Mullen.  The Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Clinic at
Yale Law School represents the plaintiffs.  The lawsuit builds on
a report issued in December by the American Civil Liberties Union
and the Yale Global Health Justice Partnership, a collaboration
between Yale's law and public health schools.


CONQUEST COMPLETION: Faces "Albert" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Munoz, Albert, et al. v. Conquest Completion Services, LLC, et
al., Case No. 5:15-cv-01158-XR (W.D. Tex., December 28, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Conquest Completion Services, LLC operates an oilfield services
company located at 2001, 2999 E County Rd 123, Midland, TX 79706.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CRACKER BARREL: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Clemente, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-08845-RMB-JS (D.N.J., December 24, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. operates a chain of
combined restaurant and gift stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan Jason Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      1040 Kings Highway, North, Suite 601
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 795-7250
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


CSX: Sued for Contributing to Gills Creek Flooding
--------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNewsnet.com reports that a railroad bridge across
Gills Creek didn't draw much attention until a storm blasted
Columbia with heavy rain and flooding last fall.

That's when Sabrina Todd, Vince Osborne and several neighbors
began wondering if the CSX structure had contributed to the flood
damage they suffered Oct. 4.  Water rose rapidly that morning,
reaching the second floor of homes like the one Todd and Osborne
own near South Beltline Boulevard.

Had embankments that support the bridge blocked water rushing down
Gills Creek? And had the obstruction caused water to back up onto
their property?

A federal lawsuit contends the answer is yes.  The suit, filed
after the flood by Ms. Todd, Mr. Osborne and four others, says the
CSX railroad corporation is liable for damage the flood caused to
their homes and property.  According to the suit, the train
trestle stopped water that was moving down Gills Creek during the
storm.  The company denies responsibility.

"It's almost like we were getting hit from both directions,"
Ms. Todd said.  "The water didn't have a place to escape. In my
mind, it kind of seems like a sandwich with too much jelly on it."

The railroad lawsuit isn't unprecedented, but it's an unusual
twist in the legal wars that have erupted in Columbia since the
October flood.

At least four suits filed since the flood claim that failed dams
upstream contributed to the damage received in downstream homes
and businesses.

But the case against CSX focuses on how some property might have
affected homes upstream.  In effect, the suit says huge earthen
abutments holding up the train bridge across Gills Creek repelled
water back into neighborhoods upstream, said Jones Andrews, a
lawyer representing the property owners.  The suit relies in part
on a South Carolina railroad law that says train corporations are
liable for damage to neighbors "from the wrongful obstruction of
watercourses."

The lawsuit, filed in November in state court but later moved to
federal court, says CSX was negligent in maintaining the trestle
structure.  The suit seeks a "class action" status, meaning that
dozens of people beyond the six who filed the suit could receive
compensation if the case is successful.  The class would have to
be certified by a judge.  The suit does not specify how much
property owners would be compensated.

Others who've sued CSX along with Ms. Todd and Mr. Osborne are
Michael Haley, Lisa Johnson and Dale and Alyssa Stigamier.  The
Ms. Stigamiers, Ms. Haley and Ms. Johnson declined comment,
Andrews said.

"We think the law is very clear: You cannot create a situation
where you flood people," Andrews said.

Railroad denies allegations

CSX, one of the nation's biggest railroad companies, declined
comment when contacted by The State newspaper. But in court
filings, the corporation denied the allegations. It also has asked
a federal judge to dismiss the case.

In its legal response to the suit, CSX said the railroad didn't
cause the flooding and the company wasn't negligent in maintaining
the bridge structure, as alleged.

At the same time, the company said the flood was an "act of God"
that can't be blamed on anything CSX did. The residents who filed
suit "assumed the risk of any damages incurred from the alleged
backing up and flooding along Gills Creek," the response said.

CSX, headquartered in Jacksonville, Fla., operates about 20,000
miles of rail lines in the U.S. and Canada. It was formed from the
merger of several smaller railroad companies in 1980. The company
employs about 32,000 people.

Last fall's flood will be hard for many people to forget. Over a
single weekend, about a foot of rain fell on some parts of the
Columbia area as the storm hovered over South Carolina. Scores of
homes had water pour inside, in some cases to the rooftops. Some
people had to flee their neighborhoods in boats as local streets
turned into rivers. Several people trapped in the floods died.

Property in the Gills Creek watershed, which winds through much of
Columbia, took the heaviest brunt of the storm as dams burst on a
chain of lakes.

Those involved in the federal lawsuit say they've had plenty of
damage.  The six people who sued CSX own three homes valued
collectively at nearly $650,000, court records show.

The split-level house Ms. Todd and Mr. Osborne own on Glenhaven
Drive is an example of the lingering effects of the flood.

Valued at more than $126,000 before the storm, the home has been
damaged more than 50 percent and may have to be rebuilt, Osborne
said.

The walls inside are gone in many rooms, leaving only exposed
beams.  The cabinet around the kitchen sink is missing.  And the
house has no heat.  Mr. Osborne and Ms. Todd, who bought the house
in 2000, had never seen flooding on their property until last
October, Osborne said.

Ms. Todd and Mr. Osborne said the home was not covered by flood
insurance and the couple have received only $33,000 from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency as compensation for the loss.

Mr. Osborne said winning the lawsuit could help offset the
financial loss he has suffered since October, but his main goal is
to ensure that CSX makes any improvements necessary to avoid
similar upstream flooding one day.  The railroad bridge is about
two-thirds of a mile downstream from the house Todd and Osborne
own.

At the area downstream, a tall earthen embankment holding up part
of the bridge extends from South Beltline Boulevard through the
soggy flood plain to the creek bed, where the railroad tracks
cross the water as part of a bridge.  The bridge then connects
back with another huge embankment that holds up the railroad
tracks as they extend into deep woods.  It was unclear when the
trestle was built.

"This doesn't really make me mad, it just makes me wonder about
the thought processes that went on when this was built,"
Mr. Osborne said as he looked at the train bridge that is the
subject of his lawsuit.  "This was the cheapest land and this was
the easiest way to get through from Point A to Point B. Instead of
paying Farmer Jones money for his land on a higher (area), they
could just go right in the middle of the swamp."

The CSX train bridge is one of two across Gills Creek along South
Beltline between Shop Road and Rosewood Drive.  The other is a
Norfolk Southern bridge that is farther away from Osborne's home.
Norfolk Southern was not named in the suit.

Railroads and flooding

Although the case is different from many filed in Columbia after
the flood, it isn't unprecedented.  Cases similar to the CSX suit
have come up across the country, including:

-- In 2013, residents of a Louisiana community claimed that the
BNSF Railway flooded their property by failing to adequately
maintain a drainage culvert.  The case ultimately was settled and
dismissed, records show.

-- In 2009, residents of an Arkansas neighborhood claimed the
Union Pacific Railroad put up two embankments in 1972 and 1980
that caused their homes to flood years later.  The residents lost
their case at trial, records show.

-- In 2010, environmentalists in South Carolina sued the Federal
Highway Administration in an attempt to get rid of some
embankments that support U.S. 601 as the road was being
reconstructed for a bridge project over the Congaree River.
Environmentalists said the embankments blocked water flow in the
flood plain near Congaree National Park.

The highway administration ultimately prevailed in court after
state road officials argued that replacing the embankments with
bridging was too expensive.

Legal arguments aside, experts say railroad and road embankments
can be problematic.

Will Graf, a river scientist and professor emeritus with the
University of South Carolina's geography department, said railroad
and highway embankments alter the flow of water through flood
plains.  In turn, that can cause high water to remain longer in
areas upstream, he said.

"Railroads that are constructed across flood plains obviously seek
to elevate their tracks because they want to keep their property
dry," Mr. Graf said, noting that railroads sometimes put culverts
in the embankments to release water.  "If the water passage
beneath the embankment is under-engineered, or under-constructed,
it may cause problems in the future."


DESTINATION CHIC: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rolphy Ramirez, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Destination Chic Interiors
Ltd., and David Tawil, Case No. 1:15-cv-07366-JG-SMG (E.D.N.Y.,
December 28, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
pay and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company located at
841 East 9th Street, Brooklyn, New York 11230.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEVRY EDUCATION: Law Firm Mulls Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is investigating potential claims on
behalf of investors of DeVry Education Group Inc. concerning the
Company and its officers' possible violations of federal
securities laws.  On January 27, 2016, the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission ("FTC") filed a lawsuit against DeVry University,
accusing the company of deceiving students about the likelihood
that they would be able to find work upon graduation.  The FTC has
accused DeVry of being deceitful through its claim that 90 percent
of DeVry graduates found work in their field within six months of
graduation.  On this news, shares of DeVry fell approximately 20%
in mid-morning trading on January 27, 2016.

DeVry Education Group Inc.'s stock on February 5 traded at
beginning with a price of $17.66 and when day-trade ended the
stock finally decreased -10.65% to end at $17.03.  DeVry Education
Group Inc.'s showed weekly performance of -14.42%.

Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, is
investigating potential breach of fiduciary duty claims against
Blount International Inc.


DIXON GOLF: Faces "York" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian York and Tiffany Khoshaba, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Dixon Golf Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
11699 (N.D. Ill., December 28, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Dixon Golf Inc. is a privately-held company headquartered in
Tempe, Arizona that manufactures and sells golf equipment and
apparel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq.
      Peter L. Currie, Esq.
      Kevin P. Noll, Esq.
      FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
      10 West State Street, Suite #200
      Geneva, IL 60134
      Telephone: (630) 232-7450
      Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
      E-mail: kcc@fmcolaw.com
              plc@fmcolaw.com
              kpn@fmcolaw.com


DREW ECKL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Felberbaum" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Aron Felberbaum, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Drew Eckl & Farnham, LLP, Case No. 1:15-cv-
07391-MKB-MDG (E.D.N.Y., December 29, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Drew Eckl & Farnham, LLP operates a law firm in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 395-3459
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


EAGLE MATERIALS: Summary Judgment Bid Pending in Wallboard Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a judge has not yet
made a ruling on the motion for summary judgement in the Domestic
Wallboard Antitrust Litigation.

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits
were filed in various United States District Courts, including the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North
Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois, against the
Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC ("American
Gypsum"), alleging that American Gypsum conspired with other
wallboard manufacturers to fix the price for drywall sold in the
United States in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some
cases related provisions of state law. The complaints allege that
the defendant wallboard manufacturers conspired to increase prices
through the announcement and implementation of coordinated price
increases, output restrictions, and other restraints of trade,
including the elimination of individual "job quote" pricing. In
addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits
include CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation and United States
Gypsum (together "USG"), New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North America,
Temple Inland Inc. ("TIN") and PABCO Building Products LLC. On
April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") transferred and consolidated all related cases to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated amended class action complaints. The direct
purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant. The
plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits bring claims
on behalf of purported classes of direct or indirect purchasers of
wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for unspecified
monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some cases
injunctive relief. On July 29, 2013, the Company and American
Gypsum answered the complaints, denying all allegations that they
conspired to increase the price of drywall and asserting
affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs' claims.

In 2014, USG and TIN entered into agreements with counsel
representing the direct and indirect purchaser classes pursuant to
which they agreed to settle all claims against them.  On August
20, 2015, the court granted final approval of USG and TIN's
settlements with the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs.

Initial discovery in this litigation is complete.  American Gypsum
denies the allegations in these lawsuits and will vigorously
defend itself against these claims. At this stage we are unable to
estimate the amount of any reasonably possible loss or range of
reasonably possible losses associated with these lawsuits.
Defendants' motions for summary judgement were filed in the class
actions in the first quarter of fiscal 2016 and a hearing on the
motion occurred on November 23, 2015.  The judge has not yet made
a ruling on the motion for summary judgement.

On March 17, 2015, a group of homebuilders filed a complaint
against the defendants, including American Gypsum, based upon the
same conduct alleged in the consolidated class action complaints.
On March 24, 2015, the JPML transferred this action to the
multidistrict litigation already pending in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Word" Suit Over FCRA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cierra Word, et al. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et
al., Case No. 8:15-cv-02167 (C.D. Cal., December 29, 2015) seeks
to pursue remedies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an Ohio corporation which
provides, among other things, credit check services to
corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren O'Leary Aitken, Esq.
      Wylie A. Aitken, Esq.
      AITKEN AITKEN AND COHN
      3 MacArthur Place Suite 800
      Santa Ana, CA 92707-2555
      Telephone: (714) 434-1424
      Facsimile: (714) 434-3600
      E-mail: darren@aitkenlaw.com
              wylie@aitkenlaw.com

           - and -

      Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
      Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
      BARRACK RODOS AND BACINE
      600 West Broadway Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0800
      Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
      E-mail: sward@barrack.com
              sbasser@barrack.com


FARMERS INSURANCE: Female Attorneys Sue Over Pay Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that California's new
Fair Pay Act is getting one of its first workouts in a case
brought by female attorneys at Farmers Insurance who claim they
were paid less than their male colleagues.

Plaintiffs counsel at the Costanzo Law Firm and Andrus Anderson on
Feb. 3 amended the complaint in the Farmers case to add claims
under the California law, which went into effect at the beginning
of the year.

"I do think this will be a test case," said Andrus Anderson
partner Lori Andrus, who noted that she hadn't seen any other
suits filed under the new law.

The Fair Pay Act shifts the burden of proof to employers to show
that a wage gap is based on legitimate factors such as seniority
or merit rather than gender.  It also created an avenue for female
workers to sue if they are paid less than male counterparts who
perform "substantially similar work" rather than strictly equal
work as required under state's old statute or the federal equal-
protection law.

Andrus said that "there will have to be judicial interpretation of
what ['substantially similar'] means," but it's clear that the
language is "more accommodating" than existing laws.

Nancy Abell -- nancyabell@paulhastings.com -- of Paul Hastings,
who represents Farmers Insurance in the case, didn't respond to
messages on Feb.4.  But other labor and employment attorneys said
that they expect the case to provide some guidance on the new law.

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe partner Jessica Perry --
jperry@orrick.com -- said it will take time for the courts to
interpret the new "substantially similar work" standard.  The
standard could be particularly hard to apply in the legal
profession where an employment litigator and transactional lawyer
of the same seniority level might have entirely different skill
sets, Ms. Perry said.

"You can just see that it's going to be a challenge" to determine
what substantially similar work is, Ms. Perry said.  "I think it's
going to require an employer to put forward more evidence in terms
of what the reasons are for the pay differential."  That,
Ms. Perry added, could prove to be a fact-intensive, individual-
by-individual inquiry, making the class action an inappropriate
vehicle for dealing with claims under the new law.

Melinda Riechert -- mriechert@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius said that, despite recent legal changes, plaintiffs
still face long odds in getting equal-pay claims to stick.  "There
are many reasons [why] people get paid different amounts," Ms.
Riechert said.  "There weren't very many equal-pay cases before.
They are hard to bring and hard to win," she said.

Jennifer Reisch, legal director at Equal Rights Advocates, said
the first batch of claims under the new Fair Pay Act may be making
their way through administrative proceedings before the California
Department of Fair Employment and Housing.  Mr. Reisch said she
hoped that the fact that the new law is being wielded in a case
involving female attorneys "will highlight the need for some
examination of pay practice in [the legal] industry."

Although the new law does not apply retroactively, the Farmers
suit also brings claims on behalf of current employees.  The
amended complaint filed on Feb. 3 adds Keever Rhodes, a current
Farmers employee in Los Angeles, as a name plaintiff.


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Settlement Completion Deadline Extended
------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in
the class action lawsuit by Eddie L. Cressy have filed a Joint
Motion to amend the January 2, 2015 Final Order and Judgment, to
extend the deadline for settlement completion from January 28,
2016 to October 24, 2016.

On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff Eddie L. Cressy filed a putative class
Complaint captioned Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life
Insurance Company, et. al. in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), Case No. BC-514340. The
Complaint was filed after the Plaintiff was unable to maintain an
action in federal court. The Complaint asserts, inter alia, that
the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on
Defendants' advice in purchasing allegedly unsuitable equity-
indexed insurance policies.

On January 2, 2015, the Court entered Final Judgment in Cressy,
certifying the class for settlement purposes, and approving the
class settlement reached on April 4, 2014. On August 10, 2015, the
Company tendered $1 million to the Settlement Administrator for a
claim review fund. The Company implemented an interest enhancement
feature for certain policies as part of the class settlement,
which enhancement began on October 12, 2015.

On December 11, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to amend
the January 2, 2015 Final Order and Judgment, to extend the
deadline for settlement completion from January 28, 2016 to
October 24, 2016.

At December 31, 2015, the Company estimated the total cost for the
settlement, legal fees and other costs related to Cressy would be
$9 million, with a liability for the unpaid portion of the
estimate of $2 million. The Company has incurred and paid $4
million related to legal fees and other costs and $3 million
related to settlement costs as of December 31, 2015. Based on the
information currently available the Company does not expect the
actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs to
differ materially from the amount accrued.


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Motion to Dismiss "Ludwick" Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's
motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit by Dale R. Ludwick
remains pending.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri,
captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty
Life Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front
Street Re (Cayman) Ltd. The complaint alleges violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"),
requests injunctive and declaratory relief seeks unspecified
compensatory damages for the putative class in an amount not
presently determinable, treble damages, and other relief, and
claims the plaintiff overpaid at least $0 for her annuity. The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
vigorously defend the litigation.

On April 13, 2015, the Company joined in the filing of a joint
motion to dismiss the complaint, which is pending before the
Court. As of December 31, 2015, the Company did not have
sufficient information to determine whether the Company is exposed
to any losses that would be either probable or reasonably
estimable beyond an expense contingency estimate of $1 million,
which was accrued during the three months ended December 31, 2015.


FLECK FLECK: "Alibrandi" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
David Alibrandi, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fleck, Fleck & Fleck,
Esq., an unknown business entity, Edward A. Fleck, individually
and in his official capacity, Patricia A. Fleck, individually and
in her official capacity, Raymond A. Fleck, Jr., individually and
in his official capacity, Anthony G. Fleck, individually and in
his official capacity and, John and Jane Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 2:15-cv-07392-JMA-ARL (E.D.N.Y., December 29, 2015),
seeks actual and statutory damages, declaratory relief, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses and costs in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff incurred a financial obligation to General Utilities,
Inc., and the amount was transferred to Fleck Fleck for
collection.

Plaintiff alleges the Defendant made false representation that a
licensed attorney was behind the collection efforts set forth by
Fleck.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
      KLEINMAN, LLC
      626 RXR Plaza
      Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
      Tel: (516) 522-2621
      Fax: (888) 522-1692
      E-Mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


FLINT, MI: Suits Pile Up Over Water Crisis
------------------------------------------
Chad Halcom, writing for Crain's Detroit Business, reports that
wherever plenty of outrage and blame are going around, plenty of
litigation is likely to follow -- and so far the Flint water
crisis is no exception.

At least nine lawsuits have landed over the past three months in
Genesee County Circuit Court, U.S. District Court in Detroit and
the Michigan Court of Claims over lead contamination, a surge in
Legionnaires' disease or other public health issues connected to
city water drawn from the Flint River over 18 months.

Most are brought as potential class-action lawsuits on behalf of
all city residents and businesses that might be affected by
corrosion or contamination of the city's aging water
infrastructure.  And while experts think governmental immunity and
court precedents make suing Flint and the state a longshot, some
are taking a novel approach by instead targeting companies that
contract with Flint or operate in the city, or specific government
employees.

Eight residents allege professional negligence in a Genesee County
lawsuit against Houston-based Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam Inc., an
engineering services and program-management company hired to
oversee a refit of the city's nearly century-old Water Treatment
Plant when Flint separated itself from the Detroit Water and
Sewerage Department in April 2014.

The company, which has Michigan offices in Flint and Lansing, has
made more than $3.5 million on various city contract awards since
preparing an analysis in 2011 for then-Mayor Dayne Walling about
using the Flint River as a water source.

The lawsuit alleges the company knew that river water needed anti-
corrosion treatment chemicals, didn't require them and didn't
evaluate water coming out of the tap before completing the switch
to river water.  But the company defended its services to Flint in
a statement.

"(The company) provided a limited scope of engineering services to
address specific components of the City of Flint's water treatment
plant.  LAN has provided those services in a responsible and
appropriate manner in accordance with industry standards,"
Pete Wentz, executive director of Chicago-based Apco Worldwide and
a spokesman for Lockwood Andrews, said in a statement on the
company's behalf.  "We believe that this lawsuit has no merit and
will vigorously defend our position in court."

Mark McAlpine, owner of McAlpine PC in Auburn Hills and attorney
for the residents in the lawsuit, said Lockwood Andrews was
advised in November 2014 of a need to correct high trihalomethane
levels in the Flint water supply, possibly suggesting the water
was aggressively chlorinated to eliminate other chemicals it knew
were present.

"The engineers are by far the most knowledgeable people involved .
. . and that's why we think LAN has such pronounced liability in
this case," he said.  "In municipal contracts like these, everyone
else relies on them, even the regulatory structure that's been put
in place."

The case is one of at least four related cases assigned to Genesee
Circuit Judge Archie Hayman.

A 10th local lawsuit, filed on Feb. 1 in U.S. District Court on
behalf of 2-year-old Flint resident Sophia Waid along with her
father, Luke Waid, and Michelle Rodriguez alleges gross
negligence, nuisance, violations of due process and of the federal
Safe Water Drinking Act.  The lawsuit is not a class action, but
names former Flint emergency mangaers Gerald Ambrose and Darnell
Earley as defendants, along with Snyder and former MDEQ employees
Daniel Wyant and Liane Shekter-Smith, former MDEQ communications
director Wurfel and several Flint city employees as defendants.
The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew Leitman.

In other lawsuits, Southfield-based Fieger, Fieger, Kenney &
Harrington PC accuses McLaren Regional Medical Center of gross
negligence and premises liability on behalf of two Otisville
residents and two Flint residents who allegedly contracted the
Legionella virus that causes Legionnaires' disease within days of
being admitted to McLaren's hospital in Flint -- including
Debra Kidd, 58, who later died at Genesys Regional Medical Center
last August.

"A hospital won't make money if it discloses a Legionnaires'
outbreak from contaminated water, and a governor will stop hearing
whispers that he's being considered for higher office if he
reveals a water and Legionnaires' crisis.  We know what happened
here," Geoffrey Fieger said in a statement.

Laurie Prochazka, vice president of marketing and communication at
McLaren-Flint, said the hospital received that lawsuit only on
Feb. 4 and does not comment on pending litigation.

E. Powell Miller, president of the Miller Law Firm PC in Rochester
who specializes in class actions, securities litigation and high-
stakes commercial litigation, said getting a judge to sign off on
a class action will be difficult, because of governmental immunity
and court precedents in personal injury cases.

"Here especially you're likely to have cases where some
(residents) had no real injury at all, and some people have
serious injury, and some had only minor injuries or different
kinds of injuries -- and so by personal injury law their claims
aren't similar enough to go forward together as a class (in
court)." he said.

"My heart goes out, but this is a case that has spurred several
investigations and has the attention of the president of the
United States.  So hopefully the parties come up with a quick
solution or some legislation comes to provide help.  Because the
law is very tough when you try to sue the government."

Neither the McAlpine lawsuit nor the Fieger lawsuit targets the
state, the city or Gov. Rick Snyder, although the Fieger case does
name current and former employees Stephen Busch, Liane Shekter-
Smith and Brad Wurfel of the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality as defendants.

Two other proposed class-action lawsuits at U.S. District Court
name Snyder, former Flint Emergency Manager Darnell Earley,
Walling and the city, among other defendants, while a third, by
the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and the Natural
Resources Defense Council along with the Concerned Pastors for
Social Action and parent/resident Melissa Mays, names the members
of the Flint Receivership Transition Advisory Board and State
Treasurer Nick Khouri.  Ms. Mays is also a plaintiff in lawsuits
in Genesee County and the Court of Claims.


FOOD EXPRESS: Court Approves Settlement, Slashes Counsel Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York adopted the settlement
agreement, with modifications, in the case captioned, ANTONIO
FLORES, Plaintiff, v. FOOD EXPRESS REGO PARK, INC.; FOOD EXPRESS
WHITESTONE, INC.; FOOD EXPRESS BRONX, INC.; HARIS AJAZSYED; and
ERUMFATIMA Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-1410 (KAM)(SMG) (E.D.N.Y.).

On March 18, 2015, plaintiff Antonio Flores initiated the action
alleging, inter alia, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) against defendants Food
Express Rego Park, Inc., Food Express Whitestone, Inc., Food
Express Bronx, Inc., Haris Ajazsyed, and Erum Fatima. On January
4, 2016, the parties notified the court that a settlement had been
reached.

On January 18, 2016, the parties filed a joint letter motion
seeking court approval of their proposed settlement agreement.
Under the proposed Agreement, defendants would pay a total of
$17,500 to resolve plaintiff's claims:

     -- $10,437.75 would go to plaintiff; and
     -- $7,062.25 would go to plaintiff's counsel for attorneys'
        fees and costs related to the action.

Judge Matsumoto noted that the proposed attorneys' fees, inclusive
of costs, constituted approximately 40% of the total settlement
recovery.  Courts, Judge Matsumoto said, have often rejected
settlement agreements that provide for fees in that range.  He
pointed to the Opinion and Order in Martinez v. Gulluoglu LLC, No.
15-cv-2727 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016), ECF No. 27 ("Barring unusual
circumstances not present here, courts in this District have
declined to award fees constituting more than one-third of the
total settlement amount in an FLSA action."

Accordingly, Judge Matsumoto modified the deal to provided that
the counsel fees will constitute 35% of the settlement amount,
thus, increasing the amount the plaintiff may take home.

A copy of the Court's Order dated February 1, 2016, is available
at http://is.gd/JgcfJofrom Leagle.com.

Antonio Flores is represented by:

     Amit Kumar, Esq.
     William Cafaro, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
     108 W 39th St #602
     New York, NY 10018
     Tel: (212)583-7400

Defendants are represented by:

     Sima Asad Ali, Esq.
     Yasmin D. Soto, Esq.
     ALI LAW GROUP
     775 Park Ave #255,
     Huntington, NY 11743
     Tel: (631)423-3440


FOOTHILL/EASTERN: "Cohen" Suit Stayed Pending Spokeo Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution of the case, ROBERT COHEN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FOOTHILL/EASTERN
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY; SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION
AGENCY; 3M COMPANY; BRIC-TPS LLC, Defendants, Case Nos. SACV 15-
01698 DDP (DFMx) (C.D. Cal.), will have to wait until the U.S.
Supreme Court decides on a similar case, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
No. 13-1339, a California district judge ruled.

The putative class action case alleges violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, as modified by the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transaction Act to prevent identity theft and fraud on consumers.
FACTA's amendments passed on December 4, 2003, and came into force
on December 4, 2006. At issue in Cohen is 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1681c(g)(1), which requires truncation of credit and debit card
numbers on receipts provided to cardholders at the point of sale
or transaction. No more than the last five digits of the card
number can be printed, and the receipts may not include the card's
expiry date. Plaintiff cites 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681n(a) for
supporting his allegation that statutory damages, punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs are available to consumers
who prove a willful violation of FACTA's requirements.

Plaintiff claims that Defendants were on notice of FACTA's
requirements to truncate all but the last five digits of credit
and debit card numbers on electronically printed receipts.
Plaintiff alleges the violations were done "willfully, knowingly,
or recklessly" and that Defendants "knew, should have known,
and/or were reckless in not knowing about the requirement to
truncate customers' credit and debit card numbers." According to
Plaintiff, "because Defendants violated FACTA by disclosing more
than the last five digits of Plaintiff's debit card number,
Plaintiff is subject to an increased risk of identity theft and
fraud."

Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, to
Stay Action Pending Resolution of Spokeo by U.S. Supreme Court.
Defendants raise three main arguments in support of their motion:

     (1) Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to sue;

     (2) the complaint does not sufficiently plead a willful
         violation of FACTA; and

     (3) the Court should stay the case because the Supreme Court
         is reviewing the question of statutory standing from
         another FCRA case in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No.
         13-1339.

Plaintiff responds that he did allege actual injury as well as a
statutory violation in order to satisfy the standing requirement.
Further, Plaintiff argues the complaint does allege facts
supporting Plaintiff's claim that Defendants' violation of FACTA
was willful. Lastly, Plaintiff argues the Court should not grant
the stay because it is speculative whether Spokeo will impact this
case and a stay would be prejudicial.

In his Order dated February 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/YjbMunfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Dean D.
Pregerson found that the complaint does plead sufficient facts to
support Plaintiff's claim that Defendants willfully violated FACTA
and that the prejudice to Plaintiff would be slight if a stay is
granted.

Robert Cohen is represented by Anna Faircloth, Esq. --
afaircloth@jswlegal.com -- Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. -
jwesterman@jswlegal.com -- WESTERMAN LAW CORP & Jessica J.
Sleater, Esq. -- jessica@andersensleater.com -- ANDERSEN SLEATER
LLC, Atticus N. Wegman, Esq. -- atticus@aitkenlaw.com -- Darren
O'Leary Aitken, Esq. -- darren@aitkenlaw.com -- AITKEN AITKEN AND
COHN

Defendants are represented by Calvin L. Litsey, Esq. --
calvin.litsey@FaegreBD.com -- Aaron D. Van Oort, Esq. --
aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- Eileen M. Hunter, Esq. --
eileen.hunter@FaegreBD.com -- Nicholas Poli Chan, Esq. --
Nicholas.chan@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP


FRESH TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jiovanny F. Membreno Alaniz and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Fresh Transportation & Logistics, Inc.
a/k/a Dukes Transport, Judith Padilla, Osmany Padilla, Case No.
1:15-cv-24737-JEM (S.D. Fla., December 28, 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 transportation company that
regularly transacts business within Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FTS USA: "Taylor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Taylor, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. FTS USA, LLC, and Unitek USA, LLC, Case
No. 1:15-cv-04461-CAP (N.D. Ga., December 23, 2015) seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Based in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, the Defendants are in the
business of providing engineering services, cable installation,
maintenance, splicing, sweep, certification, balancing,
disconnecting and customer service to the cable television
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John L. Mays, Esq.
      MAYS & KERR, LLC
      235 Peachtree Street NE, 202 North Tower
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 410-7998
      Facsimile: (404) 855-0820
      E-mail: john@maysandkerr.com

           - and -

      Harold Lichten, Esq.
      Matthew Thomson, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
      E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
              mthomson@llrlaw.com


GATEWAY GENOMICS: "Main" Sues Over Inaccurate Pregnancy Test
------------------------------------------------------------
Kristine Main, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Gateway Genomics, LLC and Does 1-20,
inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-02945-
AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal., December 29, 2015), seeks compensatory
damages, restitution, disgorgement of all wrongfully obtained
compensation, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
exemplary damages, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees for
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and the
California False Advertising Law.

Gateway Genomics, LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation
with its principal place of business in La Jolla, California. It
makes the Sneakpeek pregnancy test that claims to predict the
gender of the baby. Main gave birth to a boy when Sneakpeek
predicted girl. She paid $169 for the service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John P. Kristensen, Esq.
      David L. Weisberg, Esq.
      KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
      12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Tel: (310) 507-7924
      Fax: (310) 507-7906
      Email: john@kristensenlaw.com
             david@kristensenlaw.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Beaver Water Suit Over LAS-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beaver Water District, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. General Chemical Corporation, et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-08887-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., December 28, 2015) arises from
the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and price-fixing conspiracy to circumvent competitive
bidding and independent pricing for liquid aluminum sulfate (LAS).

General Chemical Corporation is a Delaware corporation that
manufactures and supplies water treatment chemicals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lisa J. Rodriquez, Esq.
      SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
      Woodland Falls Corporate Park
      220 Lake Drive East, Suite 200
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1165
      Telephone: (856) 482-5741
      Facsimile: (856) 482-6980
      E-mail: ljrodriquez@schander.com

            - and -

      Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
      ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
      20 Rahling Circle
      PO Box 241790
      Little Rock, AR 72223-1790
      Telephone: (501) 821-5575
      Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
      E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us

            - and -

      Don Barrett, Esq.
      DON BARRETT, P.A
      PO Box 927, 404 Court Square North
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-2488
      Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
      E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Siloam Springs Suit Over LAS-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Siloam Springs, Arkansas v. General Chemical Corporation,
et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08888-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., December 28, 2015)
arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and price-fixing conspiracy to circumvent
competitive bidding and independent pricing for liquid aluminum
sulfate (LAS).

General Chemical Corporation is a Delaware corporation that
manufactures and supplies water treatment chemicals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lisa J. Rodriquez, Esq.
      SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
      Woodland Falls Corporate Park
      220 Lake Drive East, Suite 200
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1165
      Telephone: (856) 482-5741
      Facsimile: (856) 482-6980
      E-mail: ljrodriquez@schander.com

            - and -

      Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
      ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
      20 Rahling Circle
      PO Box 241790
      Little Rock, AR 72223-1790
      Telephone: (501) 821-5575
      Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
      E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us

            - and -

      Don Barrett, Esq.
      DON BARRETT, P.A
      PO Box 927, 404 Court Square North
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-2488
      Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
      E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Springdale Suit Over LAS-Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
City of Springdale, Arkansas v. General Chemical Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08889-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., December 28, 2015)
arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and price-fixing conspiracy to circumvent
competitive bidding and independent pricing for liquid aluminum
sulfate (LAS).

General Chemical Corporation is a Delaware corporation that
manufactures and supplies water treatment chemicals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lisa J. Rodriquez, Esq.
      SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
      Woodland Falls Corporate Park
      220 Lake Drive East, Suite 200
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1165
      Telephone: (856) 482-5741
      Facsimile: (856) 482-6980
      E-mail: ljrodriquez@schander.com

            - and -

      Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
      ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
      20 Rahling Circle
      PO Box 241790
      Little Rock, AR 72223-1790
      Telephone: (501) 821-5575
      Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
      E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us

            - and -

      Don Barrett, Esq.
      DON BARRETT, P.A
      PO Box 927, 404 Court Square North
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-2488
      Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
      E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: St. Paul Water Services Hits Overpriced Alum
--------------------------------------------------------------
Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Frank A. Reichl, General Chemical
Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, Gentek,
Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade Logistics, Inc.,
GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc., C&S Chemicals, Inc., USALCO, LLC,
Thatcher Group, Inc., Kemira Chemicals, Inc., and John Does 1-50.
Defendants, Case No. 0:15-cv-04582-ADM-TNL (D. Minn. December 29,
2015), asks the Court:

     -- to permanently enjoin defendants from further violating
        antitrust laws, and

     -- for treble damages, penalties and other monetary relief
        and reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to Section 1
        of the Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of
        the Clayton Act 15 U.S.C.

Saint Paul Regional Water Services supplies water to the City of
St. Paul. They use liquid alum in water treatment.

Defendants are allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to artificially
fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of aluminum
sulfate in the United States. Plaintiff purchased liquid aluminum
sulfate directly from the defendants at allegedly excessive
prices.

Reichl was the General Manager of Water Chemicals for General
Chemical Group, Inc., a corporation existing under the laws of
Delaware, with principal place of business at 90 East Halsey Road,
Parsippany, New Jersey.

General Chemical Corporation was a corporation existing under the
laws of Delaware with principal place of business at Suite 300,
155 Gordon Baker Road, Toronto, Ontario.

General Chemical Performance Products LLC was a limited liability
company organized under the laws of Delaware with principal place
of business at 90 East Halsey Road, Parsippany, New Jersey.

GenTek Inc. was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Parsippany, New Jersey. GenTek manufactured and
supplied water treatment chemicals throughout the United States.
It owned and controlled Defendants General Chemical Performance
Products LLC and General Chemical Corporation.

Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund is a limited purpose trust under
the laws of the Province of Ontario and is headquartered in
Toronto, Canada. It manufactures and markets industrial chemicals
and other coagulants used in water treatment in Canada, the United
States and Europe.

Chemtrade Logistics Inc. is a subsidiary of Chemtrade
Logistics Income Fund incorporated under the laws of the Province
of Ontario.

GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. is a privately held Ohio corporation
with its principal place of business at 340 Mathers Road, Ambler,
Pennsylvania. GEO Specialty manufactures, markets, and supplies
specialty chemicals, including water treatment chemicals.

Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation is a Delaware corporation and is a
subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company and is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

C&S Chemicals, Inc. is a privately held Pennsylvania corporation
with its principal place of business at 4180 Providence Road,
Marietta, Georgia. C&S Chemicals specializes in the production of
Liquid Aluminum Sulfate and Sodium Aluminate and currently
operates six manufacturing facilities located in Florida, Georgia,
South Carolina, Illinois, and Minnesota.

USALCO, LLC is a privately held Maryland corporation with its
principal place of business at 2601 Cannery Avenue, Baltimore,
Maryland. USALCO manufactures and distributes aluminum-based
chemical commodities to the industrial and municipal markets in
the North America.

Thatcher Group, Inc. is a privately held Nevada corporation with
its principal place of business at 1905 Fortune Road, Salt Lake
City, Utah. Thatcher Group manufactures and distributes a complete
line of products for industrial and municipal water and wastewater
treatment.

Kemira Chemicals, Inc. is a publicly held Georgia corporation with
its principal place of business at 1000 Parkwood Circle, Suite
500, Atlanta, Georgia. It manufactures, formulates and supplies
specialty and process chemicals for paper, water treatment,
mineral slurries and industrial chemical industries in North
America and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Charles N. Nauen, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
      Brian D. Clark, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      Email: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
             cnnauen@locklaw.com
             hmsilton@locklaw.com
             erodette@locklaw.com
             bdclark@locklaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Lawyers Respond to Criticisms
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that plaintiffs lawyers leading hundreds of lawsuits over General
Motors Co.'s ignition-switch defect on Feb. 1 defended their
management of the multidistrict litigation, which came under
attack after the first bellwether trial imploded abruptly last
month amid revelations of apparent fraud and perjury.

The three co-lead plaintiffs attorneys, in a response to a motion
filed in New York federal court, insisted that they had worked
"tooth and nail" on the litigation and that the first bellwether,
despite its unraveling, would aid the MDL going forward.

They also refuted claims that one of them, Robert Hilliard, of
Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, Texas, struck a deal as
part of a Sept. 17 settlement between 1,385 of his clients and GM
that would maximize his fees and reduce the automaker's liability.
Five of the six bellwether cases slated for trials this year are
Hilliard's remaining clients, including the first one, which was
voluntarily dismissed on Jan. 22.

Following that dismissal, attorney Lance Cooper, a former member
of the plaintiffs' executive committee in the MDL, filed a motion
asking U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in New York to disqualify
Hilliard and two other lead attorneys, Steve Berman and Elizabeth
Cabraser, given their alleged mismanagement of the MDL, including
picking a poor case for the first bellwether trial.  He filed a
second motion asking Furman to reconsider approval of a settlement
fund given Hilliard's alleged "quid pro quo" with GM.

Firing back on Feb. 1, the lead attorneys accused Mr. Cooper, who
resigned on April 20, of shirking his own responsibilities as a
member of the plaintiffs executive committee, noting that he is
$100,000 in arrears for cost assessments.

"Mr. Cooper's unsupported recriminations-made by one who abdicated
the important responsibilities given him by the court to help
further the MDL-fail to recognize and acknowledge the substantial
work performed by the co-leads and the [executive committee],"
they wrote.

As to Hilliard's settlement with GM, they wrote: "Mr. Cooper's
sensational characterization of the settlement as a nefarious,
secret pact is simply untrue," they asserted, noting that GM
merely refused to settle Hilliard's bellwether cases.

In an email, Hilliard said, "We invite Mr. Cooper to immediately
withdraw his groundless motions and, instead of attacking his own
comrades, begin to direct his talents and efforts towards
rejoining our fight to assure a meaningful result for those killed
and injured by this deadly defect."

Mr. Cooper, founding partner of The Cooper Firm in Marietta,
Georgia, who represents ignition-switch clients in nine cases in
the MDL, did not respond to a request for comment.  He was
scheduled to reply by Friday, Feb. 5.

In a separate filing on Feb. 1, GM defended the management of the
MDL, which it called the "hallmark of transparency," and refuted
Cooper's "wild and frivolous" allegations about its settlement
with Hilliard.

"Mr. Cooper's intentional decision to lie in wait and raise
complaints only after he saw an opportunity to seize upon the
unexpected end to the first bellwether trial is an unacceptable
attempt to game the system at the expense of continuing progress
in the federal MDL," wrote GM attorney Richard Godfrey --
richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- a partner at Chicago's Kirkland &
Ellis.


GENERAL MOTORS: 121 Recall Class Actions Pending Through Jan. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company in the year ended December 31, 2014,
announced various recalls relating to safety, customer
satisfaction and other matters. Those recalls included recalls to
repair ignition switches that could under certain circumstances
unintentionally move from the "run" position to the "accessory" or
"off" position with a corresponding loss of power, which could in
turn prevent airbags from deploying in the event of a crash.

General Motors said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that through January 27,
2016, it was aware of:

     -- 100 putative class actions pending against GM in various
        federal and state trial courts in the U.S. alleging that
        consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured
        by GM or General Motors Corporation had been economically
        harmed by one or more of the recalls announced in 2014
        and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with
        those recalls (economic-loss cases).

     -- 21 putative class actions pending in various Provincial
        Courts in Canada seeking relief similar to that sought in
        the economic-loss cases in the U.S.

In the aggregate these economic-loss cases seek recovery for
purported compensatory damages, such as alleged diminution in
value of the vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive
relief and other relief. There are also two civil actions brought
by state governmental entities relating to the 2014 recalls that
seek injunctive relief as well as economic damages and attorneys'
fees for alleged violations of state consumer protection statutes.

"Through January 27, 2016 we were aware of 235 actions pending in
various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. against GM
alleging injury or death as a result of defects that may be the
subject of recalls announced in 2014 (personal injury cases)," the
Company said. "Additionally through January 27, 2016 we were aware
of nine actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada
seeking relief similar to that sought in the personal injury cases
in the U.S. In general, these personal injury cases seek recovery
for purported compensatory damages, punitive damages and other
relief."

"Since June 2014 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPML) has issued orders from time to time directing
that certain pending economic-loss and personal injury federal
lawsuits involving faulty or allegedly faulty ignition switches or
other defects that may be related to the recalls announced in the
year ended December 31, 2014 be transferred to, and consolidated
in, a single federal court, the Southern District of New York (the
multidistrict litigation). Through January 27, 2016 the JPML has
transferred 262 pending cases to, and consolidated them with, the
multidistrict litigation. At the court's suggestion, the parties
to the multidistrict litigation engage from time to time in
discussions of possible mechanisms to resolve pending litigation.

"On September 17, 2015 we announced that we had reached a
memorandum of understanding with certain personal injury claimants
regarding possible settlement of their claims.


GENERAL MOTORS: Oral Argument in 2nd Cir. Appeal Set for March 16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on the appeal over a bankruptcy court's ruling on
successor liability claims will be held March 15, 2016, before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, General Motors
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015.

Because many plaintiffs are suing over the conduct of General
Motors Corporation or vehicles manufactured by that entity for
liabilities not expressly assumed by GM, GM moved to enforce the
terms of the July 2009 Sale Order and Injunction issued by the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New
York (Bankruptcy Court) to preclude claims from being asserted
against us for, among other things, personal injuries based on
pre-sale accidents, any economic-loss claims based on acts or
conduct of General Motors Corporation and claims asserting
successor liability for obligations owed by General Motors
Corporation (successor liability claims).

"On April 15, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a Decision
precluding claims against us based upon pre-sale accidents, claims
based upon the acts or conduct by General Motors Corporation and
successor liability claims, except for claims asserting
liabilities that had been expressly assumed by us in the July 2009
Sale Agreement and claims that could be asserted against us only
if they were otherwise viable and arose solely out of our own
independent post-closing acts and did not in any way rely on acts
or conduct by General Motors Corporation. Plaintiffs have appealed
the Bankruptcy Court's decision and we have cross appealed with
respect to certain issues to preserve our rights. The United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit)
has accepted a direct appeal of the matter and the parties have
briefed the appeal pursuant to an expedited schedule set by the
Second Circuit. Oral argument is scheduled for March 15, 2016.

"In addition on December 4, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a
judgment regarding certain issues left unresolved by the April 15,
2015 decision including the extent to which punitive damages could
be asserted against GM based on claims involving vehicles
manufactured by General Motors Corporation. Various groups of
plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the district court
overseeing the multidistrict litigation.

The uncertainties include the legal theory or the nature of the
claims, the complexity of the facts, the results of any
investigation or litigation, and the timing of resolution of the
investigations or litigation. For example, the appeal from the
Bankruptcy Court's April 2015 decision is currently pending before
the Second Circuit, as is the appeal to the district court
overseeing the multidistrict litigation from the Bankruptcy
Court's December 2015 judgment. The resolution of these appeals
could have a substantial impact on the potential liability of GM
for acts or conduct of General Motors Corporation and what claims
plaintiffs may pursue against GM in the multidistrict litigation
and other courts. Further, there have been little or no
discussions to date concerning any potential resolution of the SEC
investigation, the state attorneys general's investigations, the
various claims for economic loss, or the claims concerning death
or personal injury not covered by the memorandum of understanding.

"We will continue to consider potential resolution of open matters
involving ignition switch recalls and other recalls where it makes
sense to do so," the Company said.


GENERAL MOTORS: April 20 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a New York court has
scheduled a final settlement fairness hearing for April 20, 2016,
in a shareholder class action lawsuit.

"In the putative shareholder class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
(Shareholder Class Action), the court appointed the New York State
Teachers' Retirement System as the lead plaintiff. On January 15,
2015 the New York State Teachers' Retirement System filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint against GM and several current
and former officers and employees (Defendants) on behalf of
purchasers of our common stock from November 17, 2010 to July 24,
2014. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleges that
Defendants made material misstatements and omissions relating to
problems with the ignition switch and other matters in SEC filings
and other public statements.

"On September 17, 2015 we announced that we had entered into a
binding term sheet regarding settlement of this matter. On
November 20, 2015 the district court granted its preliminary
approval of the settlement and has scheduled a final settlement
fairness hearing for April 20, 2016.


GENERAL MOTORS: 2nd Bellwether Trial to Commence in March 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a second bellwether
trial related to the ignition switch recalls is expected to
commence in March 2016.

In January 2016 the first of several "bellwether" trials, Scheuer
v. General Motors, LLC, took place in the multidistrict litigation
associated with the ignition switch recalls. On January 22, 2016 a
Stipulation of Dismissal was filed by which plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice. No payment was made to
plaintiff.

Each bellwether trial will be tried on its facts and the result of
any subsequent bellwether trial may be different from this first
bellwether trial. Further, this first bellwether trial does not
allow us to estimate the possible loss associated with the
resolution of the multidistrict litigation. The second bellwether
trial is expected to commence in March 2016.


GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal in Canada Dealers' Claim Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company anticipates
that the appeal related to the so-called GM Canada Dealers' Claim
will be heard in the year ending December 31, 2016.

On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against GM Canada on behalf of a purported class
of over 200 former GM Canada dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which
had entered into wind-down agreements with GM Canada. In May 2009
in the context of the global restructuring of the business and the
possibility that GM Canada might be required to initiate
insolvency proceedings, GM Canada offered the Plaintiff Dealers
the wind-down agreements to assist with their exit from the GM
Canada dealer network and to facilitate winding down their
operations in an orderly fashion by December 31, 2009 or such
other date as GM Canada approved but no later than on October 31,
2010. The Plaintiff Dealers allege that the Dealer Sales and
Service Agreements were wrongly terminated by GM Canada and that
GM Canada failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations,
breached its statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully
interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to
associate in an attempt to coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into
accepting the wind-down agreements. The Plaintiff Dealers seek
damages and assert that the wind-down agreements are rescindable.
The Plaintiff Dealers' initial pleading makes reference to a claim
"not exceeding" CAD $750 million, without explanation of any
specific measure of damages.

On March 1, 2011 the court approved certification of a class for
the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues
including: (1) whether GM Canada breached its obligation of "good
faith" in offering the wind-down agreements; (2) whether GM Canada
interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' rights of free association;
(3) whether GM Canada was obligated to provide a disclosure
statement and/or disclose more specific information regarding its
restructuring plans in connection with proffering the wind-down
agreements; and (4) whether the Plaintiff Dealers can recover
damages in the aggregate (as opposed to proving individual
damages). A number of former dealers opted out of participation in
the litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the certified class. Trial
of the class issues was completed in the three months ended
December 31, 2014.

On July 8, 2015 the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the Plaintiff
Dealers' claim against GM Canada, holding that GM Canada did not
breach any common law or statutory obligations toward the class
members. The court also dismissed GM Canada's counterclaim against
the Plaintiff Dealers for repayment of the wind-down payments made
to them by GM Canada as well as for other relief. All parties have
filed notices of appeal.

"We anticipate that the appeal will be heard in the year ending
December 31, 2016," the Company said.


GLOBAL TRAVEL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Tye" Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary E. Tye, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Global Travel International, Inc., Does I through X,
inclusive and Roe Corporations I through X, inclusive, Case No.
2:15-cv-02654-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal., December 23, 2015) seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making a telemarketing call to the
Plaintiff's wireless phone using an automated telephone dialing
system or a prerecorded voice.

Global Travel International, Inc. owns and operates a privately
owned, Orlando, Florida-based travel company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Candice E. Renka, Esq.
      MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING
      10001 Park Run Drive
      Las Vegas, NV 89145
      Telephone: (702) 382-0711
      Facsimile: (702) 382-5816
      E-mail: crenka@maclaw.com

            - and -

      Patrick D. Toole, Esq.
      Dylan J. Crosby, Esq.
      WANGER JONES HELSLEY, PC
      265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 300
      Fresno, CA 93729
      Telephone: (559) 233-4800
      Facsimile: (559) 233-9330
      E-mail: ptoole@wjhattorneys.com
              dcrosby@wjhattorneys.com


GOOGLE INC: Court Dismisses Class Action Over CAPTCHA
-----------------------------------------------------
Walter Olson, writing for Overlawyered, reports that a California
court has dismissed an intended class action suit against Google
claiming that it reaped undeserved profit when users solved
CAPTCHA letter-recognition problems that assisted in solving
passages that had gone undeciphered in Google's own OCR scanning.
The ruling "reinforces [the principle] that not every asymmetrical
economic benefit exchanged online must be compensated.  Parties in
a mutual exchange rarely get the exact same amount of value from
the exchange, but the fact that one party derives more value from
the exchange than the other shouldn't create a federal case."


GOPRO INC: Faces Securities Class Action After Stock Slump
----------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that GoPro Inc., the
maker of wearable cameras popular with skiers, surfers and other
outdoor sports enthusiasts, has been hit with a string of
securities class actions after a sharp dive in the company's share
price.  Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd joined the fray on Feb. 4
with a suit alleging that the company failed to disclose declining
sales trends, price pressure and rising inventories that indicated
weak demand.

San Mateo-based GoPro has missed its earnings targets the past two
quarters due to weaker than expected sales for its new HERO
Session line of cameras.  The price of the latest camera in the
line was cut from $399 to $299 in July, then again to $199 in
December.  The company announced last month that it would take a
$30 million charge to account for its excess inventory and that it
would lay off about 7 percent of its workforce.

GoPro's stock price, which topped $64 in August, fell below $13 on
January 14, the day after it released its preliminary fourth
quarter results.  GoPro shares closed at $9.78 on Feb. 4, and the
company announced that chief financial officer Jack Lazar will be
leaving the company in March.

The Feb. 4 suit from Robbins Geller alleges that the company and
executives, including Lazar, made false or misleading statements
about the GoPro's financial health, causing its stock to be
overvalued.  The suit follows two similar complaints filed last
month in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by lawyers at Glancy Prongay & Murray and Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer.  The earlier suits have both been assigned to U.S.
District Judge Jon Tigar.

A company representative didn't immediately respond to an email
message.  No lawyer has yet entered an appearance as defense
counsel for GoPro.


GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Former Students Sue Over Alleged Abuse
-----------------------------------------------------------
CTV News reports that the school yearbooks and glossy brochures
all show images of beaming students getting a good Christian
education. And in promotional videos, student after student offers
up glowing testimonials, especially about their teachers.

According to the brochures, students attending Grenville Christian
College would find academic excellence. Sports. And the Arts.
"Educating the whole person in body, mind and spirit."

But a CTV W5 investigation has found that Grenville, once an elite
private boarding school on the banks of the St. Lawrence River,
has a dark past.

For hundreds of former students, the school, which now sits empty
having closed its doors in 2007, is a place haunted with painful
memories.

W5 spoke with several alumni who recounted disturbing stories
about their years at the school and the abuses they suffered --
allegations of physical, sexual and psychological abuse during the
1970s, '80s and '90s.

Mark Vincent attended Grenville in the '70s.  "Probably the worst
memory, they beat the crap out of me with a desk top to the point
where I couldn't stand, because God told them to do it to me."

Standing at the edge of the property, Jacqueline Thomas could
barely look up at the sprawling campus.  She was a student in the
'90s.  "This is the first time I've been here in 22 years.  I'm
trying really hard not to cry.  But I feel sick. I'm terrified."

With a Grenville brochure in hand, Andrew Hale-Byrne recalled his
family's search for a school and thinking they'd found a place
like the finest boarding schools in his native United Kingdom.

"My mother commented that it looked better than most country clubs
she'd seen.  It was beautiful. It was actually breathtaking,"
Andrew said.

But soon after arriving at the school, he witnessed first-hand the
dark side.

"One thing that stuck out in my mind and I found this particularly
disturbing from the very first moment I witnessed it was the
public humiliations in the chapel and the dining room where they
(the headmaster and teachers) would drag a student onto the stage
and that person would be ripped apart, humiliated, shamed in front
of the entire student body."

What Andrew found troubling was that the brochure promised "love
and Christian teaching," but, he says, they got neither.

"They took Christianity which is a religion of love which was my
experience of growing up Anglican and they inverted it into a cult
of hate."

"I was told that in order to be loved by God I had to pass through
the light and that involved going through what they called a
'light session' which is one of these public humiliations. And you
had to die to self they said in order to be loved by God, and that
involved hating yourself," Andrew explained.

"After two years of being there I came to believe that I was
garbage, filth, trash. We were told 'God hates you.  God doesn't
love you. You're damned.' And I came to just normalize this."

Andrew has written a book about his experiences, which is
available online.

Dan Michielsen entered Grenville in 1985 in grade 10.  He
described himself as a happy go lucky 15-year-old but all that
changed within a couple of weeks with a rude awakening.

Dan recalled being dragged out of bed along with other boys in the
dormitory in the middle of the night by staff.  "Lights would be
turned on and we were berated and screamed at for being sinful
boys."

Sinful boys, but the girls were singled out by headmaster Charles
Farnsworth and other staff for far more degrading attacks simply
because they were female.

Sheila Coons recalled the headmaster seeing her as the Devil
incarnate.

"He would say that I had a devil inspired body and that I was
tempting men by my devil inspired body.  He compared me to Lucifer
because at the time I was blonde and Lucifer apparently had blonde
hair."

According to Sheila and confirmed by other former students W5
interviewed, Farnsworth often accused girls of inviting sexual
attention.

"Father Farnworth took me into the Vestry and told me that I was a
whore and I looked like a whore and I had really no alternative in
life but to be a whore," Sheila said.

"We were told that women are responsible for anything sexual, for
turning men on, turning boys on, that men just looked at us as
pieces of meat.  And if a woman got raped that was her fault.  She
was a temptress as Eve was a temptress, as Jezebel was a temptress
and then the list goes on."

Father Farnworth's tirades about women may have hidden his own
lust.

"He would call me up to his office frequently, take me out of
class and tell me what an awful, sinful creature I was.

"On this one occasion he stood up, pressed his body against mine.
He said, 'you smell good' and he clenched me to him and he put his
mouth on my neck and licked it and he pressed his hips up against
mine.

"At the time I thought he was obsessed with me.  I found out later
that he was doing it to other girls as well."

Today, these students are grown up but they still feel the pain,
and are now part of a $200-million lawsuit -- a class action -- on
behalf of hundreds of former boarding school students, claiming
systemic abuse and bizarre religious practices at the hands of
Grenville staff, especially Father Charles Farnsworth.

Father Farnsworth's version of what went on at Grenville may never
be fully known.  He died in March 2015.  But former students had
already launched their class action against the school by this
time.

Father Farnsworth came to the school in 1972 and by 1983 he was
named headmaster, a position he held for the next 14 years.  What
students likely didn't know back then was that he and other staff
members were disciples of an American group called the Community
of Jesus based in Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

Reports by U.S. news media beginning in the 1980s described the
group as a cult which practiced communal living and extreme
rituals, particularly when it came to disciplining each other.

As a devout follower, Father Farnsworth applied the teachings of
the Community of Jesus at Grenville on unsuspecting students.

Before his death, Father Farnsworth wrote about the allegations in
a document obtained by W5.  "The whole reason for being in our
mission was to bring these people into the realm of the Christ . .
."

Father Farnsworth added: 'We have been accused of many things that
I never knew of and never heard of . . . But I honestly think some
of the people have gone delusional.  Some of the things they said
happened, some of the accusations of sexual abuse by me, they just
didn't happen."

Many former Grenville staff also vigorously deny the allegations
put forward in the lawsuit.

However, Joan Childs, a former teacher and administrator at the
school, as well as a follower of the Community of Jesus and one of
Father Farnsworth's inner circle, told W5 that the students are
telling the truth.

"They aren't exaggerating.  They aren't making these things up. As
sad as it is, these things happened."

She has apologized for what was done to students at the school
while she was there.


HAPPY ANGEL: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Moreno" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe De La Cruz Moreno and Rosa Toledo Cabrera, individually
and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Happy
Angel Nail Spa Inc. and Wang Dong, Case No. 1:15-cv-10078
(S.D.N.Y., December 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendants
for failure to minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a nail salon doing business as
Happy Angel, located at 2632 Broadway, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, N.Y. 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
              bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              jazeller@zellerlegal.com


HBH GOURMET: "Maye" Action Seeks OT, Tips, Spread of Hours Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
FREDDY MAYE on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
Plaintiff, v. HBH Gourmet Sandwiches, Inc., Robert Ugorets, Dmitry
Kirichansky and Lore Schlager, Defendants, Case No. CV7371
(E.D.N.Y., December 29, 2015), seeks injunction, unpaid overtime
compensation due under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law, unpaid minimum wages due, unpaid spread of hours
premium due, recovery of unlawfully deducted tip compensation due,
liquidated and/or punitive damages for failure to pay overtime
compensation, statutory penalties, prejudgment and post-judgment
interests and reasonable attorneys' and expert fees.

HBH Gourmet Sandwiches, Inc., is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of New York, with principal place of
business located at 407 Smith St. Brooklyn, NY 11231 where Maye
was hired by Defendants as a delivery man. He claims to have
rendered in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime
compensation, was not paid the mandatory spread of hours premium,
did not receive wage statements and was not paid his tips due.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HEALTH CANADA: Women Mull Class Action Over Anti-Nausea Drug
------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Cole, writing for the Observer Star, reports that a class-
action lawsuit has been filed in Canada by women who say their
babies were harmed by a powerful anti-nausea drug not technically
approved for use in pregnant women.

Like most mothers, Terra Mercer wanted a drug-free pregnancy. But
early in her pregnancy with her daughter, Aaleyah, Terra suffered
severe nausea and vomiting.

Still in her first trimester, she tried to handle it on her own,
but when she began seeing blood in her vomit, she went to the
hospital.  A physician offered her a medication delivered by IV.

"Before I said yes, I first asked if there were any side effects.
He said. 'No, it's safe.' So I trusted him," she recalled.

The drug was called ondansetron.  It is marketed under the brand
name Zofran.  It is available in IV and pill form and is approved
by Health Canada to prevent nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy
and surgery patients.

But it is also prescribed "off label," to treat extreme cases of
morning sickness, or Hyperemesis Gravidarum, even though its
possible risks have not been fully studied.


HEDGEPATH PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit v. Accentia, Biovest Settled
------------------------------------------------------------
HedgePath Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action
lawsuit against Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., and its former
subsidiary, Biovest International, Inc., have been settled, and
that settlement has been approved by the court.

On July 24, 2013 and August 5, 2013, purported class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida (Tampa Division) against Accentia Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., and several current and former directors and officers of
Accentia and its former subsidiary, Biovest International, Inc.,
(collectively, the "Class Action"), including Frank E. O'Donnell,
Jr. M.D., the Company's Executive Chairman. The complaints allege
that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making or
causing Accentia and/or Biovest to make false statements, and by
failing to disclose or causing Accentia and/or Biovest to fail to
disclose material information, concerning the results of the
clinical trial of Biovest's cancer vaccine, BiovaxID, and status
of its approval by the FDA. Plaintiffs seek damages in an
unspecified amount on behalf of shareholders who purchased common
stock of Accentia or Biovest during a defined time period.

All defendants, including Dr. O'Donnell, believe this litigation
to be without merit, deny any wrongdoing or liability and have
vigorously defended the alleged claims. A settlement of this
matter, in which defendants make no admissions of wrongdoing or
liability, has been agreed upon by all parties and approved by the
Court.

HedgePath is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that is
seeking to discover, develop and commercialize innovative
therapeutics for patients with certain cancers.


HENRY INDUSTRIES: Faces "Hose" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hose v. Henry Industries, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01913 9
(E.D. Mo., December 23, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Henry Industries, Inc. is a provider of distribution center,
warehouse and logistic needs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC
      2726 S. Brentwood Blvd.
      St. Louis MO 63144
      Telephone: (314)645-4100
      Facsimile: (314)736-6216
      E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com

            - and -

      Cyrus Dashtaki, Esq.
      DASHTAKI LAW FIRM, LLC
      5201 Hampton Avenue
      St. Louis, MO 63109
      Telephone: (314) 832-9600
      Facsimile: (314) 353-0181
      E-mail: cyrus@dashtaki.com


HIGHER ONE: Faces "Hall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Hall, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Higher One Machines, Inc., Higher One, Inc., and
Higher One Holdings, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00670-F (E.D.N.C.,
December 28, 2018) is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants offer a wide array of technological services on
campus, ranging from streamlining the institution's performance
analytics and financial aid refund processes to offering students
innovative banking services, tuition payment plans, and the basics
of financial management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 936-2143
      E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

            - and -

      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
              jrusch@johnsonbecker.com

            - and -

      W. Ellis Boyle, Esq.
      Joe Thomas Knott III, Esq.
      KNOTT & BOYLE P.L.L.C.
      4800 Six Forks Road, Suite 100
      Raleigh, NC 27609
      Telephone: (919) 783-5900
      Facsimile: (919) 783-9650
      E-mail ellis@knottboyle.com
             joeknott@knottboyle.com


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: To Seek Dismissal of Merger Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hutchinson Technology Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3,
2016, for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2015, that the
Company intends to move to dismiss the class action lawsuits
challenging the Company's merger agreement with Headway
Technologies, Inc.

On November 1, 2015, Hutchinson entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Headway Technologies, Inc.
("Parent") and Hydra Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
of Parent ("Merger Subsidiary"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement,
Merger Subsidiary will merge with and into Hutchinson and
Hutchinson will continue as the surviving corporation and as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). Parent and
Merger Subsidiary are each beneficially owned by TDK Corporation,
a Japanese electronics company.

In November and December 2015, following the announcement of the
Merger, four actions were filed by purported shareholders of the
company in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota. The actions are captioned David Erickson v. Hutchinson
Technology Incorporated, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-04261-DSD-LIB,
Stephen M. Harnik v. Hutchinson Technology Incorporated, et al.,
Case No. 0:15-cv-04321, Jesse Hendricks v. Richard J.Penn, et al.,
Case No. 0:15-cv-04338, and Matthew Ridler and Lori Ridler v.
Hutchinson Technology Incorporated, Case No. 0:15-cv-04356-MJD-
TNL. The plaintiffs each purport to bring their action as a class
action on behalf of the company's public shareholders. All four
complaints name the company and its directors as defendants, and
allege that they have violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of, and
Rule 14a-9 under, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by filing a
preliminary proxy statement that contains materially incomplete
and misleading statements and omissions.

The Hendricks complaint also names Parent and Merger Subsisiaryas
defendants, and includes claims under state law for breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and
equitable relief under the Minnesota Business Corporation Act. The
Hendricks complaint alleges that the company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the company by operating an inadequate
sale process, agreeing to a merger with Parent and Merger
Subsidiary at an unfair price, and agreeing to deal protection
provisions that are unfavorable to the company and its
shareholders. All of the federal complaints seek injunctive and
equitable relief, including an order enjoining the closing of the
Merger until the alleged deficiencies in the preliminary proxy
statement have been corrected; damages in an unspecified amount;
and an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs, and
disbursements. The defendants have not yet responded to any of the
complaints, but intend to move to dismiss the actions.

"We believe that the actions are without merit, and intend to
vigorously defend against all claims asserted," the Company said.


ISE RESTAURANT: Faces Suit in N.Y. Seeking Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rosales-Sanchez, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Ise Restaurant Inc., and Manabu Nishigaki,
Case No. 1:15-cv-10064-CM (S.D.N.Y., December 28, 2015) seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate two restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 6th floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


ITALY: Solicitor Mulls Class Action Over Juventus Travel Ban
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Gladwell, writing for ESPN FC, reports that Diego Maradona's
solicitor is planning to lead a class action launched by Napoli
fans to overturn a ban on them travelling to Juventus.

Angelo Pisani, who has defended Mr. Maradona in his various
disputes with Italian tax authorities, has taken on the Napoli
fans' bid to travel to the Feb. 6 top-of-the-table Serie A clash
at the Juventus Stadium.

The away end of the Juventus Stadium is to remain empty with
police fearing crowd trouble.  Fans with a residency in the state
of Campania will be forbidden from buying tickets for the fixture
as the league leaders travel to the second-placed side.

"It's an unacceptable and illegitimate measure which also offends
the dignity of Neapolitans," Mr. Pisani told Il Corriere dello
Sport.

"It just disgusts you.  It is blatantly illegitimate and
unacceptable because it is discriminatory and reflects a state
which has capitulated and is incapable of guaranteeing people's
safety."

The Juventus Stadium will be sold out for the fixture which will
nevertheless see a large presence of Napoli fans who do not reside
in Campania, and who will have been able to get tickets for the
home fans' areas.

"Closing the stadium to residents of Campania, who feel offended
and damaged, is not the way to ensure the sporting event goes
ahead correctly," Mr. Pisani added.

"Also because decisions like these upset the healthy sporting
passion of the Partenopei fans and, in general, it offends the
dignity of the Neapolitan people.

"It provokes the serious risk of mixing Azzurri fans from other
parts of Italy with Bianconeri supporters in the same sectors,
with a real risk of danger in these cases."

With or without their fans, Napoli will be looking to win in
Turin, and take a major step towards a first Scudetto since 1990.

"If we get a draw after a difficult game, then that would be fine,
but it's not something I would sign for in advance," said Napoli
coach Maurizio Sarri, whose side have a two-point advantage over
Juve.

"I want to go there to win. They are stronger than us, but we need
to go there with defiance and play our football at the [Juventus]
Stadium.  They have always been coached by great coaches, they are
a strong club with a very united group of players, who are used to
this kind of game.

"It's something for us to be proud about, being ahead of them, and
we're happy to be able to play a game like this.  We're going to
go there and play our game, knowing that they're going to cause us
plenty of problems."

That confidence is shared by Napoli midfielder Marek Hamsik.

"We're going to make a game of it in Turin," Mr. Hamsik told
Mediaset.  "We're expecting a great game against Juventus -- it's
first against second, so what more do we want?

"You don't need any extra motivation for a game like that.  We've
got a week to prepare, to study them and to get it right.  They're
in great form and it's going to be extremely difficult."

Juventus beat Frosinone on Feb. 7 to make it 14 wins in a row
while Napoli's 1-0 win over Carpi was their eighth straight win in
Serie A.


JL BARNES: "Blake" Sues over Unsolicited Fax Messages
-----------------------------------------------------
Timothy Blake, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. J.L. Barnes Insurance Agency Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-15-022331 (Fla. Cir., December 21, 2015),
seeks statutory damages, statutory penalties, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest from violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq.

J.L. Barnes Insurance Agency Inc. is a corporation duly organized
under the laws of the State of Illinois with its headquarters at
4355 Weaver Parkway, Warrenville, IL 60555. It operates American
Health Insurance Exchange which sells insurance products and
services and has partnered with the American Association of
Justice of which Blake is a member. J.L. Barnes Insurance Agency
Inc. began promoting their products and services by sending fax
messages to the members of the American Association of Justice
without their consent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn Heller, Esq.
      Joshua Glickman, Esq.
      SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE
      PO Box 70327
      Washington, DC
      Tel: (202) 709-5744
      Email: shawn@sjlawcollective.com
             josh@sjlawcollective.com

                - and -

      Peter Bennett
      Richard Bennett
      BENNETT & BENNETT
      1200 Anastasia Ave, Ofc. 360
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Email: richardbennett27@.gmail.com
             peterbennettlaw@gmail.com


KEANE GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Frazier" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Frazier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Keane Group Holdings, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01702-DSC
(W.D. Penn., December 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 in
a workweek.

Keane Group Holdings, LLC operates an oilfield services company
that operates throughout the United States, including in
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Texas, and North Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      711 W. Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com

            - and -

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: anthony@lazzarolaw.com


KEURIG GREEN: Faces "Kaufmann" Suit Over Merger With Acorn
----------------------------------------------------------
Carl J. Kaufmann, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.,
Norman H. Wesley, Barbara D. Carlini, John D. Hayes, Brian P.
Kelley, A.D. David Mackay, Michael J. Mardy, Hinda Miller, David
E. Moran, Jose Octavio Reyes Lagunes, Susan Saltzbart Kilsby,
Robert A. Steele, Acorn Holdings B.V., Maple Holdings Acquisition
Corp. and JAB Holdings B.V., Defendants, Case No. 58324942 (Del.
Ch., December 21, 2015), seeks damages, attorney's fees and
equitable relief for breach of fiduciary duties.

The complaint says Acorn Holdings would acquire all of the
outstanding shares of Keurig in a merger. The Board agreed to
certain onerous deals in favor Acorn that are generally
unfavorable to the stockholders, asserts the complaint.

Kaufmann is a shareholder of Kuerig.

Norman H. Wesley, Barbara D. Carlini, John D. Hayes, Brian P.
Kelley, A.D. David Mackay, Michael J. Mardy, Hinda Miller, David
E. Moran, Jose Octavio Reyes Lagunes, Susan Saltzbart Kilsby and
Robert A. Steele are members of the Board of Kuerig.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

      Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
      BROWER PIVEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 501-9000


KEURIG GREEN: Facing Class Suits in Delaware over Acorn Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. is facing class action lawsuits in
Delaware court over its merger agreement with Acorn Holdings B.V.,
Keurig said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 1, 2016, for the thirteen weeks
ended December 26, 2015.

On December 6, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of December 6, 2015, by and among Acorn
Holdings B.V., Maple Holdings Acquisition Corp., and JAB Holdings
B.V.  Subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement,
Acquisition Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the
"Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Acorn.

A putative class action lawsuit (Berger v. Keurig Green Mountain,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11815-CB) was filed on December 15, 2015,
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the
Company, the members of the Company Board, Acorn, Acquisition Sub,
JAB and JAB Holding.  The complaint alleges that the members of
the Company Board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things, (i) initiating a process to sell the Company that
undervalues it, (ii) capping the price of the Company at an amount
that does not adequately reflect its true value, (iii) failing to
sufficiently inform themselves of the Company's value or
disregarding that value and (iv) committing to the proposed
transaction at the expense of any alternate potential acquirers.
The complaint also alleges that the Company, Acorn, Acquisition
Sub, JAB and JAB Holding aided and abetted those alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties by the members of the Company Board.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, an order that the action may
be maintained as a class action, certification of the plaintiff as
a representative of the class and plaintiff's counsel as class
counsel, injunctive relief, rescission of the transaction or
rescissory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the class, an
accounting of all damages sustained by the plaintiff and the class
and the fees and costs associated with the litigation.

From December 21, 2015 through January 19, 2016, three additional
putative class action lawsuits (Kaufmann v. Keurig Green Mountain,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11826-CB, Restivo v. Keurig Green Mountain,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11840-CB and Chapel v. Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 11911-CB), were filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company,
the members of the Company Board, Acorn, Acquisition Sub and JAB.
The complaints allege similar claims and allegations to those in
the Berger complaint, except that the Chapel complaint also
alleges that the members of the Company Board breached their
fiduciary duties by making false and misleading proxy disclosures.
The complaints seek similar relief to that sought in the Berger
complaint.

On January 27, 2016, the Chapel plaintiff filed a Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Expedited Proceedings.  The
court set a hearing on the motion for expedited proceedings for
February 2, 2016.


KEURIG GREEN: Facing Class Suits in Vermont over Acorn Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit in
Vermont court over its merger agreement with Acorn Holdings B.V.,
Keurig said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 1, 2016, for the thirteen weeks
ended December 26, 2015.

On December 6, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of December 6, 2015, by and among Acorn
Holdings B.V., Maple Holdings Acquisition Corp., and JAB Holdings
B.V.  Subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement,
Acquisition Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the
"Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Acorn.

On January 27, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit (Montanio v.
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-00019-gwc) was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont
against the Company, the members of the Company Board, Acorn,
Acquisition Sub and JAB.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, (i) that the defendants violated federal securities laws
by disseminating a proxy statement that was allegedly false and
misleading, and which allegedly failed to disclose facts necessary
in order to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading and (ii)
that our directors violated federal securities laws in exercising
control over individuals alleged to have disseminated the proxy
statement that was allegedly false and misleading.  The complaint
seeks, among other things, an order that the action may be
maintained as a class action, certification of the plaintiff as a
representative of the class and plaintiff's counsel as class
counsel, a declaration that the proxy was materially false and
misleading and in violation of certain federal securities laws,
injunctive relief, rescissory damages in favor of the plaintiff
and the class, and the fees and costs associated with the
litigation.  The lawsuit is in a preliminary stage.

The shareholder vote on the proposed buyout has been scheduled for
Feb. 24, the suit states.

Mr. Montanio and others in the class are represented by attorney
Philip Woodward -- woodward@wklawvt.com -- of Woodward & Kelley in
South Burlington, Vermont; attorneys Stuart A. Davidson, Mark J.
Dearman, Christopher Martins, Randall J. Baron and David T.
Wissbroecker of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in Boca Raton,
Florida and San Diego; and attorney Hamilton P. Lindley --
hlindley@dunnamlaw.com -- of Dunnam & Dunnam in Waco, Texas.

U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont Burlington
Division Case number 5:16-cv-00019-GWC


LE MACARON: "Herrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben F. Herrera, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Le
Macaron Miami LLC and Vincent Benoliel, Case No. 1:15-cv-24739-FAM
(S.D. Fla., December 28, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a French bakery operating in
several locations within Miami-Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOS ARCOS: $178,928 Settlement in Labor Suit Has Initial Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado granted a joint motion for
Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement in the
case captioned, BELICE PLIEGO on her own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOS ARCOS MEXICAN
RESTAURANTS, INC., d/b/a Los Arquitos Mexican Restaurant, Los
Arquitos, Los Arquitos, Inc., Los Arcos, Inc. and Los Arcos
Mexican Restaurant, AMR-LONE TREE, INC., d/b/a Los Arcos Mexican
Restaurant, AMR-WESTLAND, INC., JUAN LUEVANO, IGNACIO LUEVANO,
RAMON LUEVANO, SANDRA LUEVANO, and LIZ LUEVANO, Defendants, Case
No. 14-CV-01686-RM-KMT (D. Colo.).

On June 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed the collective and class action
lawsuit. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order by failing to
pay overtime premiums to current and former employees. Plaintiff
has further alleged that Defendants improperly rounded their
current and former employees' hours and improperly charged their
employees for employer-required uniforms.

The settlement resolves both FLSA claims as an opt-in collective
and the MWO claims pursuant to the opt-out provisions under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23. The Settlement Agreement provides that Defendants
will make a reversionary Settlement Payment of $178,928.84 into a
Settlement Fund to compensate Plaintiff and the combined Opt-
in/Rule 23 Class for their damages and liquidated damages,
inclusive of attorney fees and costs. The Parties have agreed to
the payment of a service award to Class Representative Belice
Pliego in the amount of $7,500.00 from the Settlement Fund.
Plaintiff's counsel seeks an award of 33% of the Settlement Fund
($59,046.52), claiming this percentage to be a customary fee.

In the motion, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement.

In her Order dated February 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/ka6Ixifrom Leagle.com, Judge Tafoya found that the
Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the
best interests of the Plaintiff Class. The Court approves Brandt
Milstein, Esq. as class counsel, Plaintiff Belice Pliego as class
representative and Settlement Services, Inc. as Settlement
Administrator. The court certifies the Rule 23 Class and the FLSA
Collective settlement class which shall be defined as, "All
individuals employed by Defendants at the Westminster and Lone
Tree Los Arcos Restaurants between June 17, 2011 and July 20,
2014".

A telephonic hearing is scheduled for February 16, 2016 at 11:30
a.m. before Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya for revisions to
the Class Notice and claim forms, including relevant dates for
inclusion.

Belice Pliego is represented by Brandt Powers Milstein, Esq. --
Brandt@MilsteinLawOffice.com -- MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE

Los Arcos Mexican Restaurants, Inc. is represented by Emily Hobbs-
Wright, Esq. -- ehobbswright@hollandhart.com -- Gregory Alan
Eurich, Esq. -- geurich@hollandhart.com -- HOLLAND & HART, LLP


MAGELLAN SOLUTIONS: "Hayford" Suit Seeks Pre-shift Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Hayford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Magellan Solutions USA, Defendant, Case
No. 5:15-cv-01136 (D. Ariz., December 29, 2015), seeks
compensatory and liquidated damages on all wages and overtime pay
owed, reasonable attorneys' fees incurred and further relief under
Section 6 and 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec.
201, et seq.

Magellan operates call centers in Arizona. Prior to starting work
on the call center floor, employees are interviewed by the
managers, then conduct pre-shift task such as booting which takes
considerable time. This constitutes overtime on top of their 8-
hour shift, the suit contends.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James X. Bormes, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
      8 South Michigan Ave., Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Email: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com

           - and -

      Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
      35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 726-3400
      Email: tom@tomryanlaw.com

           - and -

      Michelle R. Matheson #019568
      MATHESON & MATHESON, P.L.C.
      15300 North 90th Street, Suite 550
      Scottsdale, AZ 85260
      Tel: (480) 889-8951
      Email: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Eley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nina Eley v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. :15-cv-
03917-JFM (D. Md., December 23, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a 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 "Mitchell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tasha Mitchell v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-03928-JFM (D. Md., December 23, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a 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 "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Rodriguez v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-03926-JFM (D. Md., December 23, 2015) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a 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 "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Rodriguez v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-03919-JFM (D. Md., December 23, 2015) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a 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 "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Janie Walker v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
03937-JFM (D. Md., December 23, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a 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 "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peggy Williams v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-03913-GLR (D. Md., December 23, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a 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


NANT DISTILLERY: Investors Mull Class Action
--------------------------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that an investor in Nant, IT
consultant David Kavanagh, says Nant Distillery refused to allow
him to take his whisky out of its investment scheme to another
bond store, even though he had applied to the Australian Tax
Office for permission and had organised placement in another
secure facility.

Mr Kavanagh said he began approaching Nant in November 2014, just
a month before his barrel was expected to reach maturity.  But
after numerous emails and phone calls went unanswered, he instead
decided in July 2015 to take the two barrels he owns from Nant's
bond store to another distillery in Goolwa, South Australia.

"We had a legal right to do that," he said.  "Under the scheme we
own them."

But the courier, who arrived at Nant's distillery in August 2015,
armed with the paperwork from the Australian Taxation Office,  was
turned away and told the barrels could not be released.

Through his solicitors Mr. Kavanagh is now demanding the release
of his barrels, and is threatening a class action on behalf of
investors.

Fairfax Media revealed on Feb. 6 that the man behind a whisky
barrel investment scheme, Keith Batt, put himself into bankruptcy
just before Christmas and has resigned all his directorships of
the Nant group of companies, as creditors chasing debts relating
to his previous failed Queensland Property Partners close in.

The Nant whisky business, which Mr Batt founded, finances its
operations by offering investors a sale and guaranteed buyback of
two 225 litre barrels, with an interest rate of 9.55 per cent.
Under earlier offers the investor has the right to redeem his
investment when the whisky reaches maturity, usually after four
years, but Nant is the sole arbiter of when the whisky is matured.
That has now changed and the redemption can occur after four
years.

A spokeswoman for Nant said Mr. Kavanagh had been refused access
to his whisky because the courier turned up without notice, did
not have the originals of the documents, did not have a food safe
container,  and it  was not safe to transport such flammable
liquid in its barrel.

"We have advised Mr. Kavanagh he is more than welcome to the
whiskey he owns but a transfer needs to follow these requirements
which includes the safe transportation of the product," she said.
"If Nant were to allow the unsafe transfer of any materials Nant
would be held responsible."

Mr. Kavanagh said he was more than happy to comply with any
requirements and give notice, but his attempts to get a response
from Nant on a convenient time have gone unanswered.

Meanwhile, Nant wrote to investors on Feb. 1 to reassure them that
Nant was "a highly successful, award-winning and profitable
company that now employs 80 people".  An accompanying "fact sheet"
acknowledged Mr Batt's bankruptcy.  "After working for six years
to find a resolution with bank creditors, Mr. Batt was forced to
accept his property business could not be saved and declared
himself personally insolvent in December 2015."  Mr. Batt owes
$16.4 million.

Despite Mr. Batt's financial troubles, he has not slowed his
lifestyle and was at the helm of the Nant-owned and refurbished
Maxi Ragamuffin in the recent Sydney to Hobart yacht race.  Until
recently Mr. Batt was the main shareholder of Nant, but has
transferred all directorships and shares to his wife in recent
months.

Nant told investors that "more than 200 delighted customers have
redeemed their mature barrels.  We anticipate hundreds more
barrels will reach maturity this year".

The company has been unable to say what proportion of its stock is
currently owned by investors, but says by 2017 less than 50 per
cent will be investor-owned.  Nant whisky has won numerous
international awards and the base grade whisky sells for more than
$150 a bottle.


NURSERY ELEGUA'S: Faces "Bonilla" Wage-and-Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Elias Bonilla, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nursery Elegua's, Inc., Miguel Rojas,
individually and Carmen Rojas, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:15-cv-24751-FAM (S.D. Fla., Miami Division, December 29, 2015),
seeks compensatory, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and expenses and all other compensation, overtime and
back pay and other benefits wrongly denied in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bonilla was employed as a driver and worker in the Defendant's
gardening, plant and tree sales, and landscaping business. He
allegedly was deprived of overtime compensation for all hours
worked over forty hours per week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Hudson, Esq.
      HUDSON & CALLEJA, LLC
      355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (305) 444-6628
      Fax: (305) 444-6627
      Email: rhudson@hudsoncalleja.com
             jsocorro@hudsoncalleja.com


PATRIZIO BENVENUTI: Arrested in Italy Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that an Argentine monsignor suspected
of being behind a Ponzi scheme swindling investors out of 30
million euros ($34 million) has been put under house arrest in
Genoa, Italian financial police said on Feb. 10.

Monsignor Patrizio Benvenuti boasted of Vatican connections and
held dinners in a prestigious Rome palazzo as part of a technique
to persuade nearly 300 people, many of them elderly, to put their
money in an investment fund as well as to donate to a charitable
foundation, said Police Capt. Alessandra Faietti, based in the
northern city of Bolzano.

Most of those swindled were French or Belgian citizens, Italian
authorities said.

Ms. Faietti said the probe began after a nun who had been
Monsignor Benvenuti's housekeeper in Rome for many years contacted
tax police when she started receiving at her home bank and other
documents referring to a trust that had been set up in her name.
Police said the nun was startled and puzzled to see hundreds of
thousands of euros moving through financial instruments linked to
her name.

An international arrest warrant has been issued for a French
financier who allegedly worked closely with Monsignor Benvenuti,
the police said.  The two men are under investigation on suspicion
of fraud, money laundering and tax evasion, authorities said.

Seven other people are also under investigation.

Police seized property, bank accounts and other items worth a
total of 10 million euros ($11 million).  Among the seized
properties was a luxurious 15th-century villa on the Tuscan coast
near Piombino where Monsignor Benvenuti would stay, Ms. Faietti
said.

Tax police said at the beginning investors did receive some
interest payments, as commonly happens in Ponzi schemes, but later
the payments stopped coming and they couldn't get their investment
back.

Ms. Faietti said investigations showed that Benvenuti had
established official residence in the Canary Islands and
investigators believed he intended to move there soon.


POST OFFICE: Subpostmaster Mulls Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Karl Flinders, writing for Computer Weekly, reports that The Post
Office faces group litigation in relation to a long-running
dispute over the computer system that its branch network uses, as
campaigners get the financial backing they need to take the case
to civil court.

Subpostmasters plan a group legal action against the Post Office,
claiming wrongful prosecution, fines and even prison sentences
because of failures in the computer system.

In 2009, Computer Weekly revealed the stories of subpostmasters
who had received heavy fines and even jail terms for alleged false
accounting -- which they blamed on the Horizon system and
supporting processes.  The Post Office has vehemently denied this
claim.

In November 2015, the subpostmasters -- supported by The Justice
for Subpostmasters Alliance (JSFA) -- announced their group action
against Post Office.  The group seeks justice and compensation for
subpostmasters.

At the time, the JFSA said that, after years of campaigning, it
was left with "no other option but to seek redress though the
courts".  Freeths Solicitors and Henderson Barristers Chambers
have been preparing the civil action through the High Court.

Alan Bates, chairman at the JFSA, confirmed the group had secured
the funding it needs to take the action.  "We are now able to move
forward in civil court with the exposure of the failings of the
Post Office and its Horizon system."

A group action is a case where a number of claimants with similar
claims get together to initiate an action against a single party.
It is similar to a US class action.

In response to previous Computer Weekly articles, the Post Office
recently said: "It remains the case that more than three years of
investigations have not identified any transaction caused by a
technical fault in Horizon which resulted in a postmaster wrongly
being held responsible for a loss."


QUICKEN LOANS: Court Dismisses "Arace" Suit over Tax Service Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronnie Abrams of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted Defendant Quicken
Loan Inc.'s motion to dismiss in the case captioned, ALEXANDRA
ARACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. QUICKEN LOANS, INC. and DOES 1-20,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-382 (S.D.N.Y).

Plaintiff brings the putative class action pursuant to the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act, alleging that Defendants Quicken
Loans and up to 20 unknown associates engaged in an improper
mortgage lending practice by charging and splitting an unnecessary
"tax service fee" in connection with Plaintiff's mortgage loan.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that because her residential
building is run as a cooperative and owned by a cooperative
corporation that pays the real estate taxes on all the units,
Quicken Loans had no need to charge Plaintiff a tax service fee on
behalf of itself or any other entity. Plaintiff brings her claim
pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Sec. 2607(b), which prohibits the splitting
of unearned fees related to mortgage loans.

Quicken Loans moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), arguing
that Plaintiff fails to state a claim in light of the Supreme
Court's ruling in the case, Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 132
S.Ct. 2034, 2044 (2012), because Plaintiff does not allege her tax
service fee was split.  Specifically, the Supreme Court held that
Sec. 2607(b) proscribes only the splitting of fees "between two or
more persons" and does not provide a remedy when fees are unearned
but not split.

In his Opinion and Order dated February 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/SxcxI3from Leagle.com, Judge Abrams concluded that
Plaintiff has not alleged that a charge for settlement services
was divided between two or more persons -- which failure is fatal
to Plaintiff's claim under Sec. 2607(b).

Alexandra Arace is represented by:

     Stuart E. Nahas, Esq.
     ZRAICK NAHAS & RICH
     303 5th Ave #1201
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212)686-0855

          - and -

     Wayne Scott Kreger, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE KREGER
     303 5th Avenue, Suite 1201
     New York, NY 10016-6601
     Tel: (212)956-2136

Quicken Loans is represented by Alyssa Anne Sussman, Esq. --
asussman@goodwinprocter.com -- Sabrina M. Rose-Smith, Esq. --
srosesmith@goodwinprocter.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP


SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Morris" Suit Hits Illegal Collection Methods
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Johnson-Morris, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., an
Illinois Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2015-CH-18352 (Ill. Cir,
Cook County, December 18, 2015), seeks actual and statutory
damages, injunction, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and
relief in accordance with Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1692 and in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227.

Plaintiff alleges Santander Consumer USA Inc. of charging unlawful
debt collection fees and telephone calling practices.

Santander is a limited liability company organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal place
of business located at 1601 Elm Street, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas.
It is a nonprime loans financer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Tel: (312) 589-6370
      Fax: (312) 589-6378
      Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
             brichman@edelson.com
             nlarry@edelson.com

           - and -

      John E. Norris, Esq.
      Frank Davis, Esq.
      DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
      2154 Highland A venue South
      Birmingham, AL 35205
      Tel: (205) 930-9900
      Fax: (205) 930-9989
      Email: jnorris@davisnorris.com
             fdavis@davisnorris.com


SEASONS HOSPICE: "Lopez" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Tips
-----------------------------------------------------
Zoila Lopez and other similarly situated care consultants,
Plaintiffs, v. Seasons Hospice & Palliative Care of Southern
Florida, Inc. and Todd A. Stern, Individually, Defendant (s), Case
No. 2015-029435-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., December 18, 2015), seeks
actual damages in the amount of unpaid minimum wage and overtime
compensation, double damages/liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and additional relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Zoila Lopez performed work for Defendants as a care consultant.
She claims to have worked in excess of forty hours per week and
was not paid the proper overtime rate.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Renner, Esq.
      Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: (305) 416-5000
      Fax: (305)416-5005
      Email: jremer@rgpattomeys.com


SEE'S CANDY: Red Heart Chocolates Are Not Kosher, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
Oakland, Calif., claims See's Candy advertises its Red Heart
Assorted Chocolates as kosher, but kosher they are not.


SNAK-KING CORP: "Parga" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Daisy Parga, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Snak-King Corp., Real Time Staffing Services, LLC,
Select Specialized Staffing, LLC, Koosharem Corporation, Koosharem
Corporation as agent for Real Time Staffing Services and Does 1 to
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC604855 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles County, December 21, 2015), seeks an injunction,
enjoinment, restitution and other further relief pursuant to
California Labor Code Sec. 226(e) and 1194 and the California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et. Seq.

The complaint says the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff wages
for meal period premium wages during times when she worked during
her assigned break time. Defendants also failed to provide
accurate wage and hour statements. She was also not paid for
earned wages upon her termination.

Snak-King Corp. is an organic snack food manufacturer that
operates in Los Angeles County. The Company employed Plaintiff at
its business located at 16150 Stephens Street, City of Industry,
California 91745 through Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, Select
Specialized Staffing, LLC and Koosharem Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
      8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Tel: (310) 432-0000
      Fax: (310) 432-0001


SOLERA HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Solera Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a Delaware class action
lawsuit related to a proposed merger transaction remains pending,
the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2015.

On September 13, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Summertime Holding Corp., a Delaware
corporation ("Parent"), and Summertime Acquisition Corp., a
Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, upon the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge
with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company
surviving the Merger as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent. Parent and Merger Sub were formed by affiliates of Vista
Equity Partners Fund V, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the
"Sponsor" or "Vista"). The board of directors of the Company (the
"Board"), following the receipt of the unanimous recommendation of
a special committee of independent directors of the Board,
unanimously approved the Merger Agreement. On December 8, 2015,
the Company's stockholders voted to adopt the Merger Agreement.

On September 21, 2015, an alleged stockholder of the Company filed
an action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on
behalf of a putative class of the Company's stockholders against
the Company and its directors, Vista Equity Partners, Parent and
Merger Sub. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving
the Merger Agreement at an inadequate price and following an
inadequate sale process, and that the Company, Vista, Parent and
Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of duty. The
complainant seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the
proposed transaction or to rescind it should it be consummated, as
well as an award of plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs in the
action.

On October 13, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim. On October 21, 2015, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint that added allegations contending that
the Company's disclosure contained in the preliminary version the
Company's proxy statement misstated or failed to disclose certain
allegedly material information to Company stockholders.

On October 22, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the holding of the
Company's shareholder meeting based upon his claim that the
Company's public disclosures were inadequate. On November 5, 2015,
the Court denied the motion for expedited proceedings, and
declined to consider plaintiff's motion seeking to enjoin the
special meeting.

The defendants deny any wrongdoing in connection with the merger
and plan to defend vigorously against the claims set forth in the
amended complaint and any injunction motion.

On November 17, 2015, a duplicative action was filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company's
directors on behalf of the same putative class of the Company's
stockholders, alleging similar claims for breach of fiduciary duty
and challenging the merger and the disclosures relating to the
merger.   On December 23, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss this action.  That motion remains pending.

The defendants deny any wrongdoing in connection with the merger
and plan to defend vigorously against the claims set forth in
these actions.


SOUTHAVEN, MS: Troy Goode's Family Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
FOX13 reports that the family of the late Troy Goode has filed a
lawsuit against the City of Southaven and others after he died in
police custody in July.

The class-action lawsuit includes Baptist Memorial Hospital-
DeSoto, Southeastern Emergency Physicians, Southeastern Emergency
Services, as well as six individual firefighters/EMS workers, five
Southaven police officers and one doctor.

Allegations of negligence, medical malpractice and wrongful death
are all listed and explained in full.  The lawsuit is seeking
unspecified damages for the death of the 30-year old-husband and
father.

On July 18, 2015, Mr. Goode was hogtied by Southaven police after
they said he was combative with officers who were called to the
scene of a disturbance.  Mr. Goode was still hogtied when he was
taken to Baptist Memorial Hospital-DeSoto, and he died at the
hospital.

The lawsuit was filed in Federal Court in Memphis.  It is 66 pages
long and details the family's account of what happened on the
evening of July 18. The accusations against the city of Southaven
and others named in the lawsuit are very powerful and compelling.

Mr. Goode's family wants answers and accountability for a death
they say happened in the negligent hands of Southaven police, fire
department, EMS and others.

In the lawsuit, the family claims: "Troy's death is not a simple
case of negligence.  Instead it reflects a systemic failure and
willful violation of civil rights by the defendants named herein."

Here are some of allegations the family is making:

It took an ambulance 41 minutes to drive just 4.4 miles to Baptist
Memorial Hospital DeSoto, all while Mr. Goode struggled to
breathe.

Police and firefighters filtered in and out of Mr. Goode's
hospital room, all while he struggled to breathe, and laughed at
him.  Mr. Goode was still hogtied.

FOX13 reached out to the Mayor of Southaven, Darren Musselwhite,
for comment.

He sent this statement via email:

"Our full statement made in November is very thorough and the City
will not be making any further comments.  As noted then, we
strongly disagree with these allegations and will vigorously
defend our City."

FOX13 reached out to the family's attorney's for comment, and they
told us that the allegations in the lawsuit spoke for themselves.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: D.C. Court Has Yet to Issue Scheduling Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia has not yet entered a scheduling
order establishing a date for defendants to respond to the
consumer complaints.

On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the
Company, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines
to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar
class action complaints have been filed in the United States
District Courts for the Central District of California, the
Northern District of California, the District of Columbia, the
Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the
Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois,
the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of
Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey,
the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New
York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of
Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern
District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern
District of Wisconsin. The complaints seek treble damages for
periods that vary among the complaints, costs, attorneys' fees,
and injunctive relief.

On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District
Court in the District of Columbia. The Court has not yet entered a
scheduling order establishing a date for defendants to respond to
the complaints.

While the Company intends to vigorously defend these civil cases,
results of legal proceedings such as this one cannot be predicted
with certainty.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defendant in British Columbia Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company was named as
a defendant in putative class action filed on July 8, 2015, in
British Columbia, Canada alleging that the Company, Air Canada,
American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines colluded to
restrict capacity and maintain higher fares for Canadian citizens
traveling in the United States and for travel between the United
States and Canada. Similar lawsuits were filed in Ontario, Quebec
and Saskatchewan. The time for the Company to respond to the
complaints has not yet expired. While the Company intends to
vigorously defend these civil cases, results of legal proceedings
such as this one cannot be predicted with certainty.


SPECIAL TOUCH: Faces "Matala-De-Mazza" Wage-and-Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Loubov Matala-De-Mazza, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated who were employed by Special Touch Home
Care Services, Inc., and Steven Ostrovsky, Plaintiffs,
v. Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc., and Steven Ostrovsky,
Defendants, Case No. 515383/2015 (N.Y. Sup., Kings County,
December 18, 2015), seek to recover wages and benefits pursuant to
New York Labor Law Sec. 190, 663, 650 and 651, New York Codes,
Rules, and Regulations Sec. 142-2.1, 142-2.2, 142-2.4, 142-2.14
and 142-2.6, and New York Public Health Law Sec. 3614-c.

Special Touch is a business corporation incorporated under the
laws of the State of New York, with its principal location at 2091
Coney Island Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, 11223. Special Touch is
primarily engaged in providing nursing and home health aide
services at the residences of its clients.

Plaintiff was home health care attendant, providing services to
elderly and disabled clients. She generally worked a total of
approximately 60 to 68 hours per week and sometimes worked 24-hour
shifts. She did not get a one-hour break for each of three meals
per day and did not receive the spread of hours premium of one
additional hour at the minimum wage rate for the days in which she
worked ten or more hours.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
      Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082
      Email: llusher@vandallp.com


ST. LOUIS RAMS: Faces Second Class Action Over Seat Licenses
------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Salter, writing for Associated Press, reports that a second
lawsuit has been filed over the Rams' move to Los Angeles, this
time by holders of personal seat licenses who say they should
retain their right to seat licenses and season tickets, even in
California.

The suit said the PSL agreement in St. Louis granted holders "the
right to purchase season tickets for the assigned seats for each
and every football season through the year 2025," but did not
stipulate that the games had to be played in St. Louis.

"It's our position that the PSL holders should be allowed to
either purchase tickets in L.A., or to transfer their PSLs to
those who want to purchase season tickets in L.A.," said attorney
David Bohm.  He is representing his brother and sister-in-law,
Robert and Sue Bohm, along with Edward Mock and Envision LLC, an
IT consulting firm and staffing agency that bought six PSLs for
$27,000.

The suit seeks class-action status for more than 30,000 PSL
holders who retained licenses as of the 2015 season.  The suit was
filed in St. Louis County.

NFL owners voted Jan. 12 to allow the Rams to relocate to Los
Angeles starting next season.  The move returns the team to their
home before moving to St. Louis in 1995.

Though St. Louis-area fans might seem unlikely to travel nearly
2,000 miles for football games, resale of PSLs or season tickets
could be lucrative.  The Rams on Jan. 18 said they collected more
than 45,000 season ticket deposits in just two days.  The team
plans to play in the Coliseum next season and move into owner Stan
Kroenke's planned Inglewood stadium in 2019.

A suit filed earlier in January on behalf of St. Louis Rams fans
alleged that Kroenke and chief operating officer Kevin Demoff
deceived fans by claiming the team had no intention of leaving,
while plotting the move all along.  That suit said the deception
violated Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act.


TAMKO BUILDING: Faces "Snyder" Suit Over Defective Shingles
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Snyder and Martin and Beth Melnick, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tamko
Building Products, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01892-SAB (E.D. Cal., Fresno Division, December 18,
2015), seeks award of all actual, general, special, incidental,
statutory, treble or other multiple, punitive and consequential
damages under statutory and common law, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, equitable and
injunctive relief for defendant's breach of express warranty,
implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment, and
violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Unfair Competition Law,
California False Advertising Law and the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

Plaintiffs purchased shingles made by the Defendant and complained
of cracking and being brittle and were denied full warranty.

TAMKO Building Products, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Missouri, with its
principal place of business located in Joplin, Missouri.

The Complaint says the Company designed, manufactured, warranted,
advertised, and sold defective shingles that were installed on
thousands of structures located in California, Connecticut and
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
      Camille Fundora, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Fax: (215) 875-4604
      Email: scarson@bm.net
             sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             apiazza@bm.net
             cfundora@bm.net


THOMSON REUTERS: "Furey" Stays in N.D. Cal.; Discovery Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California denied Defendants'
motion to transfer venue and granted Plaintiff's request to
conduct limited discovery in the case captioned, PHILLIP FUREY,
Plaintiff, v. THOMSON REUTERS AMERICA CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-04633-KAW (PGS)(DEA) (N.D. Cal.).

On October 6, 2015, Plaintiff Phillip Furey filed a putative class
action against Defendants Thomson Reuters America Corporation and
Reuters America LLC alleging wage and hour violations. Plaintiff
Phillip Furey worked as a journalist for Defendants for the last
10 years. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misclassified him and
other similarly situated journalists as independent contractors,
and seeks damages, including unpaid wages, overtime compensation,
employee benefits, and injunctive relief available under
California law.

On December 7, 2015, Defendants filed their Motion to Transfer the
action to the Central District of California arguing that the
action could have been brought there in the first instance, and
that the relevant factors relating to convenience and the
interests of justice favor transfer.

On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

In the Order dated February 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/qivYZpfrom Leagle.com, Judge Westmore found that
Plaintiff's choice of venue should be accorded some deference
because this factor is neutral. The Court lacks sufficient
information to determine the extent of Defendants' contacts with
the Northern District, which weighs against transfer.

Plaintiff's request to conduct limited discovery regarding
Reuters's corporate structure and business operations in the
Northern District of California is granted. Discovery shall be
completed on or before April 18, 2016.

Philip Furey is represented by:

     Alvin Mark Gomez, Esq.
     GOMEZ LAW GROUP
     1469 Oglethorpe St.
     Macon, GA 31201
     Tel: (478)744-0905

          - and -

     Karl Patrick Romero Evangelista, Esq.
     C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF C. JOE SAYAS, JR.
     500 N Brand Blvd Suite 980,
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Tel: (818)291-0088

Defendants are represented by Diana Tabacopoulos, Esq. --
dtabacopoulos@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP


TREMOR VIDEO: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Medina" Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the
district court dismissing the case captioned, ALEJANDRO MEDINA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and
ADAM FURMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TREMOR VIDEO, INC. et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-2178-CV (2nd Cir.).

Alejandro Medina brings the securities class action on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, along with Adam Furman,
against Tremor Video, Inc., an online video advertisement network
provider, and its underwriters, Credit Suisse Securities (USA)
LLC, Jefferies LLC, Canaccord Genuity Inc., and Oppenheimer & Co.
Inc. pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
15 U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77o.  On June 27, 2013, Tremor Video
issued 7.5 million common shares at $10 per share, pursuant to a
registration statement and prospectus filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.  Medina claims the defendants fail to
disclose known trends or uncertainties as required by Item 303 of
the SEC's Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 229.303(a)(3)(ii).

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that
plaintiffs' "conclusory complaint fails to allege sufficient facts
to support a plausible inference" that defendants omitted material
trends or uncertainties. Further, the district court concluded
that defendants' Registration Statement had adequate cautionary
language to defeat plaintiffs' claim.  Subsequently, the district
court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint
under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), holding that the
"proposed amendments would be futile," and denied plaintiffs'
motion to amend or vacate the judgment pursuant to Rules 59(e),
60(b).

On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the district court abused its
discretion by dismissing the complaint.

In the Summary Order dated February 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/zanrA1from Leagle.com, Judges Guido Calabresi,
Gerard E. Lynch, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., concluded that the
proposed second amended complaint does not state facts from which
they can infer that defendants knew of the existence or impact of
any uncertainty or trend that the rest of the world did not know,
and that therefore should have been disclosed. The plaintiffs'
remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Susan K. Alexander, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     Post Montgomery Center
     One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     E-mail: salexander@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
     Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
     HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
     1200 Ashford Pkwy #410
     Atlanta, GA 30338
     Tel: (770)392-0090

Tremor Video, Inc. is represented by Koji F. Fukumura, Esq. --
kfukumura@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP, Adam Hakki, Esq. --
ahakki@shearman.com -- SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP


TRIVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Trivascular Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016,
that a memorandum of understanding has been reached to settle
class action lawsuits related to the merger between the Company
and Endologix, Inc.

TriVascular Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("TriVascular" or the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of October 26, 2015 (the "Merger
Agreement"), by and among the Company, Endologix, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Endologix" or "Parent"), and Parent's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Teton Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Merger
Sub"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, at the effective time of
the Merger, Merger Sub was merged with and into the Company (the
"Merger") with the Company surviving the Merger as a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Parent. The Closing of the Merger
occurred on February 3, 2016.

On December 7, 2015, Barry Lucido, individually and on behalf of
TriVascular stockholders, filed a putative stockholder class
action lawsuit in the Sonoma County Superior Court of the State of
California against TriVascular, members of TriVascular's Board of
Directors, Endologix and the Merger Sub. The complaint alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by TriVascular's directors in
negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement, as well as failure
to make material disclosures in connection with the Merger. The
complaint alleged that Endologix and the Merger Sub aided and
abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint
sought injunctive relief in the form of enjoining the Merger,
rescissory and compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and
expenses.

TriVascular has also become aware that, on January 11, 2016, Roger
Mariani, individually and on behalf of TriVascular stockholders,
filed a second putative stockholder class action lawsuit in the
Sonoma County Superior Court of the State of California against
TriVascular, members of TriVascular's Board of Directors,
Endologix and the Merger Sub. This follow-on complaint, which has
not been served on any of the defendants, asserted materially the
same claims and sought materially the same relief as the
previously filed Lucido complaint, and plaintiffs' counsel in both
actions are collaborating. The defendants believe that the claims
in both actions are without merit.

On January 25, 2016, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") with the plaintiffs providing for the
settlement of all claims in both actions. Under the MOU, and
subject to approval of the Sonoma County Superior Court of the
State of California and further definitive documentation, the
plaintiffs on behalf of the putative class they represent have
agreed to settle and release, against the defendants and their
affiliates and agents, all claims in the actions and any potential
claim related to (i) the adequacy of the consideration to be paid
to TriVascular's stockholders in connection with the Merger and/or
the Merger Agreement, or any amendment thereto; (ii) the fiduciary
obligations of any of the defendants or other released parties in
connection with the Merger and/or the Merger Agreement, or any
amendment thereto; (iii) the negotiations in connection with and
process leading to the Merger and/or the Merger Agreement, or any
amendment thereto; and (iv) the disclosures or disclosure
obligations of any of the defendants or other released parties in
connection with the Merger and/or the Merger Agreement. The
settlement will not affect the consideration payable to
stockholders of TriVascular in connection with the Merger.

Endologix -- http://www.endologix.com/-- develops and
manufactures minimally invasive treatments for aortic disorders.
Endologix's focus is endovascular stent grafts for the treatment
of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA).

TriVascular, a wholly owned subsidiary of Endologix, develops and
commercializes innovative technologies to significantly advance
the minimally invasive treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms.


U.S. FOODSERVICE: Brinker Received $2,000,00 from Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended December 23, 2015, that the Company
was a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against US Foods styled
as In re U.S. Foodservice, Inc. Pricing Litigation.  The Company
said, "A settlement agreement was fully executed by all parties in
September 2015 and we received approximately $2.0 million during
the second quarter of fiscal 2016 in settlement of this
litigation."

Brinker is principally engaged in the ownership, operation,
development, and franchising of the Chili's Grill & Bar
("Chili's") and Maggiano's Little Italy ("Maggiano's") restaurant
brands. At December 23, 2015, it owned, operated, or franchised
1,646 restaurants.


UBER: Drivers' Cases Over Employment Status Won't Go to MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Uber has dodged a legal move that would have coordinated more
than a dozen lawsuits brought by its drivers over their employment
status.

In a Feb. 3 order, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation decided against moving the cases into an MDL and
appeared persuaded by Uber's arguments that classifications of
independent contractors varied too much state-to-state to make
coordination feasible.

As of the panel's decision, 17 lawsuits had been filed against
Uber in 13 states.

Most of the suits allege that Uber Technologies Inc. has
misclassified drivers as independent contractors rather than
employees who are entitled to unpaid wages, tips and reimbursement
for gas and other expenses.  Uber, based in San Francisco, offers
a transportation service through a mobile application that
connects drivers with customers.

"Although these actions share certain factual issues regarding
Uber's classification of drivers as independent contractors and
its business practices concerning payment of gratuities and
business expenses to drivers, the standards for determining
whether independent contractors are employees vary substantially
from state to state and involve a broad range of factors which
require consideration of distinct aspects of the alleged
employer's relationship with plaintiffs," wrote MDL Panel
Chairwoman Sarah Vance.

Uber, represented by Andrew Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com --
a shareholder in the New York office of San Francisco's Littler
Mendelson, made similar arguments in its Dec. 29 motion opposing
an MDL.  An Uber spokeswoman did not respond to a request for
comment.

The panel's decision also found that the case brought in San
Francisco by Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan in
Boston, which is set to go to trial on June 20, was too far along
in discovery to be coordinated.

Hunter Shkolnik of New York's Napoli Shkolnik, who moved to
coordinate the litigation into an MDL, said in an email: "We
respect the panel's decision and look forward to taking Uber on in
every court across the country.  They made their bed and now must
live with it.  Uber will be hard pressed to argue we should not
depose their witnesses in each state now."


UNITED AIRLINES: Hausfeld Named Lead Counsel in Price-Fixing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that lawyers from Hausfeld and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy have
snagged the co-lead counsel spots in more than 100 class actions
alleging that four major airlines conspired to fix the prices of
domestic fares.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in the District of
Columbia appointed Michael Hausfeld -- mhausfeld@hausfeld.com --
of Washington's Hausfeld and Steve Williams --
swilliams@cpmlegal.com -- a partner at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
in Burlingame, California, to lead the litigation, according to an
order on Feb. 4.  She also accepted their proposed executive
committee members: Elizabeth Cabraser of San Francisco's Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; Robert Kaplan --
rkaplan@kaplanfox.com -- a partner at New York's Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer; and Warren Burns of Burns Charest in Dallas.

In their application, Messrs. Hausfeld and Williams had emphasized
a lean leadership team.

"It made sense to have a more focused smaller group that was
comparable to the number of defendants in this case so that we
could be more efficient and more precise in the work we do,"
Mr. Williams said.

The judge asked both sides by Feb. 25 to submit a proposed filing
schedule and ordered the new plaintiffs leadership team to come up
with a "proposal for addressing the issue of managing plaintiffs'
fees and expenses in this litigation," including how she could
review costs.

The class actions, which were coordinated into an MDL on Oct. 13,
allege that United Airlines Inc., Delta Air Lines Inc., American
Airlines Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co. fixed prices for domestic
airline tickets by limiting the seating capacity on flights.  The
cases allege antitrust violations under the federal Sherman Act.

The winning group, which has handled numerous air transportation
antitrust cases before, beat out three competing leadership teams,
including one by Los Angeles-based Quinn Emanuel Uquhart &
Sullivan's Stephen Neuwirth -- stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com --
in New York and another by Patrick Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com --
at San Diego's Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Jay Himes --
jhimes@labaton.com -- of New York's Labaton Sucharow.

Mr. Williams said he anticipated working closely with the U.S.
Justice Department, which has launched a civil investigation into
the matter.

"If past experience is any indication, they will probably want to
know before we engage in discovery and will likely want to at a
minimum coordinate with us so they know what's happening and we
don't get ahead of them," he said.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly is overseeing her first multidistrict
litigation but in 2014 approved a settlement with the Justice
Department that allowed American Airlines and US Airways to
complete their $11 billion merger.


UNITED STATES: Girard Named Lead Counsel in OPM Data Breach Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
federal district judge in Washington on Jan. 28 picked Daniel
Girard, managing partner of Girard Gibbs in San Francisco, to
serve as lead counsel for federal employees suing the U.S. Office
of Personnel Management over data breaches that exposed the
private information of millions of government workers.

Girard Gibbs was one of six law firms representing plaintiffs in
lawsuits filed against the federal government to seek appointment
as lead counsel.  U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson heard
arguments from the candidates on Jan. 21.

Mr. Girard is a lead attorney for the American Federation of
Government Employees, which filed one of several putative national
class actions against OPM.

Judge Jackson also appointed Gary Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- of
Whitfield Bryson & Mason in Washington as liaison counsel and
three lawyers -- John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan Complex
Litigation Group in Tampa, Florida; Tina Wolfson of Ahdoot &
Wolfson in West Hollywood, California; and David Thompson --
dthompson@cooperkirk.com -- of Cooper & Kirk in Washington -- to
the plaintiffs' steering committee.

"The court expects that this leadership team will call upon the
talent and expertise of the many other extremely well-qualified
attorneys in the case -- some of whom submitted applications and
some of whom did not -- to aid in the many important tasks ahead
in this litigation," Judge Jackson wrote.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in October
consolidated cases related to the data breaches in the D.C. court
before Judge Jackson.  At least eighteen lawsuits were filed in
federal district courts nationwide.

Over the past year, OPM disclosed two data breaches in which
personal information about federal employees was stolen.  The
first involved the personnel data of 4.2 million current and
former federal employees.  The second involved the records of
current, former and prospective federal employees who applied for
background checks, as well as information about family members or
people they live with.  The second breach affected more than 20
million people.

In response to the thefts, OPM offered identity theft protection
and credit monitoring services to employees and family members who
were affected.

With the plaintiffs' counsel leadership team in place, the next
step is for the plaintiffs to file an amended joint complaint.
That will be due in about a month.


UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA: Alumni Files Data Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Alissa Smith, writing for Central Florida Future, reports that UCF
alumni Logan Berkowitz and Anthony Furbush have issued a class
action lawsuit against the university because of the recent data
breach involving 63,000 Social Security numbers.

The plaintiffs claim that UCF did not protect its employee and
student information, nor inform them that their data had been
compromised in a timely manner.  Mr. Berkowitz, a former SGA
president, claims that UCF knew about the data breach as early as
December 2015, but failed to announce the hack publicly until
Feb. 4.  The lawsuit also claims that UCF violated the Family
Education Rights and Privacy Act, also known as FERPA, which
requires certain schools to protect the privacy of student
education records.

In an email sent out on Feb. 4, President John C. Hitt said that
the safeguarding of personal information is extremely important to
UCF.  He called for a review of university's online systems and
policies to determine what improvements could be made.

Mr. Hitt said the investigation into the hack showed that no
credit card information, financial records, medical records, or
grades were stolen -- just 63,000 Social Security numbers.

According to the Social Security Association's website, identity
theft is one of the fastest growing crimes in America.  The site
states that anyone with your social security number can use it to
find out other personal information about you, open bank accounts
and apply for credit cards and often, you won't notice until you
start getting calls from collection agencies.

UCF has a call center focused on helping those whose data has been
compromised.  They can be reached at 877-752-5527.  For more
information from UCF regarding the data breach and tips on how to
handle the situation, please visit www.ucf.edu/datasecurity


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: New Jersey Files Suit Over Emissions Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
James R. Hood, writing for Consumer Affairs, reports that add the
state of New Jersey to the long list of plaintiffs suing
Volkswagen for using deceptive software to allow its VW, Porsche,
and Audi diesel-powered cars to masquerade as low-emission
vehicles.

"For the past decade Volkswagen engaged in one of the largest
frauds in the history of the automobile industry," the state's
lawsuit asserts.  "It developed and distributed into the
marketplace sophisticated software to evade emissions
requirements, it misled regulators about the true environmental
impact of its vehicles, and it misled consumers about the products
that it was marketing as supposedly good for the environment."

"Our lawsuit alleges that Volkswagen put profit ahead of honesty,
integrity, fair business practices and -- most disturbing of all -
- the well-being of people living and breathing the air here in
New Jersey and across the country," said Acting Attorney General
John J. Hoffman.

The New Jersey suit is similar to those filed by New Mexico,
Texas, and West Virginia.  The company also faces a federal
complaint that seeks billions of dollars in damages, as well as a
growing list of individual and class action suits.

Volkswagen says its primary concern at the moment is figuring out
how to recall and fix the affected vehicles in a manner that
satisfies regulators.

"Profited greatly"

The New Jersey suit, filed on Feb. 5 in Hudson County Superior
Court, alleges that Volkswagen "profited greatly" from its effort
-- launched in 2005 -- to gain a greater share of the U.S.
passenger vehicle market by quietly developing, then deceptively
promoting, diesel vehicles that appeared to be environmentally
friendly, but in fact were equipped with pollution control systems
that only functioned during emissions testing.

The alleged conspiracy enabled Volkswagen to steadily increase its
passenger vehicle sales over time so that by 2014, it accounted
for about 70% of new diesel passenger car sales in the U.S.

The New Jersey suit alleges that Volkswagen fraudulently increased
its sales and market share "at the expense of the unsuspecting
public."  By emphasizing the supposed superiority of German
engineering, the company successfully charged "inflated purchase
prices" for the cars, which spewed illegal qualities of nitrogen
oxide (NOx) into the air, endangering the health of New Jerseyans,
the suit argues.

NOx pollution has been shown to contribute to harmful ground-level
ozone (smog) and fine particulate matter (soot), and exposure to
NOx and its byproducts has been linked to such serious health
problems as cardiopulmonary disease, lung cancer, chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, and exacerbation of asthma, the
complaint alleges.

Current estimates are that Volkswagen sold approximately 580,000
vehicles equipped with the defeat software in the United States,
about 17,420 of them in New Jersey.


WASHINGTON: Inmate's Civil Rights Suit Denied Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert J. Bryan of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington denied class certification
and adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Karen L. Strombom in the case captioned, DAVID MICHAEL AARON
BAKER, Plaintiff, v. BERNARD EDWARD WARNER, and JEFFREY A.
UTTECHT, Defendants, Case No. 15-5298 RJB-KLS (W.D. Wash.).

Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, claims his First Amendment rights
were violated by Defendants' application of Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) Sec. 137-48-020, which restricts
prisoner's ability to receive mail containing sexually explicit
material. Originally filed in Thurston County, Washington Superior
Court, Plaintiff states in his Complaint that the action is
intended as a "class action."  After the case was removed, several
non-party inmates filed motions to join the case as "persons
needed for just adjudication." Plaintiff has argued that the case
is a "class action."

The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation recommends denial
of the motions for joinder. It further recommends denial of class
certification.

The Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation,
arguing that the regulation at issue "infringes on the rights of
the class and our family members." He identifies the class as
"being 17,000 inmates incarcerated in Washington Department of
Corrections." He argues that they have common questions.
Plaintiff argues that certain of the parties that filed motions
for joinder did, in fact, grieve the actions taken against them.
He asserts that the proposed class meets Rule 23 requirements.

After the Report and Recommendation was filed, William Davis and
Kimothy Wynn, other non-party inmates, filed Motions for Joinder
of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication. These pleadings are the
same as or substantially similar as the Motion for Joinder of
Persons Needed for Just Adjudication filed by the other non-party
inmates.

In his Order dated February 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/jDjkUufrom Leagle.com, Judge Ryan concluded that
Plaintiff fails to make any of the required showings under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 in the pleadings he has filed. The Court found that
Plaintiff's arguments regarding joinder of the other inmates are
substantially similar to those raised in his prior pleadings and
are addressed in the Report and Recommendation.

Defendants are represented by:

     Katherine Joy Faber, Esq.
     WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
     1125 Washington St SE # 7
     Olympia, WA 98501
     Tel: (360)753-6200


* Securities Class Action Filings Rise to 234 in 2015, NERA Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consultancy.uk reports that the number of securities class actions
filings in the US in 2015 reached heights last seen before the
financial crisis.  In a recently released report from NERA
Economic Consulting, titled "Recent Trends in Securities Class
Action Litigation: 2015 Full-Year Review", the consultancy
explores the securities litigation landscape in some detail.

Filing type

The study finds that the number of filings has remained relatively
stable over the past seven years, with an average of 220 cases
filed per year.  In 2015 the number of filings increased to 234,
closing the gap on 2008 when there were 247 filings.  Over the
past two decades the number of filings has remained relatively
stable in the mid 200s, with 2006 and 2005 showing the lowest
number at 132 and 187 respectively.  The type of filings have
though changed in recent years.  Since 2005 merger objection cases
have trended upwards, hitting a high of 70 of the total cases in
2010 and slowly trending down to 43 such cases by 2015.  At the
same time, the number of cases violating Rule 10b-5, Section 11,
or Section 12 decreased considerably in 2009, although they have
been trending upwards since 2010 when there were 129 such cases to
182 in 2015.

Losses to investors

The economic consultancy also considers the aggregate amount that
investors lost from buying the defendant's stock rather than
investing in the broader market during the alleged class period.
Such "investor losses" are seen as a proxy for the relative size
of investors' potential claims, as historically, investor losses
have been a powerful predictor of settlement size.  In 2015,
(potential) shareholder class actions with alleged violations of
Rule 10b-5 or Section 11 totalled $183 billion, representing a
more than 25% increase over 2014 and a 15% over 2013*.  The losses
are still down on 2012 when $218 billion in losses were filed, and
2011 when $248 billion in losses were filed.  These numbers are
still dwarfed by 2008 when $403 billion in losses were filed,
while filings in 2007 amounted to $327 billion.

Median settlements

In terms of settlements the numbers vary considerably.  The median
settlement in 2015 of $7.3 million was close to that of 2014's
$6.7 million.  In 2013 the median settlement was somewhat higher
at $8.9 million, although still somewhat low compared to the
largest settlement year in the past two decades with $12.7 million
paid out in 2012.  The average settlement came in at $52 million
in 2015, highlighting that a few large settlements drove the
average up, while many small settlements kept the median stable.



                            *********

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  * * *