CAR_Public/160218.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, February 18, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 35


                            Headlines


730 RESTAURANT: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
99TH FLOOR: "Rodriguez" Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
AG-MART PRODUCE: "Richardson" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
AIPC ENERGY: "Roman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALARM.COM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abante Suit Claims

ALIMENTS GOURMETS: Recalls Taramosalata Products Due to Milk
ALTRIA GROUP: 92 Engle Progeny Cases v. PM Resulted in Verdicts
ALTRIA GROUP: 3,040 Engle Progeny State Court Cases Pending
ALTRIA GROUP: Cases Subject to Federal Engle Settlement Dismissed
ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend 7 Class Actions in Canada

ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Began Jan. 26 in Medical Monitoring Suit
ALTRIA GROUP: 11 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending at Jan. 26
ALTRIA GROUP: 19 Courts Ruled on "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases
ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Seeks to Decertify "Aspinall" Class
ALTRIA GROUP: Calif. Supreme Court Denied Petition for Review

ALTRIA GROUP: Re-Trial to Begin March 2 in "Larsen" Case
ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Begin August 2 in "Miner" Case
ALTRIA GROUP: Ore. Supreme Court Denies Class Cert. in "Pearson"
ALTRIA GROUP: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed in "Price"
ALTRIA GROUP: USSTC Remains Severed from UST Litigation

ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Date Set in "Vassallo" Action
AMERICAN LOGOWEAR: Violated FLSA & FMWA, "Calvillo" Suit Claims
AMERICAN WAY: Illegally Misclassifies Workers, "Lopez" Suit Says
AMICI'S FAMILY: Faces "Caballero" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AMIRA NATURE: Defending Consolidated Shareholder Suits in Calif.

ANN INC: "Linares" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT and Unpaid Minimum Wages
ANTALIA TURKISH: Faces "Rosales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action over "Error 53" in iPhone 6
ARIZONA: 9th Cir. May Overturn Injunction in Immigration Suit
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: Veteran Sues Over Signing Bonus

B&D CORP: Faces "Arzola" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Reports $16.5MM Charge Related Settlement
BARI IRON: Faces "Margousian" Suit Over Failure to Pay Min. Wages
BAY AREA: Faces "Alfaro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BAY AREA: Faces "Baez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

BAY AREA: Faces "Benlamlih" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BAYER CORPORATION: Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Pressman Claims
BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Recalls Rapid-Fill Syringe Strip
BESTAR INC: Recalls Five-Drawer Dressers Due to Entrapment Hazard
BIGGAR ENTERPRISES: Faces "Lehofer" Suit for FLSA Violation

BNY MELLON: Violated ERISA's Provisions, "Hartline" Suit Claims
BOARD'S HONEY: Recalls Honey Products Due to Nitrofurans
BOFI HOLDING: Defending 2 Class Suits in California
BRAINLAB AG: Recalls Radiosurgery System - Software
C&J ENERGY: Faces "Cantu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

CAFFI BROTHERS: "Parra" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
CAMPUS CREST: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Sutton" Suit Says
CAVIAR INC: "Levin" Case Stayed Pending Arbitrator's Decision
CHANNEL PARTNERS: Violated FLSA & PMWA, "Brown" Suit Asserts

CHICAGO: Doesn't Properly Pay Water Chemists, "Atkins" Suit Says
CHINA FUN: Violated FLSA & SCPWA, "Carbone" Suit Seeks Claims
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL: Parents of Sex Abuse Victims File Suit
CLEVELAND: CPP Faces Tremont Suit Over Unlawful Energy Charges
COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: N.J. Court Dismissed Securities Class Action

COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Paci" Sues Credit Card Receipt Misprint
CR BARD: Faces "Caldwell" Suit Over Defective IVC Filters
CROWN CASTLE: Faces "Suzara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CVB FINANCIAL: CA Affirms in Part Dismissal of 2nd Amended Suit
DANIEL B NY: "Jo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT, Damages

DATEX-OHMEDA: Recalls Anesthesia Delivery System Main Units
DE CAPITAL MORTGAGE: Violated FLSA & NYLA, "Negrin" Suit Claims
DELTA GROUP: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Davila" Suit Says
DEUTSCHE BANK: N.Y. Court Dismisses Investors' Suit
DIRT DOCTORS: "Del Re" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "Blum" Suit in Mass. Over Online Gambling
ELI LILLY: Sued in Ind. Over Cymbalta's Withdrawal Symptoms
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Machado Plaintiff Seeks to Amend Suit
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suits over Constant Contact Deal
EOS PRODUCTS: Violated CLRA & UBPA, "Cronin" Suit Claims

ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action in Michigan
ETS PC: "Pollard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
EXETER FINANCE: Court Denies Bid to Stay "Rivera" Proceedings
EXPRESS TECHNOLOGIES: "Hower" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Pay
FACEBOOK INC: Continues to Defend IPO Class Action in N.Y.

FIFTH STREET: Shareholders File Class Action in Connecticut
FITBIT INC: "McLellan" Sues Over Defective Heart Rate Meters
FITNESS INT'L: "Briones" Suit Seeks Damages Under UCL
FOCUS BICYCLES: Recalls Bicycles With Acros-Brand Upper Headsets
FRANK A REICHL: Faces Westmore Cty. Suit Over Sherman Act Breach

G3 GENUINE: Recalls Carbon Speed Tech Probes
GENERAL MOTORS: Dismissal of Ignition Switch Suit Upheld
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Faciane" Suit Over Zofran(R)
GREAT-WEST: Faces "Krikorian" Suit Over Revenue Sharing Agreement
GRS MANAGEMENT: "Morales" Suit Seeks OT Pay & Damages Under FLSA

HAEMONETICS CORPORATION: Recalls Plasma Collection Systems
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari
HEALTH CARRIERS: Faces "Sanabria" Suit for FLSA Violation
HEWLETT PACKARD: Faces "Araiza" Suit Over Labor Law Breach
HHGREGG INC: Interlocutory Appeal in Class Action Proceeds

HOLLYWOOD PRODUCTION: "Caido" Suit Seeks Damages for Unpaid Wages
HONDA: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Crash Risk
HONDA: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Fire Risk
HONDA: Recalls CR-V 2003 Models Due to Defective Airbag
HONEYMOON CORP: "Hutchinson" Seeks to Recover OT, Minimum Wage

IMS TRADING: Court Allows Plaintiff to File 2nd Amended Suit
INVENSENSE INC: Awaits Court Decision on Motion to Dismiss
JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Hall" Suit in La. Over Xarelto Drugs
JPS COMPLETION: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
KB HOME: Reached Tentative Mediated Settlement in 2 Lawsuits

KELLOGG CO: "Hawkins" File Suit for Breach of Implied Warranty
KELLY SERVICE: "Gaffers" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
KLA-TENCOR CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "Hedgecock" Action
KLA-TENCOR CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "Karr" Action
KLA-TENCOR CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "Rooney" Case

KLA-TENCOR CORP: Faces "Spoleto" Class Action in Calif.
LA CAR GUY: Violated FLSA & Labor Code, "Madrid" Suit Claims
LA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LAW OFFICE OF RORY: Faces "Cover" Suit Over Debt Collection
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Case Remanded to King County Superior Court

LINDER PSYCHIATRIC: Class Certification Denied in "Stallsmith"
LONG ISLAND: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls Whoozit(R) Shake & Grasp Rattles
MARINA BISCOCHOS: "Almonte" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MASERATI: Recalls Granturismo Convertible 2016, 2016 Models

MCFADGEN'S BAKERY: Recalls Fiesta Spice Cakes Due to Tree Nut
MERCEDES-BENZ: Recall C Class 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk
MICROSOFT CORP: Trial Looms in British Columbia Class Action
MICROSOFT CORP: U.S. Cell Phone Litigation Remains Stayed
MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Not Yet Active

MEREDITH CORP: Defending Class Suits over Media General Merger
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Kato" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Barbee" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies
MILLSTONE KFC INC: "Cordoba" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
MITSUBISHI FUSO: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk

NANCY'S RESTAURANT: "Velasquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
NATURAL HEALTH: Faces "Li" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
NETFLIX INC: March 17 Oral Argument Set in Class Action Appeal
NORMANDIN'S: Court Denies Attorney-Client Privilege in Emails
OSI SYSTEMS: $15,000,000 Settlement Granted Final Approval

PATINA RESTAURANT: Faces Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
PGA TOUR: N.D. Cal. Judge Throws Out PGA Caddies' Antitrust Suit
R.J. REYNOLDS: 11th Cir. to Hear Age-Bias Case En Banc
REGIS CORP: Faces Consumer & Wage and Hour Actions
REGULARLY TECH: Illegally Procures Consumer Reports, Suit Says

RORY W. CLARK: Faces "Cove" 2nd Suit Over Debt Collection
SELECT AUTO: Faces Spanish-Speaking Workers' FLSA Suit
STARWOOD HOTELS: "Dugas" Suit Seeks Damages over Data Breach
STEVE BEATTIE: "Calderon" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
TOP HANDS: "Triplett" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages

TRADEHOMES SHOE: "Demoulin" Suit Alleges FACTA Violation
TRADER JOE'S: Faces "Magier" Suit Over Under-filled Canned Tuna
TRANSMISSION 4: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Paz" Suit Says
TTI FLOOR: Faces Consumer Class Suit in New Jersey
TWO COUSIN'S: "Maldonado" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: N.D. Cal. Judge May Toss Cabbies' Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Two Top Executives Face Charges in France
UNIQUE MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Miller" Suit Claims
UNITED STATES: D.C. Cir. Hear Arguments in Data Collection Suits
UNITIL CORP: Oral Argument in Appeal Set for 1st Quarter 2016

VILLAGE OF NEW MIAMI: CA Affirms Class Cert. of Speed Limit Suit
XPRESS COURIER: "Riley" Files Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ZYNGA INC: Settlement of Suit over Inflated Shares Has Final OK


                            *********


730 RESTAURANT: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Sime v. 730 Restaurant Inc., d/b/a Woodcleft Crab Shack,
Andrew Drosinos and Joseph Drosinos, Case No. 608411/2015 (N.Y.
Super. Ct., December 30, 2015) is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 150
Woodcleft Avenue, Freeport, New York 11520.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


99TH FLOOR: "Rodriguez" Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 99th FLOOR, LLC d/b/a
Toptradelines and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:16-cv-00018 (W.D.
Wash., January 5, 2016), seeks damages, injunctive relief, legal
or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq., the
Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act, and the Washington
Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant is a corporation duly organized under the laws of
the State of Florida with its headquarters at 1000 Ponce De Leon
Boulevard, Suite 103, Coral Gables, Florida 33134-3354. Its main
business is credit repair and utilizes sending mass text messages
as an advertising tool. Rodriguez was one such recipient.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Pesicka, Esq.
      CONCORD LAW, P.C.
      6608 216th St. SW, Suite 107A
      Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
      Tel: (206) 512-8029
      Fax: (206) 512-8914
      Email: Ryan@ConcordLawSeattle.com


AG-MART PRODUCE: "Richardson" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
David Richardson, and all others similarly-situated v. AG-Mart
Produce, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00103 (M.D. Fla., January 14,
2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant owns and operates a tomato company in Plant City,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AIPC ENERGY: "Roman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Roman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AIPC Energy, LLC and AIP, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
00035-CG-GBW (D. N. Mex., January 14, 2016) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants operate an oilfield services company with
significant operations throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin R. Kaufman, Esq.
      Rosalind B. Bienvenu, Esq.
      HEARD ROBINS CLOUD LLP
      505 Cerrillos Road, Suite A209
      Santa Fe, NM 87501
      Telephone: (505) 986-0600
      Facsimile: (505) 986-0632
      E-mail: jkaufman@heardrobins.com
              rbienvenu@heardrobins.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


ALARM.COM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abante Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., et al. v. Alarm.com Incorporated
and Alarm.com Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-06314-JCS (N.D.
Cal., December 30, 2015) seeks to put an end to the Defendants'
practice of making unsolicited calls to the Plaintiffs' telephone.

The Defendants own a business that specializes in custom
residential and commercial alarm systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
      Kerem M. Levitas, Esq.
      TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
      936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
      Seattle, WA 98103-8869
      Telephone: (206) 816-6603
      Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
      E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

         - and -

      Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
      Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
      BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
      99 High St., Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (508) 221-1510
      Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
      E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com
              jmurray@terrellmarshall.com

         - and -

      John W. Barrett, Esq.
      Jonathan Rehe Marshall, Esq.
      Marc R. Weintraub, Esq.
      BAILEY GLASSER, LLP
      209 Capitol Street
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 345-6555
      Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
      E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
              jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
              nweintraub@baileyglasser.com

         - and -

      Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
      1 South Avenue, Suite 3
      Natick, MA 01760
      Telephone: (508) 655-1415
      Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
      E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

         - and -

      Michael Francis Ram, Esq.
      RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
      101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 433-4949
      Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
      E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com


ALIMENTS GOURMETS: Recalls Taramosalata Products Due to Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Aliments Gourmets Medor Inc., Metro Inc.
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10247

Industry is recalling taramosalata products from the marketplace
because they contain milk and sulphites which are not declared on
the label. People with an allergy to milk or sensitivity to
sulphites should not consume the recalled products described
below.

The AVD Taramosalata may have been sold as is or in smaller
packages and may not bear the same product name as described
below. Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased affected
products should check with their retailer.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to milk or sensitivity to sulphites, do not
consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction.

There has been one reported reaction associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by a consumer complaint. The Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand   Common name    Size            Code(s) on       UPC
  name    -----------    -----           product          ---
  -----                                  ----------
  None    A V D          1 pail          All codes        None
          Taramosalata   (approximately  where milk
                         3 kg)           and sulphites
                                         are not
                                         declared on
                                         the label
Adonis   Taramosalata   Approximately   All codes       Starts
                         250 g           where milk and  with
                                         sulphites are   0255181
                                         not declared
                                         on the label

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/JQb7io


ALTRIA GROUP: 92 Engle Progeny Cases v. PM Resulted in Verdicts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016,
that as of January 26, 2016, 92 state and federal Engle progeny
cases involving Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") have resulted in
verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision as
follows:

     51 verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs;
     39 verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA; and
      2 verdicts that were initially returned in favor of
        plaintiffs were reversed on appeal and remain pending.

Fifty-one verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs and two
verdicts (Graham and Skolnick) that were initially returned in
favor of plaintiffs were reversed on appeal and remain pending.
Thirty-nine verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA, of which 30
were state cases (Gelep, Kalyvas, Gil de Rubio, Warrick, Willis,
Russo (formerly Frazier), C. Campbell, Rohr, Espinosa, Oliva,
Weingart, Junious, Szymanski, Hancock, D. Cohen, LaMotte, J.
Campbell, Dombey, Haldeman, Blasco, Gonzalez, Banks, Surico, Baum,
Bishop, Vila, McMannis, Collar, Suarez and Shulman) and 9 were
federal cases (Gollihue, McCray, Denton, Wilder, Jacobson, Reider,
Davis, Starbuck and Sowers).

In addition, there have been a number of mistrials, only some of
which have resulted in new trials as of January 26, 2016. The
juries in the Reider and Banks cases returned zero damages
verdicts in favor of PM USA. The juries in the Weingart and
Hancock cases returned verdicts against PM USA awarding no
damages, but the trial court in each case granted an additur.

In the Russo case (formerly Frazier), however, the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in defendants'
favor in April 2012 and remanded the case for a new trial.

In April 2015, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the reversal,
rejecting defendants' argument that the statute of repose applies
to fraud and conspiracy claims in Engle progeny cases. In the
trial court, the case was retried and, in April 2015, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of defendants.

Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts
have been returned in 57 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights"
and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a
defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were
returned in 38 of the 57 cases. These 38 cases were tried in
Alaska (1), California (7), Florida (10), Louisiana (1),
Massachusetts (1), Mississippi (1), Missouri (3), New Hampshire
(1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1),
Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2).

A motion for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in
Florida and in the case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter),
the trial court withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's
motion for reconsideration.

On December 18, 2015, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the trial
court decision and remanded the case with directions for the trial
court to reassess whether to grant a new trial.

Of the 19 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs, 15 have reached final resolution. A
verdict against defendants in one health care cost recovery case
(Blue Cross/Blue Shield) was reversed and all claims were
dismissed with prejudice.

In addition, a verdict against defendants in a purported "Lights"
class action in Illinois (Price) was reversed and the case was
dismissed with prejudice in December 2006, but plaintiffs sought
to reinstate the verdict, which an intermediate appellate court
ordered in April 2014.

On November 4, 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court vacated the Fifth
Judicial District's decision, finding that the plaintiffs filed
the wrong motion in the wrong court. On November 18, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a new motion with the Illinois Supreme Court
seeking to recall its original mandate, which the court denied on
January 11, 2016.


ALTRIA GROUP: 3,040 Engle Progeny State Court Cases Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016,
that as of January 26, 2016, approximately 3,040 state court cases
were pending against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") or Altria
Group, Inc. asserting individual claims by or on behalf of
approximately 4,000 state court plaintiffs.

The deadline for filing Engle progeny cases, as required by the
Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision, expired in January 2008.
As of January 26, 2016, approximately 3,040 state court cases were
pending against PM USA or Altria Group, Inc. asserting individual
claims by or on behalf of approximately 4,000 state court
plaintiffs.  While a Federal Engle settlement agreement resolved
nearly all Engle progeny cases pending in federal court, as of
January 26, 2016, 23 cases were pending against PM USA in federal
court representing the cases excluded from that agreement. Because
of a number of factors, including, but not limited to, docketing
delays, duplicated filings and overlapping dismissal orders, these
numbers are estimates.

In July 2000, in the second phase of the Engle smoking and health
class action in Florida, a jury returned a verdict assessing
punitive damages totaling approximately $145 billion against
various defendants, including $74 billion against PM USA.
Following entry of judgment, PM USA appealed.

In May 2001, the trial court approved a stipulation providing that
execution of the punitive damages component of the Engle judgment
will remain stayed against PM USA and the other participating
defendants through the completion of all judicial review. As a
result of the stipulation, PM USA placed $500 million into an
interest-bearing escrow account that, regardless of the outcome of
the judicial review, was to be paid to the court and the court was
to determine how to allocate or distribute it consistent with
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In May 2003, the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment entered by the
trial court and instructed the trial court to order the
decertification of the class. Plaintiffs petitioned the Florida
Supreme Court for further review.

In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the punitive
damages award be vacated, that the class approved by the trial
court be decertified and that members of the decertified class
could file individual actions against defendants within one year
of issuance of the mandate. The court further declared the
following Phase I findings are entitled to res judicata effect in
such individual actions brought within one year of the issuance of
the mandate: (i) that smoking causes various diseases; (ii) that
nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii) that defendants'
cigarettes were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that
defendants concealed or omitted material information not otherwise
known or available knowing that the material was false or
misleading or failed to disclose a material fact concerning the
health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v) that defendants
agreed to misrepresent information regarding the health effects or
addictive nature of cigarettes with the intention of causing the
public to rely on this information to their detriment; (vi) that
defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding the
health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with the
intention that smokers would rely on the information to their
detriment; (vii) that all defendants sold or supplied cigarettes
that were defective; and (viii) that defendants were negligent.
The court also reinstated compensatory damages awards totaling
approximately $6.9 million to two individual plaintiffs and found
that a third plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of
limitations. In February 2008, PM USA paid approximately $3
million, representing its share of compensatory damages and
interest, to the two individual plaintiffs identified in the
Florida Supreme Court's order.

In August 2006, PM USA sought rehearing from the Florida Supreme
Court on parts of its July 2006 opinion, including the ruling
(described above) that certain jury findings have res judicata
effect in subsequent individual trials timely brought by Engle
class members. The rehearing motion also asked, among other
things, that legal errors that were raised but not expressly ruled
upon in the Florida Third District Court of Appeal or in the
Florida Supreme Court now be addressed. Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for rehearing in August 2006 seeking clarification of the
applicability of the statute of limitations to non-members of the
decertified class. In December 2006, the Florida Supreme Court
refused to revise its July 2006 ruling, except that it revised the
set of Phase I findings entitled to res judicata effect by
excluding finding (v) listed above (relating to agreement to
misrepresent information), and added the finding that defendants
sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the time of sale or supply,
did not conform to the representations of fact made by defendants.
In January 2007, the Florida Supreme Court issued the mandate from
its revised opinion. Defendants then filed a motion with the
Florida Third District Court of Appeal requesting that the court
address legal errors that were previously raised by defendants but
have not yet been addressed either by the Florida Third District
Court of Appeal or by the Florida Supreme Court. In February 2007,
the Florida Third District Court of Appeal denied defendants'
motion. In May 2007, defendants' motion for a partial stay of the
mandate pending the completion of appellate review was denied by
the Florida Third District Court of Appeal. In May 2007,
defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United
States Supreme Court, which the United States Supreme Court denied
later in 2007.

In February 2008, the trial court decertified the class, except
for purposes of the May 2001 bond stipulation, and formally
vacated the punitive damages award pursuant to the Florida Supreme
Court's mandate. In April 2008, the trial court ruled that certain
defendants, including PM USA, lacked standing with respect to
allocation of the funds escrowed under the May 2001 bond
stipulation and would receive no credit at that time from the $500
million paid by PM USA against any future punitive damages awards
in cases brought by former Engle class members.

In May 2008, the trial court, among other things, decertified the
limited class maintained for purposes of the May 2001 bond
stipulation and, in July 2008, severed the remaining plaintiffs'
claims except for those of Howard Engle. The only remaining
plaintiff in the Engle case, Howard Engle, voluntarily dismissed
his claims with prejudice.


ALTRIA GROUP: Cases Subject to Federal Engle Settlement Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016,
that in December 2015, the cases subject to the Federal Engle
Progeny Agreement were dismissed, thereby entitling plaintiffs to
the $43 million escrow amount.

In February 2015, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company ("R.J. Reynolds") and Lorillard Tobacco Company
("Lorillard") reached a tentative agreement to resolve
approximately 415 pending federal Engle progeny cases (the
"Federal Engle Agreement"). Under the terms of the Federal Engle
Agreement, PM USA paid into escrow approximately $43 million in
March 2015. PM USA recorded a pre-tax provision of approximately
$43 million in the first quarter of 2015.

Federal cases that were in trial as of February 25, 2015 and those
that have previously reached final verdict were not included in
the Federal Engle Agreement. The Federal Engle Agreement was
conditioned on approval by all federal court plaintiffs in the
cases resolved by the Federal Engle Agreement or as the parties
otherwise agree. The parties satisfied all conditions and, in
December 2015, the cases subject to the Federal Engle Agreement
were dismissed, thereby entitling plaintiffs to the $43 million
escrow amount.


ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend 7 Class Actions in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016,
that as of January 26, 2016, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and
Altria Group are named as defendants, along with other cigarette
manufacturers, in seven class actions filed in the Canadian
provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British
Columbia and Ontario.

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs
have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits
in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases
purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state
or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope)
and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical
injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 60
smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1),
California (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2),
Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1),
Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York
(2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto
Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).

As of January 26, 2016, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named as
defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven
class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.

In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and
Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of
individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases,
including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the
actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs
seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked
defendants' cigarettes. See Guarantees and Other Similar Matters
below for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement between
Altria Group, Inc. and PMI that provides for indemnities for
certain liabilities concerning tobacco products.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Began Jan. 26 in Medical Monitoring Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016,
that trial began January 26, 2016, in one medical monitoring class
action.

In medical monitoring actions, plaintiffs seek to recover the cost
for, or otherwise the implementation of, court-supervised programs
for ongoing medical monitoring purportedly on behalf of a class of
individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose
liability under various product-based causes of action and the
creation of a court-supervised program providing members of the
purported class Low Dose CT ("LDCT") scanning in order to identify
and diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases do not seek
punitive damages, although plaintiffs in Donovan have sought
permission from the court to seek to treble any damages awarded,
which the court denied. The future defense of these cases may be
negatively impacted by evolving medical standards and practice.

One medical monitoring class action is currently pending against
PM USA. In Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs purportedly
brought the action on behalf of the state's residents who are: age
50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or
more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are
under investigation by a physician for suspected lung cancer. The
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in answering questions
certified to it by the district court, held in October 2009 that
under certain circumstances state law recognizes a claim by
individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the absence of
an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or not the
case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is a
factual issue to be determined at trial. The case was remanded to
federal court for further proceedings.

In June 2010, the district court granted in part the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, certifying the class as to
plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty and violation of
the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, but denying
certification as to plaintiffs' negligence claim.

In July 2010, PM USA petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit for appellate review of the class certification
decision. The petition was denied in September 2010. As a remedy,
plaintiffs have proposed a 28-year medical monitoring program with
a cost in excess of $190 million. In October 2011, PM USA filed a
motion for class decertification, which motion was denied in March
2012. In February 2013, the district court amended the class
definition to extend to individuals who satisfy the class
membership criteria through February 26, 2013, and to exclude any
individual who was not a Massachusetts resident as of February 26,
2013.

Trial began January 26, 2016 and will take place in multiple
phases. Phase I will address liability. To the extent a Phase II
is necessary, it would be tried to the court and address common
questions of remedies and costs. In July 2015, both parties filed
various motions relating to Phase I, including motions for partial
summary judgment and to exclude certain evidence. In October 2015,
the district court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary
judgment holding that e-vapor products may not be deemed an
alternative design for ordinary cigarettes.


ALTRIA GROUP: 11 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending at Jan. 26
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016,
that as of January 26, 2016, a total of 11 "Lights/Ultra Lights"
cases are pending in various U.S. state courts.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory
fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in
certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been
brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group,
Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased
and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro
Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and
Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in
these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation,
injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability
under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies
with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment.

Since the December 2008 United States Supreme Court decision in
Good, and through January 26, 2016, 26 purported "Lights" class
actions were served upon PM USA and, in certain cases, Altria
Group, Inc. These cases were filed in 15 states, the U.S. Virgin
Islands and the District of Columbia. All of these cases either
were filed in federal court or were removed to federal court by PM
USA and were transferred and consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPMDL") before the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maine for pretrial proceedings ("MDL
proceeding").

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in four cases, covering
the jurisdictions of California, the District of Columbia,
Illinois and Maine. These jurisdictions were selected by the
parties as sample cases, with two selected by plaintiffs and two
selected by defendants. Plaintiffs sought appellate review of this
decision but, in February 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal.
Later that year, plaintiffs in 13 cases voluntarily dismissed
their cases without prejudice. In April 2012, the JPMDL remanded
the remaining four cases (Phillips, Tang, Wyatt and Cabbat) back
to the federal district courts in which the suits originated.
These cases were ultimately resolved in a manner favorable to PM
USA.


ALTRIA GROUP: 19 Courts Ruled on "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016,
that as of January 26, 2016, in addition to a federal district
court in the multidistrict litigation proceeding, 19 courts in 20
"Lights" cases have refused to certify class actions, dismissed
class action allegations, reversed prior class certification
decisions or have entered judgment in favor of Philip Morris USA
Inc. ("PM USA").

Trial courts in Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin have
refused to grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs'
class action allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case
in Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs
asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection
Act. Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either
affirmed rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or
reversed rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs.

In Florida, an intermediate appellate court overturned an order by
a trial court that granted class certification in Hines. The
Florida Supreme Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme
Court of Illinois overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a
certified class in the Price case, although plaintiffs are seeking
reinstatement of the judgment. See The Price Case below for
further discussion. In Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit dismissed a purported "Lights" class action
(Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted
by the FCLAA. In New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit overturned a trial court decision in Schwab that
granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class
of all U.S. residents that purchased cigarettes in the United
States that were labeled "Light" or "Lights."

In July 2010, plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case
with prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class
certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed both cases without prejudice in August 2009,
but refiled in federal court as the Phillips case discussed above.
The Supreme Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory
review filed by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought
review of an order by the trial court that refused to certify a
class. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies
case with prejudice. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Illinois federal district court's
dismissal of "Lights" claims brought against PM USA in the Cleary
case. In Curtis, a certified class action, in May 2012, the
Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of
summary judgment in favor of PM USA, concluding this litigation.

In Lawrence, in August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court
reversed the trial court's order to certify a class and
subsequently denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition. In October
2012, the case was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a motion to
dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Seeks to Decertify "Aspinall" Class
--------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016,
that Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") has filed a motion to
decertify the class in the "Aspinall" case.

In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed
the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial court
denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment and granted
plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the defenses of
federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts'
consumer protection statute. On motion of the parties, the trial
court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment
to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings
pending completion of the appellate review.

In March 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed
the order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the
plaintiffs' cross-motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for
partial summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral
estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department
of Justice.

In March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion. In
February 2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the parties,
dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against Altria
Group, Inc. PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case.

In September 2013, the case was transferred to the Business
Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court. Also in
September 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the scope of remedies available in the case, which the
Massachusetts Superior Court denied in February 2014, concluding
that plaintiffs cannot obtain disgorgement of profits as an
equitable remedy and that their recovery is limited to actual
damages or $25 per class member if they cannot prove actual
damages greater than $25. Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the
trial court to report its February 2014 ruling to the
Massachusetts Appeals Court for review, which the trial court
denied.

In March 2014, plaintiffs petitioned the Massachusetts Appeals
Court for review of the ruling, which the appellate court denied.
In August 2015, the trial court denied various pre-trial motions
filed by PM USA, including a motion for summary judgment on the
ground that plaintiffs have no proof of injury. Trial began in
October 2015 and concluded in November 2015. On December 18, 2015,
PM USA filed a motion to decertify the class.


ALTRIA GROUP: Calif. Supreme Court Denied Petition for Review
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016,
that the California Supreme Court has denied a petition for review
filed by plaintiffs in the "Brown" lawsuit.

In June 1997, plaintiffs filed suit in California state court
alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including Philip
Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and others, violated California law
regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices.  In
May 2009, the California Supreme Court reversed an earlier trial
court decision that decertified the class and remanded the case to
the trial court.  At that time, the class consisted of individuals
who, at the time they were residents of California, (i) smoked in
California one or more cigarettes manufactured by PM USA that were
labeled and/or advertised with the terms or phrases "light,"
"medium," "mild," "low tar," and/or "lowered tar and nicotine,"
but not including any cigarettes labeled or advertised with the
terms or phrases "ultra light" or "ultra low tar," and (ii) who
were exposed to defendant's marketing and advertising activities
in California.  Plaintiffs are seeking restitution of a portion of
the costs of "light" cigarettes purchased during the class period
and injunctive relief ordering corrective communications.

In September 2012, at the plaintiffs' request, the trial court
dismissed all defendants except PM USA from the lawsuit.  Trial
began in April 2013. In May 2013 the plaintiffs redefined the
class to include California residents who smoked in California one
or more of defendant's Marlboro Lights cigarettes between January
1, 1998 and April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to defendant's
marketing and advertising activities in California.

In June 2013, PM USA filed a motion to decertify the class. Trial
concluded in July 2013. In September 2013, the court issued a
final Statement of Decision, in which the court found that PM USA
violated California law, but that plaintiffs had not established a
basis for relief. On this basis, the court granted judgment for PM
USA. The court also denied PM USA's motion to decertify the class.
In October 2013, the court entered final judgment in favor of PM
USA. In November 2013, plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which the
court denied. In December 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal and PM USA filed a conditional cross-appeal. In February
2014, the trial court awarded PM USA $764,553 in costs and
plaintiffs appealed the costs award. Oral argument occurred in
September 2015 and subsequently the Court of Appeal affirmed the
trial court judgment and dismissed PM USA's conditional cross-
appeal as moot. The court also affirmed the cost award in favor of
PM USA.

On November 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a petition for review with
the California Supreme Court, which the court denied on December
9, 2015.


ALTRIA GROUP: Re-Trial to Begin March 2 in "Larsen" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016,
that a re-trial is scheduled to begin on March 2, 2016, in the
"Larsen" lawsuit.

In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class
certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which
potential class members can qualify to become part of the class.
The class period remains 1995-2003.

In June 2010, PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment
regarding plaintiffs' request for punitive damages was denied. In
April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an
element of liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel
from the findings in the case brought by the Department of
Justice.  The plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010.

In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions
challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling
that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on
allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro
Reds.

The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment
motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October
2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach
a verdict. In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior
ruling granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more
dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim.

In October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class and
for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous"
claim, which the court denied in June 2015. Re-trial is scheduled
to begin on March 2, 2016.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Begin August 2 in "Miner" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016,
that trial is scheduled to begin on August 2, 2016, in the "Miner"
lawsuit.

In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower
court rulings in Miner (formerly known as Watson) that denied
plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as opposed
to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected defendants'
contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the
"federal officer" statute. Following remand, the case was removed
again to federal court in Arkansas and transferred to the MDL
proceeding.

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding
remanded the case to Arkansas state court. In December 2011,
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Altria
Group, Inc. without prejudice. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a
class certification motion. In November 2013, the trial court
granted class certification. The certified class includes those
individuals who, from November 1, 1971 through June 22, 2010,
purchased Marlboro Lights and Marlboro Ultra Lights for personal
consumption in Arkansas.

Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") filed a notice of appeal of the
class certification ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court in
December 2013. In February 2015, the Arkansas Supreme Court
affirmed the trial court's class certification order.

In May 2015, PM USA filed a motion for partial summary judgment
seeking to foreclose any recovery for cigarette purchases prior to
1999, when a private right of action was added to the consumer
protection statute under which plaintiffs are suing. The trial
court denied the motion in July 2015. Trial is currently scheduled
to begin on August 2, 2016.


ALTRIA GROUP: Ore. Supreme Court Denies Class Cert. in "Pearson"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016,
that the Oregon Supreme Court has entered its judgment denying
class certification in the "Pearson" lawsuit.

In Oregon (Pearson), a state court denied plaintiffs' motion for
interlocutory review of the trial court's refusal to certify a
class. In February 2007, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") filed a
motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption and the
Oregon statutory exemption. In September 2007, the district court
granted PM USA's motion based on express preemption under the
FCLAA, and plaintiffs appealed this dismissal and the class
certification denial to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

In June 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court's denial of class certification and remanded to the trial
court for further consideration of class certification. In July
2013, PM USA filed a petition for reconsideration with the Oregon
Court of Appeals, which was denied in August 2013. PM USA filed
its petition for review to the Oregon Supreme Court in October
2013, which the court accepted in January 2014.

In October 2015, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the trial
court's order denying class certification, thereby reversing the
decision of the Oregon Court of Appeals. On November 5, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the Oregon
Supreme Court, which the court denied on December 10, 2015. On
December 28, 2015, the Oregon Supreme Court entered its judgment
denying class certification and remanding the claims of the
individual plaintiffs for further proceedings.

In December 2009, the state trial court in Carroll (formerly known
as Holmes) (pending in Delaware) denied PM USA's motion for
summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the Delaware
Consumer Fraud Act. In January 2011, the trial court allowed the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint substituting class
representatives and naming Altria Group, Inc. and PMI as
additional defendants. In February 2013, the trial court approved
the parties' stipulation to the dismissal without prejudice of
Altria Group, Inc. and PMI, leaving PM USA as the sole defendant
in the case. In March 2015, plaintiffs moved for class
certification and, in July 2015, PM USA filed a summary judgment
motion seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' claims in their entirety on
preemption grounds.


ALTRIA GROUP: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed in "Price"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016,
that the plaintiffs in the "Price" action have filed a petition
for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on the
question of whether Justice Karmeier should have recused himself.

Trial in the "Price" case commenced in state court in Illinois in
January 2003 and, in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the
plaintiff class and awarded $7.1 billion in compensatory damages
and $3.0 billion in punitive damages against Philip Morris USA
Inc. ("PM USA").  In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court
reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. In
November 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs'
petition for writ of certiorari and, in December 2006, the Circuit
Court of Madison County enforced the Illinois Supreme Court's
mandate and dismissed the case with prejudice.

In December 2008, plaintiffs filed with the trial court a petition
for relief from the final judgment that was entered in favor of PM
USA. Specifically, plaintiffs sought to vacate the judgment
entered by the trial court on remand from the 2005 Illinois
Supreme Court decision overturning the verdict on the ground that
the United States Supreme Court's December 2008 decision in Good
demonstrated that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision was
"inaccurate." PM USA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
petition and, in February 2009, the trial court granted PM USA's
motion on the basis that the petition was not timely filed. In
March 2009, the Price plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Fifth Judicial District of the Appellate Court of Illinois.

In February 2011, the intermediate appellate court ruled that the
petition was timely filed and reversed the trial court's dismissal
of the plaintiffs' petition and, in September 2011, the Illinois
Supreme Court declined PM USA's petition for review. As a result,
the case was returned to the trial court for proceedings on
whether the court should grant the plaintiffs' petition to reopen
the prior judgment. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended
petition, which PM USA opposed. Subsequently, in responding to PM
USA's opposition to the amended petition, plaintiffs asked the
trial court to reinstate the original judgment.  The trial court
denied plaintiffs' petition in December 2012.

In January 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Fifth Judicial District. In January 2013, PM USA filed a motion
asking the Illinois Supreme Court to immediately exercise its
jurisdiction over the appeal. In February 2013, the Illinois
Supreme Court denied PM USA's motion. In April 2014, the Fifth
Judicial District reversed and ordered reinstatement of the
original $10.1 billion trial court judgment against PM USA.

In May 2014, PM USA filed in the Illinois Supreme Court a petition
for a supervisory order and a petition for leave to appeal. The
filing of the petition for leave to appeal automatically stayed
the Fifth District's mandate pending disposition by the Illinois
Supreme Court. Also in May 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
recusal of Justice Karmeier, one of the Illinois Supreme Court
justices, which PM USA opposed. In September 2014, the Illinois
Supreme Court granted PM USA's motion for leave to appeal and took
no action on PM USA's motion for a supervisory order. Justice
Karmeier denied plaintiffs' motion seeking his recusal.

In February 2015, plaintiffs filed a new motion seeking recusal or
disqualification of Justice Karmeier. In March 2015, the Illinois
Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' request that it order the
disqualification of Justice Karmeier and referred the recusal
request to Justice Karmeier to decide. On November 4, 2015, the
Illinois Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Judicial District's
decision, finding that the plaintiffs' petition was improper, and
dismissed the cause of action without prejudice to plaintiffs to
file a motion to recall the mandate in the Illinois Supreme Court.
On the same day, Justice Karmeier denied the recusal motion. On
November 18, 2015, the plaintiffs filed motions in the Illinois
Supreme Court seeking to recall the 2005 mandate issued in PM
USA's favor and for recusal of Justice Karmeier, both of which the
court denied on January 11, 2016. On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs
filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court on the question of whether Justice Karmeier should
have recused himself.

In June 2009, the plaintiff in an individual smoker lawsuit
(Kelly) brought on behalf of an alleged smoker of "Lights"
cigarettes in Madison County, Illinois state court filed a motion
seeking a declaration that his claims under the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act are not (i) barred by the exemption in that statute
based on his assertion that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision
in Price is no longer good law in light of the decisions by the
United States Supreme Court in Good and Watson, and (ii) preempted
in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Good. In
September 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion as to federal
preemption, but denied it with respect to the state statutory
exemption.


ALTRIA GROUP: USSTC Remains Severed from UST Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016,
that U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC ("USSTC"), along with
other non-cigarette manufacturers, has remained severed from the
UST LLC litigation since December 2001.

UST LLC and/or its tobacco subsidiaries have been named in certain
actions in West Virginia brought by or on behalf of individual
plaintiffs against cigarette manufacturers, smokeless tobacco
manufacturers and other organizations seeking damages and other
relief in connection with injuries allegedly sustained as a result
of tobacco usage, including smokeless tobacco products. Included
among the plaintiffs are five individuals alleging use of USSTC's
smokeless tobacco products and alleging the types of injuries
claimed to be associated with the use of smokeless tobacco
products. USSTC, along with other non-cigarette manufacturers, has
remained severed from such proceedings since December 2001.


ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Date Set in "Vassallo" Action
----------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016,
that there is currently no trial date set in the "Vassallo"
lawsuit against U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC ("USSTC").

UST LLC and/or its tobacco subsidiaries have been named in a
number of other individual tobacco and health suits over time.
Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery, such as negligence, strict
liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to
warn, breach of implied warranty, addiction and breach of consumer
protection statutes. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief,
including compensatory and punitive damages, and certain equitable
relief, including but not limited to disgorgement. Defenses raised
in these cases include lack of causation, assumption of the risk,
comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, and statutes of
limitations. USSTC is currently named in one such action in
Florida (Vassallo). There is currently no trial date set in this
case.


AMERICAN LOGOWEAR: Violated FLSA & FMWA, "Calvillo" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marbella Calvillo, and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. American Logowear & Promotional Products, LLC, and
Keith H. Treiber, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-
60074-WJZ (S.D. Fla., January 12, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wage compensation, as well as additional
amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees
under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standard Act and Florida
Movers and Warehousemen's Association.

American Logowear is a Florida limited liability company, based in
Pompano Beach, Florida. It provides promotional products. The
Company specializes in embroidery and screen printing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Monica Espino, Esq.
          ESPINO LAW
          Attorney for Plaintiff
          2100 Coral Way, Suite 300
          Miami, FL 33145
          Telephone: (305) 704 3172
          Facsimile: (305) 722 7378
          E-mail: me@espino-law.com


AMERICAN WAY: Illegally Misclassifies Workers, "Lopez" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ilia Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Way Transportation, Inc. & Volodymyr Federov,
Case No. 15-6985 (Mass. Cmmw., December 30, 2015) seeks to recover
damages arising from the Defendants' illegal misclassification of
the Plaintiff and other former co-workers as independent
contractors, rather than employees.

American Way Transportation, Inc. provides medical transportation
services to individuals, which generally includes driving
individuals to doctor's appointments and related medical
appointments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam J. Shafran, Esq.
      Jonathon D. Friedmann, Esq.
      RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
      92 State Street
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: 617-723-7700
      Facsimile: 617-227-0313
      E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com
              jfriedmann@rflawyers.com


AMICI'S FAMILY: Faces "Caballero" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Caballero, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated v. Amici's Family Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a Amici's Italian
Restaurant & Pizzeria, Case No. 6:16-cv-00059-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla.,
January 14, 2016) is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Amici's Family Restaurant, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMIRA NATURE: Defending Consolidated Shareholder Suits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amira Nature Foods Ltd said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that two shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed in February 2015 in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  "The
complaints, which were subsequently consolidated, name as
defendants the Company and certain of our current and former
officers and directors," the Company said.  The consolidated
lawsuit purports to state claims for violation of Section 11 and
Section 15 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, generally alleging that certain
statements in the Company's Registration Statement and certain
subsequent Exchange Act filings were false and misleading and
seeking damages in an unspecified amount.  The Company intends to
contest these allegations vigorously and has moved to dismiss the
lawsuit in its entirety.


ANN INC: "Linares" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT and Unpaid Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Linares, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ann Inc.,
Ann Taylor Retail, Inc., and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC605635 (Cal. Sup. Ct., County of Los Angeles, December
29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and unpaid minimum
wages under California Labor Code and California Business &
Professions Code.

Ann Inc. is a Delaware corporation, based in New York, New York.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, engages in the retailing of
women's apparel, shoes, and accessories under the Ann Taylor and
LOFT brands. As of March 13, 2015, it operated 1,030 retail stores
in 47 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Canada
comprising 245 Ann Taylor stores, 537 LOFT stores, 116 Ann Taylor
Factory stores, 127 LOFT Outlet stores, and 5 Lou & Grey stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raul Perez, Esq.
          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
          Suzy E.Lee, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310)556 4811
          Facsimile: (310)943 0396
          E-mail: Raul.Perez@capstonelawyers.com
                Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com
                 Arnab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com
                 Suzy.Lee@capstonelawyers.com


ANTALIA TURKISH: Faces "Rosales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Leonardo Bernardo Rosales, Reynaldo Alavez and Javier
Garcia (aka Marcos Oliver), individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Antalia Turkish Cuisine LLC. (d/b/a
Antalia ), Ozan Ekmel Anda, Homayoun Payami, and David Kocak, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00325-AJN (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2016) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Turkish restaurant
located at 17 W. 45th Street, New York, New York 10036, under the
name Antalia.

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


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action over "Error 53" in iPhone 6
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
San Francisco accuses Apple of false advertising and unjust
enrichment from its iPhone 6, which registers a fatal, disabling
"Error 53" if owners update their phone or restore it from a
backup.


ARIZONA: 9th Cir. May Overturn Injunction in Immigration Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
civil libertarians say Arizona is parading around a wolf in
sheep's clothing, but the Ninth Circuit seemed inclined Feb. 12 to
overturn an injunction against an identity-theft law Arizona is
using to target Mexican immigrants.

The laws under scrutiny came into effect after the state's
nativist sheriff, Joe Arpaio, made illegal immigration a central
tenet of his platform.  Though Arpaio's wave of anti-immigrant
fervor lubricated the passage of House Bill 2779, lawmakers billed
the Legal Arizona Workers Act as means of clamping down on
aggravated identity theft.

When coupled with House Bill 2745, a supplemental legislation
passed the next year, the legislation became fodder for employment
raids targeting Mexicans.

One provision of the law criminalizes intent to gain employment
using another person's identity.

The civil rights group Puente Arizona challenged the
constitutionality of both laws in a 2014 class action, prompting a
preliminary injunction from U.S. District Judge David Campbell the
following year.

Though Campbell said Arpaio's raids likely usurped powers
belonging to the federal government, Arizona has argued on appeal
that the state and U.S. governments both have interests in
prosecuting identity theft, the stated purpose of the laws.

"Enjoining this law is causing real problems for the people of
Arizona," Assistant Attorney General Dominic Draye told the Ninth
Circuit at a hearing in San Francisco on Feb. 12, morning.

All three judges on the appellate panel appeared to find this
argument plausible.

Judge Barry Silverman, for example, noted at one point that
identity theft is the "fastest growing crime in America," a
conclusion also reached by the FBI and the Federal Trade
Commission.  The problem requires both state and federal
enforcement to address it, he added.

Judge Richard Tallman added that the federal government sometimes
prosecutes bank robbery, but this does not make the offense legal
at the state level.

Puente's attorney, Jessica Vosburgh with the National Day Laborer
Organizing Network, argued that lawmakers used the supposed anti-
identity theft measure to disguise the state's assumption of
powers it does not have.

"In the height of anti-immigrant fervor in that state," Arizona
passed legislation that "intruded upon that field and created
conflict with federal law," she added.

Vosburgh particularly cited the Immigration Reform and Control Act
(IRCA), which Congress passed in 1986.

The third jurist on the panel, who joined the hearing by
designation from Seattle, pressed Vosburgh on whether Arizona's
laws would have been constitutional if the stated purpose of the
statutes were not pretextual.

If Arizona's lawmakers said, "'my goodness, identity theft is
affecting so many people in so many ways,' would that be OK?" U.S.
District Judge Robert Lasnick asked.

Vosburgh replied that Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent
would require judges at that point to, "not only to look at the
purpose [of the laws], but also the effects."

The panel did not indicate when they plan to rule.


ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: Veteran Sues Over Signing Bonus
----------------------------------------------------
Nick Cahill, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the California Army National Guard "conned" thousands of soldiers
into reenlisting and is now attempting to recover signing bonuses
a decade later, an Iraq war veteran claims in court.

In a class action filed Feb. 10 in Sacramento, Calif Federal
Court, plaintiff Bryan Strother says the National Guard offered
soldiers bonuses in order to inflate its reserves and that the
plaintiff class is "victims of one of the most egregious mass
frauds in U.S. Military history."

Shortly after signing his reenlistment contract in 2006, Strother
says he was sent to Iraq and finished out the terms of his deal
with honor and even appeared on a National Guard magazine. Three
years later the government sent him a letter saying he shouldn't
have received an enlistment bonus because he changed his military
occupational specialty while serving in Iraq.

Strother says his military record shows he didn't change his
classification and regardless, the statute of limitations on his
bonus expired years ago. He says defendants are attempting to
recoup bonuses from more than 16,000 soldiers in similar
positions.

The class of veterans claims the National Guard and defendant the
Department of Defense are notorious for failing to keep proper
records and are known to "plug in to documents whatever they
wish."

"Plaintiffs do not owe any monies to the California Army National
Guard because the running of the statute of limitations makes the
matter moot," the complaint states.

In the 20-page complaint, Strother says he wasn't allowed to
contest the recoupment letter despite providing defendants records
proving he didn't change his military occupational specialty.

"The refusal to acknowledge plaintiff Sgt. Bryan James Strother
did not change his military occupational specialty is either
intentional or shows a complete lack of understanding by the
Department of Defense," the complaint states.

Neither the Defense Department nor Strother's attorney returned
phone calls requesting comment Feb. 12, afternoon.

According to the complaint, the United States Department of
Defense has mismanaged $8.5 trillion and that it uses computer
software dating back to 1959. The "archaic accounting systems"
helped contribute to defendants' decision to recoup bonuses from
veterans.

Plaintiff class is asking for declaratory relief barring
defendants from recouping enlistment bonuses as well as reasonable
damages. Daniel Willman of Michigan and Samuel Lasser of San
Francisco are representing the plaintiff class.


B&D CORP: Faces "Arzola" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Arzola v. B&D Corp. of Florida, d/b/a Big And Deals and Super
Center, Abuaish Enterprises of Florida, Inc., and Orab Abu Aish,
Case No. 8:16-cv-00105-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla., December 14, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages
pursuant to Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate grocery and retail stores located in
Hillsborough County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Reports $16.5MM Charge Related Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth, Inc. (NYSE: BXS) said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 26, 2016, that non-interest expense for the fourth
quarter of 2015 included the $16.5 million legal charge related to
the settlement of the class action lawsuit related to overdraft
fees. The settlement plus estimated administrative fees totaled
$24.5 million, $8.0 million of which was accrued in prior years.


BARI IRON: Faces "Margousian" Suit Over Failure to Pay Min. Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norik Margousian, Henrik Hovsepian, and Karnek Trossian v. Bari
Iron Design, Inc., et al., Case No. EC064850 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
December 30, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay minimum wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Bari Iron Design, Inc. operates a metal working and welding
company that offers blacksmithing and sheet metal construction as
well as other services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neda Roshanian, Esq.
      ROSHANIAN LAW FIRM
      1000 North Central Avenue, Suite 210
      Glendale, CA 91202
      Telephone: (818) 964-1122
      E-mail: neda@roshanianlaw.com


BAY AREA: Faces "Alfaro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Alfaro and Vicky Williams v. Bay Area Diner, Inc., et al.,
Case No. RG15797839 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 24, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

Bay Area Diner, Inc. owns and operates over 35 Denny's franchises
in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark L. Venardi, Esq.
      Martin Zurada, Esq.
      VENARDI ZURADA LLP
      700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300
      Walnut Creek, CA
      Telephone: (925) 937-3900
      Facsimile: (925) 937-3905
      E-mail: mzurada@vefirm.com


BAY AREA: Faces "Baez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Baez, et al. v. Bay Area Diner, Inc., et al., Case No.
RG15797837 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 24, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

Bay Area Diner, Inc. owns and operates over 35 Denny's franchises
in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark L. Venardi, Esq.
      Martin Zurada, Esq.
      VENARDI ZURADA LLP
      700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300
      Walnut Creek, CA
      Telephone: (925) 937-3900
      Facsimile: (925) 937-3905
      E-mail: mzurada@vefirm.com


BAY AREA: Faces "Benlamlih" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jalal Benlamlih v. Bay Area Diner, Inc., et al., Case No.
RG15797841 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 24, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

Bay Area Diner, Inc. owns and operates over 35 Denny's franchises
in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark L. Venardi, Esq.
      Martin Zurada, Esq.
      VENARDI ZURADA LLP
      700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300
      Walnut Creek, CA
      Telephone: (925) 937-3900
      Facsimile: (925) 937-3905
      E-mail: mzurada@vefirm.com


BAYER CORPORATION: Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Pressman Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Pressman, Inc. d/b/a Pill Box Pharmacy, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons v. Bayer Corporation, Bayer
Healthcare LLC, Bayer A.G., and John Does 1-12, Case No. 0:16-cv-
60089-WPD (S.D. Fla., January 14, 2016) seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in an attempt to market and sell its diabetic blood
glucose monitoring equipment.

The Defendants own and operate a chemical and health care
corporation with its principal place of business in Whippany, New
Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      BOCK & HATCH, LLC
      134 N. La Salle St,, Ste. 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: 312-658-5500
      E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com


BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Recalls Rapid-Fill Syringe Strip
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 18, 2015
Posting date: December 23, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56430

Baxter Corporation is issuing a recall for all lots of rapid-fill
syringe strip white 10ml for lack of evidence supporting the
packaging claim for 12 month shelf-life on released product.
Compromised packaging may provide insufficient protection against
microbial contamination and/or exposure to endotoxins over the
shelf-life of the product.

Affected products
A. RAPID-FILL SYRINGE STRIP WHITE 10ML
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: 90200

Manufacturer: BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION A DIVISION OF BAXTER
              INTERNATIONAL, INC.
              14445 GRASSLANDS DRIVE
              ENGLEWOOD
              80112
              Colorado
              UNITED STATES


BESTAR INC: Recalls Five-Drawer Dressers Due to Entrapment Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 18, 2015
Posting date: December 18, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56334

This recall involves Bestar juvenile five-drawer dressers
available in two colours: white and Antigua (brown). The dressers
are 48" high x 30" wide x 16" deep and weigh 108 lbs. They have a
melamine surface and the drawer handles have a matte chrome
finish. A tip-over restraint is supplied with each dresser to
anchor the dressers to the wall. The model numbers for the two
colours available are 49250-1152 (brown) and 49250-1117 (white).
The dressers bear the following UPC number: 63753045292.

The affected products can tip-over if not securely anchored to the
wall using the tip-over restraints provided with the product,
posing an entrapment hazard.

Health Canada and Bestar inc. have received one report of a tip-
over incident in Canada, resulting in an injury.

Approximately 249 dressers were sold on line in Canada.

The recalled dressers were sold between June 2014 and October
2015.

Manufactured in Canada.

Manufacturer: Bestar Inc.
              Lac-Megantinc
              Quebec
              CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using all affected products.
Bestar inc. is offering a repair kit containing two 13 3/4" by 47
1/4" by 1/2" panels, screws, an additional tip-over restraint and
a set of instructions that will be mailed to all customers.

For more information, consumers may contact Bestar inc. by calling
the toll-free number 1-888-823-7827.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/AYO5HW


BIGGAR ENTERPRISES: Faces "Lehofer" Suit for FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chad Lehofer, Individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, v. Biggar Enterprises, Inc. and Shawn Biggar, Case 3:16-
cv-00044-REP (E.D.Va., January 21, 2016), was brought as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
alleged unpaid minimum wages owed to him and similarly situated
delivery drivers employed by defendants at their Dominos Pizza
stores.

Defendants operate five Dominos Pizza franchise stores in and
around Fredericksburg, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Crdg Juraj Curwood, Esq.
     Philip Justus Dean, Esq.
     CURWOOD LAW FIRM, PLC
     530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
     Richmond, VA 23219
     Phone: (804) 788-0808
     Fax: (804) 767-6777
     E-mail: pdean@.curwoodlaw.com
             ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com

          - and -

     Lee W. Barren, Esq.
     William D. Buchanan, Esq.
     112 Front Street
     Alton, IL 62002
     Phone: 618-462-9160
     Fax: 618-462-9167
     E-mail: lee@leebarronlaw.com
             will@leebarronlaw.com


BNY MELLON: Violated ERISA's Provisions, "Hartline" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert E. Hartline, in his own capacity and in a representative
capacity on behalf of the ERISA plan in which he is a participant
or beneficiary, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. The Bank of New York Mellon and BNY Mellon, National
Association, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00228 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 12, 2016), seeks relief for harm suffered as a result of
Defendants' transactions of converting into U.S. Dollars dividends
or other cash distributions, including net proceeds from the sale
of non-US securities, property, or rights, made by foreign
companies to ERISA plans which are invested, directly or
indirectly, in American Depositary Receipts.

The Plan is an "employee pension benefit plan" under ERISA. It is
also a traditional defined benefit pension plan. The Plan's assets
are held under the custody of the Defendants. Some assets of the
Plan are managed by Thornburg Investment Management Inc. and
Harding Loevner, LP.

BNY Mellon provides banking and investment products and services
to individuals as well as small, midsize, and large businesses and
institutions. The Bank is based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and
was formerly known as Mellon Bank, National Association. BNY
Mellon, National Association operates as a subsidiary of The Bank
of New York Mellon Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Preminger, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          T. David Copley, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Leland, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (646) 380-6690
          Facsimile: (646) 380-6692
          E-mail: dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com
                 lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                 dcopley@kellerrohrback.com
                 bleland@kellerrohrback.com


BOARD'S HONEY: Recalls Honey Products Due to Nitrofurans
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 15, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Chemical
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Board's Honey Farm
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10241

  Brand name     Common name    Size    Code(s) on      UPC
  ----------     -----------    -----   product         ---
                                        ----------
  Board's Honey  Meadowblend    45 ml   Sold by         None
  Farm           Honey -                Board's
                 Liquid                 Honey Farm
                                        from July 20,
                                        2015 up to
                                        and
                                        including
                                        September 20,
                                        2015.
Board's Honey  Meadowblend    150 g    Sold by         None
Farm           Honey -                 Board's
                Liquid                  Honey Farm
                                        from July 20,
                                        2015 up to
                                        and
                                        including
                                        September 20,
                                        2015.
Board's Honey  Meadowblend    250 g    Sold by         None
Farm           Honey -                 Board's
                Liquid                  Honey Farm
                                        from July 20,
                                        2015 up to
                                        and
                                        including
                                        September 20,
                                        2015.

Board's Honey  Meadowblend    330 g     Sold by         None
Farm           Honey -                  Board's
               Liquid                   Honey Farm
                                        from July 20,
                                        2015 up to
                                        and
                                        including
                                        September 20,
                                        2015.

Board's Honey  Meadowblend    375 g    Sold by         None
Farm           Honey -                 Board's
                Liquid                  Honey Farm
                                        from July 20,
                                        2015 up to
                                        and
                                        including
                                        September 20,
                                        2015.
Board's Honey  Meadowblend    500 g    Sold by         None
Farm           Honey -                 Board's
                Liquid                  Honey Farm
                                        from July 20,
                                        2015 up to
                                        and
                                        including
                                        September 20,
                                        2015.
Board's Honey  Meadowblend    1 kg     Sold by         None
Farm           Honey -                 Board's
                Liquid                  Honey Farm
                                        from July 20,
                                        2015 up to
                                        and
                                        including
                                        September 20,
                                        2015.
Board's Honey  Meadow Blend   2 kg     Sold by         None
Farm           Liquid                  Board's
                (Honey)                 Honey Farm
                                        from July 20,
                                        2015 up to
                                        and
                                        including
                                        September 20,
                                        2015.
Board's Honey  Meadow Blend   3 kg     Sold by         None
Farm           Liquid                  Board's
                (Honey)                 Honey Farm
                                        from July 20,
                                        2015 up to
                                        and
                                        including
                                        September 20,
                                        2015.
Board's Honey  Meadow Blend   5 kg     Sold by         None
Farm           Liquid                  Board's
                (Honey)                 Honey Farm
                                        from July 20,
                                        2015 up to
                                        and
                                        including
                                        September 20,
                                        2015.
Board's Honey  Meadow Blend   7 kg     Sold by         None
Farm           Liquid                  Board's
                (Honey)                 Honey Farm
                                        from July 20,
                                        2015 up to
                                        and
                                        including
                                        September 20,
                                        2015.
Board's Honey  Meadow Blend   10 kg    Sold by         None
Farm           Liquid                  Board's
                (Honey)                 Honey Farm
                                        from July 20,
                                        2015 up to
                                        and
                                        including
                                        September 20,
                                        2015.
Board's Honey  Meadow Blend   15 kg    Sold by         None
Farm           Liquid                  Board's
                (Honey)                 Honey Farm
                                        from July 20,
                                        2015 up to
                                        and
                                        including
                                        September 20,
                                        2015.


BOFI HOLDING: Defending 2 Class Suits in California
---------------------------------------------------
BofI Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2015, that the Company is
vigorously defending against two class action complaints in
California.

On October 15, 2015, a complaint (the "Golden Complaint") was
filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer under the case name Golden v. BofI
Holding, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court,
Southern District of California, on behalf of the named plaintiff
and a putative, but as yet uncertified, class. On November 3,
2015, a second complaint (the "Hazan Complaint") was filed against
the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer under the case name Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al,
also in the United States District Court, Southern District of
California, and also on behalf of the named plaintiff and a
putative, but as yet uncertified, class (the Golden Complaint and
the Hazan Complaint, collectively, the "Class Action Complaints").

The Class Action Complaints allege that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based upon allegations made in a
complaint in a wrongful termination of employment lawsuit (the
"Employment Matter") filed against BofI Federal Bank, a wholly-
owned subsidiary of the Company, by a former employee. The Company
disputes the allegations advanced by the plaintiff in the
Employment Matter, as well as the plaintiff's perception of the
underlying factual circumstances, and is vigorously defending that
lawsuit. The Class Action Complaints seek monetary damages and
other relief on behalf of all class members. The Company and the
other named defendants dispute the allegations raised in the Class
Action Complaints and are vigorously defending these lawsuits.


BRAINLAB AG: Recalls Radiosurgery System - Software
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 15, 2015
Posting date: February 1, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56890

The contours of anatomical structures outlined in Brainlab
SmartBrush are displayed shifted when loaded in Brain Metastases.
Brainlab has identified a potential error when importing image
sets and associated outlined objects into Brain Metastases version
1.0.0 or Adaptive Hybrid Surgery analysis version 1.0.0.

Affected products:
BRAINSCAN RADIOSURGERY SYSTEM - SOFTWARE
Lot or serial number: 1.0.0.
Model or catalog number: 21702-04
                         21703-01
                         21703-02

Manufacturer: Brainlab AG
              Kapellenstr 12
              Feldkirchen
              85622
              GERMANY


C&J ENERGY: Faces "Cantu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leonel Cantu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. C&J Energy Services, Inc. and C&J Spec-Rent Services,
Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00015 (S.D. Tex., January 14, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide fracturing, coiled tubing, wireline
logging, pipe recovery, perforating, pressure pumping, and
wellsite make-up and pressure testing services to the oil and gas
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


CAFFI BROTHERS: "Parra" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Dario Parra and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Ramon Arturo Caffi d/b/a Caffi Brothers Body Shop,
Janet Caffi, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20156-JLK (S.D.
Fla., January 12, 2016), seeks double damages and reasonable
attorney fees from Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act for all overtime wages.

The Defendant is a proprietorship doing business under an assumed
name 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


CAMPUS CREST: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Campus Crest Communities, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2015, that the parties
to the merger class actions have entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU"), which provides for the settlement of
the Actions.

On October 16, 2015, Campus Crest Communities, Inc., a Maryland
corporation ("Campus Crest"), HSRE Quad Merger Parent, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), HSRE Quad Merger
Sub, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company and a wholly owned
Subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub") and CCGSR, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Stockholders' Representative"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger that provides for the acquisition of
Campus Crest by Parent (such agreement, as it may be amended from
time to time, the "Merger Agreement"). Upon the terms and subject
to the conditions of the Merger Agreement, Campus Crest will merge
with and into Merger Sub, with Merger Sub surviving the Merger as
a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). Parent is an
affiliate of Harrison Street Real Estate Capital, LLC ("Harrison
Street").

Eight putative class action lawsuits were filed in connection with
the Merger in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the
"Court") against Campus Crest, the members of its Board of
Directors, certain of its executive officers, the Stockholders'
Representative, Harrison Street, Parent, Holdings and Merger Sub,
including Grossman v. CCGSR, et al., Latuso v. Campus Crest et
al., Silverwood v. Campus Crest, et al., Cekot v. Campus Crest, et
al., Powis v. CCGSR, et al., Zhang v. CCGSR, et al., Bushansky v.
Campus Crest, et al., and Wei Lin v. Campus Crest, et al., Case
Nos. 24-C-15-005422, 24-C-15-005415, 24-C-15-005414, 24-C-15-
005476, 24-C-15-005501, 24-C-15-005502, 24-C-15-005542 and 24-C-
15-005642, filed on October 27, 2015, October 27, 2015, October
27, 2015, October 30, 2015, November 2, 2015, November 2, 2015,
November 5, 2015, and November 10, 2015, respectively
(collectively the "Actions"). The Actions were subsequently
consolidated under the caption Wei Lin v. Campus Crest
Communities, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-15-005642.

On January 19, 2016, the parties to the Actions entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"), which provides for the
settlement of the Actions. Campus Crest and the other named
defendants have vigorously denied, and continue vigorously to
deny, that they have committed or aided and abetted in the
commission of any violation of law or engaged in any of the
wrongful acts that were or could have been alleged in the
litigation, and expressly maintain that, to the extent applicable,
they diligently and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and
other legal duties. While the defendants in the Actions continue
vigorously to deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability
or damage to any of the plaintiffs or the class of stockholders of
Campus Crest, and believe that no supplemental disclosure is
required under applicable law, in order to (i) avoid the burden,
inconvenience, expense and distraction of further litigation in
connection with the Actions, (ii) finally put to rest and
terminate all of the claims that were or could have been asserted
against the defendants in the Actions and (iii) permit the Merger
to proceed without risk of the Court entering an injunction or
awarding damages in connection with the Actions, Campus Crest has
agreed, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, pursuant to
the terms of the MOU, to make certain supplemental disclosures
related to the proposed Merger. The settlement will not affect the
amount of consideration to be paid in the Merger.

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

A copy of the Supplement to Definitive Proxy Statement is
available at http://is.gd/A6nyi9


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Sutton" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chantal Sutton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Capital Management Services, L.P., Case No. 1:16-cv-
00001-MKB-PK (E.D.N.Y., January 1, 2016) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Capital Management Services, L.P. operates a collections agency
that provides delinquent receivables resolution.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
      MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 695-3282
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


CAVIAR INC: "Levin" Case Stayed Pending Arbitrator's Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California stayed the
matter pending arbitrator's decision whether Plaintiff's PAGA is
arbitrable in the case captioned, JEFFRY LEVIN, Plaintiff, v.
CAVIAR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-01285-EDL (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff, a restaurant delivery driver, sued Defendant Caviar,
Inc., a restaurant delivery service in San Francisco for wage and
hour violations. The Court previously granted Defendant's Motion
to Compel Arbitration as to Plaintiff's individual claims, held
that the class action waiver in the arbitration agreement was
enforceable and found that the waiver of claims under the
California Private Attorney General Act, Cal. Lab.Code Sections
2698 et seq. (PAGA) was unenforceable.

The Court then asked the parties to provide supplemental briefing
on the issue of whether the arbitrability of the PAGA claim should
be decided by the arbitrator in light of the Ninth Circuit's
recent decision in Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.,
803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015).

In the instant case, the arbitration agreement specifies that
Courier and Caviar agree that any disputes between them arising
from Courier's agreement, services, or other relationships with
Caviar shall be subject to final and binding arbitration before
the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Plaintiff argues that
because the arbitration agreement incorporates the AAA rules, it
delegates the arbitrability question to the arbitrator. Defendant
counters that other provisions in the Courier Terms and Conditions
are in conflict with the delegation language, negating any clear
and unmistakable delegation of the issue of arbitrability.

In her Order dated January 22, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/rtDMCefrom Leagle.com, Judge Laporte concluded that
the issue on whether the assertion of arbitrability is "wholly
groundless," is one for the arbitrator to decide.

The Court directed the parties to inform the Court of the status
of the arbitrator's decision on the threshold issue within one
week of the decision or no later than May 20, 2016.

Jeffrey Levin is represented by Matthew David Carlson, Esq. --
mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com -- CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES,
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Adelaide Pagano,
Esq. -- apagano@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN AND LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

Caviar, Inc. is represented by Robert James Slaughter, Esq. --
rslaughter@kvn.com -- Ashok Ramani, Esq. -- aramani@kvn.com, Erin
E. Meyer, Esq. -- emeyer@kvn.com -- Simona Alessandra Agnolucci,
Esq. -- sagnolucci@kvn.com -- KEKER & VAN NEST LLP


CHANNEL PARTNERS: Violated FLSA & PMWA, "Brown" Suit Asserts
------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Brown and any other past or present employees who are
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Channel Partners, doing
business as BDSMKTG, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00143-GEKP
(E.D. Penn., January 12, 2016), seeks to recover all unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, witness fees,
interest, and costs, and other relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

Channel Partners is doing business as BDSMKTG, based in
Streetboro, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew S. Abramson, Esq.
          ABRAMSON EMPLOYEMENT LAW, LLC
          790 Penllyn Blue Bell Pike, Suite 205
          Blue Bell, PA 19422
          Telephone: (267) 470 4742


CHICAGO: Doesn't Properly Pay Water Chemists, "Atkins" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joanna Atkins and Eddie Cooper, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. The City of Chicago, The Chicago
Department of Water Management and The American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, Case No. 2015-
L-013063 (Ill. Cir. Ct., December 30, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay the Water Chemists II all
compensation due them pursuant to the Collective Bargaining
Agreement.

The City of Chicago is an incorporated municipality.

The Chicago Department of Water Management is an infrastructure
department that operates under the direction of a Commissioner.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
Council 31 is a labor union.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terrence Buehler, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER
      55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 372-2209
      E-mail: info@touhylaw.com

         - and -

      Peter Lubin, Esq.
      Vincent DiTommaso, Esq
      DITOMMASO-LUBIN P.C.
      The Oak Brook Terrace Atrium
      17W220 22d Street, Suite 200
      Oak Brook Terrace, IL 60181
      Telephone: (630) 333-0000
      E-mail: psl@ditommasolaw.com
              vdt@ditommasolaw.com


CHINA FUN: Violated FLSA & SCPWA, "Carbone" Suit Seeks Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Logan Carbone, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. China Fun, L.L.C., d/b/a Zen Asian
Fusion, Chen Zhou a/k/a Cindy Alfredson, Rong A. Zhou, and Mei
Zheng individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00108-DCN
(S.D. S. Car., Charleston Division, January 12, 2016), seeks to
recover minimum wage and unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

China Fun is a for-profit limited liability corporation, organized
and existing under the laws of South Carolina, and is registered
with the South Carolina Secretary of State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
          MULLANEY LAW
          321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 849 1692
          Facsimile: (800) 385 8160
          E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL: Parents of Sex Abuse Victims File Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
North Las Vegas elementary schoolteacher sexually molested
students for years after the school district merely transferred
him, rather than fire him, after his first arrest, parents of
victims say in Las Vegas federal class action.

Jeremiah Mazo is serving 15 to 60 years in state prison after
pleading guilty in December to three counts of attempted lewdness
with a child. He was charged with 32 counts.

Two sets of John and Jane Doe parents sued Mazo and Clark County
School District on Feb. 5, seeking class certification for 30 or
more students and punitive damages for sexual assault, negligence
and seven other claims.

Mazo, 54, was a longtime music teacher at Hayden Elementary School
in North Las Vegas, where he molested Joann Does I and II, who are
9 and 10 years old.

Mazo was arrested in April 2015 after one of the girls, then 8,
told her parents, and police, that Mazo had molested her
repeatedly.

It was Mazo's second such arrest. North Las Vegas Police arrested
him in 2008, and he was charged with sexually molesting students
while teaching at Simmons Elementary, but those charges were
dismissed. The school district then transferred him to Hayden
Elementary, without any "policies, procedures or parameters" to
protect students from him, the parents say.

Mazo continued to molest children at Hayden Elementary for six
years, the parents say in the complaint.

"From August 2012 through April 2015, Mazo would ask Joann Doe I
to sit with him behind his desk, and after the other students had
been dismissed from his music class, he would touch her buttock,
and he would rub her private parts, both under her trousers as
well as over her clothing," according to the complaint.

Joann Doe I "objected to going to school, threw temper tantrums in
the mornings to avoid going to school, and currently she says she
does not want to have any children because she fears someone will
do the same thing to her children that Mazo did to her," her
parents say.

He did the same thing to Joann Doe II, asking her to stay after
class and sit on his lap, while he touched her buttocks and rubbed
her private parts, according to the complaint.

During these repeated molestations, Joann II "did not want to go
to school, refused to do her household chores, fought with her
parents and her brother, and could not fall asleep at night," her
parents say.

When her mother patted her daughter on the behind, Joann became
very angry, and she always was upset on Wednesdays, when Mazo
taught her music class.

Joann II is still afraid, because even though Mazo is behind bars,
he told her she would be transferred to another school if she told
anyone what he was doing, and she was afraid to go to school
because she thought other students would blame her for Mazo's
arrest, her parents say.

At a Feb. 11 news conference, the families' attorney Robert Eglet
said the school district had ample notice that Mazo was a sexual
predator and did nothing to independently investigate the matter
or inform students how to report improper conduct.

The Does seek class certification and punitive damages for sexual
assault, assault and battery claims against Mazo, and Title IX,
negligence, failure to warn, emotional distress and vicarious
liability claims against the school district.

Clark County School District does not comment on pending lawsuits.

The tragedy in North Las Vegas is just the latest in a string of
dozens or hundreds of such cases, in which public school districts
quietly pass along a suspected molester, for fear of embarrassing
the school district, attorneys familiar with such cases say.

The most-publicized case was that of John Boone, who molested at
least 58 Hopi students in Arizona after another school district
had quietly passed him along. The United States eventually paid a
$13 million to the families, because Boone worked at Bureau of
Indian Affairs Schools. One of his victims shot himself to death
in front of his family.

An independent investigation determined that Boone had molested at
least 94 young Hopi boys: 5 percent of the tribe's age cohort.
Boone is serving life in prison.

At Mazo's sentencing hearing on Dec. 9 last year, he sang a
Christian hymn and told the judge that Jesus had already forgiven
him. Then he was led away in handcuffs.


CLEVELAND: CPP Faces Tremont Suit Over Unlawful Energy Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tremont Scoops LLC and Tymex Plastics, Inc., et al. v. City of
Cleveland and Cleveland Public Power, et al., Case No. 15856437
(Ohio Com. Pleas., December 30, 2015) arises from CPP's unlawful
scheme to exact unlawful charges from its non-residential
customers, specifically by failing to calculate the Energy
Adjustment Charge ("EAC") reflected on non-residential customers'
monthly bills.

City of Cleveland is a municipal corporation that owns and
operates CPP.

Cleveland Public Power is an electric utility operating as an
Electric Distribution Utility ("EDU") that provides electric
distribution service to residential, commercial, municipal, and
industrial customers located within Cleveland's geographic
boundaries and a few immediately adjacent areas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Geoffrey M. Johnson, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      12434 Cedar Road, Suite 12
      Cleveland Heights, OH 44106
      Telephone: (216) 229-6088
      Facsimile: (216) 229-6092
      E-mail: gjohnson@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Peter Turner, Esq.
      Carolyn Blake, Esq.
      Debra J. Horn, Esq.
      MEYERS, ROMAN, FRIEDBERG & LEWIS
      28601 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 500
      Cleveland, OH 44122
      Telephone: (216) 831-0042
      Facsimile: (216) 831-0542
      E-mail: pturner@meyersroman.com
              cblake@meyersroman.com
              dhorn@meyersroman.com


COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: N.J. Court Dismissed Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Commvault Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a New Jersey
court has issued an order:

     (i) granting the Company's motion to dismiss a securities
         class action lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice,
         and

    (ii) allowing the plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their
         complaint to "demonstrate the GAAP violation."

On September 10, 2014, a purported class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer.  The case is captioned In re Commvault
Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 3:14-cv-
05628-MAS-LHG).

"The suit alleges that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements, or failed to disclose material facts,
regarding our financial results, business, operations and
prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder," the Company said.  "The suit asserts claims covering
an alleged class period from May 7, 2013 through April 24, 2014.
It is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our common
stock during that period, and seeks compensatory damages, costs
and expenses, as well as equitable or other relief."

"Lead plaintiff, the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, was
appointed on January 12, 2015, and on March 18, 2015, an amended
complaint was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendants filed their
motion to dismiss the complaint on May 26, 2015, and the
plaintiff's filed their opposition brief on July 1, 2015. The
Company's reply was filed on August 24, 2015 and a hearing on the
motion to dismiss was held on October 13, 2015.

"On December 17, 2015, the court issued an order (i) granting our
motion to dismiss in its entirety without prejudice, and (ii)
allowing the plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint
to "demonstrate the GAAP violation."

"The Company continues to believe that the suit is without merit
and we intend to defend ourselves and our officers vigorously,"
the Company said. "At this time, the Company is unable to predict
the outcome of this matter and cannot currently estimate a range
of any possible losses that it may experience. Accordingly, the
Company is unable at this time to estimate the effects of this
lawsuit on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows. As of December 31, 2015 the Company has not recorded a
reserve for this matter."


COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Paci" Sues Credit Card Receipt Misprint
----------------------------------------------------------
Emiguela Paci, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00094, (N.D. Ill., Eastern Division, January 5,
2016), seeks punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs under
the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, an amendment to the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Paci made a purchase at Defendant's store and discovered that
their point-of-sale machine's electronically printed receipt
reflected the first six digits of her American Express payment
card's account number in addition to the last four digits of that
account number. This is in violation of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681c(g)(1), says the
complaint.

Costco is a publically traded global retailer with outlets
nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curtis C. Warner
      WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
      350 S. Northwest HWY, Ste. 300
      Park Ridge, IL 60068
      Tel: (847) 701-5290
      Email: cwarner@warnerlawllc.com


CR BARD: Faces "Caldwell" Suit Over Defective IVC Filters
---------------------------------------------------------
Alec Caldwell v. C.R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular,
Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00010-DGC (N.D. Miss., December 9, 2015) is
an action for damages as a direct and proximate result of being
implanted with a defective and unreasonably dangerous Inferior
Vena Cava ("IVC") filter medical device manufactured by Bard.

The Defendants develop, manufacture, sell, and distribute medical
devices and surgical products throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sheila M. Bossier, Esq.
      FREESE & GOSS, PLLC
      1520 N. State Street
      Jackson, MS 39202
      Telephone: (601) 961-4050
      Facsimile: (601) 352-5452
      E-mail: sbossier@freeseandgoss.com

         - and -

      Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
      David C. DeGreeff, Esq.
      WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP
      4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 701-1100
      Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
      E-mail: ddegreeff@wcllp.com
              tcartmell@wcllp.com


CROWN CASTLE: Faces "Suzara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Suzara, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Crown Castle USA, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
00551 (N.D. Ill., January 14, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Crown Castle USA, Inc. owns and maintains wireless infrastructure
throughout the United States including small cell, traditional
cell sites, rooftop sites, and distributed antenna systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      Eve-Lynn Rapp, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 5896370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com
              erapp@edelson.com

         - and -

      Nicholas C. Syregelas, Esq.
      Kyle R. Kasmarick
      THE LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS C. SYREGELAS
      19 North Green Street
      Chicago, IL 60607
      Telephone: (312) 243-0900
      Facsimile: (312) 243-0901
      E-mail: nsyregelas@syregelaslaw.com
              kkasmarick@syregelaslaw.com


CVB FINANCIAL: CA Affirms in Part Dismissal of 2nd Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz of the Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit, affirmed in part and reversed in part in the case
captioned, BARRY R. LLOYD, Plaintiff, and JACKSONVILLE POLICE AND
FIRE PENSION FUND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CVB FINANCIAL
CORPORATION; CHRISTOPHER D. MYERS; EDWARD J. BIEBRICH, JR.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 13-56838 (9th Cir.).

In 2010, two securities fraud actions were filed against CVB in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. The district court consolidated the suits and
appointed Jacksonville as lead plaintiff.  Jacksonville Police &
Fire Pension Fund (Jacksonville) alleges violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec.
240.10b-5. The district court granted CVB's motion to dismiss,
holding that the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) failed to
plausibly allege that any of the statements by CVB challenged in
the pleading were either knowingly or recklessly false or caused a
loss to shareholders.

Jacksonville declined to further amend its complaint and requested
that the district court enter judgment.  The court dismissed the
SAC for failure to state a claim de novo.

On appeal, Jacksonville contends that the district court erred in
dismissing the claims.

In the Opinion dated February 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/mld7gffrom Leagle.com, Judge Hurwitz vacated the
dismissal of the SAC with respect to the "no serious doubts"
representations made in the 10-K on March 4, 2010 and the 10-Q on
May 10, 2010. He found that the SAC stated a claim as to two
alleged misrepresentations and hold that the announcement of an
SEC investigation related to an alleged misrepresentation, coupled
with a subsequent revelation of the inaccuracy of that
misrepresentation, can serve as a corrective disclosure for the
purpose of loss causation.

The Court remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund is represented by Timothy
A. DeLange, Esq. -- timothyd@blbglaw.com -- Niki L. Mendoza, Esq.
-- nikim@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP

Defendants are represented by George T. Conway, III, Esq. --
GTConway@wlrk.com -- David M. Murphy, Esq. -- DMMurphy@wlrk.com --
Warren R. Stern, Esq. -- WRStern@wlrk.com -- WACHTELL, LIPTON,
ROSEN & KATZ


DANIEL B NY: "Jo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Hyewon "Julia" Jo, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Daniel B. NY, INC., a New York State
Domestic Corporation, Core Jewelry, Inc., a New York State
Domestic Corporation, Kyung Hak Baik & Daniel Baik, Defendants
Case No. 1:16-cv-00056-JMF (S.D. N.Y., January 5, 2016), seeks
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorney's fees and costs
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29
U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., New York Labor Law, recovery of
compensation for missed meal periods and earned sick leave
pursuant to the Administrative Code of the City of New York.

Daniel B. NY, Inc. and Core Jewelry, Inc. are corporations
organized under the laws of the State of New York with a common
place of business located at 62 West 47th Street, Suite #E406, New
York, New York 10036, and Kyung Hak Baik serving as Chief
Executive Officer and owner.

Jo was a housekeeper for the Defendants and claims to have worked
in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime premium. She
said she enjoyed neither meal breaks not sick leave credits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Curran, Esq.
      98-120 Queens Boulevard, Suite #1-C
      Rego Park, NY 11374-4414
      Tel: (715) 830-0246, ext. 127
      Fax: (718) 830-9088
      Email: mrc4law@yahoo.com


DATEX-OHMEDA: Recalls Anesthesia Delivery System Main Units
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 18, 2015
Posting date: January 25, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56776
Reason Affected products

The drive gas check valve could become stuck in a fixed open
position which could cause pressure to build in the mechanical
ventilation cycle. If this issue is left unresolved, it could
result in excessive or prolonged pressure in the patient breathing
circuit during ventilation potentially resulting in barotrauma.

Affected products
A. S/5 AESPIRE 7900 SMARTVENT ANESTHESIA SYSTEM - Main Unit
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer
Model or catalog number: 1009-9012-000

Manufacturer: Datex-Ohmeda
              3030 Ohmeda Drive, P.O. Box 7550,
              Madison
              53707-7550
              Wisconsin
              UNITED STATES

B. AVANCE CS2 - Main Unit
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer
Model or catalog number: 1009-9050-000

Manufacturer: Datex-Ohmeda
              3030 Ohmeda Drive, P.O. Box 7550,
              Madison
              53707-7550
              Wisconsin
              UNITED STATES

C. AISYS CS2 ANESTHESIA MACHINE MAIN UNIT
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer
Model or catalog number: 1011-9050-000

Manufacturer: Datex-Ohmeda
              3030 Ohmeda Drive, P.O. Box 7550,
              Madison
              53707-7550
              Wisconsin
              UNITED STATES


DE CAPITAL MORTGAGE: Violated FLSA & NYLA, "Negrin" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Negrin, Ann Mondrone, and Seth Berman, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
De Capital Mortgage, LLC, Preferred Empire Mortgage, Co., and
Dottie Herman, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00158 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 12, 2016), seeks to recover award compensatory damages,
including all minimum wage and overtime compensation owed, in an
amount according to proof; award interest on all minimum wage
and/or overtime compensation due accruing from the date such
amounts were due; award all costs and attorney's fees incurred in
prosecuting this action; and relief as the Court deems just and
equitable under the FLSA and/or New York Labor Articles.

DE Capital Mortgage operates as a subsidiary of Federal Savings
Bank and Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate Inc. The Company
is headquartered at Rolling Meadows, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erik H. Langeland
          ERIK H. LANGELAND, P.C.
          733 3rd Avenue, 15 Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 354 6270
          Facsimile: (212) 898 9086
          E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com


DELTA GROUP: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Davila" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Davila, on behalf of himself and other employees similarly
situated v. Delta Group Security, LLC, Delta Group Security
Services, INC., Vladyslav Shestopalov, and Anthony Cardozo, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00321 (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2016) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all
hours over 40 each workweek.

The Defendant operates a security services business known as
"Delta Group", located at 244 Fifth A venue, New York, New York
10001.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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: pcooper@jcplaw.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: N.Y. Court Dismisses Investors' Suit
---------------------------------------------------
UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C1 disclosed in its Form 10-D
Asset-Backed Issuer Distribution Report for the monthly
distribution period from December 12, 2015 to January 12, 2016,
that a New York court has granted in part the defendants' motion
to dismiss on procedural grounds in a class action lawsuit.

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors filed a civil action
against DBTCA and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC")
in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for
the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for
alleged violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBTCA's
and DBNTC's alleged failure to perform their obligations as
trustees for the trusts (the "NY Derivative Action").  An amended
complaint was filed on July 16, 2014, adding Plaintiff Investors
and RMBS trusts to the NY Derivative Action.  On November 24,
2014, the Plaintiff Investors moved to voluntarily dismiss the NY
Derivative Action without prejudice.

Also on November 24, 2014, substantially the same group of
Plaintiff Investors filed a civil action against DBTCA and DBNTC
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "SDNY Action"), making substantially the same
allegations as the New York Derivative Action with respect to 564
RMBS trusts (542 of which were at issue in the NY Derivative
Action).  The SDNY Action is styled both as a derivative action on
behalf of the named RMBS Trusts and, in the alternative, as a
putative class action on behalf of holders of RMBS representing
interests in those RMBS trusts.

On January 19, 2016, the court overseeing the SDNY Action granted
in part the defendants' motion to dismiss on procedural grounds:
as to the 500 trusts that are governed by Pooling and Servicing
Agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction.  The
court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in defendant'
motion to dismiss.  The court further ordered plaintiffs to file
an amended complaint consistent with its ruling as to the
remaining 64 trusts governed by indentures.  The defendants will
have an opportunity to file new defensive motions with respect to
the amended complaint after it is filed. DBTCA will continue to
vigorously defend the SDNY Action.


DIRT DOCTORS: "Del Re" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Del Re, and all others similarly-situated v. Dirt
Doctors, LLC, aka Thiry Brothers Home Improvements, Derek Thiry
and Daryl Thiry, Case No. 3:16-cv-00309 (D.N.J., January 17,
2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

The Defendants own and operate a home improvement business
throughout the State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 North Harrison Street
      Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Tel: (201) 687-9977
      Fax: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "Blum" Suit in Mass. Over Online Gambling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Blum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fanduel, Inc., and Draftkings, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
10063-RWZ (D. Mass., January 14, 2016) seeks redress for the
deceptive and collusive practices committed by the Defendants in
connection with their online fantasy gambling enterprise, and to
obtain full remuneration for every dollar lost by players.

The Defendants operate a fantasy sports website that permits
individuals to play one-day fantasy sports contests.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
      Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
      SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
      Seaport East
      Two Seaport Lane
      Boston, MA 02210
      Telephone: (617) 439-3939
      Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
      E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com
              astewart@shulaw.com

         - and -

      James R. Dugan II, Esq.
      David B. Franco, Esq.
      Lanson Bordelon, Esq.
      THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC
      One Canal Place
      365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
      New Orleans, LO 70130
      Telephone: (504) 648-0180
      Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
      E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
              dfranco@dugan-lawfirm.com
              lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com


ELI LILLY: Sued in Ind. Over Cymbalta's Withdrawal Symptoms
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Deville v. Eli Lilly and Company, Case No. 1:16-cv-00011-
WTL-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 6, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to provide proper warnings that fully and
accurately inform users and health care professionals about the
frequency, severity, and duration of Cymbalta's withdrawal
symptoms.

Eli Lilly and Company is one of the largest pharmaceutical
companies in the world with annual revenues exceeding $20 billion.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven B. Stein, Esq.
      KNOX RICKSEN LLP
      One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1101
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 285-2500
      Facsimile: (510) 285-2505
      E-mail: SBS@KNOXRICKSEN.COM

         - and -

      Robert J. Schuckit, Esq.
      SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES PC
      4545 Northwestern Drive
      Zionsville, IN 46077
      Telephone: (317) 2363-2400
      Facsimile: (317) 363-2257
      E-mail: rschuckit@schuckitlaw.com


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Machado Plaintiff Seeks to Amend Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in an exhibit to
its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 20, 2016, that the plaintiff in a
shareholder class action filed an amended complaint on December 8,
2015, and is seeking leave to further amend the complaint.

"On May 4, 2015, Christopher Machado, a purported holder of our
common stock, filed a civil action in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against us and our chief
executive officer and our chief financial officer, Machado v.
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 1:15-cv-11775-GAO," the Company said. The plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on December 8, 2015 and is currently seeking
leave to further amend the complaint.

"The amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of our securities between February 25, 2014
and November 2, 2015. The amended complaint asserts violations of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
based on allegations that certain disclosures made by us
concerning the number of customers paying over $500 per year for
Endurance products and services, the average number of products
sold per subscriber, and our customer churn rate were false and/or
misleading. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and the
purported class, compensatory damages and his costs and expenses
of litigation."


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suits over Constant Contact Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in an exhibit to
its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 20, 2016, that the Company is facing class
action lawsuits related to the acquisition of Constant Contact.

"On October 30, 2015, we entered into a definitive agreement, or
the Merger Agreement, pursuant to which we agreed to acquire all
of Constant Contact's outstanding shares of common stock for
$32.00 per share in cash, valuing Constant Contact at
approximately $1.1 billion," the Company said.

On December 11, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the Acquisition, captioned Irfan Chawdry, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al.
Case No. 11797, or the Chawdry Complaint, and on December 21,
2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the Acquisition
captioned David V. Myers, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11828, or the
Myers Complaint (together with the Chawdry Complaint, the
Complaints) filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware naming Constant Contact, each of Constant Contact's
directors, Endurance and Merger Sub as defendants.

The Complaints generally allege, among other things, that in
connection with the Acquisition the directors of Constant Contact
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the stockholders of
Constant Contact by agreeing to sell Constant Contact for
purportedly inadequate consideration, engaging in a flawed sales
process, omitting material information necessary for stockholders
to make an informed vote, and agreeing to a number of purportedly
preclusive deal protection devices. The Complaints seek, among
other things, either to enjoin the Acquisition or to rescind the
Acquisition should it be consummated, as well as award of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs in the action. The
defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to either
of these Complaints. The defendants believe the claims asserted in
the Complaints are without merit and intend to vigorously defend
against these lawsuits.


EOS PRODUCTS: Violated CLRA & UBPA, "Cronin" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Cronin, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. EOS Products, LLC, and DOES 1-10;
the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00235-JAK-JEM (C.D. Cal., January
12, 2016), seeks injunction, damages, restitution, equitable
relief and other relief deemed appropriate, and the amount and
nature of such relief for alleged harm of EOS lip-balm, pursuant
to Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Business Practices Act.

EOS is a New York Limited Liability Company. It develops, markets,
advertises, brands, promotes, distributes, and sells -- through
retail and online -- one of the highest-grossing lip-balm products
on the market called EOS Visibly Soft Lip Balm. The lip-balms come
in a variety of colors and "flavors", with over-the-top and
misleading names like Barbados Heat-Wildberry, Medicated
Tangerine, and Honeysuckle Honeydew.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
          Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS
          Historic Engine Co. No. 28
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
          Telephone (213) 625 3900
          Facsimile (213) 232 3255
          E-mail: Geragos@Geragos.com


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action in Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin L. Dougherty, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc.
and Tim M. Mayleben, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-10089-AJT-
RSW (E.D. Mich., January 12, 2016), seeks to recover damages and
interest, reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees, and
equitable/injunctive or other relief as the Court may deem just
and proper as a result of the Defendants' alleged false portrayal
of what occurred at an early August 2015 meeting between Esperion
and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Security and Exchange
Commission Rule.

A month after the meeting, as the market understood the true facts
concerning what occurred at the meeting, the price of Esperion's
stock collapsed. By the beginning of August 2015, Esperion
completed ETC-1002's Phase 2b clinical trials and was meeting with
the FDA to discuss moving forward with the Phase 3 segment of the
approval process. Up to that point, Esperion never mentioned to
investors that it would need to conduct a lengthy and expensive
cardiovascular outcomes trial prior to ETC-1002 being approved.

Esperion is a pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing
and commercializing oral low-density lipoprotein cholesterol
("LDL-cholesterol") lowering therapies for patients with
hypercholesterolemia. Esperion's lead product candidate is ETC-
1002, a once-daily small molecule designed to lower LDL
cholesterol levels. The Company is headquartered at Ann Arbor,
Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841 2200
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
          ssa@millerlawpc.com

                - and -

          Ryan A. Llorens, Esq.
          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          E-mail ryanl@rgrdlaw.com
          pgeller@rgrdlaw.com

                - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392 0090
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
                 mdees@holzerlaw.com


ETS PC: "Pollard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Pollard, et al., and all others similarly-situated v. ETS
PC, Inc. fka Eberl's Temporary Services, Inc., ECS PC, Inc. fka
Eberl's Claim Service, Inc., EAC PC, LLC fka Eberl's Acquisition
Co., LLC, ETS Holding Company, Inc., Eberl Claims Service, LLC fka
Forsyth Colorado, LLC, and Kirk J. Eberl, Case No. 1:16-cv-00097
(D. Colo., January 14, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid back wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an independent ajduster firm.
Defendants' principal place of business is at 7276 West Mansfield
Avenue, Lakewood, Colorado 80235.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michael A. Starzyk, Esq.
      April L. Walter, Esq.
      Amber L. Karns, Esq.
      Megan M. Mitchell, Esq.
      STARZYK & ASSOCIATES, PC
      10200 Grogan's Mill Rd, Suite 300
      The Woodlands, TX 77380
      Tel: (281) 364-7261
      Fax: (281) 364-7533
      E-mail: mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com
              awalter@starzyklaw.com
              akarns@starzyklaw.com
              mmitchell@starzyklaw.com


EXETER FINANCE: Court Denies Bid to Stay "Rivera" Proceedings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado denied Defendant's motion to
stay proceedings in the case captioned, EDGAR RIVERA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EXETER
FINANCE CORP., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-01057-PAB-MEH (D. Colo.).

Plaintiff filed the instant class action lawsuit alleging a
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Plaintiff contends that he and others similarly situated received
debt collection telephone calls on their cell phones when, in
fact, those calls were intended not for them but for the prior
subscriber of their cell telephone number. Defendant contends that
Plaintiff's ability to prevail depends on the definition of an
"automatic telephone dialing system" (or ATDS) under the TCPA, and
on whether the statute supports liability for calls to reassigned
telephone numbers. Defendant further contends that both these
issues were addressed by the Federal Communication Commission's
(FCC) latest Declaratory Ruling and Order (Ruling), and that the
Ruling has been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit.

In the motion, Defendant argued that because the outcome of that
appeal will affect the efficacy of Plaintiff's lawsuit here, the
Court should enter a stay pending the conclusion of the appeal
(final briefing will be completed within weeks). Plaintiff does
not dispute any of the above per se, but disagrees with the
Defendant on the effect the appeal will have on this lawsuit,
claiming that regardless of what the FCC does, the lawsuit will
still have a viable theory of recovery.

In his Order dated February 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/wH2VNifrom Leagle.com, Judge Hegarty concluded that
staying the case could substantially delay the ultimate resolution
of the case, with adverse consequences such as a decrease in
evidentiary quality and party/witness availability. The Court
cannot justify the imposition of an indefinite stay of discovery
in the matter in light of the limited scope of discovery that the
Court has already imposed at Defendant's request.

Edgar Rivera is represented by Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq. --
rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com -- David Neal McDevitt, Esq. --
dmcdevitt@consumerlawinfo.com -- THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC

Exeter Finance Corp. is represented by John Robert Chiles, Esq. --
jchiles@burr.com -- Zachary David Miller, Esq. -- zmiller@burr.com
-- BURR & FORMAN LLP & Austin E. Smith, Esq. --
Austin.smith@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK
& STEWART, P.C.


EXPRESS TECHNOLOGIES: "Hower" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Hower, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Express Technologies, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-00009-HEH (E.D. Va., January 5, 2016), seeks monetary
damages for all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages
in an amount equal to all unpaid overtime owed, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, injunctive relief, permanent enjoinment
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et
seq.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an electrician, driving a
company-owned van to jobsites, and servicing Express Technologies'
clients including pulling fiber optic cable, installing
communications cable, running power cables, installing electrical
receptacles, installing light switches, installing light fixtures
and installing conduit. However, the Defendant did not pay Hower
for hours spent driving between the shop and the jobsite.

The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week but did
not receive pay for all hours worked.

Express Technologies is a Virginia corporation with its principal
office in Fredericksburg, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Justus Dean, Esq.
      Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
      CURWOOD LAW FIRM
      530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
      Richmond, VA 23219
      Telephone: (804) 788-0808
      Fax: (804) 767-6777
      Email: pdean@curwoodlaw.com
             ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Continues to Defend IPO Class Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a New York court has
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
consolidated securities action related to its IPO.

"Beginning on May 22, 2012, multiple putative class actions,
derivative actions, and individual actions were filed in state and
federal courts in the United States and in other jurisdictions
against us, our directors, and/or certain of our officers alleging
violation of securities laws or breach of fiduciary duties in
connection with our initial public offering (IPO) and seeking
unspecified damages," the Company said.

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we intend to
continue to vigorously defend them. The vast majority of the cases
in the United States, along with multiple cases filed against The
NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(collectively referred to herein as NASDAQ) alleging technical and
other trading-related errors by NASDAQ in connection with our IPO,
were ordered centralized for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

"In a series of rulings in 2013 and 2014, the court denied our
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action and
granted our motions to dismiss the derivative actions against our
directors and certain of our officers.

"On July 24, 2015, the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of
the derivative actions. On December 11, 2015, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the consolidated
securities action. In addition, the events surrounding our IPO
became the subject of various state and federal government
inquiries."


FIFTH STREET: Shareholders File Class Action in Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 20,
2016, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2015, that the
Company has been named as a defendant in a putative securities
class-action lawsuit filed by purchasers of the Company's shares.
The suit is related to other, previously disclosed shareholder
class actions brought by shareholders of Fifth Street Finance
Corp. ("FSC"), for which FSM serves as investment adviser.  The
lawsuit by the Company's shareholders was filed on January 7, 2016
in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut and is captioned Ronald K. Linde, etc. v. Fifth Street
Asset Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00025.  The
defendants are the Company, Leonard M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D.
Berman, Alexander C. Frank, Steven M. Noreika, Wayne Cooper, Mark
J. Gordon, Thomas L. Harrison, and Frank C. Meyer.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class of
persons and entities who purchased common stock in or pursuant to
the Company's October 30, 2014 initial public offering (the
"IPO").  The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a
fraudulent scheme and course of conduct to artificially inflate
FSC's assets and investment income and, in turn, the Company's
valuation at the time of its IPO, thereby rendering the Company's
IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus materially false and
misleading.  The plaintiffs have not quantified their claims for
relief.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
vigorously to defend itself against the plaintiffs' allegations.

In addition, a second putative shareholder derivative action
captioned Scott Avera v. Leonard M. Tannenbaum, et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-01889, was filed in the District of Connecticut on
December 31, 2015. The Avera complaint is similar to the Chau
complaint that was previously disclosed in the Company's Current
Report on Form 8-K filed with Securities and Exchange Commission
on December 16, 2015.


FITBIT INC: "McLellan" Sues Over Defective Heart Rate Meters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kate McLellan, Teresa Black and David Urban, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fitbit,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00036, (N.D. Cal., San Francisco
Division, January 5, 2016), seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten
profits, full restitution, compensatory, exemplary, punitive and
statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, attorneys' fees
and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other
relief for violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and
Professions Code Sec. 17200 and Violation of Magnuson-Moss Act, 15
U.S.C. Sec. 2301, et seq.

Fitbit, Inc. is a corporation that designs, manufactures,
promotes, and sells the PurePulse Trackers, a device that monitors
heart rate. It is organized and incorporated under the laws of
Delaware, and its principal place of business is in San Francisco,
California.

Plaintiffs have bought the said product and claim that the
PurePulse Trackers do not reflect accurate heart rate readings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
      Kevin R. Budner, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Tel: (415) 956-1000
      Fax: (415) 956-1008

           - and -

      Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Tel: (212) 355-9500
      Fax: (212) 355-9592
      Email: ecabraser@lchb.com
             kbudner@lchb.com

           - and -

      Robert Klonoff, Esq.
      ROBERT H. KLONOFF, LLC
      2425 SW 76th Ave.
      Portland, OR 97225
      Tel: (503) 291-1570
      Email: klonoff@usa.net


FITNESS INT'L: "Briones" Suit Seeks Damages Under UCL
-----------------------------------------------------
Beau Briones, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Fitness International, LLC; Fitness & Sports Clubs, LLC; LAF
Canada Company d/b/a L.A. Fitness and Pro Results, and does 1-20,
the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00044 (C.D. Cal., January 12,
2016), seeks to recover all statutory enhanced damages, all
reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-
judgment interest, and all other relief, general or special, legal
and equitable, as deemed by the Court, as a result of Defendants'
practice of cheating consumers out of thousands of dollars who
purchased the Defendants' products, pursuant to Unfair Competition
Law, Cal. Business & Professions Code, Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, Electronic Funds Transfer Act, Health Studio Services
Contract Act, Tort of Conversion of Personal Property, and
Financial Elder Abuse Act.

Fitness International is a California limited liability company,
with headquarters and principle place of business in California.
Fitness & Sports Clubs is a Delaware limited liability company
with its headquarters and principle place of business in
California. The Defendants are engaged in the business owning and
operating fitness and training facilities open to the public.

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., No. 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                 abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


FOCUS BICYCLES: Recalls Bicycles With Acros-Brand Upper Headsets
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 17, 2015
Posting date: December 17, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56280

This recall involves all 2014-2015 Focus Izalco Max bicycles with
Acros-brand upper headsets. The headsets are black with the word
"Acros" printed in white on the upper headset.

The headset could cause the carbon-fiber fork steer tube to crack,
posing a fall hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Focus Bicycles USA Inc. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these bicycles. The firm has received 11 reports of incidents,
including one reported injury in France. No incidents were
reported in the United States.

Approximately 31 units were sold in Canada, and approximately 470
units were sold in the United States

The recalled bicycles were sold from January 2014 to August 2015
at independent bicycle retailers and online.

Manufactured in Taiwan and Germany.

Distributor: Focus Bicycles USA, Inc.
             Carlsbad
             Alabama
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
contact Focus Bicycles to schedule a repair.

For more information, consumers may contact Focus Bicycles USA
Inc. toll free at 1-877-753-4480 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST, Monday
through Friday. Consumers may also visit the company's website and
click on "Izalco Max Recall" for more information.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

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

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

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


FRANK A REICHL: Faces Westmore Cty. Suit Over Sherman Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County, and all others
similarly situated v. Frank A. Reichl, Chemtrade Logistics Inc.,
Chemtrade Chemicals US LLC, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00170 (E.D. Pa., January 14, 2016), seeks to recover damages for
Defendants' violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants entered into an unlawful
conspiracy to eliminate competition in the liquid aluminum sulfate
market by agreeing not to compete for contracts for LAS, agreeing
to allocate customers for LAS and colluding to fix, raise,
stabilize, and maintain prices of LAS by submitting artificially
inflated bids to Plaintiff and class members during the class
period.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert D. Liebenberg, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC
      One South Broad St., Suite 2300
      Philadephia, PA 19107
      Tel: (215) 567-6565
      Fax: (215) 568-5872
      E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com

          - and -

      Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 907-0700
      Fax: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: GAsciolla@labaton.com

          - and -

      Paul Scarlato, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
      Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
      161 Washington Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      E-mail: scarlato@lawgsp.com


G3 GENUINE: Recalls Carbon Speed Tech Probes
--------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 17, 2015
Posting date: December 17, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness, Outdoor Living
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56354

This recall involves G3 Carbon Speed Tech & Carbon Speed Tech SL
Probes manufactured between 2011 and 2014.

  Model                             Model Number    Handle Color
  -----                             ------------    ------------
  G3 300 Carbon Speed Tech Probe    1631            Red
  G3 240 Carbon Speed Tech SL Probe 1911            Black
  G3 190 Carbon Speed Tech SL Probe 1635            Black

The bond between the ferrule and the bottom probe segment where
the tensioning cable originates can fail. Once the probe is
extended, if significant force is used in tensioning the internal
cable by pulling on the red or black T-handle, the internal
ferrule can loosen inside or disconnect from the lower segment,
causing the probe to weaken and possibly fail.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of this product.

G3 Genuine Guide Gear Inc. has received 29 reports of the probes
breaking.

Approximately 1292 units were sold in Canada.


The recalled product was sold from May 2011 to April 2014

Manufactured in China

Distributor: G3 Genuine Guide Gear Inc.
             Burnaby
             British Columbia
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled probes and
contact G3 Genuine Guide Gear Inc. for a replacement.

For more information, consumers can contact G3 customer service
toll free at 1-866- 924-9048, Monday to Friday from 8:00 am to
4:30 pm PST, by email or visit the firm's website.

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

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

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Dismissal of Ignition Switch Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------
Randall Chase, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Delaware's Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit
filed by General Motors shareholders over faulty ignition
switches.

After hearing arguments, the court affirmed a judge's ruling from
last summer.

The judge said the plaintiffs failed to satisfy a requirement that
a shareholder suing on behalf of a company and seeking to hold top
officials accountable must first demand that the board take action
itself, or demonstrate why such a demand would be futile.

The faulty switches have been blamed for scores of deaths and
injuries.  GM knew about them for more than a decade but didn't
recall them until early 2014.

The company said last year that the scandal, which prompted
hundreds of lawsuits and a federal criminal probe, has cost it
more than $5 billion.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Faciane" Suit Over Zofran(R)
--------------------------------------------------------
Ashae Faciane, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of
Z.A.P., a Minor v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-10055-FDS
(D. Mass., January 14, 2016) is an action for damages as a result
of her prenatal exposures to the generic bioequivalent form of the
prescription drug Zofran(R), also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a prescription drug that is used to treat patients who
were afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable -- that
suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in
cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC operates a pharmaceutical company located at 5
Crescent Dr., Philadelphia, PA 19112.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard A. Gurfein, Esq.
      GURFEIN DOUGLAS LLP
      11 Park Place, Suite #1100
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 406-1600
      Facsimile: (212) 406-4779


GREAT-WEST: Faces "Krikorian" Suit Over Revenue Sharing Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wahan Krikorian, On Behalf of the TPS Parking Management, LLC
401(k) Plan and On Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated Employee Benefit Plans v. Great-West Life & Annuity
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00094 (D. Colo.,
December 14, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' revenue sharing
agreements and similar arrangements with various mutual funds,
affiliates of mutual funds, mutual fund advisors, sub-advisors,
investment funds, including collective trusts, and other
investment advisors, instruments or vehicles, pursuant to which
Empower Retirement receives revenue sharing payments for its own
benefit from these mutual funds.

Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company is an insurance
company with its principal place of business in Greenwood Village,
Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
      James E. Miller, Esq.
      SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      65 Main Street
      Chester, CT 06412
      Telephone: (860) 526-1100
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      E-mail: lrubinow@sfmslaw.com
              jmiller@sfmslaw.com

         - and -

      Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
      Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
      SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 429-5272
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      Email: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com
             ktang@sfmslaw.com

        - and -

      Nathan Zipperian, Esq.
      SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216
      Weston, FL 33326
      Telephone: (954) 515-0123
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      Email: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com

        - and -

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


GRS MANAGEMENT: "Morales" Suit Seeks OT Pay & Damages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Margarita Morales, and others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff,
v. GRS Management, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Maria Barreto,
individually, and Jorge Barreto, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-20162-JAL (S.D. Fla., Miami Division, January 12,
2016), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages,
interests, costs and attorney's fees for Defendants' alleged
violations of overtime pay under the laws of the United States,
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

GRS Management is a Florida Corporation which regularly conducted
business by managing condominiums within Miami-Dade County,
Florida. The Company obtains and solicits funds from non-Florida
sources, accepts funds from non-Florida sources, uses telephonic
transmissions going over state lines to do its business, transmits
funds outside the State of Florida, and otherwise regularly
engages in interstate commerce, particularly with respect to its
employees. The annual gross revenue of GRS Management is estimated
at more than $500,000.00 per annum.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

              - and -

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


HAEMONETICS CORPORATION: Recalls Plasma Collection Systems
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 17, 2015
Posting date: January 14, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56630

Haemonetics has become aware of customers using harsh chemicals to
clean the pump rotor assembly.  Improper cleaning may damage the
pump rollers leading to device malfunction.

Affected products
A. Plasma Collection System 2
Lot or serial number: All serial numbers.
Model or catalog number: 06002-110-EXP-EW
                         06002-CP-110
                         06002-CP-NA
                         06002-CPL-110

Manufacturer: Haemonetics Corporation
              400 Wood Road
              Braintree
              02184
              Massachusetts
              UNITED STATES

B. MCS+LN9000 Centrifugal Blood Cell Separator
Lot or serial number: All serial numbers.
Model or catalog number: 09000-110-E
                         09000-110-EWC
                         9000-110-ED

Manufacturer: Haemonetics Corporation
              400 Wood Road
              Braintree
              02184
              Massachusetts
              UNITED STATES

C. MCS+LN8150 (SW Rev.F)
Lot or serial number: All serial numbers.
Model or catalog number: MCS+LN8150

Manufacturer: Haemonetics Corporation
              400 Wood Road
              Braintree
              02184
              Massachusetts
              UNITED STATES

D. ACP215 System
Lot or serial number: All serial numbers.
Model or catalog number: 02215-110-E

Manufacturer: Haemonetics Corporation
              400 Wood Road
              Braintree
              02184
              Massachusetts
              UNITED STATES


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Incorporated said in its Form 10-
Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2015, that the defendants in the case, In re Harman International
Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, have filed a petition for
a writ of certiorari seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of a Court
of Appeals ruling that reversed an order dismissing the case.

On October 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against Harman and certain of
our officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia (the "District Court") seeking compensatory damages
and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock
between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007 (the "Class
Period"). The original complaint alleged claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg,
Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was
entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it
would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common
stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during
the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the
reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed,
the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff
class significant losses.

On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and
certain of our officers in the District Court seeking compensatory
damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our
common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The
allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical
to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the
original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through
January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations
alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose "significant
problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts, production,
pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008. The amended
complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the first
time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would adversely
impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share in fiscal
2008," that led to a further decline in our share value and
additional losses to the plaintiff class.

On February 15, 2008, the District Court ordered the consolidation
of the Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative
closing of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption
of the consolidated action as In re Harman International
Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-
01757 (RWR). That same day, the District Court appointed the
Arkansas Public Retirement System as lead plaintiff ("Lead
Plaintiff") and approved the law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld
and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel.

On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated
Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5,
2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and
misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal
year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated
Complaint alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly
failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios,
personal navigation devices and our capital expenditures. The
Consolidated Complaint alleged that when Harman's true financial
condition became known to the market, the price of our common
stock declined significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff
class.

On July 3, 2008, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and the defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,
2008.

On September 5, 2012, the District Court heard oral arguments on
the defendants' motion to dismiss. At the request of the District
Court, on September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental
briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss.

On January 17, 2014, the District Court granted a motion to
dismiss, without prejudice, in the In re Harman International
Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Lead Plaintiff
appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (the "Court of Appeals") and, on June 23,
2015, the District Court's ruling was reversed and remanded for
further proceedings.

On July 23, 2015, the defendants filed a motion for a rehearing en
banc before the Court of Appeals, which was denied on August 26,
2015. The defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
seeking U.S. Supreme Court review on November 24, 2015. The
defendants also filed a motion to stay discovery pending the
disposition of their petition for a writ of certiorari on November
24, 2015, which was denied by the District Court on December 15,
2015.


HEALTH CARRIERS: Faces "Sanabria" Suit for FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Sanabria, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. Health Carriers Alliance LLC, National Health Hub
LLC, US Affordable Health Solutions LLC, Vertigen L.L.C., Direct
Health Solutions INC, Samuel A. Llanes, and Richard H. Leff, the
Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-60075-FAM (S.D. Fla., Fort Lauderdale
Division, January 12, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages, double damages/liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and other and further relief as
the Court deems equitable and just, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Health Carriers Alliance is a Florida Limited Liability
Company, having its main place of business in Broward County,
Florida, and was and is engaged in interstate commerce. National
Health Hub is a Florida Limited Liability Company, having its main
place of business in Broward County, Florida, and was and is
engaged in interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon Gibson, Esq.
          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503 5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270 5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
                 bgibson@saenzanderson.com


HEWLETT PACKARD: Faces "Araiza" Suit Over Labor Law Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Araiza, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise
1s COMPANY, a Delaware corporation and Does l-50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. RG15798244 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of
Alameda, December 29, 2015), seeks to recover premium wages,
minimum wages, and separation pay, pursuant to the Labor and
Business and Professions Codes.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) is a Delaware corporation. The
Company is an enterprise-focused organization with four divisions:
Enterprise Group (servers, storage, networking, consulting and
support), Enterprise Services, Software, and Financial Services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          Alice Kim, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 818 7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                 thomas@setarehlaw.com
                 alice@setarehlaw.com


HHGREGG INC: Interlocutory Appeal in Class Action Proceeds
----------------------------------------------------------
hhgregg, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's
interlocutory appeal in a class action lawsuit has been accepted.

The Company is the defendant in a class action lawsuit captioned,
Dwain Underwood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Gregg Appliances, Inc. and hhgregg, Inc., filed in the
Superior Court in Marion County, Indiana, where a former employee
alleged that the Company breached a contract by failing to
correctly calculate his (and other class members) incentive bonus.

On July 9, 2014, the judge granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification, and on July 17, 2015, the judge granted the
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, although no finding on
damages has yet been made.  The Company's interlocutory appeal was
accepted on October 23, 2015.

If the Company does not ultimately prevail in this case, the
potential liability is approximately $2.4 million based on those
individuals included in the class, excluding interest and other
fees which cannot be determined at this time. The Company believes
the loss is not probable, and thus, as of December 31, 2015, a
liability has not been recorded for this matter.


HOLLYWOOD PRODUCTION: "Caido" Suit Seeks Damages for Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Caido, an individual, Gerard Agbangnin, an individual, Julius
Mofor, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Hollywood Production
Center, LLC, and does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC6 05581 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of Los Angeles, Fla., December
29, 2015), seeks to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal
to the minimum wages unlawfully unpaid, and interest, nominal,
actual and compensatory damages, and injunctive relief, penalties,
and attorneys' fees, pursuant to Labor Code and Private Attorneys
General Act.

Hollywood Production Center, California Limited Liability Company,
provides office space to entertainment industry for immediate
occupancy of production, post-production, executive offices,
creative space and filming locations. The company offers executive
offices and suites, furnished office space, short term office
space, production office space, rental office space, on-site gym
with lockers and toiletries, conference rooms with tele-
conferencing, and phones and internet. Its clientele include 20th
Century Fox, Bravo, Comedy Central, Touchstone, and MTV. Hollywood
Production Center, LLC was founded in 2001 and is based in Los
Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tali Shaddow, Esq.
          Mark Steven Avila, Esq.
          AVILA & SHADDOW
          21800 Oxnard Street, Suite 1180
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 227 8610
          Facsimile: (818) 337 7265


HONDA: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Crash Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Engine
Units affected: 2792
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015600TC
ID number: 2015600
Manufacturer recall number: MK40

On certain motorcycles, engine vibration may cause the bank angle
sensor's wiring to rub on the wiring harness joint connector.
Continuous vibration between the bank angle sensor wiring and the
wire harness joint connector could cause an open circuit, which
could result in an engine stall while riding. An engine stall
could lead to a loss of stability of the motorcycle, which could
increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property
damage. Correction: Dealers will relocate the joint connector and
replace the bank angle sensor.

  Make         Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----         ----------------------
  HONDA        VT750C        2015, 2010, 2010, 2010
  HONDA        VT750CA       2013
  HONDA        VT750C2F      2010


HONDA: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 1328
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015601TC
ID number: 2015601

On certain motorcycles, the starter relay switch may have had
sealant incorrectly applied during assembly. This could result in
increased resistance across the main fuse, potentially
interrupting battery voltage to the electrical system. An
interruption of battery voltage to the electrical system could
cause the engine to either not start or stall while driving.
Increased resistance at the main fuse could also cause a fire,
potentially resulting in injury and/or property damage.

Correction: Dealers will inspect the starter relay switch, and
replace if necessary. Note: This is an expansion of recall 2015-
300.

  Make         Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----         ----------------------
  HONDA        CBR500RA      2014, 2015, 2015
  HONDA        CBR500R       2014
  HONDA        CB500FA       2014
  HONDA        CB500XA       2014


HONDA: Recalls CR-V 2003 Models Due to Defective Airbag
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 17990
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015602TC
ID number: 2015602
Manufacturer recall number: HM62

On certain vehicles, the passenger frontal airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the
passenger airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment
is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the
seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will replace airbag inflator.
Note: Note: This is an expansion of recall 2015-261. Honda Canada
has created a special Airbag Inflator Hotline for immediate
assistance. For more information, please contact: For Honda
Owners: 1-877-445-7754 For Acura Owners: 1-877-445-9844

  Make         Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----         ----------------------
  HONDA        CR-V          2003


HONEYMOON CORP: "Hutchinson" Seeks to Recover OT, Minimum Wage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn E. Hutchinson, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Honeymoon Corporation and
Stephen Rector, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00018-JRA (N.D. Ohio,
January 5, 2016), seeks actual damages for unpaid overtime
compensation and unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages equal in
amount to the unpaid overtime plus twice the amount of unpaid
minimum wages due, attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements and
further and additional relief for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201-219 and Ohio Minimum Wage Fair
Standards Act, Chapter 4111 and Section 34a, Article II of the
Ohio Constitution.

Honeymoon is restaurant in Akron, Ohio where Hutchinson was
employed as a waitress and, at times, as an hourly crew leader.
She was paid a straight hourly rate without overtime premium for
hours rendered in excess of 40 per work week. Defendants allegedly
failed to make, keep and preserve records of all of the hours
worked by its employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Thiel, Esq.
      75 Public Square Ste. 650
      Cleveland, Ohio 44113
      Tel: 216.452.9144
      Fax: 888.838.4529
      Email: daniel@danielthiel.com


IMS TRADING: Court Allows Plaintiff to File 2nd Amended Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted Plaintiff Marie
Dopico's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in
the case captioned, MARIE DOPICO, for Plaintiff and the class of
members defined herein Plaintiff, v. IMS TRADING CORP., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-1874 (PGS)(DEA) (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff brings the instant putative class action against
Defendant IMS Trading Corporation a/k/a IMS Pet Industries (IMS)
alleging that dog treats marketed and sold to pet owners by IMS
caused illness and/or death to dogs that consumed the product. The
matter was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey in March
2014. Shortly after removal, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.
The Amended Complaint contains the following Counts: Count I,
breach of express warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code
(UCC); Count II, breach of implied warranty under the UCC; Count
III, violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act; Count IV,
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; Count V, unjust
enrichment; Count VI, failure to warn (products liability), and
Count VII, defective design or manufacture (products liability).

IMS moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and in April 2015,
Judge Sheridan dismissed Counts II, III and V with prejudice as
being subsumed by the New Jersey Products Liability Act (NJPLA).

Plaintiff seeks to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) to add
two additional Plaintiffs, one a resident of New Jersey and the
other a resident of Arizona. The proposed SAC also adds certain
claims applicable to the Arizona-resident Plaintiff only. These
are as follows: (1) breach of implied warranty under the UCC
(Count II); (2) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
(NJCFA) (Count III); (3) unjust enrichment (Count V); and (4)
violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (Count VIII).
Defendant opposes the motion on the ground that Judge Sheridan
previously dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's claims for breach
of implied warranty, violation of the NJCFA, and unjust
enrichment.

In his Memorandum Order dated February 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/qCFgOjfrom Leagle.com, Judge Arpert concluded that
Defendant failed not met its burden to show prejudice, bad faith,
undue delay, or futility pursuant to Rule 15(a).  The Court
directed Plaintiff to file the Second Amended Complaint within 14
days of the entry of the Order.


Marie Dopico is represented by Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq. -
bnagel@nagelrice.com -- Randee M. Matloff, Esq. --
rmatloff@nagelrice.com -- NAGEL RICE, LLP

Dopico is also represented by:

     Michael J. Epstein, Esq.
     THE EPSTEIN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     340 W Passaic St.
     Rochelle Park, NJ 07662
     Tel: (201)845-5962

Defendants are represented by:

     Michael J. Marone, Esq.
     Michael David Celentano, Esq.
     Richard J. Williams, Jr., Esq.
     MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
     1300 Mt Kemble Ave.
     Morristown, NJ 07960
     Tel: (973)993-8100


INVENSENSE INC: Awaits Court Decision on Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------
InvenSense, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2015, that the parties in a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit are awaiting the
court's decision on a motion to dismiss.

In January and March of 2015, purported shareholders filed five
substantially similar class action complaints in the U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California against the Company and two
of the Company's current and former executives ("Class Action
Defendants") (Jim McMillan v. InvenSense, Inc., et al. Case No.
3:15-cv-00084-JD, filed January 7, 2015; William Lendales v.
InvenSense, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00142-VC, filed on
January 12, 2015; Plumber & Steamfitters Local 21 Pension Fund v.
InvenSense, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00249-BLF, filed on
January 16, 2015; William B. Davis vs. InvenSense, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00425-RMW, filed on January 29, 2015; and
Saratoga Advantage Trust Technology & Communications Portfolio v.
InvenSense et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01134, filed on March 11,
2015).

On April 23, 2015, those cases were consolidated into a single
proceeding which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California and captioned In re InvenSense,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00084-JD (the
"Securities Case"), and the Vossen Group was designated as lead
plaintiff. On May 26, 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint, which alleges that
the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding our business
results between July 29, 2014 and October 28, 2014, and seeks
unspecified damages along with plaintiff's costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees.

On June 25, 2015, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion
seeking dismissal of the case and a hearing on that motion was
held on October 7, 2015. The parties are awaiting the court's
decision.


JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces "Hall" Suit in La. Over Xarelto Drugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Pearson Hall and Paul L. Hall v. Janssen Research &
Development, LLC, f/k/a Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical
Research and Development, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00290
(E.D. La., January 12, 2016) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to provide adequate warning regarding the pharmacokinetic
and pharmacodynamic variability of Xarelto and its effects on the
degree of anticoagulation in a patient.

Janssen Research & Development, LLC is involved in the research,
development, sales, and marketing of pharmaceutical products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph D. Lane, Esq.
      J. Farrest Taylor, Esq.
      Angela J. Mason, Esq.
      111 E. Main Street
      Dothan, AL 36301
      Telephone: (334) 673-1555
      Facsimile: (334) 699-7229
      E-mail: JoeLane@CochranFirm.com


JPS COMPLETION: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JPS Completion Fluids, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-00035-FB
(W.D. Tex., January 14, 2016) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

JPS Completion Fluids, Inc. owns and operates an oilfield services
company in Mathis, San Patricio County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KB HOME: Reached Tentative Mediated Settlement in 2 Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
KB Home said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
November 30, 2015, that the Company has reached a tentative
mediated settlement with the plaintiff representatives in two wage
and hour cases.

In May 2011, a group of current and former sales representatives
filed a collective action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division
entitled Edwards, K. v. KB Home.  The lawsuit alleged that the
Company misclassified sales representatives and failed to pay
minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07).

In September 2012, the Edwards court conditionally certified a
nationwide class, and in May 2015, scheduled an initial trial
involving a portion of the plaintiffs for December 2015.

In September 2013, some of the plaintiffs in the Edwards case
filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court entitled Andrea L.
Bejenaru, et al. v. KB Home, et al.  The lawsuit alleged
violations of California laws relating to overtime, meal period
and rest break pay, itemized wage statements, waiting time
penalties and unfair business practices for a class of sales
representatives.

"Although the case involved a putative class of individuals who
were our sales representatives from September 2009 forward, the
Bejenaru case was not certified as a class action," the Company
said.

"In the second quarter of 2015, plaintiff representatives in the
Edwards and the Bejenaru cases claimed $66 million in compensatory
damages, penalties and interest, as well as injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs for both matters.  On November 18, 2015,
the Company reached a tentative mediated settlement with the
plaintiff representatives in both cases that remains subject to
judicial approval.

"We established an accrual for these matters in 2015, and
increased the accrual by an immaterial amount in the fourth
quarter to reflect the tentative settlement," the Company said.


KELLOGG CO: "Hawkins" File Suit for Breach of Implied Warranty
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shavonda Hawkins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Kellogg Company, Case 3:16-cv-00147-JAH-JMA
(S.D.Cal., January 21, 2016), is a complaint for injunctive
relief, abatement of nuisance, violations of the unfair
competition law, and breach of implied warranty in relation to the
Defendant's sale of "Trans Fat Cookies" (TF Cookies), which
allegedly contain or contained partially hydrogenated oil.

Kellogg manufactures, distributes, and sells a variety of cookie
products under the brand name Mother's Cookies (the "Trans Fat
Cookies" or "TF Cookies"), which contain or contained partially
hydrogenated oil ("PHO"). PHO is a food additive banned in many
parts of the world due to its artificial transfat content.
Artificial transfat is a toxin and carcinogen for which there are
many safe and commercially viable substitutes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
     David Elliot, Esq.
     THE WESTON FIRM
     1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
     San Diego, CA 92110
     Phone: (619) 798-2006
     Fax: (313) 293-7071
     E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com
             david@westonfirm.com


KELLY SERVICE: "Gaffers" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Gaffers, and all others similarly-situated v. Kelly
Service, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-10128 (E.D. Mich., January 14,
2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for
breach of contract.

Defendant Kelly Services, Inc. and its subsidiaries, offer a
comprehensive array of outsourcing and consulting services as well
as staffing on a temporary, temporary-to-hire, and direct-hire
basis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KLA-TENCOR CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "Hedgecock" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a complaint was
filed on October 28, 2015, in the California Superior Court for
Santa Clara County against KLA-Tencor, the members of the KLA-
Tencor Board, Lam Research, Merger Sub 1, and Merger Sub 2, which,
together with Merger Sub 1 and Lam Research, are referred to as
the "Lam Defendants." The action, captioned Hedgecock v. KLA-
Tencor Corp., et al., Case No. 115CV287329, was filed by a
purported KLA-Tencor stockholder as a purported class action on
behalf of all KLA-Tencor stockholders (excluding defendants and
their affiliates) against all defendants. In the complaint,
plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants (the KLA-Tencor
Board) breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
causing KLA-Tencor to agree to a merger transaction with the Lam
Defendants at an unfair price and pursuant to an unfair process,
and that the Lam Defendants aided and abetted such breaches.

On December 21, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, in
which plaintiff additionally alleges that the disclosures by KLA-
Tencor and Lam Research concerning the transaction are materially
misleading because they purportedly omit and/or misrepresent
certain information. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin or rescind KLA-
Tencor's transaction with the Lam Defendants, as applicable, as
well as an award of damages and attorney's fees, in addition to
other relief. KLA-Tencor believes this lawsuit has no merit and
intends to defend against it vigorously. KLA-Tencor has determined
a potential loss is reasonably possible however, based on its
current knowledge, KLA-Tencor does not believe that the amount of
such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably
estimable.


KLA-TENCOR CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "Karr" Action
---------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a complaint was
filed on October 28, 2015, in the California Superior Court for
Santa Clara County against KLA-Tencor, the members of the KLA-
Tencor Board, Lam Research, Merger Sub 1, and Merger Sub 2. This
action, captioned Karr v. KLA-Tencor Corporation, et al., Case No.
115CV287331, was filed by one of the same plaintiff's law firms as
in the Hedgecock action on behalf of a different purported KLA-
Tencor stockholder, as a purported class action on behalf of all
KLA-Tencor stockholders (excluding defendants and their
affiliates) against all defendants. The allegations in the Karr
complaint are similar to the allegations in the Hedgecock action.

In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants
(the KLA-Tencor Board) breached their fiduciary duties by, among
other things, causing KLA-Tencor to agree to a merger transaction
with the Lam Defendants at an unfair price and pursuant to an
unfair process, and that KLA-Tencor and the Lam Defendants aided
and abetted such breaches.

On December 21, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, in
which plaintiff additionally alleges that the disclosures by KLA-
Tencor and Lam Research concerning the transaction are materially
misleading because they purportedly omit and/or misrepresent
certain information. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin or rescind KLA-
Tencor's transaction with the Lam Defendants, as applicable, as
well as an award of attorney's fees, in addition to other relief.

KLA-Tencor believes this lawsuit has no merit and intends to
defend against it vigorously. KLA-Tencor has determined a
potential loss is reasonably possible however, based on its
current knowledge, KLA-Tencor does not believe that the amount of
such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably
estimable.


KLA-TENCOR CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "Rooney" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a complaint was
filed on November 10, 2015, in the Court of Chancery in the State
of Delaware against the members of the KLA-Tencor Board. This
action, captioned Rooney v. Wallace, et al., Case No. 11700, was
filed on behalf of a purported KLA-Tencor stockholder, as a
purported class action on behalf of all similarly-situated KLA-
Tencor stockholders (excluding defendants and their affiliates)
against all defendants. The allegations in the Rooney complaint
are similar to the allegations in the Hedgecock and Karr actions.
In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the defendants (the KLA-
Tencor Board) breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things, causing KLA-Tencor to agree to a merger transaction with
Lam Research at an unfair price and pursuant to an unfair process.

On December 23, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, in
which plaintiff additionally alleges that the disclosures by KLA-
Tencor and Lam Research concerning the transaction are materially
misleading because they purportedly omit and/or misrepresent
certain information. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin or rescind KLA-
Tencor's transaction with Lam Research, as applicable, as well as
an award of attorney's fees, in addition to other relief.

KLA-Tencor believes this lawsuit has no merit and intend to defend
against it vigorously. KLA-Tencor has determined a potential loss
is reasonably possible however, based on its current knowledge,
KLA-Tencor does not believe that the amount of such possible loss
or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable.


KLA-TENCOR CORP: Faces "Spoleto" Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a complaint was
filed on December 29, 2015, in the California Superior Court for
Santa Clara County against KLA-Tencor, the members of the KLA-
Tencor Board, Lam Research, Merger Sub 1, and Merger Sub 2. This
action, captioned Spoleto Corp. v. Wallace, et al., Case No.
115CV289552, was filed by another purported KLA-Tencor stockholder
as a purported class action on behalf of all KLA-Tencor
stockholders (excluding defendants and their affiliates) against
all defendants. The allegations in the Spoleto complaint are
similar to the allegations in the Hedgecock, Karr, and Rooney
actions. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the individual
defendants (the KLA-Tencor Board) breached their fiduciary duties
by, among other things, causing KLA-Tencor to agree to a merger
transaction with the Lam Defendants at an unfair price and
pursuant to an unfair process, and making disclosures concerning
the transaction that are materially misleading. Plaintiff alleges
that the Lam Defendants aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiff
seeks to enjoin or rescind KLA-Tencor's transaction with the Lam
Defendants, as applicable, as well as an award of damages and
attorney's fees, in addition to other relief.

KLA-Tencor believes this lawsuit has no merit and intends to
defend against it vigorously. KLA-Tencor has determined a
potential loss is reasonably possible however, based on its
current knowledge, KLA-Tencor does not believe that the amount of
such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably
estimable.


LA CAR GUY: Violated FLSA & Labor Code, "Madrid" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Willy Madrid, an individual; Juan Carlos Passarelli, an
individual, Jose Luis Anzora, an individual, the Plaintiffs, v.
L.A. Car Guy Body Shop, a business of unknown entity; Lexus Santa
Monica, a business of unknown entity, and Does 1-50, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. BC605686 (Cal. Super Ct., County of Los
Angeles, December 29, 2016), seek to recover business expenses,
unpaid compensation, declaratory and injunctive relief, civil
penalties and any other appropriate remedy, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Labor Code.

L.A. Car Guy Body Shop is a business entity of unknown form,
operating as an auto body repair in the greater Los Angeles area
with two locations located at 1020 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica,
and in 8635 Aviation Blvd Inglewood, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ophir J. Bitton, Esq.
          BITTON & ASSOCIATES
          7220 Melrose Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90046
          Telephone: (310) 356-1006
          Facsimile: (818) 524-1224


LA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Shatakeia Deonshay Coleman, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. LA Department of Veterans Affairs Northwest
Louisiana War Veterans Home, Case No. 5:15-cv-02912 (W.D. La.,
December 30, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

LA Department of Veterans Affairs Northwest Louisiana War Veterans
Home operates five Veterans homes in Los Angeles.

Shatakeia Deonshay Coleman is a pro se plaintiff.


LAW OFFICE OF RORY: Faces "Cover" Suit Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Cove, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Law Office of Rory W. Clark, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
09981 (C.D. Cal., December 30, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Law Office of Rory W. Clark operates a law firm located at 5743
Corsa Ave, Westlake Village, CA 91362.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amy Lynn Bennecoff Ginsburg, Esq.
      KIMMEL AND SILVERMAN PC
      30 East Butler Pike
      Ambler, PA 19002
      Telephone: (215) 540-8888
      Facsimile: (877) 788-2864
      E-mail: aginsburg@creditlaw.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Case Remanded to King County Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington remanded to the King
County Superior Court the case captioned, CHAN HEALTHCARE GROUP,
PS, a Washington professional corporation, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY
MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO. and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
foreign insurance companies, Defendants, Case No. C15-1705RSM
(W.D. Wash.).

On September 3, 2015, Plaintiff Chan Healthcare Group (Chan) filed
this proposed class action lawsuit in King County Superior Court.
In that Complaint, Plaintiff raised a claim for violation of
Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The claim relates to a
prior litigation and settlement in Illinois State Court, Lebanon
Chiropractic Clinis, P.C. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
(Lebanon). In that case, Liberty Mutual and Safeco insurance
companies settled a nationwide class action alleging Illinois
state law claims arising from Liberty's reductions to its bills on
Medpay insurance claims in Illinois. However, Lebanon purportedly
settled all claims of every health care provider in the country
for reductions taken to their medical bills by Liberty or Safeco
under any auto policy issued in any state in the country for a
period going back seven years and forward for the next five years.

On September 8, 2015, Chan filed a motion in the Safeco case
asking for a declaration that the Lebanon agreement, release and
waiver could not be applied to the Washington state law claims of
Washington providers. Chan also prepared a similar motion in the
Liberty case. The parties ultimately stipulated to have those
motions heard, along with others, before Judge Shaffer on October
30, 2015.

On October 28, 2015, Defendants removed the instant action to the
Court. Defendants allege that on October 26, 2015, they learned
for the first time, through Chan's Reply in support of its motion
for declaratory judgment, that Chan would be asserting a federal
due-process argument seeking a judicial declaration that the
Illinois judgment approving the Lebanon Settlement denied
Washington class members like Chan due process of law in violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Defendants assert that because the
due process argument acts as an independent claim, the Court has
jurisdiction to hear the matter.

In the motion, Plaintiff moved for remand and for fees arguing
that no federal question jurisdiction exists, the well-pleaded
complaint doctrine does not create jurisdiction, removal was
untimely, Defendants are judicially estopped from removal and
Defendants are collaterally estopped from bringing a federal due
process issue before this Court so therefore this Court lacks
jurisdiction.

Defendants respond that their removal was timely, Plaintiff's
"other paper" filed in state court demonstrates federal question
jurisdiction and the Court has jurisdiction over the matter.

In his Order dated February 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/v1d0vhfrom Leagle.com, Judge Martinez found that
Defendants' removal untimely because the September 25th motion
triggered the 30-day period under Section 1446(b)(3), requiring
the Defendants to file the Notice of Removal by October 25, 2015.
Defendants did not remove until October 28, 2015. The Court also
found that Plaintiff is entitled for fees and costs because
Defendants had no objectively reasonable basis for removal given
defense counsel's involvement with the related cases and their
acknowledgments about the Chan motions made to the court in the
Illinois appeal.

Plaintiff is directed to file a supplemental motion for fees and
costs no later than 14 days from the date of the Order.

Rafael Espinoza is represented by:

     Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
     Peter Winebrake, Esq.
     R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
     WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
     Twining Office Center, Suite 211
     715 Twining Road
     Dresher, PA 19025
     Tel: (215)884.2491

Atlas Railroad Construction, LLC is represented by Karen Gal-Or,
Esq. -- kgalor@jonesday.com -- Stanley Weiner, Esq. --
sweiner@jonesday.com -- Corey Clay, Esq. -- cclay@jonesday.com --
JONES DAY


LINDER PSYCHIATRIC: Class Certification Denied in "Stallsmith"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California denied Plaintiff's
motion for class certification and sustained Defendants'
objections in the case captioned, JOELLE STALLSMITH, Plaintiff, v.
LINDER PSYCHIATRIC GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-
CV-0667 CKD (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff alleges she was not paid minimum wage for all hours
worked, was not paid for overtime, was not provided meal and rest
breaks, and was not provided proper itemized wage statements.
Plaintiff seeks past due wages, interest and penalties. Plaintiff
contends that defendants pay employee clinicians only one hour for
each patient visit, regardless of how much time is spent preparing
the paperwork after each clinical visit. Plaintiff also assert
that clinicians are not paid for time spent preparing for patient
visits, preparing administrative paperwork, preparing clinical
notes after visits, responding to telephone calls from patients,
waiting for no-show patients, performing mandated reporting
requirements, waiting between patient visits, responding to
mandatory insurance audits, and attending staff meetings.

Plaintiff's proposed class comprises all employees of defendants
from November 18, 2010 to the present who are currently or
formerly employed as a clinician/provider and who are/were paid
pursuant to a "Piece Meal Employment Agreement" or a
"Participation Agreement." Brian Crone and Erick Turner appeared
for plaintiff. Alden Parker appeared for defendants. The parties
have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 636(c)(1).

Plaintiff here contends class certification is appropriate under
Rule 23(b)(3). Among other arguments, defendants contend that
plaintiff fails to demonstrate numerosity, commonality, or
typicality. Dispositive is plaintiff's failure to establish that
there are questions of law or fact common to the proposed class.

In her Opinion and Order dated January 22, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/ox2jaZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Delaney concluded that
plaintiff fails to demonstrate commonality of her claims because
the underlying claims upon which causes of action are predicated
lack commonality.

Joelle Stallsmith is represented by:

     Brian Samuel Crone, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN CRONE
     1104 Corporate Way, Suite 226
     Sacramento, CA 95831
     Tel: (916) 395-4464

          - and -

     Erick C. Turner, Esq.
     TURNER LAW GROUP
     110 W C St #2010,
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619)232-2311

Defendants are represented by Melissa Marie Whitehead, Esq. --
mwhitehead@weintraub.com -- Alden John Parker, Esq. --
aparker@weintraub.com -- WEINTRAUB TOBIN CHEDIAK COLEMAN GRODIN


LONG ISLAND: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Alfredo Reyes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Long Island Waterproofing Company, Long Island
Waterproofing Company, and John Puma, Case No. 2:15-cv-07400-SJF-
AKT (E.D.N.Y., December 30, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a waterproofing company in Long
Island, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil Frank, Esq.
      FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      500 Bi-County Boulevard, Suite 465
      Farmingdale, NY 11735
      Telephone: (631) 756-0400
      Facsimile: (631) 756-0547
      E-mail: support2@laborlaws.com


MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls Whoozit(R) Shake & Grasp Rattles
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 16, 2015
Posting date: December 16, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56326

This recall involves Manhattan Toy Whoozit(R) Shake & Grasp
rattle.  The wooden toy rattle features a rattling sound, a nose
that spins and colourful bead limbs that bend, twist and clack.
This toy is intended for children 6+ months.

The rattle can be identified by item number 213340 and UPC
011964475421.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that the rattle can break and release small parts, posing a
choking hazard to young children.

Neither Health Canada nor The Manhattan Group, LLC has received
any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use
of these rattles in Canada.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy
Safety Tips.

Approximately 534 of the recalled rattles were sold in Canada.

The recalled rattles were sold from February 2015 to December
2015.

Manufactured in Thailand.

Distributor: The Manhattan Group, LLC
             Minneapolis
             Minnesota
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately take the recalled rattles away from
children and return to the retail outlet where it was purchased
for a full refund.

For more information, consumers may contact The Manhattan Group,
LLC by telephone at 1-800-541-1345 or visit the firm's website.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/U1YDHe


MARINA BISCOCHOS: "Almonte" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Daniel Almonte v. Marina Biscochos Dominicanos Corp.,
Nanuer Quijada, and Manuel Quijada, Case No. 1:16-cv-00102-ILG-JO
(E.D.N.Y., January 8, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the retail bakery and catering business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N. Harrison Street
      Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


MASERATI: Recalls Granturismo Convertible 2016, 2016 Models
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 3
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015596TC
ID number: 2015596
Manufacturer recall number: 300

Certain vehicles may have been manufactured with a non-galvanize
treated main fuel delivery line, making them susceptible to
corrosion. Overtime, corroded fuel lines could potentially leak
which, in the presence of an ignition source, would increase the
risk of fire causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will replace the main fuel delivery lines with galvanized
lines.

  Make         Model                     Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----                     ----------------------
  MASERATI     GRANTURISMO CONVERTIBLE   2016, 2016


MCFADGEN'S BAKERY: Recalls Fiesta Spice Cakes Due to Tree Nut
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: McFadgen's Bakery
Distribution: Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia,
Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10255

  Brand     Common name    Size    Code(s) on     UPC
  name      -----------    -----   product        ---
  -----                            ----------
  Mom's     Fiesta Spice   500 g   All codes      0 61364 18704 2
            Cake                   where walnut
                                   is not
                                   declared on
                                   the label.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Recall C Class 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Steering
Units affected: 3047
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015594TC
ID number: 2015594

On certain vehicles, an error in the electric power steering
control unit software could result in the deactivation of the
electric power steering assist. This would unexpectedly increase
the steering effort force necessary to steer the vehicle at lower
vehicle speeds, which could increase the risk of a crash causing
injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will update
the power steering software.

  Make            Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----            -----        ----------------------
  MERCEDES-BENZ   C CLASS      2015


MICROSOFT CORP: Trial Looms in British Columbia Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a British Columbia
class action is scheduled for trial beginning in 2016.

"Three antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were
filed against us in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada
on behalf of various classes of direct and indirect purchasers of
our PC operating system and certain other software products
between 1999 and 2005," the Company said.

"In 2010, the court in the British Columbia case certified it as a
class action. After the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed
the case, in 2013 the Canadian Supreme Court reversed the
appellate court and reinstated part of the British Columbia case,
which is now scheduled for trial beginning in 2016. The other two
cases are inactive."


MICROSOFT CORP: U.S. Cell Phone Litigation Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that trial court
proceedings related to the U.S. cell phone litigation are stayed
pending resolution of an appeal.

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network
operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior
Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who
allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their
brain tumors and other adverse health effects.  Microsoft has
assumed responsibility for these claims as part of Nokia
Corporation's ("Nokia") Devices and Services business ("NDS")
acquisition and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants.
Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and are consolidated for
certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining 10 cases are stayed.

In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from
the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines
("FCC Guidelines") are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs
allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC
Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went
into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy
to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines.

In 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to exclude
plaintiffs' expert evidence of general causation on the basis of
flawed scientific methodologies. In 2014, the court granted in
part defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation
experts. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal. The
District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed to hear en banc
defendants' interlocutory appeal challenging the standard for
evaluating expert scientific evidence. Trial court proceedings are
stayed pending resolution of the appeal.


MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Not Yet Active
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that litigation is not
yet active in the Canadian cell phone class action as several
defendants remain to be served.

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network
operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of
Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours,
including a subclass of users with brain tumors. Microsoft was
served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted
for the Nokia defendants. The litigation is not yet active as
several defendants remain to be served.


MEREDITH CORP: Defending Class Suits over Media General Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Corporation is defending shareholder class action
lawsuits over the Company's merger agreement with Media General,
Inc., Meredith said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015.

On January 27, 2016, the Company and Media General, Inc. (Media
General) terminated their merger agreement under which the
companies would have combined to form Meredith Media General.  In
exchange for terminating the merger agreement, the Company
received $60.0 million in cash, which will be recognized as income
in the Company's third quarter of fiscal 2016, and an opportunity
to negotiate for the purchase of certain broadcast and digital
assets currently owned by Media General.

Between September 21, 2015 and October 21, 2015, four purported
shareholders of Meredith filed putative class action lawsuits in
Iowa state and federal court against Meredith, members of the
Meredith board of directors, New Holdco, Merger Sub 1, Merger Sub
2, and Media General.

The three state court cases are captioned Agans v. Meredith
Corporation, et al., Case No. 05771 EQCE078935, Sneed v. Meredith
Corporation, et al., Case No. 05771 EQCE079057, and Martin v.
Meredith Corporation, et al., Case No. 05771 CVCV050706 and were
all filed in Polk County, Iowa. The federal case is captioned
Mundy v. Lacy, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00371 and was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

The complaints in all four cases generally allege that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
plaintiffs and the putative class by failing to properly value
Meredith, failing to take steps to maximize the value of Meredith,
and approving deal protection provisions in the merger agreement.
In addition, the plaintiffs in the Mundy litigation filed an
amended complaint that also alleges that Meredith and the
individual defendants caused the filing of a false and misleading
registration statement, and assert claims under Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 related to the filing
of the registration statement. The plaintiffs also claim that
Meredith, Media General, New Holdco, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2
aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches. The
complaints generally seek a declaration that the cases should be
maintained as a class action, an injunction enjoining the
transaction, rescission of the merger agreement, the creation of a
constructive trust, an accounting of all damages, and an award of
attorneys' fees, expert fees, and costs.

Meredith believes that the claims asserted in each of these
actions are without merit and intends to defend each of them
vigorously.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Kato" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Kato, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. a/k/a Midland Funding, LLC,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00002 -MKB-MDG (E.D.N.Y., January 1, 2016) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates a financial services
company that helps consumers resolve past-due financial
obligations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan J. Sasson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
      2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 339-0856
      Facsimile: (347) 244-7178
      E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Barbee" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Barbee, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00001-KM-JBC
(D.N.J., January 1, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates a financial services
company that helps consumers resolve past-due financial
obligations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
      17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
      Rutherford, NJ 07070
      Telephone: (201) 507-6300
      E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


MILLSTONE KFC INC: "Cordoba" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ernesto L. Cordoba and Placido Luis, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Millstone KFC, Inc.
d/b/a KFC, JDDS Food LLC, Sanj Kanwar and Atul Patel, Defendants,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00059-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., January 5, 2016), seeks
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and further legal
and equitable relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq. and the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. Sec. 34:11-56(a) et seq.

Defendants employed Plaintiffs as kitchen/food service workers at
their restaurants. Cordoba and Luis often worked in excess of 70
hours per week without overtime compensation.

Millstone KFC, Inc. is a New Jersey Corporation with its main
business address at 564 Monmouth Road, Cream Ridge, NJ 08514. It
operates a KFC franchise located at Brier Hill Court, Building C
Suite 208, East Brunswick, NJ 09916.

JDDS Food LLC is a New Jersey Domestic Corporation with its
principal place of business at 564 Monmouth Road, Cream Ridge,
NJ 08514.

Sanjiv Kanwar and Atul Patel co-own these companies, all operating
KFC fast food restaurants franchises.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Harrison, Esq.
      HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOC., LTD
      110 State Highway 35, Suite 10
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Tel: 888-239-4410
      Email: nycotlaw@gmail.com


MITSUBISHI FUSO: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 1240
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015597TC
ID number: 2015597
Manufacturer recall number: C1008210

On certain vehicles, the fuel return hose could deteriorate when
subjected to various chemicals and lubricants, such as those used
when cleaning the vehicle or used in certain rear body
applications. If the fuel return hose were to deteriorate, it
could swell and come off. This would result in a fuel leak, which
in the presence of an ignition source, could result in a fire.
Correction: Dealers will inspect the fuel return hose. If a
defective hose is found installed, it will be replaced with an
improved hose.

  Make                Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----                -----      ----------------------
  MITSUBISHI FUSO     FEC52      2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
  MITSUBISHI FUSO     FEC72      2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
  MITSUBISHI FUSO     FEC92      2012, 2013, 2014


NANCY'S RESTAURANT: "Velasquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anibal Velasquez, and all others similarly-situated v. Nancy's
Restaurant and David Sanders, Case No. 2:16-cv-00250 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 17, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N. Harrison Street
      Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Tel: (201) 687-9977
      Fax: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


NATURAL HEALTH: Faces "Li" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liangbin Li, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Natural Health Trends Corp., Chris T. Sharng, and
Timothy S. Davidson, Case No. 2:16-cv-00309 (C.D. Cal., January
14, 2016) 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.

Natural Health Trends Corp. operates as an international direct
selling and e-commerce company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (818) 532-6499
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

         - and -

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


NETFLIX INC: March 17 Oral Argument Set in Class Action Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that oral argument has been
set for March 17, 2016, in an appeal from the dismissal of a
securities class action lawsuit in California.

On January 13, 2012, the first of three purported shareholder
class action lawsuits was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors. Two additional
purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the same
court on January 27, 2012 and February 29, 2012 alleging
substantially similar claims.  These lawsuits were consolidated
into In re Netflix, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:12-cv-
00225-SC, and the Court selected lead plaintiffs.

On June 26, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
which alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The Court
dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend on
February 13, 2013. Lead plaintiffs filed a first amended
consolidated complaint on March 22, 2013. The Court dismissed the
first amended consolidated complaint with prejudice on August 20,
2013, and judgment was entered on September 27, 2013.

Lead plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and
requested leave to file a second amended complaint on October 25,
2013. On January 17, 2014, the Court denied that motion.

On February 18, 2014, lead plaintiffs appealed that decision to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, oral
argument has been set for March 17, 2016.

Management has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible
however, based on its current knowledge, management does not
believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of
potential loss is reasonably estimable.


NORMANDIN'S: Court Denies Attorney-Client Privilege in Emails
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California denied Normandin's
request to declare the email "Jouvenat 'generated' work-product
emails" as attorney-client privilege in the case captioned, ALAN
BRINKER, Plaintiff, v. NORMANDIN'S, et al., Defendants, Case No.
14-CV-003007-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

Alan Brinker sues Normandin's d/b/a Normandin Chrysler Jeep Dodge
Ram and OneCommand, Inc. for alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Normandin provided Brinker a
privilege log which identified certain documents Normandin did not
intend to produce. Brinker disputed whether some of those
documents could properly be withheld. Brinker and Normandin
attempted to resolve the dispute but they were unable to do so.
The parties therefore filed discovery dispute joint report (DDJR)
1.

Brinker claims three different types of documents have been
improperly withheld: (1) documents withheld for "Privacy" and
"Trade Secret" reasons; (2) documents withheld on the basis of
attorney-client privilege but that are not communications between
attorneys and clients; and (3) documents withheld on the basis of
attorney-client privilege but that were also sent to non-clients.

Normandin asked the court to conclude that the email Jouvenat
"generated" work-product emails in his capacity as an ESI
consultant is protected work product prepared in anticipation of
litigation or for trial. Normandin argues privilege applies to
confidential attorney-client communications which are contained in
emails between Normandin's employees and that that Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(b)(3)(A) attaches attorney-client privilege to
all emails sent to or written by a consultant hired by counsel.

In his Order dated January 22, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/XnwPw2from Leagle.com, Judge Lloyd concluded that
the materials requested by Brinker are relevant and that the
burden of producing those materials would be proportional to the
needs of the case. Normandin has not carried its burden of proof
for any work-product designation  and fails to persuade the court
that Jouvenat was actually retained as a consultant and tasked
with the creation of work product.

Normandin is directed to produce the documents requested by
Brinker in DDJR 1 by February 20, 2016.

Alan Brinker is represented by Beth E. Terrell, Esq. --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Adrienne McEntee, Esq. --
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com -- Allyson Janay Ferguson, Esq. --
jferguson@terrellmarshall.com -- Mary Bondy Reiten, Esq. --
mreiten@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
Michael Francis Ram, Esq. -- mram@rocklawcal.com -- RAM, OLSON,
CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP

Normandin's represented by Andrew Stearns, Esq. --
astearns@boglawyers.com -- BUSTAMANTE & GAGLIASSO

Onecommand, Inc.  is represented by Sean P. Flynn, Esq. --
sflynn@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES, LLP & Steven Charles
Coffaro, Esq. -- steve.coffaro@kmklaw.com -- KEATING MUETHING AND
KLEKAMP PLL


OSI SYSTEMS: $15,000,000 Settlement Granted Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
OSI Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a California court
has entered final judgment approving the $15 million settlement
and dismissing, with prejudice, all claims against the defendants
in a securities class action.

On December 12, 2013, a class action complaint was filed against
the Company and certain of its officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (the
"Court") captioned Roberti v. OSI Systems, Inc., et al. (the
"Securities Class Action").

Following mediation, the parties to the litigation entered into a
stipulation and agreement of settlement, which was filed with the
Court on August 21, 2015 and provides for the resolution of all of
the pending claims in the Securities Class Action (the
"Settlement").   Neither the Company nor the individual defendants
conceded any wrongdoing or liability, and continue to believe that
they have meritorious defenses to all claims alleged in the
Securities Class Action.

Pursuant to the Settlement, the Company will pay $15.0 million
(the "Settlement Amount") for a full and complete release of all
claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company
and/or the other defendants in the Securities Class Action.  On
December 21, 2015, the Court entered final judgment approving the
Settlement and dismissing, with prejudice, all claims against the
defendants in the Securities Class Action.

The Company expects that the Settlement Amount will be fully
covered and funded by the Company's insurers pursuant to the
applicable insurance policies.


PATINA RESTAURANT: Faces Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Uzzol Siddiky, and all others similarly-situated v. Patina
Restaurant Group, LLC aka RA Patina Restaurants, LLC dba Lincoln
Ristorante, Case No. 1:16-cv-00328 (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2016),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wage
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Defendant owns and operates a restaurant known as "Lincoln
Ristorante" located in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeanne M. Christensen, Esq.
      Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Tel: (212) 257-6800
      Fax: (212) 257-6845
      E-mail: jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com
              trahman@wigdorlaw.com


PGA TOUR: N.D. Cal. Judge Throws Out PGA Caddies' Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
a federal judge in San Francisco dismissed with prejudice
professional caddies' proposed class action demanding a cut of the
$50 million annual ad revenue the PGA Tour makes from selling
corporate logos on caddies' bibs.

Caddies sign contracts for their work are not just "human
billboards," U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said in his Feb.
11 order.

Eighty-three caddies sued the PGA Tour in February 2015, seeking a
cut of the ad revenue the Tour makes from corporate logos on bibs
that caddies wear without compensation.

Lead plaintiff William Michael Hicks has caddied for more than 30
years, working for Payne Stewart, Greg Norman, Steve Stricker and
Justin Leonard.

The PGA Tour requires caddies to wear bibs with logos during
tournaments, and also may use the caddies' images and bibs in
television ads.

The caddies claimed the bib requirement violated their contracts
with the Tour, violated their "right of publicity," and breached
federal antitrust and trademark laws.

But Chhabria ruled in December that the caddies incorrectly
defined the market in the lawsuit, which alleged they received no
ad revenue and never consented to the Tour's commercial use of
their likenesses and images.

"I think your argument depends on this really artificial
definition of the market that you've concocted," Chhabria said at
a December hearing.

Class attorney Chris Gaduroy argued that the market for
endorsements displayed during tournaments was more valuable and
distinct from other forms of endorsements, including TV
commercials and print ads in golf magazines.  Viewers' eyes were
fixed on the screen during live play, as opposed to commercials,
Gaduroy said, which can be tuned out or ignored.

But Chhabria, acknowledging the differences between the forms of
endorsements, ruled that the caddies failed to explain how live-
play endorsements were so distinct that they formed a separate
market.

"I think you've kind of gerrymandered the market to try to
shoehorn this dispute into an antitrust claim," Chhabria said.

Chhabria allowed the caddies to submit a brief on their breach of
contract claim. But on Tuesday, Chhabria dismissed that claim with
prejudice after the proposed class had more than doubled to
include 168 caddies.

Chhabria said the caddies signed contracts with the Tour and could
not claim that corporate sponsorship on bibs made them "human
billboards."

"Even if this contract language might appear susceptible to two
different interpretations when considered in isolation, there is
only one reasonable interpretation when the language is considered
in the context of this case," Chhabria wrote.

Chhabria said that caddies have been required to wear the bibs
"for decades."

"So caddies know when they enter the profession, that wearing a
bib during tournaments is part of the job," the ruling states.
"For that reason, there is no merit to the caddies' contention
that contracts somehow prevent the Tour from requiring them to
wear bibs." Chhabria was not entirely unsympathetic to the
caddies.

"The caddies' overall complaint about poor treatment by the Tour
has merit, but this federal lawsuit about bibs does not," he
wrote.

Should the caddies appeal, it will go to the Ninth Circuit.

The case captioned, WILLIAM MICHAEL HICKS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PGA TOUR, INC., Defendant. Case No. 15-cv-00489- VC (N.D. Cal.).


R.J. REYNOLDS: 11th Cir. to Hear Age-Bias Case En Banc
------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed to
rehear en banc claims that R.J. Reynolds rejected a middle-aged
man's sales rep application six times in favor of younger
applicants.

Richard Villarreal says he first applied online for a "territory
manager" sales rep position with R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in
November 2007, when he was 49.  After allegedly receiving no
response from R.J. Reynolds for more than two years, Villarreal
filed an age discrimination charge with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission in May 2010.  Villarreal meanwhile applied
and was rejected for a territory manager position five more times,
he claims, later adding that allegation to his complaint.

On April 2, 2012, the EEOC declined to take action against R.J.
Reynolds, and sent Villarreal a right-to-sue notice, according to
court records.

Villarreal then filed an age discrimination class action against
R.J. Reynolds, consulting firm Pinstripe Inc. and now-dismissed
CareerBuilder LLC in Northern Georgia Federal Court.

Noting that he failed to file his discrimination charge within 180
days of the discriminatory act, as required by the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Villarreal's complaint
says the limitations period should be tolled until April 2010.

Villarreal says the facts necessary to support his discrimination
charge could not have been apparent until less than a month before
he filed it.  But a federal judge partially dismissed the
complaint in January 2015, finding that Villarreal failed to
allege what those facts were, that only current employees can sue
for disparate impact, and that all claims related to hiring
decisions before Nov. 19, 2009, are untimely.

Villarreal moved to amend, arguing that he had not known until
April 2010 that R.J. Reynolds used guidelines to target candidates
"2-3 years out of college," but to "stay away from" candidates
with "8-10 years" of prior sales experience.

But the court refused to let him amend, finding that he never
contacted R.J. Reynolds to find out why his application was
rejected and failed to allege that the firm concealed anything.

Villarreal voluntarily dismissed his remaining claim and appealed.

A divided 11th Circuit reversed the lower court's ruling on Nov.
30, 2015.

"As it turns out, R.J. Reynolds's hiring statistics suggest a
pattern of hiring younger applicants," Judge Beverly Martin wrote
for the three-judge panel. "Of the 1,024 people hired as territory
managers from September 2007 to July 2010, only 19 were over the
age of 40."

The ADEA authorizes disparate impact claims by job applicants, the
ruling states.

"In fact, the statute is unclear on this question," Martin wrote.
"However, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency
charged with enforcing the ADEA, has reasonably and consistently
interpreted the statute to cover claims like Mr. Villarreal's. We
must defer to that reading rather than venture our own guess about
what the statute means."

The panel also ruled last November that Villarreal was entitled to
equitable tolling.

But Judge Clyde Roger Vinson dissented, holding that tolling is
only appropriate in the case of "extraordinary circumstances that
are both beyond his control and unavoidable with due diligence."

"Mr. Villarreal does not even claim that there are any
extraordinary circumstances in this case (like fraud,
misinformation, or deliberate concealment by R.J. Reynolds) that
should warrant this extraordinary and sparingly-used remedy,"
Vinson wrote.

On Feb. 10, the 11th Circuit, led by Chief Judge Ed Carnes,
nonetheless granted a petition for rehearing en banc and vacated
the panel's November opinion.

Villarreal's attorney, Jim Finberg with Altshuler Berzon in San
Francisco, said the 11th Circuit's decision was "well reasoned and
correctly decided, and will be re-affirmed by the entire court en
banc."

R.J. Reynolds spokesman Bryan Hatchell declined to comment on the
ruling.

Pinstripe did not immediately return a request for comment emailed
Feb. 11.

The tobacco giant's parent company, Reynolds American Inc.,
reportedly reaped $3 billion in the fourth quarter of 2015, and
more than $10.6 billion for the full year.

The case captioned, No. 15-10602, RICHARD M. VILLARREAL, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff -
Appellant, versus R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, PINSTRIPE, IN
INC., Defendants - Appellees, CAREERBUILDER, LLC, Defendant (11th
Cir.).


REGIS CORP: Faces Consumer & Wage and Hour Actions
--------------------------------------------------
Regis Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has
been faced with allegations of purported class-wide consumer and
wage and hour violations.

"Litigation is inherently unpredictable and the outcome of these
matters cannot presently be determined," the Company said.
"Although the actions are being vigorously defended, the Company
could in the future incur judgments or enter into settlements of
claims that could have a material adverse effect on its results of
operations in any particular period."


REGULARLY TECH: Illegally Procures Consumer Reports, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Casano, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Regularly Technology Corporation, Case No.
8:16-cv-00096-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., January 14, 2016) arises from
the Defendant's practice of procuring consumer reports for
employment purposes, without first making proper disclosures.

Regularly Technology Corporation operates facilities across the
state of Florida, including a location on Spring Hill.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donna V. Smith, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
      Tampa, FL
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com


RORY W. CLARK: Faces "Cove" 2nd Suit Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Cove, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Law Office of Rory W. Clark, et al., Case
No. 5:16-cv-00003-VAP-KK (C.D. Cal., December 30, 2015) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Law Office of Rory W. Clark operates a law firm located at 5743
Corsa Ave, Westlake Village, CA 91362.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amy Lynn Bennecoff Ginsburg, Esq.
      KIMMEL AND SILVERMAN PC
      30 East Butler Pike
      Ambler, PA 19002
      Telephone: (215) 540-8888
      Facsimile: (877) 788-2864
      E-mail: aginsburg@creditlaw.com


SELECT AUTO: Faces Spanish-Speaking Workers' FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Ilmer Linares Martinez, Ronaldo Ordonez, and Bryan Argola On
behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated v. Select Auto
Imports Incorporated, and Mohammad Hajimohammad a.k.a Mike
Hajimohammad, Case 1:16-cv-00073-TSE-JFA (E.D.Va., January 21,
2016), was brought on behalf of Spanish-speaking workers with
little or no fluency in either spoken or written English, to
require Defendants to pay back wages owed to them and to the
Plaintiff Class, which Defendants failed to pay in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants Select and Mohammad have had two or more employees who
have regularly handled and worked on goods and/or materials that
have been moved in or produced for commerce, such as machines,
automobiles, equipment, tools, supplies and cleaners that were
transported or produced out-of-state.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thomas F.Hennessy, Esq.
     4015 Chain Bridge Road Suite 6
     Fairfax, Virginia 22030
     Phone: (703) 865-8836
     Fax: (703) 865-7633
     E-mail: th@virginiawage.com


STARWOOD HOTELS: "Dugas" Suit Seeks Damages over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Dugas, Plaintiffs, vs. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide
Inc., HST Lessee San Diego, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership,
HST GP San Diego, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Defendants, Case No. 16CV0014 GPC BLM (S.D.Cal., January 5, 2016),
seeks declaratory and equitable relief, attorneys' fees and pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest for violation of Section
17533.7 of the California Business & Professions Code.

Starwood had disclosed that hackers had breached its database
containing sensitive customer records including names, credit card
numbers, security codes and expiration dates. Dugas has been and
is a customer at the Sheraton San Diego Hotel and Marina operated
by the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges that the credit card that
he used for purchases at the Sheraton San Diego restaurants and
spa was used for unauthorized purchases.

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., is a Maryland
Corporation and is the franchisor of the Sheraton brand.

HST Lessee San Diego, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership, and HST
GP San Diego, LLC operate the Sheraton San Diego Hotel and Marina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Will Lemkul, Esq.
      MORRIS, SULLIVAN & LEMKUL LLP
      9915 Mira Mesa Blvd., Suite 300
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (858) 566-7600
      Fax: (858) 566-6602

           - and -

      Mark Potter, Esq.
      Dennis Price, Esq.
      POTTER HANDY LLP
      9845 Erma Road, Suite 300
      San Diego, CA 92131
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (858) 375-7385
      Fax: (858) 422-5191
      Email: mark@potterhandy.com
             dennisp@potterhandy.com


STEVE BEATTIE: "Calderon" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Calderon, and all others similarly-situated v. Steve Beattie,
Inc. and Does 1 to 100, Case No. BC605811 (Cal. Super., December
31, 2015), is brought against the Defendants over unpaid wages,
unpaid overtime, failure to authorize or permit rest periods,
failure to provide wage statements in violations of the California
Labor Code.

The Defendant offers residential painting services.

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


TOP HANDS: "Triplett" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Triplett, and all others similarly-situated v. Top Hands
Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00016 (S.D. Tex., January
14, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant provides oilfield services to oil and gas
exploration companies throughout South Texas and the vast Eagle
Ford Shale area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRADEHOMES SHOE: "Demoulin" Suit Alleges FACTA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Demoulin, and all others similarly-situated v. Tradehomes
Shoe Stores, Inc., Case No. 2015CH18850 (Ill. Cir., December 31,
2015), seeks statutory damages, attorney's fees and costs for
Defendant's violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant has negligently,
recklessly and/or willfully violated FACTA and failed to protect
Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, against identity theft,
credit card fraud, and debit card fraud by continuing to print the
first six digits and the last four digits of the card number on
receipts provided to debit card and credit card cardholders
transacting business with Defendant.

The Defendant owns and operates five Tradehome stores located in
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 440-0020
      Fax: (312) 440-4180
      E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com


TRADER JOE'S: Faces "Magier" Suit Over Under-filled Canned Tuna
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Magier, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Trader Joe's Co. and Trader Joe's East,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-CV-00043-PGG (S.D.N.Y, January 5,
2016), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgement
interest, restitution and all other forms of monetary relief,
injunctive relief and attorney's fees and costs resulting from
negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of
implied and express warranty of merchantability and in violation
of the New York General Business Law, Sec. 349, 350 (Deceptive
Practices or Acts).

Plaintiff alleges that Trader Joe's underfills their house brand
canned tuna.

Trader Joe's Co. is a California corporation located in Monrovia,
California with 457 stores in 40 states. Its subsidiary, Trader
Joe's East, Inc. is a Massachusets corporation located in Boston.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
      Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
      Neal D. Deckant, Esq.
      888 7th Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 989-9113
      Fax: (212) 989-9163
      Email: scott@bursor.com
             jmarchese@bursor.com
             jarisohn@bursor.com
             ndeckant@bursor.com


TRANSMISSION 4: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Paz" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Mendez Paz, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. Transmission 4
Less Co. of America and Salim N. Safran, Individually, Defendants,
Case: 1:16-cv-00895 (N.D.Ill., January 21, 2016), was brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, commonly known as the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law for Defendants' alleged failure to pay Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees proper wages.

Transmission 4 Less is a transmission repair shop in Chicago.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Susan Best, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Phone: 312-445-9662
     E-mail: sbest@yourclg.com


TTI FLOOR: Faces Consumer Class Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Hoover, by its corporate
entity TTI Floor, faces a federal class action in Trenton, N.J.,
over it "terms & conditions" that purport to bar consumers from
seeking redress with respect to unsafe products.


TWO COUSIN'S: "Maldonado" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Maldonado, Plaintiff, v. Two Cousin's Fish Market, Inc.,
Wholesale and Two Cousin's Fish Market, Inc., Retail and Brian
O'Donohoe, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-CV-00045-SJF-SIL, (S.D.N.Y.,
January 5, 2016), seeks liquidated and/or punitive damages, award
of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's
fees and statutory penalties for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws.

Two Cousin's Fish Market, Inc., Wholesale and Two Cousin's Fish
Market, Inc., Retail, are New York Corporations located in
Freeport, New York owned by O'Donohoe.

Plaintiff worked as a fish preparer and claims to have worked in
excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Tel: (201) 687-9977
      Fax: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: N.D. Cal. Judge May Toss Cabbies' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that, a federal judge in San Francisco said Feb. 11 he was
inclined to dismiss a case claiming that Uber made false claims
about the safety of its rides.

A group of 19 cab companies sued Uber Technologies in March 2015,
claiming the ride-sharing company lied about offering "the safest
rides on the road" on its website, in advertisements and in media
statements.

This past month, the California Public Utilities Commission fined
an Uber subsidiary $7.6 million for delaying responses to requests
for safety information and data.

At Feb. 11 hearing, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said he was
inclined to dismiss the class action because the case did not seem
like it belonged in Federal Court.

"I wonder what a case concerning California's unfair competition
law is doing in the federal circuit," Tigar said.

Tigar also said that the plaintiffs' litigation seemed to
interfere with the state utility commission's ongoing proposed
imposition of new regulations on Uber, which include tight
inspections on how the company handles its drivers' criminal
records.

Harold Jaffe, who argued for the plaintiffs, disagreed.

"Ongoing review doesn't mean that all conduct under review is in
the exclusive jurisdiction of the PUC, any more than the PUC would
necessarily have jurisdiction if I was an Uber driver and I ran
counsel over at the crosswalk by going through a red light," Jaffe
said.

Tigar noted that many of the allegations in the plaintiffs'
complaint refer specifically to actions taken by the commission,
and wondered whether those particular allegations were actionable
in court.

Uber also moved to strike from the plaintiffs' complaint
allegations for the purpose of "context" and "background," but
Tigar seemed skeptical.

"I don't like motions to strike, and context and background are
permissible reasons to put things in a complaint," he said.

Although Tigar tentatively dismissed the complaint, he said that
he would not necessarily do so with prejudice. Jaffe's office is
in Oakland.

Uber is represented by Marshall Wallace, Esq. --
mwallace@allenmatkins.com -- with Allen Matkins in San Francisco.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Two Top Executives Face Charges in France
------------------------------------------------------------
Philippe Sotto, writing for The Associated Press, reports that two
top Uber executives appeared on Feb. 11 in court in charges that
could send them to prison and offer the ride-hailing company one
of its most serious legal challenges to date in France.

The San Francisco-based company shut down the low-cost UberPop
service, which connected users to non-professional drivers and
prompted the criminal charges.  But it continues to operate in
France despite repeated strikes and sometimes violent tensions
with taxi drivers, and is not outlawed entirely as it is in Spain
and Italy.

Charges against Thibaud Simphal, general manager for France, and
Pierre-Dimitri Gore-Coty, chief for Western Europe, include
running an illegal taxi operation, commercial deception and
violation of French privacy law by illegally stocking, processing
and recording personal information.

They face up to five years in prison and a 300,000 euro ($338,000)
fine each if convicted.  Uber France is also charged and faces a
1.5 million-euro ($1.7 million) fine.

The two managers were notified of the charges directly by the
Paris prosecutor's office just after being held in custody for
hours last June.

A spokesman for Uber France, Thomas Meister, said it is "extremely
unusual to be summoned to appear in court directly by a
prosecutor" after a police investigation.  He also questioned the
lack of oversight from an investigating judge or the French agency
that specializes in privacy violations.

"Our lawyers don't even know what we are exactly blamed for,"
especially in the privacy counts, Mr. Meister told The Associated
Press ahead of the trial.

More than 200 UberPop drivers have been fined under fast-track
procedures in France and one was handed a 15-day suspended prison
term, but the Feb. 11 trial is the first for Uber managers in
France. Uber France has already been convicted of commercial
deception and fined 150,000 euros ($170,000) over UberPop.

French taxis drivers argue that Uber sidesteps taxes, social
charges and licensing fees, and endangers passengers.

Uber calls the French system outdated and says it needs radical
reform to keep up with technological changes.

"We are not challenging labor law", said Mr.Meister, the Uber
France spokesman. "We rather put order into the system.  We are
the symptom of a problem, not responsible for the problem."

Mr. Meister complained critics point the finger only at Uber, not
at similar smartphone app-based services like Heetch, a French
startup.  "There are double standards", he said.

The French government has kept up its offensive with document
checks of drivers suspected to be illegally moonlighting for Uber
and similar services.

On Feb. 11, hours before the start of the trial, police teamed up
with anti-fraud investigators to check taxis and car services at
Paris' Gare de Lyon train station. Several chauffeurs were fined
for illegal taxi activity after being caught carrying a single
passenger.  The drivers have particular status allowing them to
carry a minimum of two passengers, but many skirt the regulations
and use platforms like Uber to pick up single passengers.

"We are talking about transporting people. So when you are in this
business you need to have a qualification and respect the rules,"
said Laurent Grandguillaume, the new mediator in the conflict
between taxis and Uber-like alternatives.


UNIQUE MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Miller" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Unique Management Services, Inc., d/b/a Unique
National Collections, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06869 (E.D. Pa.,
December 31, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Unique Management Services, Inc. operates a debt collection firm
located at 119 E Maple St, Jeffersonville, IN 47130.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


UNITED STATES: D.C. Cir. Hear Arguments in Data Collection Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Ryan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
rhetoric heated up Feb. 12 in the courtroom of the judge who
blocked the government's bulk collection of cellphone metadata, as
the government and a conservative activist argued over what to do
with three cases against the National Security Agency while
awaiting an appeals court ruling in Washington.

The D.C. Circuit is considering whether the passage of the USA
Freedom Act in June renders moot the injunction Judge Richard Leon
issued against the National Security Agency's bulk collection
program in November, the second such injunction Leon has issued.
The same court reversed Leon's original injunction in August,
finding that conservative legal activist Larry Klayman had not
proven the NSA had even collected his data.

The USA Freedom Act modified several provisions of the Patriot Act
and purported to end the NSA's bulk collection of metadata, though
this fact is disputed by Klayman, who currently has three cases
against the NSA and other government agencies pending in Leon's
court.  The cases still pending before Leon include the one that
spawned the injunction currently being appealed, a second
concerning the collection of internet data under a related
program, and a class action suit alleging similar violations to
the second case.

Klayman pleaded with Leon during the Feb. 12 hearing to allow all
three of his pending cases to go forward and proposed
consolidating the first two in order to get the cases decided as
soon as possible, arguing they have been on hold for too long.

"In order to move forward, I don't think we can wait another two-
and-a-half years for the D.C. Circuit to rule," Klayman said. "We
might all be dead by then."

Leon was largely silent on Feb. 12, a departure from previous
hearings where he frequently interrupted lawyers to ask questions
and make points. Klayman used this silence to emphasize the
importance of the cases before Leon, calling the judge "patriotic"
for blocking the collection program and saying he was the only
member of the court system willing to stand up to the program.

At one point, Klayman alleged the D.C. Circuit was acting as a
separate arm of the executive branch, seeking to uphold the NSA
program regardless of its constitutionality.

Klayman asked Leon to open discovery on the first two cases after
consolidating them, and invited Leon to have a conversation in his
chambers with a CIA whistleblower if he still had doubts about the
severity of the collection programs.

"We can't have this going on in a civilized society," Klayman told
the judge.

The government's claims at the hearing were far less moralistic,
instead claiming Klayman's cases have major issues the lawyer has
overlooked.

Regardless of how the D.C. Circuit comes down on Leon's
injunction, Klayman has not addressed how he could collect damages
from the federal government under his lawsuit, as he has not
proposed a sovereign immunities waiver, argued Rodney Patton, who
represented the government.

"There simply are no viable damages claims at all," Patton said.

Patton also claimed Klayman's second complaint has no merit
because the bulk metadata program it challenges was authorized
under federal law and was not the same as the cellphone collection
program.

Finally, Patton said Klayman's class action suit was essentially
identical to the internet case and is an example of claim-
splitting, which should invalidate the case.

In a separate issue, Klayman has not properly served the
individuals he named in the cases, said James Whitman, who
represents, in their individual capacities, President Barack
Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Roger Vinson, the federal
judge who authorized the Verizon warrant to collect metadata.

After Whitman sat down, Klayman came to the lectern again,
incensed.

"They have a million reasons why this can't go forward and none of
them are valid," Klayman said.  He alleged the government was
playing a "shell game" with the USA Freedom Act and the internet
program, and pushed back against the claim that he had not
properly served the individual defendants, wondering if he had to
jump the White House fence to serve Obama.

Klayman also pushed aside the sovereign immunity issue.

"They don't have sovereign immunity to violate the Constitution,"
he said.

Leon gave little indication at the hearing of what he intends to
do with the pending cases, but did tell Whitman he would rule "as
soon as possible" on his request to dismiss the allegedly
improperly served individual defendants.


UNITIL CORP: Oral Argument in Appeal Set for 1st Quarter 2016
-------------------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court (the "SJC") has set oral argument during
the first quarter of 2016 in a class action appeal.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against
Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in Massachusetts'
Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned Bellermann et
al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of
temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and
physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly
incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric
service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in
December 2008. The Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch. 93A
claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related
to the December 2008 ice storm. Following several years of
discovery, the plaintiffs in the complaint filed a motion with the
Court to certify the case as a class action.

On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its decision denying
plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. The
plaintiffs appealed this decision to the SJC, and the SJC upheld
the lower Court's order. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a renewed
motion to certify a class under a different theory than previously
argued. The Company filed its opposition to this motion and also
filed a motion for summary judgment.

On July 27, 2015, the Court issued its decision allowing class
certification and denying the Company's motion for summary
judgment. The Company appealed this decision to the SJC, and on
October 15, 2015, the SJC granted the Company's motion for direct
review of the case, and it is being briefed by the parties and set
for oral argument during the first quarter of 2016.

The Town of Lunenburg has filed a separate action in the Court
arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The Court accepted the
parties' joint schedule with discovery continuing into 2016 and
trial likely in late 2016. The Company continues to believe that
both of these suits are without merit and will continue to defend
itself vigorously.

The Company believes, based upon information furnished by counsel
and others, that the ultimate resolution of these suits will not
have a material impact on its financial position, operating
results or cash flows.


VILLAGE OF NEW MIAMI: CA Affirms Class Cert. of Speed Limit Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert A. Hendrickson of the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed
an order from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas certifying a
class action challenging the constitutionality of a municipal
ordinance in the case captioned, DOREEN BARROW, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. VILLAGE OF NEW MIAMI, et al., Defendants-
Appellants, Case No. CA2015-03-043 (Ohio App.).

The Automated Speed Enforcement Program (ASEP) was instituted in
July 2012 with the adoption of Ordinance 1917 which aimed to deter
motorists from exceeding the speed limit at several intersections
in its village. In July 2013, six named plaintiffs filed suit
against New Miami challenging the Ordinance. This was followed by
an amended complaint which advanced four causes of action. Count I
sought a declaration that the Ordinance divested the municipal
court of jurisdiction over traffic violations in contravention of
the Ohio Constitution. Count II sought a declaration that the
Ordinance violated appellees' due process rights. Count III prayed
for injunctive relief prohibiting continued enforcement of the
allegedly unconstitutional Ordinance. Finally, Count IV sought
equitable restitution for any penalties or fees paid by appellees
pursuant to the allegedly unconstitutional Ordinance.

In March 2014, the trial court granted summary judgment to
appellees on Counts I, II, and III. The court also certified a
class comprised of all persons who had received Notices of
Liability under New Miami's ASEP. New Miami appealed the
certification decision. In the first appeal, the court reversed
and remanded for the trial court to clarify its findings in
support of certification. The trial court issued a decision
complying with our remand instructions in February 2015.

On appeal, New Miami's sole assignment of error challenges the
trial court's decision to certify the class. New Miami argues that
the trial court failed to consider the threshold issue of whether
the class representatives possessed jurisdictional standing to
file suit. New Miami insists that the trial court erroneously
equated the Civ.R. 23 class membership prerequisite with
jurisdictional standing. Alternatively, New Miami urges that
appellees failed to satisfy the requirements of Civ.R. 23.

In Opinion dated February 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/qGAU7F
from Leagle.com, Judge Hendrickson hold that the trial court's
decision reaffirming class certification sufficiently enunciated
the bases upon which the court made its decision in support of
class certification.

Plaintiffs are represented by Paul M. DeMarco, Esq. --
pdemarco@msdlegal.com -- MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC

They are also represented by:

     Michael K. Allen, Esq.
     MICHAEL K. ALLEN & ASSOCIATES
     810 Sycamore St., Floor 5
     Cincinnati, OH 45202
     Tel: (513)823-4224

          - and -

     Charles H. Rittgers, Esq.
     RITTGERS & RITTGERS
     3805 Edwards Road, Suite 550
     Cincinnati, OH 45209

Village of New Miami is represented by Wilson G. Weisenfelder,
Jr., Esq. -- WGW@Rendigs.com -- James J. Englert, Esq. --
JEnglert@Rendigs.com -- RENDIGS, FRY, KIELY & DENNIS, LLP


XPRESS COURIER: "Riley" Files Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Riley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Xpress Courier Services, Inc., John W.
Yarbrough, individually and as Officer and Director of Xpress
Courier Services, Inc. and Michael Southall, individually and as
Officer and Director of Xpress Courier Services, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00003-JM (D.N.J., January 5, 2016), seeks actual
economic damages, liquidated and punitive damages, attorneys'
fees, costs and pre-judgment interest and such other and further
relief in accordance with Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec.
201, et seq. and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Arkansas Code
Annotated Sec. 11-4-201, et seq.

Xpress Courier Services, Inc. is an Arkansas corporation located
at 9600 Southedge Drive 10, Little Rock, Arkansas 72227, with John
W. Yarbrough as director. It provides courier/delivery services
where the Plaintiff worked as a delivery truck driver. He claims
to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per work week without
overtime premium and has yet to be reimbursed for business related
expenses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZYNGA INC: Settlement of Suit over Inflated Shares Has Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that, after a very quick hearing on Feb. 11 morning, a federal
judge in San Francisco gave final approval to a class action
settlement of claims that Zynga artificially inflated its share
prices.

Lead plaintiff David Fee claimed in the 2012 lawsuit that Zynga
executives, aware of the company's poor financial condition, sold
their shares in the company for hundreds of millions of dollars.

The plaintiffs said the alleged scheme allowed the executives to
shift the company's revenue losses from the first quarter to the
second quarter of 2012, which artificially inflated the price of
Zynga stock during the first quarter.

By the time Zynga disclosed its true financial status, its stock
price fell 37 percent in a single day, according to U.S.
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley's October 2015 order
preliminarily approving the settlement.

The approved settlement fund is $23 million, and class members
will receive a pro rata share of the fund based on their purchases
of the Zynga stock at issue, according to Corley's final approval
order.

The estimated distribution will be $0.15 per share, Corley said.

Jeffrey Norton, who represents the plaintiffs, told Courthouse
News in October 2015 that he expects about 100,000 claimants.

About 25 percent of the settlement fund -- $5.7 million -- will go
to attorneys' fees, and about $189,000 will cover litigation
expenses.

Norton is with Newman Ferrara, in New York City.  He may be
reached at:

     Jeffrey Norton, Esq.
     NEWMAN FERRARA
     1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
     New York, NY 10001
     E-mail: JNorton@nfllp.com

Zynga is represented by Anna White with Morrison & Foerster in San
Francisco.  She may be reached at:

     Anna White, Esq.
     MORRISON & FOERSTER
     755 Page Mill Rd # B

     425 Market Street
     San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
     Tel: (415) 268-7682
     E-mail: awhite@mofo.com

The case captioned, MARK H. DESTEFANO, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ZYNGA INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 12-cv-04007-JSC (N.D.
Cal.).


                            *********

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  * * *