CAR_Public/160223.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, February 23, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 38


                            Headlines


3M COMPANY: Mediation Fails to Resolve "St. John" Lawsuit
3M COMPANY: "Chandler" Lawsuit in Alabama Remains Stayed
3M COMPANY: "Stover" Lawsuit in Alabama Remains Stayed
A&D INSTALLATIONS: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ABC HOLLYWOOD: Faces "Pereira" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ADVENTIST HEALTH: Faces "Corrado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AECOM: Australia Unit Continues to Defend Class Action
AFNI INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
AGL RESOURCES: Georgia Court Dismissed Shareholder Action
AIRGAS INC: Faces Suit Over Exchange Act Violations

ALEXIM TRADING: "Cardenas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ALLIANCE ONE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Tatis" Suit Claims
ALLY FINANCIAL: "Baumann" Suit Seeks Punitive Damages Under FCRA
ALPHABET HOLDING: 3 Cases v. Customers Not Part of MDL

ALPHABET HOLDING: Class Action Settlement Has Preliminary Okay
ALPHABET HOLDING: Appeal in TCPA Class Action Still Pending
AMAIN ENTERPRISES: "Aponte" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
AMAZON.COM: Faces "Harris" Suit in Cal. Over Membership Fees
AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Complaint

AMY GIBSTEIN: Sued in Florida Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
APPLE HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Policy
APPLE INC: Court Issues Order Regarding Discovery Disputes
APPLE INC: Appeals Court Upholds $450MM E-Book Settlement
ARISE VIRTUAL: Faces "Mullins" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

ARS NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Smith" Action Claims
ATLANTIS COAST: "Tavarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BAGELIT INC: Faces "Ammirable" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BARCLAYS PLC: Judge Certifies HFT Securities Class Action
BENCO DENTAL: Sued Over Alleged Anticompetitive Scheme

BENCO DENTAL: Rittenhouse Suit Alleges Anticompetitive Acts
BENCO DENTAL: Faces Bauer Suit Over Anticompetitive Dealings
BENCO DENTAL: Faces Corwin Suit Over Anticompetitive Dealings
BENCO DENTAL: Faces Schwartz Suit Over Anticompetitive Dealings
BIG CITY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Robinson" Suit Says

C&J ENERGY: "Hill" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
CALCRETE CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Suit Says
CAPTAIN D'S: Faces Wage Payment Class Action in Virginia
CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: Faces "Paradis" Securities Suit in Cal.
CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: April 12 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

CARRIER IQ: $9 Million Settlement in Privacy Suit Has Initial OK
CBC NATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CELGENE CORP: Fact Discovery to Be Completed by Aug. 2017
CELGENE CORP: In Talks to Settle Receptos Acquisition Suit
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: MOU Reached in TWC Merger Suit in N.Y.

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Has Yet to Reply to Delaware Action
CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation Still Pending
CNOVA NV: Faces "Dumon" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
COCA-COLA: 3 Merger Class Actions Consolidated
COGNIZANT: Illegally Terminates Employees, "Moore" Suit Claims

COMPLIANCE STAFFING: "Rangel" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
CRANE MEDICAL: Faces "Noel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CRITTENDEN HOSPITAL: Class Action Notice in "Goodman" Suit Okayed
CSX CORP: Proceedings on Merits of Antitrust Class Suit Delayed
CTI BIOPHARMA: "McGlothin" Alleges Securities Act Violation

CTI BIOPHARMA: April 11 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
DESERT SUN: Does Not Properly Pay Drivers, "Larson" Suit Claims
DEVON ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Earthquakes
DITMARS SQUARE: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims

DOROTHY BROWN: "Premovic" Suit Seeks Return of Unlawful Fees
EL CAMPO: "Hernandez" Suit Alleges FLSA, Ill. Wage Law Violation
ENDEAVOUR ENERGY: Hearing Begins in Bushfire Class Action
EDWARD LUNCH: "Medina" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Sued in Cal. Over Improper Rental Car Fees

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Merz" Suit Over FCRA Violation
EXELON CORP: Payments in TCPA Case to Commence in Q4 2015
EXELON CORP: Settlement in PHI Merger Case Remains Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Class Action by City of Los Angeles Stayed
EXPEDIA INC: Argument Held on Bid to Intervene in Nassau Case

EXPEDIA INC: Summary Judgment Bids Pending in Breckenridge Case
EXPEDIA INC: Summary Judgment Bid Filed in Bedford Park Case
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Camarata" Suit Over FCRA Violation
FACEBOOK INC: Spams Birthday Text Messages, Suit Claims
FIRST NIAGARA: 8 Shareholders File Merger Class Actions

FIRSTCLASS WIRELESS: Faces "Angel" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FLINT, MI: Law Firms File Class Actions Over Water Crisis
FLINT, MI: Resident Files Class Action Over Water Crisis
FLINT, MI: Residents Meet to Discuss Water Crisis Class Actions
FLORIDA: Faces $50MM Class Action Over Drunk Driving Laws

FORD MOTOR CREDIT: Appeals Ruling in "Agrawal" Suit
FRANK A REICHL: Ottawa County Alleges Antitrust Violation
FROM YOU: Illegally Records Telephone Conversation, Action Claims
GATEWAY MERCHANT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hardin" Suit Says
GENPACT SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bakon" Suit Claims

GNC HOLDINGS: "Sparling" Suit Over DMAA/Aegeline Dismissed
GNC HOLDINGS: $9.5 Million Settlement Reached in "Brewer" Case
GNC HOLDINGS: Still Defends "Naranjo" Class Action
GOLDEN GLOBE: "Guo" Suit Claims Violation of FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law
GOPRO INC: Faces "Bodri" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l. Statements

HENRY SCHEIN: Conspired to Foreclose Competitors, Suit Claims
HERITAGE PRODUCTION: "Luce" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Still Faces S.D. Texas Class Action
INDIANA PACKERS: Sued Over Illegal Hiring of Immigrants
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: April 4 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

ISORAY INC: Class Action Defense Spikes Operating Loss
JAN-PRO CLEANING: "Navarrette" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
JOHNSON FARMS: Faces "Harris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KANSAS CITY: Faces ACLU Suit Over Voter Registration Rules
KDD OF ILLINOIS: Faces "Tolentino" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

KIA MOTORS: 340 People Join Class Action Over Sorento Defect
LEGAL HELPERS: 3rd Cir. Remands "Guidotti" Suit
LTD FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Goldman" Suit Claims
LYFT INC: Settlement Approval Hearing Continued to March 10
MACY'S: Settles Janitors' Wage Class Action

MARINOSCI LAW: "Leonard" Sues Over Illegal Collection Effort
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Geller Named as Lead Counsel
MCCORMICK & CO: Sued Over Slack-Filled Black Pepper Products
MOLSON COORS: Case Filed by Hughes and 631992 Ontario Pending
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: TalentBin Faces "Halvorson" Class Action

NBTY INC: Faces "Dachauer" Suit for False Advertising
NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Parties Agreed in Principle to Settle Case
OCWEN FINANCIAL: June 9 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Amended Suit
OREGON: $5,250,000 in Attorney's Fees and Costs Approved
PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Sued Over Failure to Pay PPAs OT, Min. Wages

PASADENA, CA: Disabled Gets Inferior Education, Suit Claims
PETERSBURG, VA: Law Enforcers' Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay
PHH CORP: Court Rules on Discovery-Related Motions in "Munoz"
PHYSICIANS AND DENTISTS: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
PMZ REAL ESTATE: Faces Fraud Class Action in California

POWERCET CORP: Steel Tubing Release Pollutant, Suit Claims
PREMIERCANCUNVACATIONS: Sued in Cal. Over Unsolicited Calls
PRINCIPAL LIFE: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of McCaffree Complaint
PULASKI FINANCIAL: Files Additional Info Related to Merger Suit
QUEENSLAND TREASURY: Writ Has Not Been Served in Flood Class Suit

REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Won't Cover Cost for Harvoni, Suit Says
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
SANTA FE NATURAL: "Cuebas" Sues over False Advertising
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Still Defends Morning Song Bird Food Action
SEATAC: Workers File Class Action Over Minimum Wage Violations

SENIOR HEALTH: Illegally Reduces Home Care Services, Suit Claims
SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS: $11.7MM Settlement Has Final Approval
SKULLCANDY INC: "Davis" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations
SNACK FACTORY: "Dedrick" Suit Stayed; Conference Reset to May
SOLARCITY CORP: Court Allowed Plaintiffs to File Amended Suit

SOLARCITY CORP: Seeks Dismissal of TCPA Class Action
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Sued Over Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Leak
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: 67 Cases Filed Over Leak as of Feb. 10
SUBSTANCE ABUSE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Coleman" Suit Says
SUNEDISON INC: Faces "Linton" Suit Alleging ERISA Violation

SUNTECH POWER: $5-Mil. Settlement Wins Final Approval
SWISS PARK: "Vargas" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violation
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Faces "Kincaid" Suit Over TCPA Violation
TARGA RESOURCES: "Lindeman" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: October 2016 Trial Set in Case v. Barr

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Litigation Resumed in Suit v. Teva & GSK
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Moved to Dismiss Actos Purchasers' Complaint
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Dropped as Defendant in Namenda Buyers' Suit
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Suit v. Cephalon over Actiq(R) Dismissed
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Suit v. Cephalon Over Provigil Dismissed

TEXAS CONCIERGE: Faces "Saucedo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TINDER INC: Judge Tosses Gender Bias Class Action
TLK GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Wage Law Violations
TOP OF THE VIADUCT: "Sharier" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA
TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports

TP-LINK USA: "Arroyo" Class Suit Sent to C.D. California
TRANS-CONTINENTAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Haut" Suit Claims
TRI-STATE ENTERPRISES: "Martinez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
TRUEBLUE INC: Court Grants Joseph's Bid to Compel Doc Production
UDR INC: Faces "Pineda" Suit for Invasion of Privacy

UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Bids to Intervene Okayed in 2 Suits
UNITED STATES: CBP Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: UTC Fire Defending TCPA Class Action
USG CORPORATION: Settlement in Wallboard Case Pending
VANTAGE FOODS: "Pacheco" Class Suit Settlement Approved

VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Awaits Court Approval
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Retirees File Health Insurance Class Action
WEIGHT WATCHERS: "Roberts" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
WELLS FARGO: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
WESLEY FINANCIAL: Damages Class Decertified, Bid to Seal Granted

WESLEY FINANCIAL: Bid for Permanent Injunctive Relief Granted
WEST 12TH STREET: Wage Statements Don't Satisfy NYLL, Court Says
WESTERN DIGITAL: Faces 2 Class Suits Related to SanDisk Merger
WILSON ROOFING: Faces "Dominguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

* New Zealand Class Action Lawyer Eyes New Cladding Scandal
* Kelley Drye Discusses Impact of Scalia Death on Consumer Suits
* Seyfarth Discusses Impact of Scalia's Death on Employment Suits


                            *********


3M COMPANY: Mediation Fails to Resolve "St. John" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that mediation occurred in January 2016,
but did not resolve the "St. John" class action lawsuit.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the "St. John"
case), seeking unstated damages and alleging that the plaintiffs
suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property
damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the
Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The court in
2005 granted the Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's
personal injury-related claims on the basis that such claims are
barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers
Compensation Act.

The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November
2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity
of the Decatur plant.

In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
additional defendants, including BFI Waste Management Systems of
Alabama, LLC; BFI Waste Management of North America, LLC; the City
of Decatur, Alabama; Morgan County, Alabama; Municipal Utilities
Board of Decatur; and Morgan County, Alabama, d/b/a Decatur
Utilities.

In September 2015, the court issued a scheduling order staying
discovery pending mediation which occurred in January 2016, but
did not resolve the case.

Discovery relating to the class certification will begin, and the
class certification hearing is scheduled for November 2016.


3M COMPANY: "Chandler" Lawsuit in Alabama Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the "Chandler" class action lawsuit
remains stayed.

In 2005, the judge in a purported class action lawsuit filed by
three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated
compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged damage to
their property from emissions of certain perfluorochemical
compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing
facility that formerly manufactured those compounds (the
"Chandler" case) granted the Company's motion to abate the case,
effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of
class certification issues in the St. John case. Despite the stay,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking damages for alleged
personal injuries and property damage on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and the members of a purported class. No further action
in the case is expected unless and until the stay is lifted.


3M COMPANY: "Stover" Lawsuit in Alabama Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the "Stover" class action lawsuit
remains stayed.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County (the "Stover" case) seeking compensatory damages and
injunctive relief based on the application by the Decatur
utility's wastewater treatment plant of wastewater treatment
sludge to farmland and grasslands in the state that allegedly
contain PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals. The named
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons within the
State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS, and other
perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property.

In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case
transferred from Franklin County to Morgan County. In May 2010,
consistent with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan
County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on hold pending
the resolution of the class certification issues in the St. John
case.

3M is a diversified technology company with a global presence in
the following businesses: Industrial; Safety and Graphics; Health
Care; Electronics and Energy; and Consumer. 3M is among the
leading manufacturers of products for many of the markets it
serves. Most 3M products involve expertise in product development,
manufacturing and marketing, and are subject to competition from
products manufactured and sold by other technologically oriented
companies.


A&D INSTALLATIONS: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Perez, and other similarly situated individuals v. A&D
Installations of Wellington, Inc., Albert Hallak, and Donna
Hallak, Case No. 36509590 (Fla. 17th Ct., January 13, 2016) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate an installation facility located at 1834
Shower Tree Way, Wellington, Florida 33414.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flag|er Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305)416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
              bshulam@rgpattorneys.com


ABC HOLLYWOOD: Faces "Pereira" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eddy Pereira and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. ABC Hollywood Lumber & Hardware Corporation, Jose
Monteverde, Case No. 0:16-cv-60133-JIC (S.D. Fla., January 22,
2016) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a hardware store located at 10010
NW 79th Ave, Hialeah, FL 33016.

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


ADVENTIST HEALTH: Faces "Corrado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Corrado & Sean McLean v. Adventist Health System/ Sunbelt
Healthcare Inc. d/b/a Florida Hospital Healthcare System, Inc.,
Case No. 8:16-cv-00182-MSS-TBM (M.D. Fla., January 25, 2015) is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Adventist Health System/ Sunbelt Healthcare Inc. operates a non-
profit hospital in Pinellas County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Linesch, Esq.
      THE LINESCH FIRM
      700 Bee Pond Road
      Palm Harbor, FL  34683
      Telephone: (727) 786-0000
      Facsimile: (727) 786-097
      E-mail: laborlaw@lineschfirm.com


AECOM: Australia Unit Continues to Defend Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
AECOM said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 10, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2015, that AECOM Australia disputes the claimed
entitlements to damages asserted by a remaining class action
lawsuit and will continue to defend this matter vigorously.

In 2005 and 2006, the Company's main Australian subsidiary, AECOM
Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM Australia), performed a traffic forecast
assignment for a client consortium as part of the client's project
to design, build, finance and operate a tolled motorway tunnel in
Australia. To fund the motorway's design and construction, the
client formed certain special purpose vehicles (SPVs) that raised
approximately $700 million Australian dollars through an initial
public offering (IPO) of equity units in 2006 and approximately an
additional $1.4 billion Australian dollars in long term bank
loans. The SPVs went into insolvency administrations in February
2011.

KordaMentha, the receivers for the SPVs (the RCM Applicants),
caused a lawsuit to be filed against AECOM Australia by the RCM
Applicants in the Federal Court of Australia on May 14, 2012.
Portigon AG (formerly WestLB AG), one of the lending banks to the
SPVs, filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia against
AECOM Australia on May 18, 2012. Separately, a class action
lawsuit, which has been amended to include approximately 770 of
the IPO investors, was filed against AECOM Australia in the
Federal Court of Australia on May 31, 2012.

All of the lawsuits claim damages that purportedly resulted from
AECOM Australia's role in connection with the traffic forecast.
The class action applicants claim that they represent investors
who acquired approximately $155 million Australian dollars of
securities. On July 10, 2015, AECOM Australia, the RCM Applicants
and Portigon AG entered into a Deed of Release settling the
respective lawsuits for $205 million (U.S. dollars). This
settlement did not have a material impact to the Company's
financial results.

AECOM Australia disputes the claimed entitlements to damages
asserted by the remaining class action lawsuit and will continue
to defend this matter vigorously.


AFNI INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
George E. Heerema, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. AFNI, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00244-KM-MAH
(D.N.J., January 13, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

AFNI, Inc. owns and operates a debt collection firm in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AGL RESOURCES: Georgia Court Dismissed Shareholder Action
---------------------------------------------------------
AGL Resources Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court in Georgia has
dismissed a consolidated shareholder class action without
prejudice.

The company and each member of the Board were named as defendants
in four purported shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division: Patrick Baker v. AGL Resources Inc., et al.,
which we refer to as the "Baker Action", Jeff Morton v. AGL
Resources Inc., et al., which we refer to as the "Morton Action",
Sarah Halberstam and Baruch Z. Halberstam (as custodian for
Benjamin Halberstam) v. AGL Resources Inc., et al., which we refer
to as the "Halberstam Action", and Manuel Abt v. AGL Resources,
Inc., et al., filed on September 16, 2015, September 22, 2015,
September 28, 2015 and October 9, 2015, respectively. Southern
Company and Merger Sub were also named as defendants in the Baker
Action and the Morton Action.

"The Actions alleged that our preliminary proxy statement
contained false and misleading statements and omitted material
information in violation of certain provisions under the Exchange
Act," the Company said.  "The Actions also alleged that the
members of the Board were liable for those alleged misstatements
and omissions. The Morton Action further alleged that the members
of the Board breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
shareholders of the company in connection with the merger and that
Southern Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches.
The Actions sought, among other things, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief enjoining the merger, rescission or rescissory
damages in the event the merger is implemented and an award of
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs."

On October 23, 2015, the Court consolidated the four actions, and
on January 5, 2016, the Court dismissed the consolidated action
without prejudice.

AGL Resources is an energy services holding company whose primary
business is the safe, reliable and cost-effective distribution of
natural gas through seven natural gas distribution utilities.


AIRGAS INC: Faces Suit Over Exchange Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Goodbaudy Robbins, and all others similarly-situated v.
Airgas, Inc., John P. Clancey, James W. Hovey, Richard C. Ill,
Peter McCausland, Ted B. Miller, Jr., Michael L. Molinini, John C.
Van Roden, Jr., Pauls A. Sneed, David M. Stout, Lee M. Thomas, and
Ellen C. Wolf, Case No. 2:16-cv-00225 (E.D. Pa., January 19,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 14a-9.

This is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated public stockholders of
Airgas, Inc. against the Company and its Board of Directors
arising out of defendants' dissemination of a false and misleading
proxy statement.

The Individual Defendants are board of directors of Airgas Inc.

Airgas Inc. is a one of the nation's leading suppliers of
industrial, medical, and specialty gases, and hardgoods, such as
welding equipment and related products. Airgas is also a leading
U.S. producer of atmospheric gases with 16 air separation plants,
and a leading producer of carbon dioxide, dry ice, and nitrous
oxide. The Company's common stock is traded on the New York Stock
Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol "ARG."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 524-4290
      E-mail: denright@zlk.com


ALEXIM TRADING: "Cardenas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Cardenas, and other similarly situated v. Alexim Trading
Corporation, Enrique E. Bustamante, and Rosa F. De Bustamante,
Case No. 36503372 (Fla. 11th Ct., January 13, 2016) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime, minimum wages, and damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a freight forwarding service
company located at 7800 NW 46th St, Doral, FL 33166.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flag|er Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305)416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
              bshulam@rgpattorneys.com


ALLIANCE ONE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Brandt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alliance One Receivables Management, Inc., Case No.
9:16-cv-80073-DMM (S.D. Fla., January 14, 2016) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Alliance One Receivables Management, Inc. provides debt collection
services and contact center solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan Alexander Shaw, Esq.
      ZEBERSKY PAYNE
      110 SE 6th St, suite 2150
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 361-3633
      Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
      E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Tatis" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Tatis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Allied Interstate, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-
00109-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., January 8, 2016) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Allied Interstate LLC provides accounts receivable and debt
collection services to companies from a wide range of industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLY FINANCIAL: "Baumann" Suit Seeks Punitive Damages Under FCRA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tonya Baumann, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Ally Financial, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00108-LJM-DKL (S.D. Ind., Indianapolis Division, January 13,
2016), seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages as provided by
the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq. and
reasonable attorney's fees.

Plaintiff incurred a debt to obtain an automobile and went into
default and was endorsed to various credit reporting agencies. She
filed for bankruptcy protection on April 24, 2014. Despite the
knowledge of Plaintiff's discharge of her debts, Defendant
illegally procured her TransUnion credit report on September 27,
2014 and June 4, 2015 for collection purposes.

Ally Financial, Inc., is a Michigan corporation with principal
offices at 200 Renaissance Center, Detroit, MI 48265. It does
business in the State of Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALPHABET HOLDING: 3 Cases v. Customers Not Part of MDL
------------------------------------------------------
Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that three class
actions related to herbal dietary supplements against one of the
Company's customers to which the Company may have a duty to
indemnify have not been transferred and consolidated with the MDL
case, and are at the initial stages.

In February 2015, the State of New York Office of the Attorney
General (the "NY AG") began an investigation concerning the
authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and associated
marketing. As part of this investigation, the NY AG is reviewing
the sufficiency of the measures that several manufacturers and
retailers, including NBTY, are taking to independently assess the
validity of their representations and advertising in connection
with the sale of herbal supplements.

On September 9, 2015, the NY AG sent letters to fourteen separate
companies, including NBTY, concerning an additional herbal
product. NBTY has fully cooperated with the NY AG; however until
these investigations are concluded, no final determination can be
made as to its ultimate outcome or the amount of liability, if
any, on the part of NBTY.

Following the NY AG investigation, starting in February 2015,
numerous putative class actions were filed in various
jurisdictions against NBTY, certain of its customers and/or other
companies as to which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify,
challenging the authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and
associated marketing, under various states' consumer protection
statutes. Motions for transfer and consolidation of all of the
federal actions as multidistrict litigation into a single district
before a single judge were granted on June 9, 2015, and the cases
are consolidated before Judge John W. Darrah of the United States
District Court, North District of Illinois -- Eastern Division
(the "MDL Case").

"Three class actions against one of our customers to which we may
have a duty to indemnify have not been transferred and
consolidated with the MDL Case, and are at the initial stages of
litigation," the Company said. "At this time, no determination can
be made as to the ultimate outcome of the investigation and
related litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on the part
of NBTY."

Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. -- and its wholly owned subsidiary
NBTY, Inc. -- is a manufacturer, marketer, distributor and
retailer of high-quality vitamins, minerals, herbs, specialty
supplements, and sports/active nutrition products ("VMHS") in the
United States, with operations worldwide.


ALPHABET HOLDING: Class Action Settlement Has Preliminary Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a court has
issued a preliminary approved order approving the settlement in
the class action related to glucosamine-based dietary supplements.

Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class actions have been
filed in various jurisdictions against NBTY, its subsidiary Rexall
Sundown, Inc. ("Rexall"), and/or other companies as to which there
may be a duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the marketing
of glucosamine-based dietary supplements, under various states'
consumer protection statutes. The lawsuits against NBTY and its
subsidiaries are: Cardenas v. NBTY, Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc.
(filed June 14, 2011) in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California, on behalf of a putative class of
California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages
based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus punitive
damages and injunctive relief; Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.
(filed August 22, 2011) in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of a putative class of
Massachusetts consumers seeking unspecified trebled compensatory
damages; and Nunez v. NBTY, Inc. et al. (filed March 1, 2013) in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California (the "Nunez Case"), on behalf of a putative class of
California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages
based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus injunctive
relief, as well as other cases in California and Illinois against
certain Consumer Products Group customers as to which we may have
certain indemnification obligations.

In March 2013, NBTY agreed upon a proposed settlement with the
plaintiffs, which included all cases and resolved all pending
claims without any admission of or concession of liability by
NBTY, and which provided for a release of all claims in return for
payments to the class, together with attorneys' fees, and notice
and administrative costs. Fairness Hearings took place on October
4, 2013 and November 20, 2013.

On January 3, 2014, the court issued an opinion and order
approving the settlement as modified (the "Order"). The final
judgment was issued on January 22, 2014 (the "Judgment").

Certain objectors filed a notice of appeal of the Order and the
Judgment on January 29, 2014 and the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal on February 3, 2014. In fiscal 2013, NBTY recorded a
provision of $12,000,000 reflecting its best estimate of exposure
for payments to the class together with attorney's fees and notice
and administrative costs in connection with this class action
settlement. As a result of the court's approval of the settlement
and the closure of the claims period, NBTY reduced its estimate of
exposure to $6,100,000. This reduction in the estimated exposure
was reflected in the Company's first quarter results for fiscal
2014.

On November 19, 2014, the appellate court issued a decision
granting the objectors' appeal. The appellate court reversed and
remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with the appellate court's decision.

In April 2015, NBTY agreed upon a revised proposed settlement with
certain plaintiffs which includes all cases and resolves all
pending claims without any admission of or concession of liability
by NBTY. The parties have signed settlement documentation
providing for a release of all claims in return for payments to
the class, together with attorneys' fees, and notice and
administrative costs estimated to be in the amount of $9,000,000,
which resulted in an additional charge of $4,300,000 in the second
quarter results for fiscal 2015.

On May 14, 2015, the settlement was submitted to the court for
preliminary approval and a preliminary conference was held before
the court on July 22, 2015. The court issued a preliminary
approved order on February 1, 2016 preliminarily approving the
settlement. Until the cases are resolved, no final determination
can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation or the
amount of liability on the part of NBTY.

Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. -- and its wholly owned subsidiary
NBTY, Inc. -- is a manufacturer, marketer, distributor and
retailer of high-quality vitamins, minerals, herbs, specialty
supplements, and sports/active nutrition products ("VMHS") in the
United States, with operations worldwide.


ALPHABET HOLDING: Appeal in TCPA Class Action Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal
remains pending in a class action lawsuit alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

NBTY, and certain of its subsidiaries, are defendants in a class-
action lawsuit, captioned John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall Sundown,
Inc.; Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC; Rexall, Inc.; NBTY, Inc.;
Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions ("CCG") and
John Does 1-10 (originally filed October 22, 2013), brought in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants faxed advertisements to
plaintiff and others without invitation or permission, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

On May 2, 2014, NBTY and its named subsidiary defendants cross-
claimed against CCG, who was a third party vendor engaged by NBTY,
and CCG cross-claimed against NBTY and named subsidiary defendants
on June 13, 2014. CCG brought a third party complaint against an
unrelated entity, Healthcare Data Experts, LLC, on June 27, 2014.
On July 21, 2014, CCG filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and on February 11, 2015 the court issued an Order and
Opinion dismissing the class-action. On February 27, 2015, the
plaintiff filed an appeal to the court's dismissal of the action
and that appeal is pending. Oral arguments were held December 10,
2015 and the appeal is pending.

At this time, no determination can be made as to the ultimate
outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability on the part
of NBTY.

Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. -- and its wholly owned subsidiary
NBTY, Inc. -- is a manufacturer, marketer, distributor and
retailer of high-quality vitamins, minerals, herbs, specialty
supplements, and sports/active nutrition products ("VMHS") in the
United States, with operations worldwide.


AMAIN ENTERPRISES: "Aponte" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Aponte, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Amain Enterprises Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-60140-
UU (S.D. Fla., January 23, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Amain Enterprises Corporation is in the business of creating,
selling and delivering fresh fruit arrangements throughout Miami-
Dade County, Broward County, and the South Florida region.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Norell, Esq.
      ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
      300 N.W 70th Avenue, Suite 305
      Plantation, FL 33317
      Telephone: (954) 617-6017
      Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
      E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com


AMAZON.COM: Faces "Harris" Suit in Cal. Over Membership Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Harris, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. Amazon.Com, LLC, Case No.
BC606984 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 13, 2016) alleges that the
Defendant engaged in unlawful, unfair, or deceptive business
practices in charging Plaintiff and other Class Members membership
fees when they purchased products.

Amazon.Com, LLC is an online company that is engaged in the sale
of many different kinds of products through facilitating sales by
third party retailers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2016, that
on May 8, 2015 and May 14, 2015, purported stockholders of the
Company brought two putative class action lawsuits in the United
States District Court in the Central District of California,
Napoli v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
03474-TJH and Stein v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-03640-TJ, alleging that the Company and certain of its
current and former officers violated federal securities laws by
misrepresenting and/or omitting information regarding the STEP
study. The cases were consolidated, and on February 8, 2016,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 11 and 15 under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of a putative class
of purchasers of common stock from January 13, 2014 through August
21, 2014, including purchasers in the Company's public offering on
February 28, 2014. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.


AMY GIBSTEIN: Sued in Florida Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Libertad Idiaquez v. Amy Gibstein, Lee Andrew Gibstein,
Case No. 1:16-cv-20298-JLK (S.D. Fla., January 25, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Victoria Libertad Idiaquez worked for Defendants as a domestic
live-in housekeeper at the Defendants' residence from May 9, 2006,
through September 21, 2015.

The Defendants reside in and regularly transacts business within
Miami-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


APPLE HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Policy
-----------------------------------------------------
JoNel Aleccia, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that two
weeks after suing private insurers for improperly denying costly
drugs to patients with hepatitis C infections, Seattle lawyers
have expanded the fight to Washington state's Medicaid provider.

A class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of two Apple Health clients
-- and nearly 28,000 others with the liver-damaging disease --
seeks to force the Health Care Authority (HCA) to change a policy
that limits the spendy drugs to only the sickest patients.

Two Medicaid patients, a 53-year-old Seattle woman and a 47-year-
old Lakewood man, were prescribed the drug Harvoni to cure their
hepatitis C infections.  However, the prescriptions were denied
because the drug is too expensive, according to the complaint
filed in U.S. District Court in Western Washington.

The plaintiffs were not identified by name in the lawsuit.

"It is unlawful to withhold prescription drugs that cure a disease
from Medicaid beneficiaries based on the cost of those drugs," the
complaint filed by the firm Sirianni, Youtz, Spoonemore and
Hamburger states.  Co-filers include Columbia Legal Services and
the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard Law
School.

The HCA denied the lawyers' written demand to remove the policy
restricting access to the hepatitis C drugs.

"This is a complex situation and my client would like more time,"
Angela Coats McCarthy, an assistant attorney general representing
the HCA, wrote in a Feb. 12 response.  "As you know, this is a
national issue which many state and insurers are struggling with -
- my client is no different."

An HCA spokeswoman said the agency hadn't seen the lawsuit and
couldn't comment on pending or active litigation.

Harvoni is among the newest highly effective drugs that can halt
the hepatitis C virus (HCV). It has a cure rate of 90 percent --
but comes with a retail price tag of about $95,000 for a 12-week
course of therapy.

Like dozens of state Medicaid programs across the nation, the HCA
plan limits treatment with Harvoni and other direct-acting anti-
viral drugs to patients with the most severe fibrosis, or liver
scarring.  Fibrosis is measured on a scale of F0 to F4, with the
highest level indicating cirrhosis. Patients with high scores can
develop liver cancer or require liver transplants.

In a letter sent to the U.S. Senate in September, Washington
Medicaid Director MaryAnne Lindeblad estimated it would cost $242
million just to provide drugs for high-risk hepatitis C patients
in fiscal 2016.

"If HCA were to pay for hepatitis C treatment for all Medicaid
clients infected with hepatitis C, the cost would be three times
the current total pharmacy budget," she wrote.  That budget is $1
billion a year.

Medical guidelines previously supported limiting the drugs to the
sickest patients, but that changed last year. Experts with the
American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and
the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) updated their
guidelines, saying that drugs such as Harvoni should be used to
treat all patients with HCV, "including mild liver disease."

Limits based on severity of illness are no longer supported by
best medical practice, the lawsuit claims.

Two similar class-action lawsuits were filed late January against
private insurers Group Health Cooperative and Bridge-Span, a
subsidiary of Regence BlueShield, for imposing similar limits.
BridgeSpan updated its policy to provide the direct-acting anti-
viral drugs to all hepatitis C patients, regardless of liver-
fibrosis stage, a spokeswoman said.

Group Health has changed its policy to allow consideration of
treatment for patients with fibrosis scores of F2 and higher
rather than F3 and higher, a spokesman said.


In supplemental budget documents, HCA officials initially
requested $77.7 million to expand treatment to patients with less
severe liver disease, but later submitted an adjustment that would
give back $44 million.  The agency originally projected treating
3,600 Medicaid clients with HCV by June 2015, but actually treated
about 1,200 clients.


APPLE INC: Court Issues Order Regarding Discovery Disputes
----------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero issued an order to address
the discovery disputes in the case captioned MARC OPPERMAN, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. PATH, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
13-cv-00453-JST (JCS) (N.D. Cal.).

A putative class action was filed against Apple, Inc. ("Apple")
and a number of app developers, alleging that a number of
applications, or apps, available for use on devices produced by
Apple accessed users' address book data without permission.

The parties resolved some of the discovery disputes raised in
their January 13, 2016 joint letter brief.  They filed another
joint letter brief on February 2, 2016 addressing unresolved
issues.  A hearing was held on this matter on February 11, 2016.

Judge Spero held as follows:

     -- Kik Interactive, Inc. must produce information for
        versions of its app dating back to October 19, 2010.

     -- While discovery is warranted, the production of actual
        contacts data is not proportional to the needs of the
        case at the class certification stage.  Instead, the
        defendants may propound up to ten interrogatories
        regarding the type of data that each plaintiff stores
        in his or her address book.

     -- How the plaintiffs treated their address book with
        respect to other apps is more relevant, but production
        of forensic data as to that issue would be
        disproportionate to the needs of the case in the context
        of class certification.  Instead, the defendants may
        propound up to five interrogatories regarding how the
        plaintiffs shared or declined to share their address book
        data with other apps.

A full-text copy of Judge Spero's February 11, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/YwgF5xfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Marc Opperman et al. are represented by David M. Given
-- dmg@phillaw.com -- Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP,
Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, Nicholas A. Carlin --
nac@phillaw.com -- Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian
Samuel Clayton Conlon -- bsc@phillaw.com -- Phillips, Erlewine,
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, Conor Hughes Kennedy -- chk@phillaw.com -- Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP,Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H Busch --
busch@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar
-- labar@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe -- wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP &
Michael John von Loewenfeldt -- mvl@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP.

Other Plaintiffs are Judy Long, Claire Moses, Gentry Hoffman,
Steve Dean, Alicia Medlock, Alan Beueshasen, Scott Medlock, Greg
Varner, Rachelle King, Guili Biondi, Jason Green, Nirali
Mandaywala, Maria Pirozzi, Oscar Hernandez, Francisco Espitia,
Haig Arabian, Steven Gutierrez, Lauren Carter, Stephanie Cooley,
Claire Hodgins, Judy Paul, and Theda Sandiford

Path, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Casas --
casasg@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

Path, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jedediah Wakefield --
jwakefield.com -- Fenwick & West LLP, Kathleen Lu --
klu@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby --
tnewby@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP.

Twitter, Inc., Defendant, represented by James G. Snell --
jsnell@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Lauren Beth Cohen --
lcohen@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Timothy L. Alger,
Perkins Coie LLP & John Randall Tyler -- rtyler@perkinscoie.com
-- Perkins Coie LLP.

Apple Inc, Defendant, represented by Alan D. Albright, Gray Cary
Ware & Freidenrich LLP, Clayton Cole James, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Jessica Adler Black Livingston --
jessica.livingston@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Jessica S. Ou, Gibson Dunn, Maren Jessica Clouse --
maren.clouse@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP & Robert B.
Hawk -- robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Yelp! Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Henry Page --
mpage@durietangri.com -- Durie Tangri LLP & Peter D. Kennedy,
George & Donaldson, L.L.P..

Instagram, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason --
lmason@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP,Mazda Kersey Antia --
mantia@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Michael G. Rhodes --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Michael G. Rhodes.

Foursquare Labs, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Frank
McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP &
Claudia Maria Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
LLP.

Gowalla Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Harmeet K. Dhillon
-- harmeet@dhillonlaw.com -- Dhillon Law Group Inc., Krista Lee
Baughman -- kbaughman@dhillonlaw.com -- Dhillon Law Group
Inc.,Micah R. Jacobs -- mjacobs@dhillonlaw.com -- Dhillon Law
Group, Inc. & Rachel Kung-Lan Loh -- rloh@dhillonlaw.com --
Dhillon Law Group, Inc..

Foodspotting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Henry Page,
Durie Tangri LLP & Peter D. Kennedy, George & Donaldson, L.L.P..

Rovio Mobile Oy, Defendant, represented by Judith R. Nemsick --
judith.nemsick@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP, Shannon W.
Bangle -- sbangle@bbsfirm.com -- Beatty, Bangle, Strama P.C.,
Shelley Gershon Hurwitz -- shelley.hurwitz@hklaw.com -- Holland &
Knight LLP & Christopher G. Kelly -- christopher.kelly@hklaw.com
-- Holland & Knight LLP.

ZeptoLab UK Limited, Defendant, represented by Christine Lepera,
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, Jeffrey M. Movit, Mitchell
Silberberg & Knupp LLP,Naomi Elana Beckman-Straus, Mitchell
Silberberg & Knupp LLP & Valentine Antonavich Shalamitski,
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP.

Chillingo Ltd., Defendant, represented by Adam Hugh Sencenbaugh --
adam.sencenbaugh@haynesboone.com -- Haynes & Boone LLP, Hal L.
Sanders, Jr., Haynes & Boone, LLP, Robert N. Klieger --
rklieger@hueston.com -- Hueston Hennigan LLP, Ellen Carol Kenney
-- ekenney@hueston.com -- Hueston Hennigan LLP &Matthew Zachary
Kaiser -- mkaiser@hueston.com -- Hueston Hennigan LLP.

Electronic Arts Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam Hugh
Sencenbaugh, Haynes and Boone LLP, Hal L. Sanders, Jr., Haynes and
Boone, LLP, Robert N. Klieger, Hueston Hennigan LLP, Ellen Carol
Kenney, Hueston Hennigan LLP & Matthew Zachary Kaiser, Hueston
Hennigan LLP.

Kik Interactive, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason,
Cooley LLP,Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael G. Rhodes,
Michael G. Rhodes,Christopher Brian Durbin -- cdurbin@cooley.com
-- Cooley LLP & Erin Elisa Goodsell -- egoodsell@cooley.com --
Cooley LLP.

Instagram, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Dean Brown,
Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Erin Elisa Goodsell,
Cooley LLP.


APPLE INC: Appeals Court Upholds $450MM E-Book Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
appeals court on Feb. 17 upheld Apple Inc's $450 million
settlement of claims that it harmed consumers by conspiring with
five publishers to raise e-book prices.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan rejected a
challenge by e-books purchaser John Bradley to the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of Apple's class-action antitrust
settlement with consumers and 33 state attorneys general.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan had approved the
settlement in November 2014.

Apple agreed to the accord after Cote in July 2013 found it liable
for having played a "central role" in a conspiracy with the
publishers to eliminate retail price competition and undercut
market leader Amazon.com Inc's dominance.

The alleged conspiracy caused some e-book prices to rise to $12.99
or $14.99 from Amazon's $9.99 price, according to the U.S.
Department of Justice.

Cote ruled after a non-jury trial, and the 2nd Circuit later
upheld her liability finding.

Apple has appealed that finding to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying
it could harm competition and the economy.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide in its current term
whether to hear the Cupertino, California-based company's appeal.

Under the settlement, Apple would pay $400 million to compensate
consumers plus $50 million for legal fees if the liability finding
is upheld.

But if a retrial is ordered, Apple would pay just $50 million in
compensation plus $20 million in legal fees.  If the liability
finding is overturned, Apple would pay nothing.

In the Feb. 17 decision, the 2nd Circuit said Cote did not abuse
her powers or act prematurely in approving the settlement.

It pointed to expert testimony that the accord, combined with $166
million of settlements with publishers, could actually award
consumers more money than they claimed to have lost.

The 2nd Circuit also cited Cote's observation that Bradley's
arguments were made by a "professional objector," meaning a lawyer
who hopes to win a fee for resolving "stock objections" to class-
action settlements.

Bradley's lawyer did not immediately respond to requests for
comment. A spokeswoman for Apple declined to comment.

The five publishers are Lagardere SCA's Hachette Book Group Inc,
News Corp's HarperCollins Publishers LLC, Penguin Group Inc, CBS
Corp's Simon & Schuster Inc and Verlagsgruppe Georg von
Holtzbrinck GmbH's Macmillan.

The case is In re: Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 14-4649.


ARISE VIRTUAL: Faces "Mullins" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Mullins, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
v. Arise Virtual Solutions, Inc., a Foreign For Profit
Corporation, Case 6:16-cv-00254-ACC-DAB (M.D.Fla., February 12,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Arise Virtual Solutions, based in Miramar, FL is a work-at-home,
business process outsourcing company that blends crowdsourcing
innovation, virtual technology and operational efficiencies. Arise
provides customer contact, business processing, eLearning and
consulting solutions to its clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew R. Gunter, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
     P.O. Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32802-4979
     Phone: (407) 420-1414
     Fax: (407) 425-8171
     E-mail: mgunter@forthepeople.com


ARS NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Smith" Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Christine Smith, an individual, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated v. ARS National Services, Inc., Case No.
3:16-cv-00044-H-BLM (S.D. Cal., January 8, 2016) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

ARS National Services, Inc. operates a debt collection firm
located at 201 W Grand Ave, Escondido, CA 92025.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keren E. Gesund, Esq.
      GESUND & PAILET, LLC
      3421 N. Causeway Blvd, Suite 805
      Metairie, LA 70002
      Telephone: (702) 300-1180
      Facsimile: (702) 851-2189
      E-mail: keren@gp-nola.com


ATLANTIS COAST: "Tavarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wilberto Tavarez and other similarly situated car detailers v.
Atlantis Coast Collusion II, LLC and Nicholas Peppi, Case No.
36519600 (Fla. 17th Ct., January 13, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate an auto body shop located at 940 NW
56th St, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flag|er Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305)416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
              bshulam@rgpattorneys.com


BAGELIT INC: Faces "Ammirable" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gennaro Ammirable v. Bagelit Inc., d/b/a Bagelicious, Peter
Gpranites, Sonny Doe, and John Doe, Case No. 1:16-cv-00283-ARR-MDG
(E.D.N.Y., January 20, 2016) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a foodservice business located in
Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mikhail Usher, Esq.
      2711 Harway Avenue
      Brooklyn, NY 11214
      Telephone: (718) 484-7510
      Facsimile: (718) 865-8566
      E-mail: musheresq@gmail.com


BARCLAYS PLC: Judge Certifies HFT Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Feil, Esq. -- mfeil@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler, in
an article for JDSupra, reports that U.S. District Judge Shira
Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York recently certified
a class in Strougo v. Barclays PLC, 14 Civ. 5797 (SAS), (S.D.N.Y.
Feb. 2, 2016), a high-profile securities class action based on the
"price maintenance" theory.  The plaintiffs alleged that Barclays
made false or misleading statements by overstating the
transparency and safety of Barclay's "Liquidity Cross," or "LX," a
private trading space where investors can trade in relative
anonymity. Those statements, the plaintiffs claim, were belied by
certain incentives Barclays used to lure "predatory" high-
frequency traders ("HFT") into LX, including allegedly reduced
fees and the alleged placement of HFT computer servers in close
proximity to Barclays own computer systems, thereby giving the
HFTs priority access to key trading data.  After the New York
Attorney General's Office sued Barclays for allegedly concealing
information about LX, the price of Barclays PLC's American
Depository Shares ("ADS") dropped more than 7 percent.

The plaintiffs' case is based on a theory of a "fraud on the
market" that artificially maintained the price of Barclays ADS.
The plaintiffs did not allege that the misleading statements about
LX caused the price to drop, but rather that those statements
maintained a falsely inflated price.  Under this theory, had
Barclays been honest about how it operated LX, Barclays ADS shares
would have traded at a substantially lower price.

In opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
Barclays and several of its current and former officers (the
"Defendants") attacked this theory in two ways.  First, they
argued that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the ADS traded
in an efficient market, a prerequisite to the "fraud on the
market" theory under Basic v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988) and
its progeny.  While the Second Circuit has not adopted a
definitive test for market efficiency, it is often analyzed
through the five-factor test set forth in Cammer v. Bloom, 711
F.Supp. 1264, 1286-87 (D.N.J. 1989).  The fifth Cammer factor, the
only one at issue in Strougo, requires empirical evidence of price
changes in response to unexpected information to show market
efficiency -- empirical evidence often demonstrated through a
regression analysis known as an event study.

Judge Scheindlin rejected the Defendant's argument that the
plaintiffs had to satisfy the fifth Cammer factor as a
prerequisite to invoking the Basic presumption.  Quoting
Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2398, 2410
(2014), Judge Scheindlin held that the "fraud on the market"
theory is a "fairly modest premise [that] market professionals
generally consider most publicly announced material statements
about companies, thereby affecting stock market prices."  In
contrast, she found that an event study measures the more precise
issue of whether information is "impounded immediately" into the
stock price.  This, the court found, is more than the Basic
presumption requires. Moreover, she reasoned, event studies are
less reliable when conducted on a single firm, as opposed to 25 to
100 firms.  As such, she held that the plaintiffs could
demonstrate market efficiency without the use of an event study.

Judge Scheindlin also rejected the Defendants' second argument,
which was that the plaintiffs' theory did not fit the price
maintenance theory because the stock price inflation occurred
prior to the alleged misstatements.  The court rejected this
argument, reasoning that an omission or misrepresentation can also
prevent a noninflated stock price from falling, thereby
introducing inflation caused by omission or misrepresentation.  In
other words, the alleged misstatements created investor confidence
that artificially maintained the stock price.  When the alleged
truth was revealed, so the theory went, the stock price fell to an
allegedly "true" value.

While it appears there is a growing body of case law holding that
the fifth Cammer factor is not a prerequisite to finding market
efficiency, it will be interesting to see if other courts follow
Judge Scheindlin's lead and credit similar "fraud on the market"
theories based on price maintenance.


BENCO DENTAL: Sued Over Alleged Anticompetitive Scheme
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Dolinsky, writing for Times Leader, reports that a class-
action lawsuit leveled against Benco Dental accuses the Pittston
Township-based dental supplies distributor of conspiring to impede
its lesser competitors in an illegal effort to boost the price of
its own sales.

Filed Feb. 10 in federal court, the lawsuit accuses Benco of
conspiring with Patterson Companies Inc., of Minnesota, and Henry
Schein Inc., of New York, in a scheme to inflate prices of dental
supplies above competitive levels by pressuring dental
associations not to deal with newer, cheaper distributors.

The three distributors, whose combined sales make up 80 percent of
the market, threatened or employed group boycotts of other dental
supplies manufacturers that endorsed or partnered with its
competitors in violation of federal antitrust laws, the lawsuit
says.

"Defendants abused their dominant collective market power by
privately communicating and reaching an agreement to engage in an
anticompetitive scheme to foreclose and impair competition,
maintain and enhance market power, and artificially inflate prices
of dental supplies above competitive levels," wrote Philadelphia-
based attorney Robert S. Kitchenoff.

A Benco spokesperson on Feb. 17 denied the accusations.

"There is no truth to the allegations, and we're confident that we
will prevail in court," the spokesperson said in a statement.

Benco has ballooned from a single-room office in downtown Wilkes-
Barre that opened in 1930 to a prominent supplies distributor with
customers in 39 states.  It employs about 1,200 nationwide at four
distribution centers and 50 showrooms and has been repeatedly
recognized in the Pennsylvania "Best Places to Work" awards
program.

A $30 million, 280,000-square-foot headquarters was opened in 2010
in the CenterPoint Commerce & Trade Park.

Since manufacturers rely on distributors like Benco to purchase
their products and resell them on the market, Benco wields a
significant amount of power because the manufacturers would suffer
if Benco limited or stopped the sale of their products, the
lawsuit says.

Plaintiff Dr. Sander I. White, a dentist practicing in Delaware
County, seeks damages tripled against Benco and its co-defendants
from a period of anticompetitive actions beginning in at least
February 2012, the lawsuit says.

A class-action status means any dentist who purchased from Benco
or its partners during that time period could be eligible for a
piece of the settlement.  The lawsuit claims those affected by
paying inflated costs are innumerable.

The recent legal action against Benco is only the latest legal
hurdle they've encountered.

Benco consented to a $300,000 judgment in an April 2015 petition
filed on similar charges in Texas state court.  Then, Benco and
its partners were accused of conspiring to boycott the 2014 annual
meeting of the Texas Dental Association (TDA) to stifle a newly
formed distributor who partnered with the TDA in an attempt to
sell many of the same products at a lower price, according to the
suit.

Benco and its partners agreed to pressure other distributors and
manufacturers to halt partnerships that supplied the TDA, causing
them to lose access to potential sales. The lawsuit says Benco
agreed to the settlement on the same day the petition was filed.


BENCO DENTAL: Rittenhouse Suit Alleges Anticompetitive Acts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rittenhouse Smiles, P.C., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, v. Patterson Companies, Inc, Henry Schein,
Inc., and Benco Dental Supply Company, Case 1:16-cv-00762
(E.D.N.Y., February 12, 2016), alleges anticompetitive conspiracy
by Defendants, the three dominant dental product distributors in
the United States, to foreclose competition by illegally engaging
in a conspiracy to boycott competitor dental product distributors
and other entities that do business with such competitors, in
order to allow Defendants to maintain and extend their dominant
collective market power in the market for the distribution of
dental supplies and dental equipment in the United States.

Defendants Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Companies, Inc., and
Benco Dental Supply Company are the three largest distributors of
dental supplies in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
     William G. Caldes, Esq.
     Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
     SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
     1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 496-0300
     Fax: (215) 496-6611
     E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
             bcaldes@srkw-law.com
             jjagher@srkw-law.com

        - and -

     David P. McLafferty, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. MCLAFFERTY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     923 Fayette Street
     Conshohocken, PA 19428
     Phone: (610) 940-4000
     Fax: (610) 940-4007
     E-mail: dmclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com

        - and -

     Tina Wolfson, Esq.
     Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
     AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
     1016 Palm Avenue
     West Hollywood, CA 90069
     Phone: (310) 974-9111
     E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
             rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com


BENCO DENTAL: Faces Bauer Suit Over Anticompetitive Dealings
------------------------------------------------------------
Bauer Dental Arts, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Patterson Companies, Schein, Inc., and Benco Dental
Supply Co., Henry Schein, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00355 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 22, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
anticompetitive conspiracy to foreclose competition, specifically
by illegally engaging in a conspiracy to boycott competitor dental
product distributors and other entities that do business with such
competitors, in order to maintain and extend their dominant
collective market power in the market for the distribution of
dental supplies and dental equipment in the United States.

The Defendants are the three largest distributors of dental
supplies in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Radice, Esq.
      Kenneth Pickle, Esq.
      RADICE LAW FIRM, PC
      34 Sunset Blvd.
      Long Beach, NJ 08008
      Telephone: (646) 245-8502
      Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
      E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
              kpickle@radicelawfirm.com

         - and -

      Joseph Saveri, Esq.
      Josh Davis, Esq.
      Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
      Ryan McEwan, Esq.
      JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
      555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 500-6800
      Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
      E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
              jdavis@saverilawfirm.com
              apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
              rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com


BENCO DENTAL: Faces Corwin Suit Over Anticompetitive Dealings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Robert Corwin, DDS, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Benco Dental Supply Co., Henry Schein, Inc.,
and Patterson Companies, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00193-K (N.D.
Tex., January 22, 2016) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
anticompetitive conspiracy to foreclose competition, specifically
by illegally engaging in a conspiracy to boycott competitor dental
product distributors and other entities that do business with such
competitors, in order to maintain and extend their dominant
collective market power in the market for the distribution of
dental supplies and dental equipment in the United States.

The Defendants are the three largest distributors of dental
supplies in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Warren T. Burns, Esq.
      BURNS CHAREST LLP
      500 North Akard Street, Suite 2810
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (469) 904-4550
      Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
      E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com

         - and -

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      Bradley J. Demuth, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
      570 Lexington Avenue, 19 Fl.
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 722-7053
      E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
              bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com


BENCO DENTAL: Faces Schwartz Suit Over Anticompetitive Dealings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Schwartz, D.M.D., P.A., individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. Benco Dental Supply Co., Henry Schein,
Inc., and Patterson Companies, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00196-L
(N.D. Tex., January 24, 2016) arises out of the Defendants'
alleged anticompetitive conspiracy to foreclose competition,
specifically by illegally engaging in a conspiracy to boycott
competitor dental product distributors and other entities that do
business with such competitors, in order to maintain and extend
their dominant collective market power in the market for the
distribution of dental supplies and dental equipment in the United
States.

The Defendants are the three largest distributors of dental
supplies in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Warren T. Burns, Esq.
      BURNS CHAREST LLP
      500 North Akard Street, Suite 2810
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (469) 904-4550
      Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
      E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com

         - and -

      Michael E. Criden, Esq.
      Kevin B. Love, Esq.
      CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
      7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515
      South Miami, FL 33143
      Telephone: (305) 357-9000
      Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
      E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
              klove@cridenlove.com


BIG CITY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Robinson" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Robinson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and Henry Alcantara, Barry Alkins, Rafael Boiter,
Maurice Desrivieres, Jay Gilbert, Roger Jones, Rousso Mede, Jose
Peralta, Nieve Quezada, Maximino Rosa, and Tyrell Stewart,
individually v. Big City Yonkers, Inc. d/b/a Big City Automotive
Warehouses, KKLDS, Inc. d/b/a Big City Automotive Warehouses, and
2015 Atlantic Ave. Corp. d/b/a Big City Automotive Warehouses,
Case No. 600159/2016 (N.Y., Super. Ct., January 11, 2016) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages and damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Big City Yonkers, Inc. operates a business enterprise consisting
of 15 auto parts warehouses throughout the State of New York and
the State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
      Marijana Matura, Esq.
      Garrett Kaske, Esq.
      SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
      534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 499-9100


C&J ENERGY: "Hill" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Hill v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00070
(E.D. Tex., January 20, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, all available equitable relief, attorney fees,
and litigation expenses/costs, including expert witness fees and
expenses pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

C&J Energy Services, Inc. provides well construction, well
completions and well services to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William S. Hommel Jr., Esq.
      HOMMEL LAW FIRM
      1404 Rice Road, Suite 200
      Tyler, TX 75703
      Telephone: (903) 596-7100
      Facsimile: (469) 533-1618
      E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


CALCRETE CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Manuel De Jesus Lemus v. Calcrete Construction, Inc. and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC606577 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
January 8, 2016) is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Calcrete Construction, Inc. owns and operates a construction
company located at 11666 Pendleton St, Sun Valley, CA 91352.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alicia Olivares, Esq.
      FELDMAN BROWNW OLIVARES
      A Professional Law Corporation
      10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2490
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 552-7812
      Facsimile: (310) 552-7814
      E-mail: alicia@leefeldmanlaw.com


CAPTAIN D'S: Faces Wage Payment Class Action in Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a man
is suing Captain D's in a class action lawsuit after he claims it
violated the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Isaac Crabtree was employed by Captain D's until his employment
was involuntarily terminated in September, according to a
complaint filed Feb. 9 in Mercer Circuit Court.

Mr. Crabtree claims he did not receive all wages due for hours he
worked Dec. 14, 2014, until Dec. 28, 2014, in which he worked
76.75 hours and was only paid for 3.08 hours.

Following his termination, the defendant had a duty to pay him his
wages on or before the next regular payday on which the wages
would otherwise be due and payable, according to the suit.

Mr. Crabtree claims the defendant breached its duty and did not
pay all wages owed until November, which violated the West
Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act.

All persons formerly employed by the defendant in West Virginia at
any time five years prior to the filing of this complaint through
class certification, who were discharged and not paid all wages
within 72 hours if discharged prior to July 12, 2013, or within
four business days or the next regular payday, whichever comes
first, if discharged after July 12, 2013, but before June 11, or
by the next regular payday on which the wages were otherwise due
if discharged after June 11, according to the suit.

Mr. Crabtree claims the defendant's WPCA violations entitle him
and other class members to treble damages.

Mr. Crabtree is seeking compensatory damages.  He is being
represented by Jonathan R. Marshall -- jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
-- and Sandra Henson Kinney -- skinney@baileyglasser.com -- of
Bailey & Glasser; and Todd S. Bailess and Rodney A. Smith of
Bailess Smith PLLC.

Mercer Circuit Court case number: 16-C-36


CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: Faces "Paradis" Securities Suit in Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Paradis, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., David L.
Martin, and Laurence L. Betterley, Case 2:16-cv-01011 (C.D.Cal.,
February 12, 2016), was filed on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise
acquired CSI securities between September 12, 2011, and January
21, 2016, both dates inclusive.

CSI is a medical technology company that develops, manufactures,
and markets devices to treat vascular diseases, such as Peripheral
Arterial Disease. The Company sells its products directly to
hospitals, doctors, and office-based labs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: April 12 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on Feb. 17 disclosed that a complaint has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the common stock of Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. between
September 12, 2011 and January 21, 2016, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the
"Complaint").

If you purchased shares of CSI during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold CSI, and
wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J.
MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2
Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at
(888) 969-4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com or at
http://is.gd/rFtTcT

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  As a result of defendants' alleged false and
misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on January 21, 2016, CSI disclosed
during aftermarket hours that it expects revenue from its 2016
fiscal second quarter to be $41.4 million, a 4% decrease from the
second quarter of fiscal 2015, and 3% below the guidance range due
to the continued effects of the sales force transition.
Similarly, like the financial results disclosed on October 7,
2015, the Company reported disappointing financial results due to
the continued reformation of its sales force, which was a
materialization of the Company's receipt of the letter from the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of North Carolina
stating that it is investigating the Company to determine whether
the Company has violated the False Claims Act.

On this news, the market price of CSI common stock dropped almost
30%, closing at $8.74 per share on January 22, 2016, on heavy
trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 12, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.


CARRIER IQ: $9 Million Settlement in Privacy Suit Has Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge preliminarily approved telecom Carrier IQ's $9
million agreement to settle claims in San Francisco that it
collects personal information and sends it to Sprint, AT&T and
other companies.

Carrier IQ and several telecoms were hit in 2011 with a raft of
consumer privacy class actions alleging Carrier used a device
called IQRD to access smartphones while hiding its presence and
subverting standard operating system functions or other
applications.

Plaintiffs said the software allowed Carrier IQ to log users'
keystrokes, including their private text messages and web
searches, in violation of federal and state wiretap laws.

Carrier IQ and the telecoms -- including Sprint, AT&T and others
-- failed to persuade U.S. District Judge Edward Chen to force
arbitration based on users' agreements with their wireless
providers.

In November 2014, Carrier IQ told Chen that it had "reached an
agreement in principle that will resolve plaintiffs' claims
against Carrier IQ on a class-wide basis."

On Feb. 16, Chen said agreement appeared to be fair, despite his
initial reservations about the relatively small settlement fund,
which he said was "pennies on the dollar compared to maximum
verdict value."

According a January filing from the plaintiffs, if enough members
of the proposed class of 79 million consumers make claims to drive
the average allotment to less than $4 a person, the whole $9
million pot will be split among the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and CyLab
Usable Privacy and Security Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon
University.

"The settlement is a substantial discount, but there are many
good, compelling reasons you've set forth to my satisfaction,"
Chen said.

The judge set a final approval hearing for July 28.


CBC NATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Tennessee woman has brought a class action in Chicago federal
court against a Florida-based bank that employed her, alleging the
bank shorted her and all other home-based mortgage loan processors
like her, the overtime pay she believes they are due under the
law.

Tiffany Calabrese, of Hermitage, Tenn., worked from November 2013
to November 2015 as a loan processor for CBC National Bank, which
is based in Fernandina Beach, Fla.  The bank has mortgage offices
in 10 states, including in the suburban Chicago communities of
Rosemont and Shorewood.

Ms. Calabrese handled work from the bank's Rosemont office from
her home, first in west suburban Aurora, then in Hermitage.  She
and other CBC loan processors collected and organized paperwork
from bank customers in order to process mortgage loan
applications, primary duties she argued should have entitled them
under the Fair Labor Standards Act to overtime pay of at least
time and a half for any work beyond 40 hours each week.

According to her complaint, however, CBC considered Calabrese and
other employees in similar jobs to be exempt from FSA guidelines,
and paid its loan processors with an annual salary and bonus
payments for each file closed. She said she had a $60,000 annual
salary, paid bimonthly, with $100 bonuses for each mortgage
processed.  That salary works out to about $29 per hour.

Per the complaint, "She was not required to report hours worked in
any fashion and was not paid any overtime."

During her two years with the bank, Calabrese estimated she worked
an average of about 60 hours a week.  She argued the bank either
was or should have been aware that loan processors were entitled
to overtime pay and that "nondiscretionary bonus income must be
included when calculating the overtime rate of pay."

Even without the per-file-closed "bonus" payments, Ms. Calabrese's
extra 20 hours a week would have to be paid at 1.5 times her base
pay rate -- which in her case she contended would have entitled
her to more than $90,000 in additional pay over the two years she
worked for the bank.

The complaint's lone formal count, the FLSA violation, said the
bank "knew, or showed reckless disregard for the fact, that it
failed to pay these individuals overtime compensation in violation
of the FLSA," and said the bank failed to accurately record,
report or preserve employee work hour records.

The class would include loan officers who work for CBC mortgage
division offices in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia,
Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
According to the complaint, mortgages account for at least
$500,000 in business each year for CBC.

In addition to class certification and a jury trial, Calabrese
asked the court to award payment for back wages at applicable
overtime rates as well as liquid damages, legal fees and interest.
It also requested leave to add additional plaintiffs by motion or
filing of consent forms, as well as to amend the complaint to add
additional state law claims.

Ms. Calabrese is represented by attorneys Brendan J. Donelon, of
Kansas City, Mo., and Daniel W. Craig, of Donelon's firm's St.
Louis office.


CELGENE CORP: Fact Discovery to Be Completed by Aug. 2017
---------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that completion of fact
discovery and expert discovery is scheduled for August 1, 2017 and
December 15, 2017, respectively, in the complaints filed by the
International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local
1 Health Fund (IUB) and the City of Providence ("Providence").

On November 7, 2014, the International Union of Bricklayers and
Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) filed a putative
class action lawsuit against us in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that we violated
various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair
competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive supply
contract with Seratec S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories ("Barr")
allegedly could not secure its own supply of thalidomide active
pharmaceutical ingredient; (b) allegedly refusing to sell samples
of our THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Lannett Company, and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories so
that those companies can conduct the bioequivalence testing
necessary for ANDAs to be submitted to the FDA for approval to
market generic versions of these products; and (c) allegedly
bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits against Barr and
Natco Pharma Limited in order to allegedly delay those companies
from obtaining approval for proposed generic versions of
THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R). IUB, on behalf of itself and a
putative class of third party payers, is seeking injunctive relief
and damages.

"On February 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint," the Company said.

On March 3, 2015, the City of Providence ("Providence") filed a
similar putative class action making similar allegations. Both IUB
and Providence, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
third party payers, are seeking injunctive relief and damages.
Providence agreed that the decision in the motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint would apply to the identical claims in Providence's
complaint. A supplemental motion to dismiss Providence's state law
claims was filed on April 20, 2015.

"On October 30, 2015, the court denied our motion to dismiss on
all grounds," the Company said.

Celgene filed its Answer to the IUB and Providence complaints on
January 11, 2016. The completion of fact discovery and expert
discovery is scheduled for August 1, 2017 and December 15, 2017,
respectively. No trial date has been set.

"We intend to vigorously defend against IUB's claims," the Company
said.


CELGENE CORP: In Talks to Settle Receptos Acquisition Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit related to the Company's acquisition of Receptos,
Inc. are in the process of negotiating the terms of the
stipulation of settlement.

On July 20, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit, Scott v.
Receptos, Inc., related to Celgene's acquisition of Receptos, was
commenced by the filing of a complaint in the Court of Chancery
for the State of Delaware, Case No. 11316, against Receptos,
members of the Receptos Board, Celgene and Celgene's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Strix Corporation, which is a party to the acquisition
agreement. Four other complaints, Cacioppo v. Hasnain and
Rosenberg v. Receptos, Inc. (Cases Nos. 11324 and 11325) filed on
July 23, and Kadin v. Receptos, Inc., filed on July 27 (Case No.
11337), and Rockaway v. Hasnain (Case No. 11346) filed on July 28,
2015 raise similar putative class claims in the Court of Chancery
for the State of Delaware against some or all of Receptos, members
of the Receptos Board, Celgene, and Strix Corporation.

These complaints generally allege breaches of fiduciary duty by
members of the Receptos Board in connection with the Merger
Agreement. In the Scott, Rosenberg and Kadin actions, the
plaintiffs also allege that Celgene and Strix Corporation aided
and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty.

On August 17, 2015, all parties to these actions entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which sets forth the parties'
agreement in principle for a settlement of the actions. The MOU
contemplates that the parties will seek to enter into a
stipulation of settlement providing for a global release of claims
relating to the acquisition as set forth in the MOU. The claims
will not be released until such stipulation of settlement is
approved by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

"Although the parties are in the process of negotiating the terms
of the stipulation of settlement, there can be no assurance that
the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement
or that the court will approve such settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation," the Company said. "The
settlement did not affect the consideration received by Receptos'
stockholders in connection with the acquisition. As part of the
settlement, Receptos agreed to make certain additional disclosures
related to the acquisition."

Celgene Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is an
integrated global biopharmaceutical company engaged primarily in
the discovery, development and commercialization of innovative
therapies for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases
through next-generation solutions in protein homeostasis, immuno-
oncology, epigenetics, immunology and neuro-inflammation. Celgene
Corporation was incorporated in the State of Delaware in 1986.

On August 27, 2015, Celgene acquired all of the outstanding common
stock of Receptos, Inc. (Receptos) which resulted in Receptos
becoming our wholly-owned subsidiary. Receptos' lead drug
candidate, ozanimod, is a small molecule that modulates
sphingosine 1-phosphate 1 and 5 receptors and it is in development
for immune-inflammatory indications, including inflammatory bowel
disease and RMS.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: MOU Reached in TWC Merger Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties to
the class action lawsuit related to Charter's proposed merger with
Time Warner Cable Inc. ("TWC") have entered into an memorandum of
understanding to settle the action.

On February 14, 2014, Comcast Corporation ("Comcast") and TWC
announced their intent to merge.  Shortly thereafter, Breffni
Barrett and others filed suit in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York for the County of New York against Comcast, TWC and their
respective officers and directors.  Plaintiffs alleged, among
other things, that the TWC and Comcast boards of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to their respective stockholders
during merger negotiations by entering into the merger agreement
and approving the merger; and that TWC, Comcast and the holding
company created to merge the companies aided and abetted such
breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs  further alleged that the
joint proxy statement/prospectus filed by Comcast with the SEC on
March 20, 2014, which contained the preliminary proxy statement of
TWC, was misleading or omitted certain material information.

Seven other similar class actions were filed in February and March
2014 in courts in New York and Delaware making similar
allegations, and five of these were consolidated with this matter.
The complaints sought injunctive relief enjoining the stockholder
vote and merger, unspecified declaratory and equitable relief,
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and costs and fees.

On July 22, 2014, those parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") to settle the suits.  That MOU, which was
subsequently amended, was subject to final approval by the New
York Supreme Court and certain other conditions.

However, in April 2015, Comcast and TWC terminated their proposed
transaction, which terminated that settlement.

On May 26, 2015, Charter and TWC announced their intent to merge.

On June 29, 2015, the parties in the NY Actions filed a
stipulation agreeing that plaintiffs could file a Second
Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended
Complaint"), and dismissing the action with prejudice as to
Comcast and Tango Acquisition Sub, Inc. After the court so ordered
the stipulation, the plaintiffs in the NY Actions filed the Second
Amended Complaint on July 1, 2015. The Second Amended Complaint
named as defendants TWC, the members of the TWC board of
directors, Charter and the merger subsidiaries. The Second Amended
Complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the members
of the TWC board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
TWC stockholders during the Charter merger negotiations and by
entering into the merger agreement and approving the mergers, and
that Charter and its subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches
of fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other relief,
injunctive relief enjoining the stockholder vote on the mergers,
unspecified declaratory and equitable relief, compensatory damages
in an unspecified amount, and costs and attorneys' fees.

On September 9, 2015, the parties entered into an MOU to settle
the action. Pursuant to the MOU, defendants issued certain
supplemental disclosures relating to the mergers on a Form 8-K,
and plaintiffs agreed to release with prejudice all claims that
could have been asserted against defendants in connection with the
mergers. The settlement is conditioned on, among other things,
consummation of the transactions between TWC and Charter, and must
be approved by the New York Supreme Court. In the event that the
New York Supreme Court does not approve the settlement, the
defendants intend to defend against any further litigation.

TWC, the TWC board of directors, Charter and the merger
subsidiaries intend to defend vigorously any litigation filed.

Charter is among the largest providers of cable services in the
United States, offering a variety of entertainment, information
and communications solutions to residential and commercial
customers.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Has Yet to Reply to Delaware Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. has not yet responded to a
stockholder class action lawsuit, Charter said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 10, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

On August 21, 2015, a purported stockholder of Charter filed a
lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, on behalf of a putative
class of Charter stockholders, challenging the transactions
between Charter, Time Warner Cable Inc. ("TWC"), Advance/Newhouse
Partnership ("A/N"), and Liberty Broadband announced by Charter on
May 26, 2015 (collectively, the "Transactions"). The lawsuit names
as defendants Liberty Broadband, Charter, the board of directors
of Charter, and "New," or post-Transaction, Charter. Plaintiff
alleged that the Transactions improperly benefit Liberty Broadband
at the expense of other Charter shareholders, and that Charter
issued a false and misleading proxy statement in connection with
the Transactions.

Plaintiff requested, among other things, that the Delaware Court
of Chancery enjoin the September 21, 2015 special meeting of
Charter stockholders at which Charter stockholders were asked to
vote on the Transactions until the defendants disclosed certain
information relating to Charter and the Transactions. The
disclosures demanded by the plaintiff included (i) certain
unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter and (ii) a Form
of Proxy and Right of First Refusal Agreement ("Proxy") by and
among Liberty Broadband, A/N, Charter and New Charter, which was
referenced in the description of the Second Amended and Restated
Stockholders Agreement, dated May 23, 2015, among Charter, New
Charter, Liberty Broadband and A/N.

On September 9, 2015, Charter issued supplemental disclosures
containing unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter. In
return, the plaintiff agreed its disclosure claims were moot and
withdrew its application to enjoin the Charter stockholder vote on
the Transactions.

Charter has not yet responded to this suit but intends to deny any
liability, believes that it has substantial defenses, and intends
to vigorously defend this suit.

Charter is among the largest providers of cable services in the
United States, offering a variety of entertainment, information
and communications solutions to residential and commercial
customers.


CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation and Consumers Energy Company said in their
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the Companies continue to defend against the Gas Index Price
Reporting Litigation.

CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company
(CMS MST), CMS Field Services, Inc., Cantera Natural Gas, Inc.,
and Cantera Gas Company, have been named as defendants in four
class action lawsuits and one individual lawsuit arising as a
result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to
publications that report trade information. Allegations include
price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial
inflation of natural gas retail prices in Kansas, Missouri, and
Wisconsin.

In 2005, CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services were named as
defendants in a putative class action filed in Kansas state court,
Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al. The complaint alleges
that during the putative class period, January 1, 2000 through
October 31, 2002, the defendants engaged in a scheme to violate
the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act. The plaintiffs are seeking
treble damages, statutory full consideration damages consisting of
the full consideration paid by the plaintiffs for natural gas
purchased during the period, costs, and attorneys' fees.

In 2007, a class action complaint, Heartland Regional Medical
Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., was filed as a putative
class action in Missouri state court alleging violations of
Missouri antitrust laws. The defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS
Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have violated the
Missouri antitrust law in connection with their natural gas
reporting activities during the period January 2000 through
October 2002. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, costs,
and attorneys' fees.

In 2006, a class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al. v. XCEL
Energy Inc., et al., was filed in Wisconsin state court on behalf
of Wisconsin commercial entities that purchased natural gas
between January 1, 2000 and October 31, 2002. The defendants,
including CMS Energy, CMS ERM, and Cantera Gas Company, are
alleged to have violated Wisconsin's antitrust statute. The
plaintiffs are seeking full consideration damages, treble damages,
costs, interest, and attorneys' fees.

In 2009, a class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System v. CMS
ERM, et al., was filed in circuit court in Wood County, Wisconsin,
against CMS Energy, CMS ERM, Cantera Gas Company, and others. The
plaintiff is seeking full consideration damages, treble damages,
costs, interest, and attorneys' fees.

In 2005, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, N.A., in its capacity as
trustee of the FLI Liquidating Trust, filed an action in Kansas
state court against CMS Energy, CMS MST, CMS Field Services, and
others. The complaint alleges various claims under the Kansas
Restraint of Trade Act. The plaintiff is seeking statutory full
consideration damages for its purchases of natural gas in 2000 and
2001, costs, and attorneys' fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict
litigation process. In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS
Energy defendants were dismissed by the district court based on
FERC preemption. Plaintiffs filed appeals in all of the cases. The
issues on appeal were whether the district court erred in
dismissing the cases based on FERC preemption and denying the
plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints to add a
federal Sherman Act antitrust claim. The plaintiffs did not appeal
the dismissal of CMS Energy as a defendant in these cases, but
other CMS Energy entities remain as defendants.

In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the district court decision. The appellate court found that FERC
preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases. The
appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of leave to
amend to add federal antitrust claims. The matter was appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015 upheld the Ninth Circuit's
decision. The cases have been remanded back to the federal
district court.

These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly
situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple
jurisdictions. Presently, any estimate of liability would be
highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's reasonably possible
loss would be based on widely varying models previously untested
in this context. If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable,
these cases could negatively affect CMS Energy's liquidity,
financial condition, and results of operations.

CMS Energy was formed as a corporation in Michigan in 1987 and is
an energy company operating primarily in Michigan. It is the
parent holding company of several subsidiaries, including
Consumers, an electric and gas utility, and CMS Enterprises,
primarily a domestic independent power producer. Consumers serves
individuals and businesses operating in the alternative energy,
automotive, chemical, metal, and food products industries, as well
as a diversified group of other industries. CMS Enterprises,
through its subsidiaries and equity investments, is engaged
primarily in independent power production and owns power
generation facilities fueled mostly by natural gas and biomass.


CNOVA NV: Faces "Dumon" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Dumon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cnova N.V., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00498 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 22, 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.

Cnova N.V. is an e-commerce company that offers and sells products
online.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


COCA-COLA: 3 Merger Class Actions Consolidated
----------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the three class
action lawsuits related to the Company's agreements with The Coca-
Cola Company (TCCC); Coca-Cola Iberian Partners (CCIP), Coca-Cola
Erfrischungsgetranke (CCEAG), have been consolidated.

"In connection with the agreements entered into between us, TCCC,
CCIP, and CCEAG on August 6, 2015, three putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Delaware Chancery Court between the
announcement date and the present," the Company said.  "The
lawsuits are similar and assert claims on behalf of our
shareholders for various alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with the agreements. The lawsuits name us, our Board of
Directors, CCIP, CCEAG, CCEP, and TCCC as defendants. Plaintiffs
in each case seek to enjoin the transaction, to rescind the
transaction if it is consummated and allow termination damages,
and to recover other damages, attorneys' fees, and litigation
expenses."

"By consent order dated January 7, 2016, the court consolidated
these cases, with the caption of the consolidated case In Re Coca-
Cola Enterprises, Inc. Consolidated Stockholders Litigation, C.A.
No. 11492-VCN. We believe this matter to be without merit and
intend to defend it vigorously."

On August 6, 2015, the Company entered into agreements with TCCC,
Coca-Cola Iberian Partners (CCIP), the privately-owned Coca-Cola
bottler operating primarily in Spain and Portugal, and Coca-Cola
Erfrischungsgetranke (CCEAG), the wholly-owned TCCC bottler
operating in Germany, related to a pending transaction to form
Coca-Cola European Partners (CCEP). The combination (the Merger)
will be effected through the contribution of CCIP and CCEAG to a
newly created entity, CCEP, and the merger of CCE with and into a
newly formed indirect U.S. subsidiary of CCEP (MergeCo), with
MergeCo continuing as the surviving entity.

Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. markets, produces, and distributes
nonalcoholic beverages.


COGNIZANT: Illegally Terminates Employees, "Moore" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Moore and on behalf of herself and similarly situated persons
v. Cognizant and Walt Disney World, Case No. 616-cv-113-ORL-28KRS
(M.D. Fla., January 25, 2016) is brought on behalf of all American
individuals who were employed by Disney who were terminated and
immediately replaced by foreign workers who were H1B visa holders
and whom Cognizant falsely certified on ETA Forms 750(A) 750(B)
and 9035 and 9035E that the working conditions of similarly
situated employees would not be adversely affected and that the
job opportunity is open to any qualified U.S. worker when
Cognizant knew that Disney would adversely affect similarly
situated employees and displace such workers and immediately
replace them with H1B visa holders.

Cognizant is a provider of information technology, business
consulting, enterprise applications and business process services.

Walt Disney World operates an entertainment complex in Bay Lake,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sara Blackwell, Esq.
      THE BLACKWELL FIRM
      1800 2nd St., Suite 882
      Sarasota, FL 34236
      Telephone: (941) 961-3046
      E-mail: sara@theblackwellfirm.com


COMPLIANCE STAFFING: "Rangel" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Rangel, Luis Rangel, Jacobo Rangel, and all others
Similarly-situated v.  Compliance Staffing Agency, LLC, Elite
Storage Solutions, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00008 (E.D.N.C., January
19, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Compliance Staffing Agency is a staffing company that specializes
in supplying safe, efficient, and productive employees to the
energy industry. Specifically, Defendant Compliance provides
staffing services to companies in the coal, gas and industrial
businesses.

Defendant Elite provides storage solutions to a variety of
industries.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - and -

      Pedro Krompecher, Esq.
      KROMPECHER LAW FIRM, PLLC
      4010 Barrett Drive #203
      Raleigh, NC 27609
      Tel: (919) 977-8082
      E-mail: pedro@krompecherlaw.com


CRANE MEDICAL: Faces "Noel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Noel v. Crane Medical Transportation Co., LLC, Case No.
4:16-cv-00047-FRZ (D. Ariz., January 22, 2016) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Crane Medical Transportation Co., LLC is an Arizona limited
liability company providing transportation services for profit in
Pima County, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark E. Chadwick, Esq.
      MUNGER CHADWICK, P.L.C.
      333 North Wilmot, Suite 300
      Tucson, AR 85711
      Telephone: (520) 721-1900
      Facsimile: (520) 747-1550
      E-mail: mechadwick@mungerchadwick.com


CRITTENDEN HOSPITAL: Class Action Notice in "Goodman" Suit Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned YOLANDA GOODMAN on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. CRITTENDEN HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION, INC.; EUGENE K. CASHMAN, III; W. BRAD McCORMICK;
CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE CO.; JAMIE R. CARTER, JR; DAVID G.
BAYTOS; DAVID RAINES, JR; JASON W. COLLARD; HERSCHEL F. OWENS;
ANDREW LUTTRELL; KEITH M. INGRAM; RANDALL CATT; WILLIAM JOHNSON;
LANNIE L. LANCASTER; JULIO P. RUIZ; SHERRY L. LONDON; NESS S.
SECHREST; RANDY R. SULLIVAN; and LEVEN WILLIAMS, Defendants, No.
3:14-cv-229-DPM (E.D. Ark.), District Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr.
appreciated and approved the agreed notice, No. 113-1, of a
certified class action with respect to the Crittenden Hospital
Healthcare Plan.

The notice identifies class members as those covered by the
Crittenden County Hospital Healthcare Plan from January 1, 2012
through September 12, 2014.  It sought to let class members know
that the lawsuit has been certified as a class action and that
their claims under ERISA may be affected.

A full-text copy of Judge Marshall's February 11, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/U1rBh5from Leagle.com.

Yolanda Goodman, Plaintiff, represented by Frank L. Watson, III
-- fwatson@watsonburns.com -- Watson Burns, PLLC, John Timothy
Edwards, Ballin, Ballin & Fishman, P.C., Kevin McCormack, Ballin,
Ballin & Fishman, P.C., Roger Dennis Sumpter, II, Fogleman, Rogers
& Coe & Vincent O. Chadick -- vchadick@qgtlaw.com -- Quattlebaum,
Grooms & Tull PLLC.

Crittenden Hospital Association Inc, Defendant, represented by
Mark W. Peters -- mark.peters@wallerlaw.com -- Waller Lansden
Dortch & Davis, LLP & John E. B. Gerth -- jeb.gerth@wallerlaw.com
-- Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP.

Eugene K Cashman, III, (originally named as Gene Cashman),
Defendant, represented by Don L. Hearn, Jr. -- dhearn@glankler.com
-- Glankler Brown, PLLC & John I. Houseal, Jr. --
jhouseal@glankler.com -- Glankler Brown, PLLC.

W Brad McCormick, (originally named as Brad McCormick), Defendant,
represented by Mark W. Peters, Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP
& John E. B. Gerth, Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP.

Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co, Defendant, represented by
Daniel K. Ryan -- dryan@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP, Harry S. Hurst, Jr., Parker Hurst & Burnett PLC & Peter E.
Pederson -- ppederson@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Jamie R Carter, Jr, Defendant, represented by John E. B. Gerth,
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP & Mark W. Peters, Waller
Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP.

David G Baytos, Defendant, represented by Don L. Hearn, Jr.,
Glankler Brown, PLLC & John I. Houseal, Jr., Glankler Brown, PLLC.

David Raines, Jr, Defendant, represented by John E. B. Gerth,
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP & Mark W. Peters, Waller
Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP.

Jason W Collard, Defendant, represented by John E. B. Gerth,
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP & Mark W. Peters, Waller
Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP.

Herschel F Owens, Defendant, represented by John E. B. Gerth,
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP & Mark W. Peters, Waller
Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP.

Andrew Luttrell, Defendant, represented by John E. B. Gerth,
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP & Mark W. Peters, Waller
Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP.

Keith M Ingram, Defendant, represented by John E. B. Gerth, Waller
Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP & Mark W. Peters, Waller Lansden
Dortch & Davis, LLP.

Randall Catt, Defendant, represented by John E. B. Gerth, Waller
Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP & Mark W. Peters, Waller Lansden
Dortch & Davis, LLP.

William Johnson, Defendant, represented by John E. B. Gerth,
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP & Mark W. Peters, Waller
Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP.

Lannie L Lancaster, Defendant, represented by John E. B. Gerth,
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP & Mark W. Peters, Waller
Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP.

Julio P Ruiz, Defendant, represented by John E. B. Gerth, Waller
Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP & Mark W. Peters, Waller Lansden
Dortch & Davis, LLP.

Sherry L London, Defendant, represented by John E. B. Gerth,
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP & Mark W. Peters, Waller
Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP.

Ness S Sechrest, Defendant, represented by John E. B. Gerth,
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP & Mark W. Peters, Waller
Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP.

Randy R Sullivan, Defendant, represented by John E. B. Gerth,
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP & Mark W. Peters, Waller
Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP.

Leven Williams, Defendant, represented by John E. B. Gerth, Waller
Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP & Mark W. Peters, Waller Lansden
Dortch & Davis, LLP.


CSX CORP: Proceedings on Merits of Antitrust Class Suit Delayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 25, 2015, that a district court has
delayed proceedings on the merits of the so-called Fuel Surcharge
antitrust litigation pending the outcome of class certification
remand proceedings.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action
lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of
Columbia, where they are now pending. The suit seeks treble
damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as
attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to
allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs'
claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to
prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to
appeal the District Court's class certification decision. In
August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the class
certification decision and remanded the case to the District Court
to reconsider its class certification decision. The District Court
remand proceedings are underway. Although a class certification
hearing had been scheduled for November 2015, it has been
postponed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on a class
certification issue in an unrelated case. The District Court has
delayed proceedings on the merits of the case pending the outcome
of the class certification remand proceedings.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at
and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit.
Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and
an unexpected adverse decision on the merits could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity in that particular period.

CSX, based in Jacksonville, Florida, provides rail-based
transportation services including traditional rail service and the
transport of intermodal containers and trailers.


CTI BIOPHARMA: "McGlothin" Alleges Securities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Darron McGlothin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. CTI Biopharma Corp., James A. Bianco, and
Louis A. Bianco, Case 2:16-cv-00216 (W.D.Wash., February 12,
2016), was filed on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired CTI BioPharma securities: (1) pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's public offering on or
about September 24, 2015; and/or (2) between March 4, 2014 and
February 9, 2016, inclusive. Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act.

CTI BioPharma is a biopharmaceutical company which provides
medical research services, and develops clinical treatment and
drugs for various cancers. One of the Company's most advanced
pipeline products was pacritinib, a treatment for myleofibrosis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Cliff Cantor, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C.
     627 208th Ave. SE
     Sammamish, WA 98074
     Phone: (425) 868-7813
     Fax: (425) 732-3752
     E-mail: cliff.cantor@outlook.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
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Fax: (212) 661-8665
     E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             mgorrie@pomlaw.com

        - and -

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


CTI BIOPHARMA: April 11 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on February 10, 2016, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against CTI BioPharma Corp.  The
complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or
false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is March 4, 2014 through February 9, 2016.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all CTI BioPharma
Corp. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class
Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above.
You may move the Court no later than April 11, 2016 to serve as a
lead plaintiff for the entire Class.  However, in order to do so,
you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com
Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com


DESERT SUN: Does Not Properly Pay Drivers, "Larson" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Larson, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Desert Sun Pizza, LLC, NSFM Pizza, Inc. and NSFM Pizza
Utah, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-08011-SRB (D. Ariz., January 25, 2016)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage
to their delivery drivers, even before considering unreimbursed
vehicle expenses incurred by delivery drivers.

The Defendants own and operate Domino's franchise stores within
the District of Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Thompson
      WATTS GUERRA LLP
      Four Dominion Drive
      Building Three, Suite 100
      San Antonio, TX 78257
      Telephone: (210) 447-0500
      Facsimile: (210) 447-0501
      E-mail: rthompson@wattsguerra.com


DEVON ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Earthquakes
-------------------------------------------------
Ziva Branstetter, writing for The Dallas Morning News, reports
that with a new legal challenge from the Sierra Club, some of
Oklahoma's largest energy companies now face lawsuits seeking
class-action status in two counties and action in federal court
aimed at holding them responsible for the state's increasingly
violent earthquakes.

The latest lawsuit, filed on Feb. 16, comes just three days after
the state's third largest earthquake -- measuring 5.1 -- struck
near the town of Fairview in northwest Oklahoma near the Kansas
border.  Also on Feb. 16, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission
announced details of a plan to reduce wastewater injection over a
5,000-square-mile area of western Oklahoma.

The lawsuit by the Oklahoma chapter of the Sierra Club names Devon
Energy Production Co., Chesapeake Operating LLC and New Dominion
LLC, and is filed in the Western District of Oklahoma.

In emails to The Frontier, spokesmen for Devon and New Dominion
declined to comment on the suit.  Chesapeake could not be reached
for comment on Feb. 16.

Sandridge Exploration and Production LLC was included in the
Sierra Club's notice of intent to sue under the federal law and
may be added as a defendant at a later date.

The suit asks a federal judge to order the companies to
"immediately and substantially reduce" wastewater injection to
levels recommended by seismologists and require the companies to
"reinforce vulnerable structures" that could be impacted by large
earthquakes.

The suit is brought under the federal Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, which allows citizens to sue defendants who pose an
"imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the
environment."

Johnson Bridgwater, director of the Oklahoma Chapter of the Sierra
Club, said he is not aware of the law previously being used to
target earthquakes.

"I think this is probably a one-of-a-kind in the nation lawsuit,"
he said.

However, Mr. Bridgwater said he believes suing under the law is a
good approach to addressing Oklahoma's earthquake crisis.

"Not only do we have damage to buildings but our bigger concern is
the health aspect."

In town hall meetings throughout the state, Mr. Bridgwater said
the Sierra Club "met with people all over Oklahoma last year.  We
have Oklahomans experiencing severe anxiety and psychological
trauma.  This isn't simply about a broken foundation."

The number of earthquakes in Oklahoma jumped from 50 in 2009 to
more than 5,800 last year, making the state the most seismically
active in the lower 48 states.  So far this year, the state has
experienced at least seven earthquakes measuring 4.0 or higher.

Julie Allison said she hopes the lawsuit can accomplish what
public officials in Oklahoma are apparently afraid to do.

Every night before Allison goes to bed in her Edmond home, she
pulls up an app on her phone displaying locations of Oklahoma's
earthquakes during the past 24 hours.  Ms. Allison, who owns a
medical compliance business, takes a screenshot of the map and
charts the distance from each epicenter to her two-story home.

Her list includes a 4.2 quake on New Year's day and the 4.3 quake
three days before that.  Both were about two miles north of her
home.  Though the 5.1 earthquake on Feb. 13 was much farther to
the north and west, she said she felt it rocking the walls.

Ms. Allison and her husband bought earthquake insurance in 2012
and she figures they may need proof the quakes caused new cracks
snaking through her foundation, exterior rock and brick, interior
walls and driveway during the last several years.

But she doesn't want to submit a claim for the damage, which she
estimates at $50,000, until the state finds a way to stop or at
least dramatically reduce the earthquakes.  Ms. Allison said she
has little faith that the plan announced by the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission will do that.

"It's disheartening. I don't feel that we're getting the truth,"
Ms. Allison said.  "Mary Fallin is not coming out and talking to
the people.  We didn't elect (OCC spokesman) Matt Skinner.  We
elected Todd Hiett and two others to the Corporation Commission.
When you are hiding, you are hiding something."

The Corporation Commission announced a "regional earthquake
response plan" on Feb. 16 covering 5,281 square miles in western
Oklahoma.  The plan applies to 245 wells where wastewater from oil
and gas drilling is injected into the Arbuckle geological layer.

Though state agencies and officials were previously reluctant to
connect earthquakes and oil and gas drilling, that stance began to
change in recent months.  The commission's announcement states
that scientists "largely agree that wastewater injection into the
Arbuckle formation poses the largest potential risk for
earthquakes in Oklahoma."

Despite a widely held belief that wastewater used in the fracking
process is to blame, the vast majority of wastewater is naturally
occurring but toxic brine produced during the drilling process.

The state's plan will be phased in during the next two months and
is expected to cut wastewater injection in the impacted area by
more than 500,000 barrels per day, or about 40 percent of the
total volume.

Tim Baker, director of the OCC's Oil and Gas Conservation
Division, said the new plan is part of an ongoing effort to
respond to the state's dramatic rise in earthquakes.

"There is agreement among researchers, including our partners at
the Oklahoma Geological Survey, that the data clearly underscored
the need for a larger, regional response," Mr. Baker said in a
news release.

"This plan is aimed not only at taking further action in response
to past activity, but also to get out ahead of it and hopefully
prevent new areas from being involved."

Oklahoma City attorney William Federman, one of several attorneys
representing the Sierra Club, told The Frontier on Feb. 16 he
expects "a considerable challenge from the industry as well as
people who are supported through the industry."

"Our elected officials and the Corporation Commission is clearly
cow towing to the industry," he said.

Mr. Federman said the Sierra Club is "100 percent supportive of
the oil and gas industry" and its importance to the state.

"We want our friends, our siblings to be employed.  What we don't
want is our kids getting killed because the house falls down on
them.  If the industry refuses to do the right thing . . . the
courts need to step in."

The lawsuit asks a judge to oversee the establishment of an
"independent earthquake monitoring and prediction center" to
determine how much wastewater can safely be injected into a well
or formation before earthquakes are triggered.

Mr. Federman said that request is aimed at taking the politics out
of the process.

The Oklahoma Geological Survey, a state agency based at the
University of Oklahoma, is responsible for tracking and responding
to earthquakes.

"The OGS is not an independent body.  They are essentially
captives to the energy industry," he said.

As reported by EnergyWire, Bloomberg and other media outlets, OGS
and its scientists were pressured to downplay connections between
the state's earthquakes and oil and gas activity.  The state's two
seismologists left last year and the agency has yet to replace
them, despite receiving an infusion of $1 million in extra funds.

The agency has since acknowledged most of the quakes are "very
likely" caused by injection wells, as years of studies have
concluded.

"Everyone finally acknowledges there is a problem," Mr. Federman
said. "Our energy industry knows there's a connection.  Five
months ago they're denying it. Let's unleash the brains at our
universities to figure this out."

In addition to the threat of federal court action, energy
companies face lawsuits in state courts.  Scott Poynter, an
attorney based in Little Rock, has filed suits in Lincoln and
Logan counties seeking class-action status for people whose
property has been damaged by the earthquakes.

The suit in Logan County, filed on behalf of property owners
Lisa Griggs and April Marler, seeks class-action status for people
who sustained property damage from earthquakes throughout the
state.  That suit was filed Jan. 12 and names Chesapeake
Operating, LLC, New Dominion, LLC, Devon Energy Production Co., LP
and Sandridge Exploration and Production , LLC.

The Lincoln County suit seeks relief for property owners damaged
by the 5.6 earthquake that struck Prague, Okla. on Nov. 6, 2011.
The earthquake injured two people, destroyed six homes and damaged
more than 100 others.

That lawsuit, filed by Jennifer Lin Cooper on Feb. 10, 2015, names
New Dominion LLC, Spess Oil Co., and 25 other unnamed defendants.

Mr. Poynter filed a separate lawsuit in 2014 against New Dominion,
Spess Oil and other unnamed defendants on behalf of Sandra Ladra,
who was injured in the Prague earthquake.
Ms. Ladra's chimney collapsed, causing injuries to her legs, the
lawsuit claims.

Mr. Poynter said the state and federal lawsuits rely on different
laws to help Oklahomans who have been damaged by Oklahoma's
earthquakes or protect them from future quakes.

"What we believe needs to happen is take the politics out of the
process. . . . The overall purpose of the lawsuit is to develop
through the scientific evidence what will create safety for
Oklahomans."


DITMARS SQUARE: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Ortiz Garcia, Guillermo Rodriguez Martinez, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Ditmars Square Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00166 (E.D.N.Y., January 13, 2016) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Ditmars Square Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in Astoria, New
York.

Andres Ortiz Garcia and Guillermo Rodriguez Martinez are pro se
Plaintiffs.


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris P. Goldmann, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Diversified Consultants Inc., Case No. 2:16-
cv-00184-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y., January 13, 2016) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Diversified Consultants Inc. is a third-party debt collection
agency specializing in the telecom industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOROTHY BROWN: "Premovic" Suit Seeks Return of Unlawful Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Tomica Premovic, and all others similarly-situated v. Dorothy
Brown, as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Maria Pappas,
as treasurer of Cook County and Cook County, Illinois, a body
politic and corporate, Case No. 2016CH00193 (Ill. Cir., January 7,
2016), seeks the return of unlawful fees demanded and collected by
the Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Clerk charges and collects a fee
for filing a motion or petition to reconsider, vacate or modify
interlocutory orders in the Circuit Court when the Clerk's
statutory authorization is limited to collecting such a fee only
for the filing of a motion or petition to reconsider, vacate or
modify final judgments or orders. As a result, the Clerk has
collected fees from Plaintiff and the putative class for which it
was not statutorily entitled.

The Defendant Dorothy Brown is the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Cook County Illinois and is being sued in that capacity.

Defendant Maria Pappas is the Treasurer of Cook County and is
being sued in that capacity. The Treasurer is named as a defendant
herein as a necessary party.

Defendant Cook County, Illinois is a county in the State of
Illinois, a body politic and corporate, and is named as a
defendant herein as a necessary party.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry D. Drury, Esq.
      LARRY D. DRURY, LTD
      100 North LaSalle St., Ste 2200
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 346-7950

          - and -

      John H. Alexander, Esq.
      JOHN H. ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES, PC
      55 West Monroe, Ste 2455
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 263-7731


EL CAMPO: "Hernandez" Suit Alleges FLSA, Ill. Wage Law Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Viceute Pedrote Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees, v. El Campo Chili & Spice LLC, and
Ernesto Hernandez, individually, Case: 1:16-cv-02223 (N.D.Ill.,
February 14, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment
and Collection Act.

El Campo Chili and Spice LLC is a restaurant located in Chicago,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENDEAVOUR ENERGY: Hearing Begins in Bushfire Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ursula Malone, writing for ABC, reports that a Winmalee school
teacher who lost everything when a bushfire ripped through his
Blue Mountains suburb said he was appalled to hear Endeavour
Energy had underspent on its maintenance budget.

Former high school teacher Wayne Parker was the only one of the
700 residents involved in a class action against the company to
attend the opening day of evidence at the NSW Supreme Court.

Residents are claiming $200 million in damages from Endeavour over
the bushfire that swept through the suburb and neighboring
Springwood in October 2013.

The class action claims Endeavour was negligent in failing to
clear dangerous trees.

It was alleged in court the company had significantly underspent
its budget for tree clearing in the years leading up to the fire.

"I was actually appalled to find that out," Mr. Parker, 59, said.

"I couldn't believe they had been allocated the resources, the
finances to the tune of millions of dollars and the money is not
being spent where it's supposed to be.

"And yet they are talking about profits."

Mr. Parker was on leave from his job as head teacher of industrial
arts at Blaxland High School when the fire struck and has not
returned to work since.

His house has been rebuilt.

"I deliberately came down here as a resident to see how it would
be presented on our behalf," Mr. Parker said.

Others may have been following proceedings from their lounge rooms
after the Supreme Court, for the first time, allowed the opening
addresses to be streamed live on the internet.

The hearing is scheduled to stretch over 10 weeks and may test the
endurance of even Mr. Parker.

"My take on it so far, I've heard a bit of talk and hopefully
tomorrow Endeavour's response," he said.

Resident 'heard twang, hissing sound' as fire started

In his opening remarks, the barrister representing the residents,
Tim Tobin SC, described how the Blue Mountains was in a state of
"high vulnerability" on that October day with high temperatures,
gusting winds and low humidity.

He told the court the fire was started when a rotten acacia tree
outside a property in Linksview Road, Springwood, fell onto power
lines.

Mr. Tobin told the court Springwood resident Marilyn Stubbs had
been reading a magazine in her bedroom when she heard a twang
followed by a hissing sound.

She looked out of the window and saw the bush was ablaze.

The court was played three calls made to triple-0 by local
residents.

"Oh hello, I live in Springwood and a bushfire has just started
across the road from me," one caller said to the operator.

Mr. Tobin said the fire went on to burn for close to a month,
destroying more than 3,500 hectares.

"For many group members caught up in the path of the fire the
experience was life-threatening and terrifying," he said.

Endeavour has disputed the cause of the fire.

"The tree was neither dead, dying, dangerous nor visually
damaged," its response to the claims said.

Mr. Parker will be back in court tomorrow to hear Endeavour's
opening address.

On Feb. 12, the legal caravan will move to the Blue Mountains as
Justice Peter Garling and the legal teams visit several sites of
interest, including the spot where the fire was believed to have
started.


EDWARD LUNCH: "Medina" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Jammy Medina, and all others similarly-situated v. Edward Lunch
Restaurant, Inc. dba Edward Lunch Restaurant, and Edward Peralta,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00274 (E.D.N.Y., January 19, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
      32 Broadway, Suite 601
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 688-5640
      Fax: (212) 688-2548


ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Sued in Cal. Over Improper Rental Car Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Winters, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Enterprise Holdings Inc., Enterprise Rent-A-
Car, Rental Insurance Services, Inc., Brian M. Dumoulin, AW
Collision, and Does 1 to 50, Case No. BC606714 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
January 11, 2016) arises out of the Defendants' unlawful, unfair
and fraudulent business act and practice of committing fraud and
conversion of property in attempting to extract improper fees for
the use of a rental car.

The Defendants own and operate a car rental company headquartered
in Clayton, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan D. Winters, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN D. WINTERS
      2750 Bellflower Blvd., Suite 101
      Long Beach, CA 90815
      Telephone: (562) 497-0472
      Facsimile: (562) 497-0474


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Merz" Suit Over FCRA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard C. Merz, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services, LLC and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 3:16-cv-00259 (D.N.J., January 14, 2016) is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Equifax Information Services, LLC operates a consumer credit
reporting agency in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EXELON CORP: Payments in TCPA Case to Commence in Q4 2015
---------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Commonwealth
Edison Company, Peco Energy Company, and Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that settlement payments were
to commence in the fourth quarter 2015 in the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act lawsuit against ComEd.

On November 19, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a single individual and
a presumptive class that would include all customers that ComEd
enrolled in its Outage Alert text message program. The complaint
alleged that ComEd violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) by sending text messages to customers without first
obtaining their consent to receive such messages. The complaint
sought certification of a class along with statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, and an order prohibiting ComEd from sending
additional text messages. ComEd and the plaintiff agreed in
principle to settle the suit for $5 million, with payments to the
class commencing in the fourth quarter 2015.


EXELON CORP: Settlement in PHI Merger Case Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Commonwealth
Edison Company, Peco Energy Company, and Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that final court approval of
the proposed settlement in the PHI Merger class action is not
expected to occur until approximately 90 days after the Merger
closing date.

On April 29, 2014, Exelon and Pepco Holdings, Inc. signed an
agreement and plan of merger (as subsequently amended and restated
as of July 18, 2014) to combine the two companies in an all cash
transaction. The resulting company will retain the Exelon name and
be headquartered in Chicago. The merger is expected to be
completed in the first quarter of 2016.

PHI and its directors have been named as defendants in purported
class action lawsuits filed on behalf of named plaintiffs and
other public stockholders challenging the proposed Merger and
seeking, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from
consummating the Merger on the agreed-upon terms. Exelon has been
named as a defendant in these lawsuits. Exelon has also been named
in a federal court case with similar claims. In September 2014,
the parties reached a proposed settlement which is subject to
court approval. Final court approval of the proposed settlement is
not expected to occur until approximately 90 days after the Merger
closing date.

If a plaintiff in these or any other litigation claims that may be
filed in the future is successful in obtaining an injunction
prohibiting the parties from completing the Merger on the terms
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, the injunction could prevent
the completion of the Merger in the expected time frame or
altogether. If completion of the Merger is prevented or delayed,
it could result in substantial costs to Exelon. In addition,
Exelon could incur significant costs in connection with the
lawsuits, including costs associated with the indemnification of
PHI's directors and officers.


EXPEDIA INC: Class Action by City of Los Angeles Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the class action lawsuit
filed by the City of Los Angeles, California, remains stayed
pending a decision by the California Supreme Court in a separate
case by the City of San Diego.

On December 30, 2004, the city of Los Angeles filed a purported
class action in California state court against a number of online
travel companies, including certain Expedia companies. City of Los
Angeles, California, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al., No. BC326693 (Superior Court,
Los Angeles County).

On April 18, 2013, the trial court held that the online travel
companies are not liable to remit hotel occupancy taxes to the
city of Los Angeles. The city of Los Angeles filed a notice of
appeal.

The California Court of Appeals has stayed this case pending
review and decision by the California Supreme Court in the City of
San Diego, California Litigation.

On February 9, 2006, the city of San Diego, California filed an
action in state court against a number of online travel companies,
including certain Expedia companies. City of San Diego v.
Hotels.com, L.P. et al., Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding
No. 4472 (Superior Court for the County of San Diego).

On September 6, 2011, the court held that the online travel
companies are not liable for hotel occupancy taxes. The city
appealed and on March 5, 2014, the California Court of Appeals
ruled in favor of the online travel companies. The city filed a
petition for review by the California Supreme Court and, on July
30, 2014, the California Supreme Court accepted review.

Expedia, Inc. is an online travel company, empowering business and
leisure travelers through technology with the tools and
information they need to efficiently research, plan, book and
experience travel.


EXPEDIA INC: Argument Held on Bid to Intervene in Nassau Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that oral argument was heard
for February 3, 2016, on a motion to intervene filed by Erie
County, Orange County, Rensselaer County and Saratoga County, New
York, in the class action lawsuit filed by Nassau County, New
York.

On October 24, 2006, the county of Nassau, New York filed a
putative statewide class action in federal court against a number
of online travel companies, including certain Expedia companies.
Nassau County, New York, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,
(United States District Court, Eastern District of New York). The
county subsequently dismissed its case on May 13, 2011 on the
basis that the court lacked jurisdiction and re-filed in state
court. County of Nassau v. Expedia, Inc., et al., (In the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau). The defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the refilled state court case.

On June 13, 2012, the court denied the online travel companies'
motion to dismiss. On November 27, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification. On April 11, 2013, the court granted
plaintiff's motion for class certification. The online travel
company defendants appealed both the court's certification order
and its prior order denying their motion to dismiss.

On September 10, 2014, the New York Supreme Court Appellate
Division reversed the trial court's order granting the plaintiff's
motion for class certification. In a separate opinion, the
Appellate Division also affirmed in part and reversed in part the
trial court's denial of the online travel companies' motion to
dismiss.

On October 20, 2014, the online travel companies filed a motion
for leave to appeal the Appellate Division's denial of their
motion to dismiss. The plaintiff filed a motion for reargument or
for leave to appeal the Appellate Division's reversal of the trial
court's certification order.

These motions were denied on February 10, 2015. On April 6, 2015,
plaintiff filed a motion for leave to renew in the Appellate
Division, seeking either affirmance of the trial court's
certification decision or leave to appeal the reversal of
certification to the New York Court of Appeals, which the
Appellate Division denied on June 1, 2015.

Thereafter, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment,
and on September 25, 2015, Erie County, Orange County, Rensselaer
County and Saratoga County, New York filed a motion seeking leave
to intervene as plaintiffs in the lawsuit; the defendant online
travel companies have opposed the motion. Oral argument on the
intervention motion was heard for February 3, 2016. A decision by
the court is pending.

Expedia, Inc. is an online travel company, empowering business and
leisure travelers through technology with the tools and
information they need to efficiently research, plan, book and
experience travel.


EXPEDIA INC: Summary Judgment Bids Pending in Breckenridge Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that cross-motions for
summary judgment remain pending in the case filed by the Town of
Breckenridge, Colorado.

On July 25, 2011, the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado brought suit
on behalf of itself and other home rule municipalities against a
number of online travel companies, including certain Expedia
companies. Town of Breckenridge, Colorado v. Colorado Travel
Company, LLC, Case No. 2011CV420 (District Court, Summit County,
Colorado). The online travel companies filed a motion to dismiss.

On June 8, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part the
online travel companies' motion to dismiss. On December 12, 2012,
the plaintiff moved for class certification; that motion was
denied by the court on March 26, 2014. The parties have filed
cross-motions for summary judgment. These motions remain pending.

Expedia, Inc. is an online travel company, empowering business and
leisure travelers through technology with the tools and
information they need to efficiently research, plan, book and
experience travel.


EXPEDIA INC: Summary Judgment Bid Filed in Bedford Park Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs filed a
motion for summary judgment in the City of Bedford Park
litigation.

On April 5, 2013, a group of Illinois municipalities (City of
Warrenville, Village of Bedford Park, City of Oakbrook Terrace,
Village of Oak Lawn, Village of Orland Hills, City of Rockford and
Village of Willowbrook) filed a putative class action in Illinois
federal court against a number of online travel companies,
including certain Expedia companies. City of Warrenville, et al.
v. Priceline.com, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02586
(USDC, N. D. Ill., Eastern Division).

On July 8, 2013, the plaintiff municipalities voluntarily
dismissed their federal court lawsuit and filed a similar putative
class action lawsuit in Illinois state court. City of Bedford
Park, et al. v. Expedia, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division). The online travel companies
removed the case to federal district court and filed a motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' common law claims, which the court granted on
March 13, 2014.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the
court denied, without prejudice, on January 6, 2015. The
plaintiffs filed a second motion for class certification, which
the court denied on September 28, 2015. The case will now proceed
only on the claims brought by the individual plaintiff
municipalities named in the suit. On February 1, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment.

Expedia, Inc. is an online travel company, empowering business and
leisure travelers through technology with the tools and
information they need to efficiently research, plan, book and
experience travel.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Camarata" Suit Over FCRA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Camarata, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:16-
cv-00132 (S.D.N.Y., January 7, 2016) is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. operates an information
services company, providing data and analytical tools to clients
around the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sameer Singh Birring, Esq.
      MALLON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC
      1 Liberty Plaza
      165 Broadway, Suite 2301
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (646) 759-3662
      E-mail: sbirring@crediterrorlawyers.com

         - and -

      Kevin Christopher Mallon, Esq.
      FISHMAN & MALLON, LLP
      305 Broadway Suite 900
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 822-1474
      Facsimile: (212) 897-5841
      E-mail: consumer.esq@outlook.com


FACEBOOK INC: Spams Birthday Text Messages, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
San Francisco accuses Facebook of sending spam text messages about
birthdays to cellphones.


FIRST NIAGARA: 8 Shareholders File Merger Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
First Niagara Financial Group, Inc said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that eight
shareholders of the Company have filed separate putative class
action complaints challenging the merger with KeyCorp:

On October 30, 2015, the Company and KeyCorp entered into a Merger
Agreement which provides that, upon the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth therein, the Company will merge with and into
KeyCorp, with KeyCorp as the surviving corporation in the Merger.
The Merger Agreement was unanimously approved by the Board of
Directors of each of the Company and KeyCorp.

Since the announcement of the Merger, eight shareholders of the
Company have filed separate putative class action complaints
challenging the Merger:

     1. Six complaints are filed in New York State Supreme Court,
        Erie County.

     2. One complaint is filed in the Court of Chancery, Delaware,
        and

     3. one is filed in United States District Court, District of
        Delaware.

The complaints are brought against the Company, each of its
directors individually, and KeyCorp. The complaints allege
generally that each of the directors breached his or her fiduciary
duty to the Company's public shareholders in that: (a) the sales
process was flawed; (b) the merger consideration is inadequate and
undervalues the intrinsic value of the Company; (c) the merger
agreement contains unfair preclusive deal protection devices; and
(d) certain directors and officers of the Company will receive
personal benefits from the merger not shared in by other public
shareholders.

Seven of the complaints further allege that KeyCorp and the
Company aided and abetted the Company's directors' fiduciary duty
breaches.

Some of the complaints also challenge KeyCorp's anticipated
contribution to the First Niagara Foundation or that the Company's
Registration Statement filed on November 30, 2015 in connection
with the proposed merger is materially misleading. The complaint
filed in U.S. District Court, District of Delaware also alleges
that the preliminary proxy filed in connection with the November
30, 2015 Registration Statement violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules promulgated
thereunder.

All of the lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin or rescind
the Merger, and to obtain an award of costs and attorneys' fees
and damages for the alleged fiduciary breaches.

Plaintiffs in all six of the matters pending in Erie County, New
York entered into and filed a joint stipulation seeking
consolidation of the actions, and appointment of designated co-
lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel for the actions. The
stipulation is pending before the court.

The defendants believe these lawsuits are entirely without merit,
and intended to vigorously defend against the claims.

First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. (the "Company") is a Delaware
corporation and a bank holding company, subject to supervision and
regulation by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
(the "Federal Reserve"), serving both retail and commercial
customers through its bank subsidiary, First Niagara Bank, N.A.
(the "Bank").  The principal executive offices are located at 726
Exchange Street, Suite 618, Buffalo, New York. At December 31,
2015, the Company had $39.9 billion of assets, $28.7 billion of
deposits and $4.1 billion of stockholders' equity.


FIRSTCLASS WIRELESS: Faces "Angel" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milton Angel, Daryl Phang and Gerry Lawrence, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. FirstClass
Wireless Inc., Mobile Shack Inc., International Cellular Inc., Avi
Levi and Victor Levi, Case No. 1:16-cv-00508-PAE (S.D.N.Y.,
January 22, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate electronic stores in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett M. Schatz (schatbr), Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF BRETT M. SCHATZ P.C.
      1345 Avenue of the Americas Second Floor
      New York, NY 10105
      Telephone: (212) 631-7463
      Facsimile: (646) 786-3325
      E-mail: bschatz@bmsfirm.com


FLINT, MI: Law Firms File Class Actions Over Water Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Steve Liddle of Liddle & Dubin, P.C., a law firm that
concentrates on environmental class actions, and Ven Johnson of
Johnson Law, PLC, personal injury Super Lawyer, on Feb. 17
announced a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of victims of
the Flint water crisis.  The lawsuit seeks to recover for personal
injuries (including those related to lead poisoning) and property
damage inflicted on Flint residents when Flint's water source was
switched without being property treated.  The Defendants include
the State of Michigan, the City of Flint, two state agencies, two
private companies, and a number of current or former government
employees, all of whom ignored multiple red flags regarding lead
contamination in Flint's water supply.

While other lawsuits, including those hoping to become class
actions, have been filed, no case has been granted class action
status yet by any state or federal court.  This means that Flint
residents that want to ensure they have their day in court, should
retain their own lawyer immediately.  "The Defendants are likely
to ask the Court to make these cases proceed individually, and not
as a class action," says class action attorney Steven Liddle, who
notes that hundreds of Flint residents have already contacted his
firm.  "Imposing liability on the state is difficult, but we are
prepared to fight for our clients individually, if that is
ultimately what is required."

Personal Injury expert, Attorney Ven Johnson stated, "As someone
who grew up in Saginaw, Michigan, my heart goes out to all Flint
residents who were betrayed by bureaucrats and the independent
companies hired by these politicians.  Increased lead levels in
our blood stream are strongly linked with severe and permanent
damage to our vital organs, but especially our brains.  This is
particularly true for small children, who are more susceptible to
developmental delays and brain damage from lead exposure." Johnson
Law is proud to team with Liddle and Dubin and their significant
class action experience.  Together, we'll fight for Flint
residents until all guilty parties are held accountable.

The law firms will be holding an informational meeting at Our Lady
of Lebanon Maronite Catholic Church 4133 Calkins Road in Flint on
February 29 at 6:00.  At the meeting, Flint residents can learn
more about important steps that they need to take in order to
protect their rights.  The attorneys note that there are a number
of important deadlines to consider, and those deadlines will be
discussed at the meeting. Interested Flint residents can find out
more by visiting www.LDClassaction.com/flint

Liddle & Dubin, P.C. is a Detroit based law firm that focuses on
environmental class actions throughout the country.  They have
helped tens of thousands of people hold the government and private
companies responsible for environmental contamination.

Johnson Law, PLC, also based in Detroit, has worked on some of the
biggest, most complex, and high profile personal injury cases in
America.  Over the past few years, Ven Johnson and his hand-picked
team have tried and won numerous multi-million dollar jury
verdicts, including Michigan's largest personal injury jury
verdict in 2015, $22.6 million.


FLINT, MI: Resident Files Class Action Over Water Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------
Pete Brush, writing for Law360, reports that Flint resident Angela
McIntosh, a mother of three, on Feb. 16 lodged a class action
lawsuit over the beleaguered city's water contamination crisis,
naming defendants including Michigan Gov. Richard Snyder and other
officials, and seeking damages for the "devastating" effects of
lead poisoning.

Ms. McIntosh's lawsuit in Detroit federal court joins other would-
be class plaintiffs seeking damages as two Detroit law firms
representing her -- Liddle & Dubin PC and Johnson Law PLC
-- made a pitch for other city residents to join their case.

"The defendants are likely to ask the court to make these cases
proceed individually, and not as a class action," attorney
Steven Liddle said in a release.  "Imposing liability on the state
is difficult, but we are prepared to fight for our clients
individually, if that is ultimately what is required."

Water samples from the McIntosh home revealed high lead levels,
and her three children "have displayed symptoms of lead
contamination," suffering a range of health and emotional
problems, the lawsuit says.

The suit also names the city of Flint, its public works director,
Howard Croft, and a range of other governmental individual
defendants. It also names Texas-based firm Lockwood Andrews and
Newnam Inc. as a defendant, accusing it of providing negligent
professional engineering services.

Earlier this month, the FBI joined a federal criminal
investigation into the contamination of the community water
system.

In April 2014, Flint switched its water source from Lake Huron,
which was distributed by Detroit, to a new system that drew water
from the Flint River.  The move was justified by state officials
as a money-saving measure.  Residents quickly began to complain
about the water's smell, taste and color. In August of that year,
the water tested positive for harmful bacteria.

In January 2015, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
found unacceptable levels of pollutants commonly used as
refrigerants or solvents in the water, and by February 2015, tests
were showing lead levels above federal safety limits.

As if to add insult to injury, recent news reports said Flint
residents were paying some of the highest water bills in the
nation for the contaminated water.

Ms. McIntosh is represented by Steven D. Liddle and Nicholas A.
Coulson of Liddle & Dubin PC and Ven R. Johnson and Jeffrey A.
Danzig of Johnson Law PLC.

Counsel information for the defendants was not available.

The case is McIntosh v. State of Michigan et al., case number
2:16-cv-10571, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan.


FLINT, MI: Residents Meet to Discuss Water Crisis Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Felton, writing for The Guardian, reports that hundreds of
Flint residents on Feb. 16 packed into a ballroom at the
University of Michigan-Flint, hoping to receive answers from a
legal team representing potentially thousands of plaintiffs in
several lawsuits filed over the water crisis in Flint, where
financial damages may exceed $1bn.

Residents lobbed stories back and forth of severe illness, of
emotional distress due to the unfathomable circumstances, of a
blatant mistrust of a government that, time and again, reassured

Jim O'Connor, 47, said he moved last June into an apartment in
Flint with his 16-year-old son, James.  Concerns from residents
over the city's water quality were prevalent at the time, yet the
apartment's property manager never discussed the potential harm
flowing out of their faucet, he said.  So Mr. O'Connor and his son
continued to drink the water.  Ever since, he said, his son's
grades have fallen.

"I found out about [the water contamination] when the governor
came on the news in October," Mr. O'Connor said.  When his
apartment's water was finally tested, the lead levels exceeded
federal action limits.

"I'm disabled, so moving is really not an option," he said.  "So
how I can make it so I can live in the city with this?"

At least nine lawsuits have been filed in federal and state court
since last fall after high levels of lead leached into the water
supply, with a potential financial liability of $1.25 billion for
the state and the engineering firm hired to advise Flint on its
water treatment plant.  Many of them are class action suits with
potentially thousands of members.

While the state continues its efforts to aid Flint residents with
bottled water and filters, the bevy of cases cover an array of
problems that have been linked to the water crisis -- from
property value loss to legionnaires' disease to severe post-
traumatic disorder.

The city's drinking water became contaminated in April 2014 after
Flint, operated at the time by an emergency manager appointed by
the governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, switched its drinking water
source to a corrosive local river.  Flint was not required by the
state to use anti-corrosion agents to treat the river water,
allowing lead and other contaminants to leach from pipes and flow
into households. Lead is a neurotoxin known to cause mental and
physical disabilities.

"[State officials] need to clean up what they messed up," said
attorney Trachelle Young, a Flint resident herself.

The lawsuits take aim at government officials, the engineering
firm hired to prepare Flint's water plant, and a local hospital
linked to a legionnaires' outbreak.  Nearly a dozen federal, state
and local investigations are ongoing.  An inquiry launched in
January by the office of Michigan's attorney general, Bill
Schuette, could produce additional restitution for Flint
residents, investigators say, if it is warranted.

"Every week we're learning of new types of medical conditions that
people have been diagnosed with, that have something or other to
do with exposure to the neurotoxins in the water," said attorney
Julie Hurwitz, one of several members of the legal teams in three
separate class action suits.

Ms. Hurwitz said it was too early to calculate potential financial
damages for class members, but another attorney on the case told
the Guardian in December it "could reach $1 billion".
Ms. Hurwitz said more than 5,000 Flint water users have been
contacted about the case.

Experts and plaintiffs' attorneys have expressed hesitation over
lawsuits filed against state departments and officials, saying the
chance of success will be hindered by the legal doctrine of
"sovereign immunity", which means states cannot be held legally
responsible except in special circumstances.

But Michael Pitt, co-counsel in the cases with Hurwitz, said he
believes the attorneys have a solid legal theory that renders
governmental immunity irrelevant.  The federal lawsuit, he said,
claims Governor Snyder along with several state officials,
violated the due process of Flint residents.

"If there's a constitutional violation, the governmental immunity
does not apply," Mr. Pitt said.  "It just does not apply.  So
we've filed a case in federal court . . . alleging a due process
violation that the state of Michigan and its agents created a
dangerous condition, and that the state and its actors are liable
for the damages caused by this constitutional violation."

The governor's office did not respond to a request for comment.  A
spokesperson for Michigan's attorney general declined to comment,
citing the pending litigation.

Separately, a $100 million lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
several families seeking damages for victims who contracted
legionnaires' disease after the water source switch.  State and
county officials have been heavily criticized for knowing of a
legionnaires' outbreak over a year before it was made public.

One of the plaintiffs treated at McLaren Flint hospital,
Debra Kidd, entered the facility on 25 June, complaining of a
headache, according to the complaint filed against the medical
center and several state environmental officials.  Ms. Kidd was
treated and discharged the same day.

But two days later, the complaint continued, Ms. Kidd was admitted
to a separate hospital and diagnosed with legionnaires' disease.
A week later, she was dead.

A hospital representative declined to comment on the lawsuit, but
said in a statement: "McLaren Flint has consistently followed all
statutory regulations and notification requirements . . . the
water at McLaren Flint meets safety and quality standards."

Patricia Dunning's family members began experiencing health
problems soon after the water source switch, she said. Compounding
matters, a recent test showed the lead level in water at her home
was still four times higher than statutory limits.

"We're sticking to straight-up bottled water because I cannot do
it," said Ms. Dunning, 40, as she waited to meet officials from
local advocacy groups who offered help.  "I don't believe them no
more."

Albert Harris, a Flint native, said the city won't be relieved
until its entire water system is overhauled.  "You've got to
switch everything for it to be clean," Mr. Harris said.  The 56-
year-old lifted his pant leg to expose a rash that, he said, broke
out after Flint began using the local river.  Despite several
doctor appointments and treatments, the festering blotch remains.

Listening to the class action attorneys introduce themselves,
Harris said: "They're talking about what they're going to do, how
they want to fight for us, to get our justice.  But it's not only
just for us, it's for our generation to come . . . what about
their justice?

"Of course, we're concerned about ourselves.  But, the main thing
is, if we don't stop this now, we ain't gonna have a future."


FLORIDA: Faces $50MM Class Action Over Drunk Driving Laws
---------------------------------------------------------
Rene Stutzman, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that two
Orlando attorneys on Feb. 17 filed what they hope will become a
$50 million class action lawsuit, accusing the state of Florida of
violating the constitutional rights of drunk driving suspects.

The suit, filed in Orlando federal court, names the Florida
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and its executive
director, Terry L. Rhodes.

It was filed on behalf of Alfredo Crespin, a 58-year-old Winter
Garden man who was arrested for drunk driving in November, but if
a judge gives it class-action status, it would cover an estimated
240,000 people.

That's everyone whose license was suspended by the department in
the past four years because of a drunk driving arrest.

The suit was filed by Orlando attorneys David Oliver and Stuart
Hyman.

They are challenging the way the department treats drunk driving
suspects, specifically what happens to their licenses once they're
arrested.

This is what happens now: The officer who makes the arrest keeps
the suspect's license, and the department immediately suspends his
driving privileges.

The suspension is automatic.  No judge reviews whether the officer
had probable cause to make the arrest.

That, according to the suit, violates a suspect's right to due
process under the law, something guaranteed by the 14th Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.

"If a police officer believes they have probable cause to search
your house, they can't go search your house," Mr. Oliver said.
"They have to go to a judge, and a judge has to review an
affidavit and make a probable cause determination for a search to
take place.  This is more egregious."

The state should have a magistrate or judicially-appointed hearing
officer conduct a probable cause hearing, he said.

"These citizens constitute one of the least likely group of
persons to engender any public sympathy," the suit acknowledges.
"But suspected and actual offenders of Florida's DUI laws are
entitled to the same constitutional protections of every Florida
citizen."

The suit was filed on Feb. 17.  The department had no immediate
response.

Dennis "the fat guy" Salvagio, a long-time DUI defense attorney in
the Orlando area, predicted the department would argue that
driving is a privilege -- not a right.

He criticized the agency, saying it "treats itself as a separate
entity, not answerable to the courts . . . I believe that that's
wrong. They should be answerable just like every other citizen in
the state."

Mr. Salvagio got his nickname "the fat guy" and became a local
celebrity because he ran laps during Orlando Magic games around
the Orlando Arena floor.

Donna Goerner, an Altamonte Springs attorney, prosecuted dozens of
drunk driving suspects as an assistant state attorney in Seminole
County and has represented dozens of others as a criminal defense
attorney.

The lawsuit, she said, appears to have merit.

"I know it'll be a big hill to climb, . . . but I think they've
got a great argument and a great position," she said.

She represented a drunk driving suspect in Lake County who refused
to submit to a breath test when he was arrested, so the department
suspended his license for 12 months, what it does to everyone who
refuses to take the test.

He was acquitted at trial, she said.

"He thought if he won, he'd get his license back," she said.  "The
fact that he was found not guilty of DUI didn't have any effect on
the fact that he lost his license for a year."

'Kangaroo court'

The department allows suspects to challenge their suspensions in
front of a hearing officer, who is a department employee, but the
suit describes them as biased and unqualified.

They must render a decision about an action taken by the
department -- their employer -- and often in a case in which the
arrest was made by a trooper with the Florida Highway Patrol, a
division of the department.

Ninety-five percent of the time, a hearing officer finds in favor
of the officer, according to the suit.

It describes the process as a "kangaroo court."

Drunk driving suspects are allowed to apply for temporary
"business purpose" or "employment purpose" licenses, which
restrict when and where they can drive.

The suit accuses the department of grossing as much as $60 million
a year from drunk driving suspects who scramble to get those
special licenses and who must pay other costs because of license
suspensions.

There were 61,852 DUI arrests in Florida last year, according to
the suit.


FORD MOTOR CREDIT: Appeals Ruling in "Agrawal" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Credit Company LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the case, Ford Motor Credit
Company v. Sudesh Agrawal.

On January 18, 2011, a state trial court judge in Cuyahoga County,
Ohio certified a nationwide class action with an Ohio subclass in
a counterclaim arising out of a collection action.  Class
claimants allege breach of contract, fraud, and statutory
violations for Ford Credit's lease-end wear and use charges. Class
claimants allege that the standard applied by Ford Credit in
determining the condition of vehicles at lease-end is different
than the standard set forth in claimants' leases. The Court of
Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, affirmed nationwide
class certification and certification of an Ohio subclass.

"We appealed, and on December 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of Ohio
reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further
proceedings," the Company said.  On March 13, 2014, the Court of
Appeals reversed the trial court order certifying the classes and
remanded the case for further proceedings.  On September 28, 2015,
the trial court re-certified a nationwide class action with an
Ohio subclass.

"We have filed an appeal," the Company said.

Ford Motor Credit Company LLC offers a wide variety of automotive
financing products to and through automotive dealers throughout
the world. The predominant share of its business consists of
financing Ford and Lincoln vehicles and supporting the dealers of
those brands.


FRANK A REICHL: Ottawa County Alleges Antitrust Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Ottawa County, Ohio, and all others similarly situated v. Frank A.
Reichl, General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance
Products, LLC, Gentek, Inc., Chemtrade Logistics, Income Fund,
Chemtrade Logistics, Inc., Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation,
Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC and Geo Specialty Chemicals, Case No.
2:16-cv-00303 (D.N.J., January 19, 2016), seeks to recover treble
damages, equitable relief, costs of suit, and reasonable
attorneys' fees for violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act.

The action arises from a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and
allocate customers and territories with respect to the sale of
aluminum sulfate to governmental and privately-contracted water
district authorities and to pulp and paper companies in the United
States, in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act. The conspiracy began on January 1, 1997, and continued until
at least July 31, 2010

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:

      Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
      Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG
      570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Tel: (973) 623-3000
      Fax: (973) 623-0858
      E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com
              jdepalma@litedepalma.com


FROM YOU: Illegally Records Telephone Conversation, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Kerr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. From You Flowers, LLC and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. BC606729 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 11, 2016) is brought on
behalf of all persons who participated in at least one telephone
communication with a live representative of the Defendants that
was recorded by the Defendants and were not notified that the
telephone communication was being recorded.

From You Flowers, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that
operates an online flower company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James T. Hannink, Esq.
      Zach P. Dostart, Esq.
      DOSTART HANNINK & COVENEY LLP
      4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530
      La Jolla, CA 92037-1474
      Telephone: (858) 623-4200
      Facsimile: (858) 623-4299
      E-mail: jhannink@sdalaw.com
              zdostart@sdalaw.com


GATEWAY MERCHANT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hardin" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenley Hardin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Gateway Merchant Capital, LLC, Merchant Funding Group,
LLC, Does 1-100, and each of them, Case No. 2:16-cv-00520-CAS-E
(N.D. Cal., January 25, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of contacting the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number, in an attempt to solicit services using an
automatic telephone dialing system.

The Defendants own and operate a finance investment company in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com


GENPACT SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bakon" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hindy Bakon, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Genpact Services, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00066
(E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Genpact Services, LLC operates a business process outsourcing and
information technology services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GNC HOLDINGS: "Sparling" Suit Over DMAA/Aegeline Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the class action lawsuit
by Leanne Sparling and Michael Sparling has been dismissed with
prejudice.

The Company said, "Prior to December 2013, we sold products
manufactured by third parties that contained derivatives from
geranium known as 1.3-dimethylpentylamine/ dimethylamylamine/ 13-
dimethylamylamine, or "DMAA," which were recalled from our stores
in November 2013, and/or Aegeline, a compound extracted from bael
trees."

As of December 31, 2014, the Company was named in the following 28
personal injury lawsuits involving products containing DMAA and/or
Aegeline:

     -- Susan Straub and the Estate of Shane Staub v. General
Nutrition Centers, Inc., USP Labs, LLC, Common Pleas Court of
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (Case No. 140502403), filed May
20, 2014

     -- Justin Carolyne, et al. v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et
al. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No.
BC508212), filed May 22, 2013

     -- Jeremy Reed, Timothy Anderson, Dan Anderson, Nadia Black,
et al. v. USPLabs, LLC, et al., GNC, Superior Court for
California, County of San Diego (Case No. 37-2013-00074052-CU-PL-
CTL), filed November 1, 2013

     -- Kenneth Waikiki v. USP Labs, Doyle, Geissler, USP Labs
OxyElite, LLC, et al. and GNC Corporation, et al., United States
District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. 3-00639 DMK),
filed November 21, 2013

     -- Nicholas Akau v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et al., United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. CV 14-
00029), filed January 23, 2014

     -- Malissa Igafo v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et al., United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. CV 14-
00030), filed January 23, 2013

     -- Calvin Ishihara v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et al.,
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No.
CV 14-00031), filed January 23, 2014

     -- Gaye Anne Mattson v. USP Labs, GNC Corporation, et al.,
United States District for the District of Hawaii (Case No. CV 14-
00032), filed January 23, 2014

     -- Thomas Park v. GNC Holdings, Inc., USP Labs, LLC, Superior
Court of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 37-2014-
110924), filed September 8, 2014

     -- Nicholas Olson, Adrian Chavez, Rebecca Fullerton, Robert
Gunter, Davina Maes and Edwin Palm v. GNC Corporation, USP Labs,
LLC, Superior Court of California, County of Orange (Case No.
2014-00740258) filed August 18, 2014

     -- Mereane Carlisle, Charles Paio, Chanelle Valdez, Janice
Favella and Christine Mariano v. USPLabs, LLC et al., United
states District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. CV14-
00029), filed January 23, 2014.

     -- Karina Lujon v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., USP Labs
LLC, District Court of Dallas County, 298th Judicial District
(Case No. DC-13-05677-M), filed March 25, 2014

     -- Nichole Davidson, William Dunlao, Gina martin, Lee Ann
Miranda, Yuka Colescott, Sherine Cortinas, and Shawna Nishimoto v.
GNC Corporation and USP Labs LLC, United States District Court for
the District of Hawaii (Case No. 14-cv-00364) filed October 24,
2014

     -- Rodney Ofisa, Christine Mosca, Margaret Kawamoto as
guardian for Jane Kawamoto (a minor), Ginny Pia, Kimberlynne Tom,
Faituitasi Tuioti, Ireneo Rabang, and Tihane Laupola v. GNC
Corporation and USP Labs LLC, United States District Court for the
District of Hawaii (Case No. CV14-00365) filed October 24, 2014

     -- Palani Pantoham, Deborah Cordiero, J. Royal Kanamu, Brent
Pascula, Christie Shiroma, Justan Chun, Kasey Grace and Adam
Miyasoto v. USPLabs, LLC. et al., United States District Court for
the District of Hawaii (Case No. CV14-00366) filed August 15, 2014

     -- Keahi Paveo v. GNC Corporation, USP Labs, LLC, United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. 14-cv-
00367) filed October 24, 2014

     -- Kai Wing Tsui and John McCutchen v. GNC Corporation, USP
Labs, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case
No. BC559542), filed October 6, 2014

     -- Dennis Balila, Melinda Jean Collins, Janice Samson, Mia
Fagley, Clayton Goo, Joliana Kurtz and Mae Kwan v. USPLabs, LLC et
al., California Superior Court, San Diego County (Case No. 37-
2015-00008455), filed March 13, 2015

     -- Cuong Bahn, Ismael Flores, Chue Xiong, Leilani Groden,
Trudy Jenkins, and Mary Hess v. USPLabs, LLC et al., California
Superior Court, Orange County (Case No. 30-2015-00776749), filed
March 12, 2015

     -- Alexis Billones, Austin Ashworth, Karen Litre, Nancy
Murray, Wendy Ortiz, Edward Pullen, and Corazon Vu v. USPLabs, LLC
et al., California Superior Court, Los Angeles County (Case No.
BC575264), filed March 13, 2015

     -- Asofiafia Morales, Richard Ownes, Lynn Campbell, Joseph
Silzgy, Delphone Smith-Dean, Nicole Stroud, Barrett Mincey and
Amanda Otten v. USPLabs, LLC et al., California Superior Court,
Los Angeles County (Case No. BC575262), filed March 13, 2015

     -- Laurie Nadura, Angela Abril-Guthmiller, Sarah Rogers,
Jennifer Apes, Ellen Beedie, Edmundo Cruz, and Christopher Almanza
v. USPLabs, LLC et al., California Superior Court, Monterey County
(Case No. M131321), filed March 13, 2015

     -- Cynthia Noveda, Demetrio Moreno, Mee Yang, Tiffone Parker,
Christopher Tortal, David Patton and Raymon Riley v. USPLabs, LLC
et al., California Superior Court, San Diego County (Case No. 37-
2015-00008404), filed March 13, 2015

     -- Johanna Stussy, Lai Uyeno, Gwenda Tuika-Reyes, Zeng Vang,
Kevin Williams, and Kristy Williams v. USPLabs, LLC, et al.,
California Superior Court, Santa Clara County (Case No.
115CV78045), filed March 13, 2015

     -- Natasiri Tali, Tram Dobbs, Mauela Reyna-Perez, Kimberly
Turvey, Meagan Van Dyke, Hang Nga Tran, Shea Steard, and Jimmy
Tran v. USPLabs, LLC et al., California Superior Court, Los
Angeles County (Case No. BC575263), filed March 13, 2015

     -- Issam Tnaimou, Benita Rodriguez, Marcia Rouse, Marcel
Macy, Joseph Worley, Joanne Zgrezepski, Crystal Franklin, Deanne
Fry, and Caron Jones, in her own right, o/b/h Joshua Jones and
o/b/o Joshua Jones and ob/o The Estate of James Jones v. USPLabs,
LLC et al., California Superior Court, Monterey County (Case No.
M131322), filed March 13, 2015

     -- Ronsonnette P.C. Smith-Marras v. USP Labs, LLC et al.,
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No.
15-1-0762-04), filed April 23, 2015

     -- Kuulei Hirota v. SP Labs, LLC et al., United States
District Court for the District of Hawaii (Case No. 15-1-0847-05),
filed May 1, 2015

The proceedings associated with the majority of these personal
injury cases, which generally seek indeterminate money damages,
are in the early stages, and any liabilities that may arise from
these matters are not probable or reasonably estimable at this
time.

The case captioned Leanne Sparling and Michael Sparling on behalf
of Michael Sparling, deceased v. USPLabs, GNC Corporation, et al.,
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 2013-
00034663-CU-PL-CTL), which previously was scheduled for trial in
February 2016, was dismissed with prejudice.

"We are contractually entitled to indemnification by our third-
party vendor with regard to these matters, although our ability to
obtain full recovery in respect of any such claims against us is
dependent upon the creditworthiness of our vendor and/or its
insurance coverage and the absence of any significant defenses
available to its insurer," the Company said.


GNC HOLDINGS: $9.5 Million Settlement Reached in "Brewer" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in the class
action lawsuit filed by Charles Brewer have agreed to class-wide
settlements pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay up to $9.5
million in the aggregate, including attorneys' fees and costs.

In July 2011, Charles Brewer, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in federal
court, alleging state and federal wage and hour claims (U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, Case No.
11CV3587). In October 2011, Mr. Brewer filed an amended complaint
alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime
violations on behalf of sales associates and store managers.

In January 2013, the Court conditionally certified a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") class with respect to one of Plaintiff's
claims, and in November 2014, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the plaintiff's motion to certify a California class and
granted our motion for decertification of the FLSA class.

In May 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment as to the alleged liability for non-compliant wage
statements, which was granted in part and denied in part in
September 2015.

"On February 5, 2016, we and attorneys representing the putative
class agreed to class-wide settlements of the Brewer case and an
additional, immaterial case raising similar claims, pursuant to
which we agreed to pay up to $9.5 million in the aggregate,
including attorneys' fees and costs," the Company said.  "The
settlement agreement remains subject to Court approval, and the
Court has scheduled a preliminary hearing in April 2016."

"As a result of this settlement, we recorded a charge of $6.3
million in the fourth quarter of 2015, in addition to $3.2 million
previously accrued in the first quarter of 2015."


GNC HOLDINGS: Still Defends "Naranjo" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
defend a class action lawsuit filed by Elizabeth Naranjo.

In February 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth Naranjo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated sued
General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG 12619626),
alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break, and overtime
violations.

On October 22, 2014, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to
certify a class of approximately 900 current and former managers.
As of December 31, 2015, an immaterial liability has been accrued
in the accompanying financial statements.

GNC Holdings, Inc. ("Holdings") is headquartered in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania and its common stock trades on the New York Stock
Exchange (the "NYSE") under the symbol "GNC."  The Company is a
leading global specialty retailer of health, wellness and
performance products, including vitamins, minerals and herbal
supplement products ("VMHS"), sports nutrition products and diet
products.


GOLDEN GLOBE: "Guo" Suit Claims Violation of FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ya Yi Guo v. Golden Globe Travel Agency Inc, Ai Xia Zhan a.k.a
Anna Zhan, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case 1:16-cv-00766
(E.D.N.Y., February 14, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law, arising from
Defendants' various wilful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices.

Golden Globe Travel Agency Inc. owns and operates a Travel Agency
in Flushing located at 135-21 40 Rd. FL 3, Flushing, New York
11354.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
     Flushing, New Y 11354
     Phone: 718.353.8588
     E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


GOPRO INC: Faces "Bodri" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l. Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Bodri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GoPro, Inc., Nicholas Woodman and Jack
Lazar, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00232 (N.D. Cal., January 13,
2016), seeks compensatory damages including interest, counsel fees
and expert fees and other and further relief under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Shares of GoPro fell
as much as $4.08 per share, or 27.9%, to lows of $10.52 per share
during trading on January 13, 2016. Plaintiff is a shareholder of
GoPro stocks and lost substantially.

GoPro Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located at 3000 Clearview Way, San Mateo, California
94402. It is a camera company and generates substantially all of
its revenue from the sale of cameras and accessories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 201-9150
      Fax: (310) 201-9160
      Email: info@glancylaw.com

            - and -

      Howard G. Smith
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, PA 19020
      Tel: (215) 638-4847
      Fax: (215) 638-4867


HENRY SCHEIN: Conspired to Foreclose Competitors, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 26, 2015, that class action complaints
were filed beginning in January 2016 against Patterson Companies,
Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co. and Henry Schein, Inc.  Each of
these complaints allege, among other things, that defendants
conspired to foreclose competitors by boycotting manufacturers,
state dental associations, and others that deal with defendants'
competitors.  Subject to certain exclusions, these classes seek to
represent all persons who purchased dental supplies or equipment
in the United States directly from any of the defendants since
January 2012.  Each class action complaint asserts a single count
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief,
compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally, and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and
expert fees.

"We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against these actions,"
the Company said.

Henry Schein provides health care products and services primarily
to office-based dental, animal health and medical practitioners.
Henry Schein is headquartered in Melville, New York, and has
operations or affiliates in 33 countries, including the United
States, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China,
the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hong Kong SAR,
Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand and
the United Kingdom.


HERITAGE PRODUCTION: "Luce" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cody Luce and Martin Huddleston v. Heritage Production Services,
LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00206 (S.D. Tex., January 22, 2016) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Heritage Production Services, LLC operates a trucking company
located at 3198, 3100 TX-155, Palestine, TX 75803.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Still Faces S.D. Texas Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for
the quartlery period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
still faces one class action lawsuit that was commenced in March
2014.

"Beginning on March 13, 2014, two lawsuits styled as class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas against us and several officers of the Company alleging that
we made false and misleading statements that artificially inflated
our stock prices," the Company said.  "The lawsuits allege, among
other things, that we misrepresented our compliance with the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and anti-money laundering statutes
and that we lacked adequate internal controls.  The lawsuits seek
damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, although the specific amount of damages is not
specified."

On May 12, 2014, a shareholder filed a motion for appointment as
lead plaintiff, which remains pending. One of the March 2014
lawsuits has now been dismissed voluntarily, and the parties to
the remaining suit await the issuance of a scheduling order in
that matter.

"We have assessed the status of the remaining March 2014 lawsuit
and have concluded that an adverse judgment remains reasonably
possible, but not probable," the Company said.

"As a result, no provision has been made in the consolidated
financial statements. We are unable to estimate a range of
possible loss; however, in our opinion, the outcome of this
dispute will not have a material effect on our financial condition
and results of operations."

Hyperdynamics focuses on oil and gas exploration off the coast of
West Africa.


INDIANA PACKERS: Sued Over Illegal Hiring of Immigrants
-------------------------------------------------------
Debbie Lowe, writing for Carroll County Comet, reports that a
lawsuit against Indiana Packers Corporation in Carroll County was
filed in U.S. District Court on Feb. 16 which alleges IPC has
knowingly hired illegal immigrants over the past several years,
which has reduced the wage earned by unskilled workers.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: April 4 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on
Feb. 16 disclosed  that class action litigation has been brought
on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Insys Therapeutics, Inc. between March 3, 2015 and
January 25, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased or acquired Insys common stock during the Class
Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff
by no later than April 4, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the action
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff.  You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

Insys investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should contact Sharon M.
Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.

Background on the Insys Securities Class Litigation

Insys is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops and commercializes supportive care products.  Insys's
core product, Subsys, is a sublingual fentanyl spray approved by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") to treat
breakthrough cancer pain.

The action alleges that during the Class Period, Insys and certain
of its senior executives misrepresented and failed to disclose
that Insys was engaged in off-label marketing of Subsys, that
certain Insys employees were complicit in an illegal kickback
scheme pursuant to which Insys paid millions of dollars to medical
professionals in exchange for prescribing Subsys to patients, and,
as a result of the foregoing, Insys's financial results and
guidance were materially false and misleading.

On April 24, 2015, the Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation
("SIRF") reported an increasing number of patient deaths from off-
label uses of Subsys.  Following this article, the price of Insys
stock fell $6.00 per share, or nearly 10%, to close at $56.42 per
share on the next trading day, April 27, 2015.

On May 20, 2015, two top prescribers of Subsys were reportedly
arrested by federal authorities and charged with conspiracy to
distribute controlled substances outside the usual course of
professional practice and to commit healthcare fraud.  Following
this news, Insys stock price fell $2.65 per share, or more than
4%, from its close on to close at $57.12 on May 20, 2015.

On June 25, 2015, The New York Times reported that a nurse who was
a top prescriber of Subsys pled guilty to federal charges of
accepting kickbacks from Insys.  On this news, Insys's stock price
fell another $3.00 per share, or nearly 8%, from its closing price
on June 24, 2015, to close at $35.74.

On December 3, 2015, SIRF reported that Insys's prior
authorization unit routinely changed insurance codes for patients'
diagnoses to ones for "cancer" and engaged in other misconduct to
deceive insurers.  Following this news, Insys stock price fell
another $5.93 per share, or nearly 19%, to close at $26.06 on
December 3, 2015.

On January 25, 2016, SIRF reported that Insys executives have
continued to pressure the Company's employees to develop new
schemes to promote Subsys for off-label uses.  On this news, Insys
stock price fell another $1.07 per share, or more than 4%, from
its close on January 24, 2016, to close at $21.58 on
January 25, 2016.

                      About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com-- with offices in San Francisco, New
York, Nashville, and Seattle, is a nationally recognized law firm
committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for thirteen years.  In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated
unusual dedication and creativity."  Best Lawyers and U.S. News
have named Lieff Cabraser as a "Law Firm of the Year" for each
year the publications have given this award to law firms.


ISORAY INC: Class Action Defense Spikes Operating Loss
------------------------------------------------------
IsoRay, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2016, that
operating loss was $1.41 million for the second quarter of fiscal
2016, which ended December 31, 2015, compared to $1.02 million
loss in the comparable period of the last fiscal year. The
increased operating loss for the quarter is attributed to an
increase in legal costs of approximately $0.2 million and accrual
of $0.3 million for CEO severance costs. The increased legal costs
are a result of the Company's defense of its pending class action
lawsuit. By the end of the second quarter of fiscal 2016, the
Company had incurred all but approximately $40,000 of its self-
insurance retention to defend this lawsuit, and once these amounts
have been paid, all future costs are expected to be paid out of
the Company's directors and officers insurance coverage. IsoRay
had cash and cash equivalents and certificates of deposits of
$17.76 million as of December 31, 2015 and no debt.

Richland, Washington-based IsoRay, Inc. (NYSE MKT: ISR) is a
medical technology company and innovator in seed brachytherapy and
medical radioisotope applications for the treatment of prostate,
brain, lung, head and neck and gynecological cancers.


JAN-PRO CLEANING: "Navarrette" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Vidales Navarrette,, and all others similarly-situated v.
Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems, Jan-Pro of Northern Illinois, and Olivia
Escutia, Case No. 1:16-cv-00847 (N.D. Ill., January 20, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.

The Defendants own and operate a janitorial services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOHNSON FARMS: Faces "Harris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elross Harris v. Johnson Farms, Inc., Dave Johnson, John Does 1-5,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00367-RBK-KMW (D.N.J., January 21, 2016) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a farm at 1633 New Jersey 77, Deerfield, NJ
08313.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allan E. Richardson, Esq.
      RICHARDSON EMPLOYMENT & CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, LLC
      142 Emerson St.
      Woodbury, NJ 08096
      Telephone: (856) 579-7045
      Facsimile: (856) 579-7051


KANSAS CITY: Faces ACLU Suit Over Voter Registration Rules
----------------------------------------------------------
Deb Hipp, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in Kansas City, Kan. seeks to remove
qualified Kansas voters from a "suspense list" that bans them from
voting for failure to provide proof of citizenship beyond a
driver's license.

Steven Fish, Ralph Ortiz, Donna Bucci, Charles Stricker, Thomas
Boynton and Douglas Hutchinson sued Kansas Secretary of State Kris
Kobach and Nick Jordan, Kansas Secretary of Revenue, in Kansas
Federal Court on Feb. 18.

The class seeks an injunction and a court declaration that the
state must register and allow "motor-voter" registrants with a
driver's license as proof of citizenship to vote.  The lawsuit
claims that "tens of thousands" of Kansas residents are being
prevented from exercising their fundamental right to vote based on
policies that violate the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

Nearly 14 percent of all new Kansas registrants have been
"stymied" as a result of the documentation policy, according to
the lawsuit.  The suing voters say that, since 2013, state
officials acted to undermine the NVRA's accessible registration
system by "illegally demanding that Kansans who attempt to
register to vote while applying for or renewing a driver's license
produce documents like a birth certificate or U.S. passport in
order to become registered."

Over the last three years, Kansas placed more than 35,000 would-be
voters on a "suspense list" until they can provide proof of
citizenship documentation such as a birth certificate or passport,
voters claim.

Around 22,000 of those potential voters remain in suspense or have
been purged altogether from the registration system, solely for
not submitting the required proof of citizenship, the 33-page
complaint states.

Ortiz, 35, says he served in the U.S. military for 13 years but
the state barred him from registering to vote due to its
documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement.

"I joined the military to help protect American freedoms, yet now
I'm being denied the most fundamental right in our democracy,"
Ortiz said in a statement issued by the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) of Kansas.
Hutchinson, a 46-year-old U.S. citizen who has lived in Kansas his
entire life, learned last year that he was on the suspense list,
according to Feb. 18 lawsuit.

Even though Hutchinson later showed his U.S. passport to the
Department of Motor Vehicles, he still remained on the suspense
list for purported failure to provide documentary proof of
citizenship, he claims.

The voters, who are represented by ACLU attorneys, claim Kansas
has created a "needless, bureaucratic maze of barriers to
registration" that has already deterred many Kansans from
participating as voters, and has implemented these "disruptive
measures in the face of directly contrary Supreme Court
precedent."

"What's happening in Kansas is outrageous," Dale Ho, director of
the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said in a statement. "Thousands
of Kansans, including military veterans who have valiantly served
our country, are blocked from voting by unnecessary bureaucratic
roadblocks imposed by state officials. These shameful actions have
made Kansas an epicenter of voter suppression. We say no more
barriers. Let people vote."


KDD OF ILLINOIS: Faces "Tolentino" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eufrasio Tolentino, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees, known and unknown v. KDD of Illinois, Ltd., et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01017 (N.D. Ill., January 24, 2016) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

KDD of Illinois, Ltd. operates car wash facilities at certain
filling stations operated by the Service Station Business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Luka, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PAUL LUKA, P.C.
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 971-7309
      E-mail: paul@lukapc.com


KIA MOTORS: 340 People Join Class Action Over Sorento Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
The Korea Herald reports that nearly 340 people have joined a
class-action lawsuit against Kia Motors Corp. for a defect in its
Sorento sport utility vehicle, demanding compensation for cost and
losses caused by rust in its seat frame, their legal
representatives said on Feb. 18.

After the Sorento model subject to the lawsuit, which was produced
in 2014, drew complaints from its customers, Kia Motors provided
free repair for cars brought to its service centers. However 192
owners took legal action in late October, claiming that it has not
been enough to address the problem.

The Saebit law firm that represents the customers said an
additional 127 owners recently joined the class action suit,
bringing the total number of plaintiffs to 319.

They reportedly argued that the rust in the inside seat frame is
an "undeniable" defect that the automaker should be responsible
for and insisted they be fully compensated for any repair-tied
costs and losses.

Kia Motors said that it has taken "necessary" measures to address
the complaints by removing the rust and applying a rust inhibitor
to vehicles brought to its service centers.

The automaker also emphasized that it has ramped up efforts since
some claimed that the repairs were not enough and there have been
no such problems in vehicles being produced ever since.


LEGAL HELPERS: 3rd Cir. Remands "Guidotti" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit vacated and
remanded the district court's order denying the motion filed by
Global Client Solutions, LLC ("Global") and Rocky Mountain Bank
and Trust ("RMBT") to compel arbitration of a putative class
action filed by Dawn Guidotti.

The appellate case is captioned DAWN GUIDOTTI, on behalf of
herself and all other class members similarly situated, v. LEGAL
HELPERS DEBT RESOLUTION, L.L.C. also known as The Law Firm of
Macey, Aleman, Hyslip and Searns; ECLIPSE SERVICING INC, formerly
known as Eclipse Financial, Inc.; GLOBAL CLIENT SOLUTIONS, L.L.C.;
LEGAL SERVICES SUPPORT GROUP, L.L.C.; JG DEBT SOLUTIONS, L.L.C.;
ROCKY MOUNTAIN BANK AND TRUST OF COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO; LYNCH
FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., trading as Financial Solutions Legal
Center or Financial Solutions Consumer Center or Financial
Solutions Processing Center; JEM GROUP, INC.; CENTURY MITIGATIONS,
L.P.; LEGAL HELPERS, P.C., trading as The Law Firm of Macey and
Aleman; THOMAS G. MACEY; JEFFREY J. ALEMAN; JASON E. SEARNS;
JEFFREY HYSLIP; THOMAS M. NICELY; JOEL GAVALAS; AMBER N. DUNCAN;
HARRY HEDAYA; DOUGLAS L. McCLURE; MICHAEL HENDRIX; JOHN DOE(S) 1-
1000; JIM DOE(S) 1-1000; TOM DOE(S) 1-1000, the said names of John
Doe(s), Jim Doe(s) and Tom Doe(s) being fictitious; STEPHEN CHAYA;
RELIANT ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT, L.L.C. Global Client Solutions, LLC;
Rocky Mountain Bank and Trust, Appellants, No. 15-1054 (3rd Cir.),


Guidotti sued Global, RMT, and 20 other named defendants in the
New Jersey Superior Court alleging that the defendants conspired
to defraud her by promising to reduce her unsecured consumer debt
by negotiating with her creditors, and then draining her of her
remaining assets without engaging in any negotiations.

Global and RMT jointly moved to compel based on an arbitration
clause contained in the Account Agreement and Disclosure Statement
("AADS"), but not in the Special Purpose Account Application
("SPAA").  Both agreements were previously executed by Guidotti
with Global and RMT, but Guidotti opposed the motion by denying
that she had received the AADS at the time she executed the SPAA,
and that the AADS was otherwise insufficiently incorporated into
the SPAA as a matter of New Jersey contract law.

The district court agreed with Guidotti and denied Global and
RMT's motion.  On appeal, the Third Circuit remanded the case
after clarifying the standard for deciding motions to compel
arbitration.  However, the district court once again denied the
defendants' motion to compel arbitration.

Again on appeal, the Third Circuit found that while the district
court held that "genuine issues of fact clearly persist concerning
whether [Guidotti] had the AADS at the time she signed the SPAA,"
the district court concluded that the AADS's arbitration clause
was unenforceable instead of proceeding summarily to trial to
determine whether the parties formed an agreement to arbitrate.
The appellate court thus vacated the district court's order and
remanded with instructions to resolve the factual dispute.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's February 5, 2016 opinion
is available at http://is.gd/IZdyx4from Leagle.com.

Joseph M. Pinto [Argued], Polino and Pinto, 720, East Main Street,
Suite 1C, Moorestown, NJ 08057, Counsel for Appellee.

John H. Pelzer, [Argued] -- john.pelzer@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon
Marder, 200, East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1800, Fort Lauderdale,
FL 33301, Counsel for Appellants.


LTD FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Goldman" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Goldman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. LTD Financial Services, L.P., Case No. 1:16-
cv-00083-DLI-MDG (E.D.N.Y., January 7, 2016) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

LTD Financial Services, L.P. operates a debt collection firm in
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


LYFT INC: Settlement Approval Hearing Continued to March 10
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PATRICK COTTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LYFT,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-04065-VC (N.D. Cal.),
District Judge Vince Chhabria issued an order requesting further
briefing and continuing the hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of their proposed class action settlement
agreement with Lyft.

The hearing on the motion is continued to March 10, 2016.  The
parties were also ordered to file supplemental briefs, not to
exceed 20 pages, and due on February 25, 2016 for the plaintiffs'
and March 3, 2016 for Lyft's.

A full-text copy of Judge Chhabria's February 11, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/hdB0Gwfrom Leagle.com.

Patrick Cotter, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan --
sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Matthew David
Carlson, Carlson Legal Services.

Alejandra Maciel, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Carlson
-- mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com -- Carlson Legal Services.

Lyft, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexander Barnes Dryer --
adryer@kvn.com -- Keker and Van Nest LLP, Christopher M. Ahearn,
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Michelle Sabrina
Ybarra -- mybarra@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP, Rachael
Elizabeth Meny -- rmeny@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP, Robert
James Slaughter -- rslaughter@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP,
Simona Alessandra Agnolucci -- sagnolucci@kvn.com -- Keker & Van
Nest LLP & Thomas Michael McInerney -- tmm@ogletreedeakins.com --
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C..

Steven Price, Interested Party, represented by Douglas Caiafa --
dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com -- Attorney at Law & Christopher John
Morosoff, Law Office of Christopher J. Morosoff.


MACY'S: Settles Janitors' Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------
Sam Schaust, writing for Twin Cities Business, reports that
janitors picketing for higher wages and improved working
conditions at various locations throughout Minnesota on Feb. 17
extended their protest into Feb. 18, clogging rush hour traffic
into downtown Minneapolis from Interstates 35W and 94.

For a period of time, traffic was at a standstill and the State
Patrol closed down exits to divert traffic elsewhere.  Picketers
ultimately moved back toward US Bank Plaza and the exits reopened.

On Feb. 16, nonunion janitors who clean Macy's and Herberger's
stores in Minnesota reached a $425,000 proposed settlement with a
custodial services company alleged to have violated various
payroll practices.  Despite this, two organizations representing
low-wage workers in Minnesota said the fight is far from over as
both plan to hold multiple protests.

Approximately 300 to 600 janitors with Centro de Trabajadores
Unidos en la Lucha (CTUL) -- which translates to Center of Workers
United in Struggle -- will divide the settlement as back wages and
damages.  Judge Susan Nelson of the District of Minnesota, who
also granted class-action status for the suit in November, will
give final approval of the settlement at a future date.

Lake Zurich, Illinois-based Capital Building Services had denied
claims it failed to keep accurate employment records for its
workers, arguing that the case's original eight plaintiffs did not
properly track their work time or request detailed payroll
information.

According to the plaintiff's allegations in the lawsuit, the issue
of "wage theft" occurred in a variety of ways, including a lack of
compensation for travel time between stores; not being reimbursed
for cleaning supplies needed for the job; and being given "no
choice but to be paid with debit cards," resulting in ATM fees to
access their wages.

In the court filings, Capital Building Services said it reached a
settlement with CTUL's lawyers after it "concluded that further
litigation would be protracted and expensive and would divert
management and employee time."  As a condition of the settlement,
Capital Building Services would need to offer payment by check for
its employees, along with the delivery of paystubs.

Jesus Sanchez, an employee of Capital Building Services and one of
eight original plaintiffs, said in a statement that he and his co-
workers "have won a big victory."

"Wage theft is an all too common problem for retail janitors," he
added.  "We don't need a band-aid.  We need a cure.  And that cure
is a voice on the job, union rights, and $15 an hour."

Both nonunion and union janitors will hold separate protests to
highlight ongoing issues occurring within the janitorial services
industry at large.  Janitors at the center of the class action
suit will gather outside the Macy's on Nicollet Mall starting at 6
a.m. on Feb. 18.

"Truly, the reason why a settlement doesn't stop a strike is that
this is the third major lawsuit of retail janitorial work in the
Twin Cities in the last three years," said CTUL spokesperson Merle
Payne.

Last year, workers contracted by Atlanta-based Kimco Services
complained of having worked up to 35 hours a week off the clock
while cleaning Kohl's and Home Depot stores in the Twin Cities. In
2013, janitors cleaning Sears and Best Buy stores in the Twin
Cities reached a $675,000 settlement with South Salt Lake, Utah-
based Diversified Maintenance Systems.

"The issue is that this is an industry rampant with wage theft and
workers feel they shouldn't have to go to court to get their
paycheck," Payne said.  "For the workers in this class action, the
end goal actually is to join the same union that represents these
office-cleaning janitors."

That union, SEIU Local 26, will be leading a number of picket
lines during a 24-hour janitor strike starting on Feb. 17.  Picket
locations include:

   -- Securian Building (St. Paul) from 5-6:30 p.m.
   -- Medtronic Sullivan (Fridley) from 5-6:30 p.m.
   -- Best Buy Headquarters (Richfield) from 5-6:30 p.m.
   -- Ameriprise Building (Minneapolis) from 5-6 p.m.
   -- IDS Center (Minneapolis) from 5-6 p.m.
   -- Baker Center (Minneapolis) from 5-6 p.m.
   -- UnitedHealth Group Headquarters (Eden Prairie) at 2:45 p.m.
   -- MSP Airport (Terminal 1) at 1:30 p.m.
   -- US Bank Plaza (Minneapolis) 7-10:30 p.m.

The more than 4,000 unionized janitors on strike will be
advocating for "fair wages (including a $15 floor for all
workers), policies that address a growing workload crisis (many
janitors clean the equivalent of over 20 homes per night), [and]
benefits that allow for healthy families."  SEIU Local 26 members,
janitors and their employers are scheduled to meet on February 22
to negotiate a new contract after their previous three-year
contract expired at the end of 2015.


MARINOSCI LAW: "Leonard" Sues Over Illegal Collection Effort
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Leonard, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marinosci Law Group, PC, a Rhode
Island professional corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00106-LJM-DKL (S.D. Ind., Indianapolis Division, January 13,
2016), seeks statutory damages, costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees as provided by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1692, et seq.

Plaintiff incurred a debt from the Bank of America on which it
defaulted. Marinosci Law Group, PC is a Rhode Island professional
corporation and law firm assigned as a debt collector to her
account. Marinosci's initial collection letter to Plaintiff did
not state that Plaintiff's dispute to Defendant Marinosci had to
be in writing to protect her right to obtain validation of the
debt, thus resulting in an ineffective validation notice, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

              - and -

      John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
      5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
      Indianapolis, IN 46227
      Tel: (317) 780-8300
      Fax: (317) 217-1320
      Email: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Geller Named as Lead Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DANIEL LUNA, Plaintiff, v. MARVELL
TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-05447-
RMW (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Ronald M. Whyte granted the motion
filed by Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund for
appointment to serve as lead plaintiff and for approval of its
selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel.

Daniel Luna filed a suit alleging that Marvell Technology Group,
Ltd., Sehat Sutardja, Michael Sashkin, and Sukhi Nagesh violated
federal securities laws.  The case was consolidated with two
similar actions on November 3, 2015.  Plumbers & Pipefitters then
filed the motion for appointment on November 10, 2015.

Judge Whyte found that Plumbers & Pipefitters met the statutory
procedural requirements when it filed its motion within 60 days of
the publication of the notice of the pendency of the action.  The
judge also found that Plumbers & Pipefitters is necessarily the
prospective lead plaintiff with the greatest financial interest in
the litigation, considering that it was the only movant for
appointment as lead counsel and its motion is unopposed.  Further,
Judge Whyte found that Plumbers & Pipefitters satisfied the
typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a).

Finally, after reviewing the resume of the law firm Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Judge White was satisfied that Plumbers &
Pipefitters has made a reasonable choice of counsel.

A full-text copy of Judge Whyte's February 8, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/lpA3Oxfrom Leagle.com.

Daniel Luna, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy --
lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Casey
Edwards Sadler -- csadler@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP, Lionel Zevi Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongayn & Murrary LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay --
rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Philip Limbacher, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Joseph
Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jennifer
Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Patrick V.
Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Jim Farno, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP, Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP & Patrick
V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP.

Marvell Technology Group LTD, Defendant, represented by Harry
Arthur Olivar, Jr. -- harryolivar@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Jason Frank Lake --
jasonlake@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan
& Valerie Suzanne Roddy -- valerieroddy@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP.

Michael Sashkin, Defendant, represented by Joshua Garrett Hamilton
-- joshuahamilton@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP.

Philip J Limbacher, Movant, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood,
II, Pomerantz LLP, Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP & Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP.

Employees Pension Plan Of The City Of Clearwater, Movant,
represented by Curtis Victor Trinko -- ctrinko@trinko.com -- Law
Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP.

Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, Movant,
represented by David Avi Rosenfeld -- drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Matthew Isaac Alpert --
malpert@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Scott H.
Saham -- scotts@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP &
Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

Cambridge Retirement System, Movant, represented by Gerald H. Silk
-- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
& Avi Josefson -- avi@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP.

Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, Movant, represented
by Gerald H. Silk, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP & Avi
Josefson, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

Hui Qian, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy, Pomerantz
LLP.


MCCORMICK & CO: Sued Over Slack-Filled Black Pepper Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Fernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. McCormick & Co., Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
00117 (D.C., January 22, 2016) arises out of the Defendant's
alleged slack-filling practices in its black pepper products,
specifically by filling a non-transparent food container below its
actual capacity, thereby creating significant air therein and
nonfunctional empty or wasted space.

McCormick & Co., Inc. is a Maryland corporation that manufactures,
markets, and distributes spices, seasoning mixes, condiments, and
other flavor products in the food industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael G. McLellan, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
      1077 30th Street NW, Suite 150
      Washington DC, 20007
      Telephone: (202) 337-8000
      Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
      E-mail: mmclellan@finkelsteinthompson.com

         - and -

      Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
      Dustin L. Schubert, Esq.
      Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
      SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
      Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 788-4220
      Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
      E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
              dschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
              nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com


MOLSON COORS: Case Filed by Hughes and 631992 Ontario Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Brewing Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend against the case filed by David Hughes and
631992 Ontario Inc.

On December 12, 2014, a notice of action captioned David Hughes
and 631992 Ontario Inc. v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario,
Brewers Retail Inc., Labatt Breweries of Canada LP, Molson Coors
Canada and Sleeman Breweries Ltd. No. CV-14-518059-00CP was filed
in Ontario, Canada. Brewers' Retail Inc. ("BRI") and its owners,
including Molson Coors Canada, as well as the Liquor Control Board
of Ontario ("LCBO") are named as defendants in the action. The
plaintiffs allege that The Beer Store (retail outlets owned and
operated by BRI) and LCBO improperly entered into an agreement to
fix prices and market allocation within the Ontario beer market to
the detriment of licensees and consumers. The plaintiffs seek to
have the claim certified as a class action on behalf of all
Ontario beer consumers and licensees and, among other things,
damages in the amount of CAD 1.4 billion.

"We note that The Beer Store operates according to the rules
established by the Government of Ontario for regulation, sale and
distribution of beer in the province. Additionally, prices at The
Beer Store are independently set by each brewer and are approved
by the LCBO on a weekly basis. As such, we currently believe the
claim has been made without merit and we intend to vigorously
assert and defend our rights in this lawsuit," the Company said.

Molson Coors is one of the world's largest brewers and has a
diverse portfolio of owned and partner brands, including core
brands Carling, Coors Light, Molson Canadian and Staropramen, as
well as craft and specialty beers such as Blue Moon, Creemore
Springs, Cobra and Doom Bar.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: TalentBin Faces "Halvorson" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Monster Worldwide, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on or about October
12, 2015, TalentBin, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, was served
with notice of a purported consumer class action for allegedly
assembling, scoring and sharing candidate profiles in violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Investigative
Consumer Reporting Agencies Act.  The lawsuit, entitled Eric
Halvorson, et. al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated vs. TalentBin, Inc. (Case No. CGC 15 548270),
was brought in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Francisco.

On or about November 2015, the action was removed to the United
States District Court, Northern District of California.  The
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, statutory penalties of between $100 and
$1,000 per violation, punitive damages and other costs and
attorney's fees.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter and is
currently unable to estimate any potential losses.

Monster Worldwide, Inc. offers services in more than 40 countries,
providing some of the broadest, most sophisticated job seeking,
career management, recruitment and talent management capabilities.


NBTY INC: Faces "Dachauer" Suit for False Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------
Paul David Dachauer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, plaintiff v. NBTY, INC., a Delaware corporation and
Nature's Bounty, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00216-EDL (N.D. Cal., January 13,
2016), seeks restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and
costs and such further relief as may be just and proper for
violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions
Code Sec. 17200 et seq. and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
Civil Code Sec. 1750 et seq.

Dachauer purchased Defendant's Vitamin E 1000 IU at a Rite-Aid in
San Rafael, California enticed by their health benefit
representations as advertised. Defendants allegedly do not have
substantial evidence to back up their health benefits claims says
the complaint.

NBTY, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the state of Delaware. NBTY's headquarters is at 2100
Smithtown Ave., Ronkonkoma, New York 11779. NBTY manufactures,
markets, distributes, and/or sells the Vitamin E Products.

Nature's Bounty, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of Delaware. Nature's Bounty is a
subsidiary of NBTY. Nature's Bounty is headquartered at 110
Orville Drive, Bohemia, New York 11716.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
      Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
      Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      2325 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 300
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Tel: (602) 274-1100
      Email: eryan@bffb.com
             psyverson@bffb.com

           - and -

      Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 756-7748
      Email: mmuecke@bffb.com

           - and -

      Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
      BOODELL & DOMANSKIS, LLC
      Max A. Stein, Esq.
      353 North Clark St., Suite 1800
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Email: sweltman@boodlaw.com


NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Parties Agreed in Principle to Settle Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Netsol Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in
a class action lawsuit have agreed in principle to settle the case
and that settlement is in the process of being documented.

On July 25, 2014, purported class action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and certain of its current or former officers
and/or directors, which have been consolidated under the caption
Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v. NetSol Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-05787 PA (SHx). Plaintiffs subsequently filed
consolidated amended complaints, which asserted claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
As a result of the Company's motions, the Court now has dismissed
all of plaintiffs' claims except those related to the scope of the
Company's release of its next generation product, NFS Ascent(TM),
during the narrow proposed class period of October 24, 2013 to
November 8, 2013. The Company has filed an answer and affirmative
defenses denying the remaining claims.

The Company continues to believe that plaintiffs' remaining
allegations are meritless and intends to vigorously defend all
claims asserted. The Company has engaged counsel and has liability
insurance. Given the early stage of the litigation, however, at
this time the Company is unable to form a professional judgment
that an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote, and it
is not possible to assess whether or not the outcome of these
proceedings will or will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company.

On October 27, 2015, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in
the California state court entitled McArthur v Ghauri, et al.,
Case No. BC599020 (Los Angeles, Cty.), naming current and former
members of the Company's board of directors as defendants. The
complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties based on the same alleged factual premise as the pending
federal securities class action. The Company is named as a nominal
defendant only and no damages are sought from it. In addition, on
December 30, 2015, a virtually identical shareholder derivative
lawsuit was filed in Nevada state court, Paulovits v. Ghauri, et
al., Case No. CV15-02470 (Washoe Cty.), which alleges the same
claims as the earlier-filed California case.

On January 20, 2016, the parties agreed in principle to settle
this class action. Such settlement is in the process of being
documented and is subject to the Court's approval. The Company
expects the cost of settlement to be fully covered by its
insurers.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: June 9 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned VICTOR P. GIOTTA and LORALEE GIOTTA, on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, OCWEN LOAN SERVICING,
LLC, ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS S.A., ALTISOURCE SOLUTIONS,
INC.; WILLIAM C. ERBEY; and DOEs 1-50. Defendants, Case No. 5:15-
cv-00620-BLF (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Beth Labson Freeman
approved a third stipulation to amend the briefing schedule as to
the defendants' consolidated motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.

The class action was commenced on February 9, 2015 by Victor P.
Giotta and Loralee Giotta ("the Giottas") against Ocwen Financial
Corporation (OFC"), Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC ("OLS"), William C.
Erbey ("Erbey") and Altisource Solutions, Inc. ("ASI").

The Giottas filed the second amended complaint on January 15,
2016.  The approved stipulation sets the hearing for the
defendants' consolidated motion to dismiss this complaint to June
9, 2016.

A full-text copy of Judge Freeman's February 11, 2016 class action
order is available at http://is.gd/vdFCeUfrom Leagle.com.

Victor P Giotta, Plaintiff, represented by Dean Noburu Kawamoto
-- dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, Gretchen
Freeman Cappio -- gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback,
LLP, Gretchen Suzanne Obrist -- gobrist@kellerrohrback.com --
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., James Pietz, Pietz Law Office, Joseph N.
Kravec, Jr. -- jkravec@fdpklaw.com -- Feinstein Doyle Payne &
Kravec, LLC, McKean James Evans -- mevans@fdpklaw.com -- Feinstein
Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, Wyatt A. Lison -- wlison@fdpklaw.com --
Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC & Stephen Francis Yunker --
sfy@yslaw.com -- Yunker & Schneider.

Loralee Giotta, Plaintiff, represented by Dean Noburu Kawamoto,
Keller Rohrback LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Keller Rohrback,
LLP, Gretchen Suzanne Obrist, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., James Pietz,
Pietz Law Office, Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Feinstein Doyle Payne &
Kravec, LLC, McKean James Evans, Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec,
LLC, Wyatt A. Lison, Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC & Stephen
Francis Yunker, Yunker & Schneider.

Ocwen Financial Corporation, Defendant, represented by Thomas J.
Cunningham -- tcunningham@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP, James
Christopher Magid -- james.magid@lockelord.com -- Locke
Lord,Jonathan Lieberman, Uber Technologies, Inc. & Phillip Russell
Perdew -- rperdew@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell
LLP.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Thomas J.
Cunningham, Locke Lord, LLP, James Christopher Magid, Locke
Lord,Jonathan Lieberman, Uber Technologies, Inc. & Phillip Russell
Perdew, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP.

Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A., Defendant, represented by
Andrew S. Azarmi -- andrew.azarmi@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP.

Altisource Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew S.
Azarmi, Dentons US LLP & Nathan Lewis Garroway --
nathan.garroway@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP.

William C Erbey, Defendant, represented by Thomas J. Cunningham,
Locke Lord, LLP, James Christopher Magid, Locke Lord, Jonathan
Lieberman, Uber Technologies, Inc. & Phillip Russell Perdew, Locke
Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP.


OREGON: $5,250,000 in Attorney's Fees and Costs Approved
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PAULA LANE, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, and UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY OF
OREGON AND S.W. WASHINGTON, Plaintiffs, v. KATE BROWN, Governor of
the State of Oregon, et al, Defendants. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. STATE OF OREGON, Defendant, Case No.
3:12-cv-00138-ST (D. Or.), Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart
granted the plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and costs in the
amount of $5,250,000.

The case was filed on January 25, 2012 to challenge the State of
Oregon's overreliance on segregated sheltered workshops for
employment services based on Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
and Olmstead v. L.C. Ex rel. Zimring.

After almost four years, the parties engaged in lengthy settlement
negotiations and signed a settlement agreement which the court
subsequently granted.  The parties thereafter reached a settlement
of plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs in the sum of $5,250,000
consisting of $4,991,225 in attorney fees and $258,775 in costs.

Judge Stewart found the sum to be fair and reasonable and thus
granted the plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs in that
amount.

A full-text copy of Judge Stewart's February 11, 2016 opinion and
order is available at http://is.gd/2ooJhifrom Leagle.com.

Paula Lane, Plaintiff, represented by Anna M. Krieger, Center for
Public Representation, Bettina Toner, Center for Public
Representation, Bruce A. Rubin -- bruce.rubin@millernash.com --
Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP, Cathy E. Costanzo, Center for
Public Representation, Jennifer J. Roof --
jennifer.roof@millernash.com -- Miller Nash Graham & Dunn
LLP,Joanna T. Perini-Abbott -- jperiniabbott@perkinscoie.com --
Perkins Coie, LLP, Justin C. Sawyer --
justin.sawyer@millernash.com -- Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP,
Kathleen L. Wilde, Disability Rights Oregon, Lawrence H. Reichman
-- lreichman@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F.
English -- senglish@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP,Steven J.
Schwartz, Center for Public Representation, Theodore E Wenk,
Oregon Advocacy Center, Cody J. Elliott --
cody.elliott@millernash.com -- Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP
&Thomas Stenson, Disability Rights Oregon.

Andres Paniagua, Plaintiff, represented by Anna M. Krieger, Center
for Public Representation, Bettina Toner, Center for Public
Representation,Bruce A. Rubin, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP,
Cathy E. Costanzo, Center for Public Representation, Jennifer J.
Roof, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP,Joanna T. Perini-Abbott,
Perkins Coie, LLP, Justin C. Sawyer, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn
LLP, Kathleen L. Wilde, Disability Rights Oregon, Lawrence H.
Reichman, Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie,
LLP,Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Representation, Theodore
E Wenk, Oregon Advocacy Center, Cody J. Elliott, Miller Nash
Graham & Dunn LLP &Thomas Stenson, Disability Rights Oregon.

Elizabeth Harrah, Plaintiff, represented by Anna M. Krieger,
Center for Public Representation, Bettina Toner, Center for Public
Representation,Bruce A. Rubin, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP,
Cathy E. Costanzo, Center for Public Representation, Jennifer J.
Roof, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP,Joanna T. Perini-Abbott,
Perkins Coie, LLP, Justin C. Sawyer, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn
LLP, Kathleen L. Wilde, Disability Rights Oregon, Lawrence H.
Reichman, Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie,
LLP,Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Representation, Theodore
E Wenk, Oregon Advocacy Center, Cody J. Elliott, Miller Nash
Graham & Dunn LLP &Thomas Stenson, Disability Rights Oregon.

Angela Kehler, Plaintiff, represented by Anna M. Krieger, Center
for Public Representation, Bettina Toner, Center for Public
Representation, Bruce A. Rubin, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP,
Cathy E. Costanzo, Center for Public Representation, Jennifer J.
Roof, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP,Joanna T. Perini-Abbott,
Perkins Coie, LLP, Justin C. Sawyer, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn
LLP, Kathleen L. Wilde, Disability Rights Oregon, Lawrence H.
Reichman, Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie,
LLP,Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Representation, Theodore
E Wenk, Oregon Advocacy Center, Cody J. Elliott, Miller Nash
Graham & Dunn LLP &Thomas Stenson, Disability Rights Oregon.

Gretchen Cason, Plaintiff, represented by Anna M. Krieger, Center
for Public Representation, Bettina Toner, Center for Public
Representation, Bruce A. Rubin, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP,
Cathy E. Costanzo, Center for Public Representation, Jennifer J.
Roof, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP,Joanna T. Perini-Abbott,
Perkins Coie, LLP, Justin C. Sawyer, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn
LLP, Kathleen L. Wilde, Disability Rights Oregon, Lawrence H.
Reichman, Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie,
LLP,Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Representation, Theodore
E Wenk, Oregon Advocacy Center, Cody J. Elliott, Miller Nash
Graham & Dunn LLP &Thomas Stenson, Disability Rights Oregon.

Lori Robertson, Plaintiff, represented by Anna M. Krieger, Center
for Public Representation, Bettina Toner, Center for Public
Representation, Bruce A. Rubin, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP,
Cathy E. Costanzo, Center for Public Representation, Jennifer J.
Roof, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP,Joanna T. Perini-Abbott,
Perkins Coie, LLP, Justin C. Sawyer, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn
LLP, Kathleen L. Wilde, Disability Rights Oregon, Lawrence H.
Reichman, Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie,
LLP, Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Representation,
Theodore E Wenk, Oregon Advocacy Center, Cody J. Elliott, Miller
Nash Graham & Dunn LLP &Thomas Stenson, Disability Rights Oregon.

Sparkle Green, Plaintiff, represented by Anna M. Krieger, Center
for Public Representation, Bettina Toner, Center for Public
Representation, Bruce A. Rubin, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP,
Cathy E. Costanzo, Center for Public Representation, Jennifer J.
Roof, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP,Joanna T. Perini-Abbott,
Perkins Coie, LLP, Justin C. Sawyer, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn
LLP, Kathleen L. Wilde, Disability Rights Oregon, Lawrence H.
Reichman, Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie,
LLP,Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Representation, Theodore
E Wenk, Oregon Advocacy Center, Cody J. Elliott, Miller Nash
Graham & Dunn LLP &Thomas Stenson, Disability Rights Oregon.

Zavier Kinville, Plaintiff, represented by Anna M. Krieger, Center
for Public Representation, Bettina Toner, Center for Public
Representation, Bruce A. Rubin, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP,
Cathy E. Costanzo, Center for Public Representation, Jennifer J.
Roof, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP,Joanna T. Perini-Abbott,
Perkins Coie, LLP, Justin C. Sawyer, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn
LLP, Kathleen L. Wilde, Disability Rights Oregon, Lawrence H.
Reichman, Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie,
LLP, Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Representation,
Theodore E Wenk, Oregon Advocacy Center, Cody J. Elliott, Miller
Nash Graham & Dunn LLP &Thomas Stenson, Disability Rights Oregon.

United Cerebral Palsy Association of Oregon and Southwest
Washington, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anna M. Krieger,
Center for Public Representation, Bettina Toner, Center for Public
Representation, Bruce A. Rubin, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP,
Cathy E. Costanzo, Center for Public Representation, Jennifer J.
Roof, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP,Joanna T. Perini-Abbott,
Perkins Coie, LLP, Justin C. Sawyer, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn
LLP, Kathleen L. Wilde, Disability Rights Oregon, Lawrence H.
Reichman, Perkins Coie, LLP, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie,
LLP,Steven J. Schwartz, Center for Public Representation, Theodore
E Wenk, Oregon Advocacy Center, Cody J. Elliott, Miller Nash
Graham & Dunn LLP &Thomas Stenson, Disability Rights Oregon.

State of Oregon, Defendant, represented by John J. Dunbar --
jdunbar@larkinsvacura.com -- Larkins Vacura LLP & Christina L.
Beatty-Walters, Oregon Department of Justice.

Oregon Department of Human Services, Defendant, represented by
John J. Dunbar, Larkins Vacura LLP & Christina L. Beatty-Walters,
Oregon Department of Justice.

Oregon Office of Developmental Disability Services, Defendant,
represented by John J. Dunbar, Larkins Vacura LLP & Christina L.
Beatty-Walters, Oregon Department of Justice.

Oregon Office of Vocational Rehabilitation Services, Defendant,
represented by John J. Dunbar, Larkins Vacura LLP & Christina L.
Beatty-Walters, Oregon Department of Justice.

US Department of Labor, Movant, represented by Kevin C. Danielson,
US Attorney's Office.

United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Adrian L.
Brown, US Attorney's Office, Max P. Lapertosa, U.S. Deptartment of
Justice, Cheryl Citera, U.S. Department of Justice, H. Justin
Park, U.S. Deptartment of Justice, Nicholas C. Lee, U.S.
Department of Justice & Regina Kline, U.S. Deptartment of Justice.
State of Oregon, Intervenor Defendant, represented by John J.
Dunbar, Larkins Vacura LLP & Christina L. Beatty-Walters, Oregon
Department of Justice.


PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Sued Over Failure to Pay PPAs OT, Min. Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Pellot, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-00463 (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2015) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime to
Parking Production Assistants ("PPAs").

Paramount Pictures Corporation is a film studio, television
production company and motion picture distributor, consistently
ranked as one of the "Big Six" film studios of Hollywood.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Berman, Esq.
      James Vagnini, Esq.
      Robert J. Valli, Esq.
      VALLI KANE & VAGNINI, LLP
      600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7180
      E-mail: mberman@vkvlawyers.com
              jvagnini@vkvlawyers.com
              rvalli@vkvlawyers.com


PASADENA, CA: Disabled Gets Inferior Education, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Pasadena Unified School District sends students with behavioral
disabilities to a campus where they are subjected to "dangerous
physical restraints, inappropriate forced isolation," and
threatened with arrest, four families claim in a class action in
Los Angeles.

The Doe families sued the district and its Superintendent Brian
McDonald on Feb. 11 in Federal Court, on behalf of a putative
class of students with "behavior-related disabilities."

"Pasadena USD sends students with these disabilities and only such
students to a segregated school site, Focus Point Academy ('Focus
Point'), where they are consigned to an inferior education, denied
access to electives and extracurricular activities, isolated from
their non-disabled peers, deprived of the benefits of normal
socialization, and, in general, suffer the same harms as any other
victims of segregation," the 31-page complaint states.

It continues: "Although Pasadena USD considers Focus Point a
'therapeutic setting,' it is far from being therapeutic. Placement
at Focus Point is more likely to exacerbate a child's mental
health condition than improve it. Academic expectations are low,
and students make little academic progress there. Rather than
fostering learning, the emphasis at Focus Point is on behavior
control using drastic methods including dangerous physical
restraints, inappropriate forced isolation, threatened and
repeated arrests, and suspensions for minor offenses."

The parents claim that most of the kids sent to Focus Point do not
need to be there, but could go to school with nondisabled students
if the district had "school-based behavioral services" on those
campuses. They claim the de facto segregation of disabled students
violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires the
district to modify its programs to accommodate disabled students
and give them the same quality of education as nondisabled
students.

"By warehousing students with behavior-related disabilities at
Focus Point, defendants are violating both of the ADA's legal
mandates," the complaint states.

Pasadena USD serves students in Pasadena, Sierra Madre and
Altadena. It has 26 schools, including several elementary schools,
a few middle schools and four high schools. Enrollment in the
2013-2014 school year was 19,102.

The district was the subject of the 2012 documentary film "Go
Public," in which 50 camera crews followed people in 28 schools
for a day to portray the positive and negative aspects of a
moderate-sized public school system.

Focus Point enrolls students with behavior-related disabilities in
first through twelfth grades. In the 2014-21015 school year it had
82 students, according to the complaint, which cites the school's
enrollment logs.

The parents say the district could enroll their children at any of
its campuses if it established a behavioral services program that
could assess each student and determine the triggers for their
behavior, create individual intervention plans for each student,
train staff on how to implement the plans, and coordinate with
service providers outside the school.

But the district says these services are available only at Focus
Point and transfers students who need such services to that
campus, according to the complaint.

The parents says that Focus Point lacks practically everything
that students on other campuses enjoy, including ROTC, career
training, swimming pools, sports fields, school dances, a library,
art and auto shop classes, on-campus student clubs, school
newspapers, school band, and the chance to attend an off-campus
science camp on Catalina Island.

Being segregated from non-disabled students "diminishes their
educational opportunity," denies them "the same opportunity to
learn and graduate that is afforded their peers," and prevents
them from developing "appropriate social skills," the parents say.

"Moreover, the students at Focus Point are stigmatized as a result
of the unwarranted assumption that they are incapable or unworthy
of attending their neighborhood schools with their non-disabled
peers," the complaint states.

Focus Point is supposed to help integrate its students back into
the regular schools, but most students sent there stay there for
years, and those who do leave are often sent back because they are
deprived of behavioral services and are not taught the skills they
need to succeed on other campuses, the parents say.

Plaintiff Sam Doe is a 14-year-old ninth grader with attention
deficit disorder who has attended Focus Point since he was in
fifth grade. Though he wants to learn about computers and is
interested in video game design, Focus Point does not have the
facilities or technology. He acts out because he has lost hope of
ever attending a different school, his parents say.

Plaintiff Deborah Doe is an 11-year-old sixth grader who started
attending Focus Point in the third grade and is interested in
dance, drama and sports. She suffered trauma at an early age,
which impaired her ability to learn and interact appropriately
with others, and has been in the foster care system since she was
quite young. Though she was twice placed in a dual enrollment
program, it did not work out because she did not receive the
behavioral services she needs to control her aggression and ease
her defiance, according to the complaint.

The other student plaintiffs have. Their parents say they say they
are not alone in their struggles, which other students at Focus
Point also endure.

Pasadena schools and offices were closed from Feb. 12 to Feb. 15
for the Presidents' Day holidays. Superintendent McDonald did not
immediately return requests for comment sent Friday afternoon.

The students seek class certification, a declaration that the
district is discriminating against them in violation of their
civil rights under the ADA, and an injunction to require the
district to offer behavior-related services at all neighborhood
schools to enable the plaintiffs to attend them.

They are represented by Robert Stern -- rstern@mofo.com -- with
Morrison & Foerster and Candis Watson Bowles with Disability
Rights California, who did not immediately return requests for
comment.


PETERSBURG, VA: Law Enforcers' Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ewers, James Aponte, William Bergamini, Emanuel Binford,
Billy Blankenship, Rashaun Boland, Thomas Carter, Brandon Chester,
James Darrington, Leslie Deluca, Keith Dennis, Dale Eichler,
Robert Elkins, Robert Ferguson, Gregory Geist, Terry Haskins,
Sherrie Johnson, Kimberly Landon, Eric Mccall, John Mcclellan,
Nasha Yla Nelson, David Reese, Joseph Vaughan,
John Waldron, Andrea Walker, Christopher Womack, Laurie
Womack and John Woy Ansky, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of Petersburg, Virginia,
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00029-HEH (E.D. Va., January 13,
2016), seeks declaratory, injunctive relief, as well as to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et
seq. and Virginia Codes Sec. 9.J-700, et seq., 9.I-700, et seq.
and under the doctrine of quantum meruit.

Plaintiffs are law enforcement employees with the City of
Petersburg, Virginia. They were regularly required to work in
excess of their regularly scheduled hours without overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

           - and -

      Ryan H. Ash, Esq.
      BLACKBUM, CONTE, SCHILLING & CLICK, PC
      300 W. Main Street
      Richmond, VA 23220
      Tel: (804) 782-1111
      Fax: (804) 648-3914
      Email: ryanash@blackburnconte.com


PHH CORP: Court Rules on Discovery-Related Motions in "Munoz"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EFRAIN MUNOZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PHH
CORP. et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:08-cv-0759-DAD-BAM (E.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe ruled on the
discovery-related motions filed by the plaintiffs Efrain Munoz,
Leona Lovette, Stephanie Melani, Iris Grant, John Hoffman, and
Daniel Maga, II, and the defendants PHH Corp., PHH Mortgage Corp.,
PHH Home Loans, LLC, and Atrium Insurance Co.

On January 13, 2016, the defendants filed a motion for protective
order to prevent the plaintiffs from conducting nineteen
depositions.  On January 22, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for protective order limiting the scope of the named plaintiffs'
depositions to topics unrelated to class certification.  On
January 22, 2016, the plaintiffs also filed a motion to compel the
depositions of the defendants' employees.

Judge McAuliffe denied as moot, the defendants' motion for
protective order to prevent the plaintiffs from conducting
nineteen depositions and the plaintiffs' motion to compel
deposition of the defendants' employees, based on the parties' own
representation in their Joint Statement Regarding Discovery
Dispute that the said motions "are moot at this time."

As to the plaintiffs' motion for protective order "limiting the
scope of the named plaintiffs' depositions to topics unrelated to
class certification", Judge McAuliffe found no good cause to issue
the requested protective order.  The judge found no practical or
meaningful method for limiting the scope of the plaintiffs'
depositions given the substantial overlap between merits discovery
and class certification discovery at this juncture in the case.
Judge McAuliffe also pointed out that the parties and the court
are not precluded from revisiting class certification during the
course of litigation.

A full-text copy of Judge McAuliffe's February 11, 2016 orders is
available at http://is.gd/DI8IGMfrom Leagle.com.

Efrain Munoz, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Plutzik --
aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com -- Bramson Plutzik Mahl & Birkhaeuser,
LLP, Amanda R. Trask -- atrask@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Donna Siegel Moffa -- dmoffa@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer and Check LLP, Eric G Calhoun, Calhoun & Associates, James
Maro -- jmaro@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
Jennifer S Rosenberg -- jrosenberg@bramsonplutzik.com -- Bramson,
Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser,Johnston Whitman --
jwhitman@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Natalie
Lesser -- nlesser@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, Llp,
Robert M. Bramson, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Donna
Siegel Moffa, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Edward W. Ciolko
-- eciolko@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Joseph
H. Meltzer -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
LLP, Joshua A. Materese -- jmaterese@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP & Terence S. Ziegler -- tziegler@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.

Leona Lovette, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson
Plutzik Mahl & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Donna Siegel Moffa, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer and Check LLP, Eric G Calhoun, Calhoun & Associates, James
Maro, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Jennifer S Rosenberg,
Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, Johnston Whitman, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP,Natalie Lesser, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, Llp, Donna Siegel Moffa, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
Edward W. Ciolko, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Joseph H.
Meltzer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Joshua A. Materese,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Terence S. Ziegler, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.

Stephanie Melani, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Plutzik,
Bramson Plutzik Mahl & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Donna Siegel Moffa,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, Eric G Calhoun, Calhoun &
Associates, James Maro, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
Jennifer S Rosenberg, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser,
Johnston Whitman, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP,Natalie
Lesser, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, Llp, Robert M. Bramson,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Donna Siegel Moffa, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Edward W. Ciolko, Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check LLP, Joseph H. Meltzer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
Joshua A. Materese, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Terence
S. Ziegler, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.

Iris Grant, Plaintiff, represented by Johnston Whitman, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Natalie Lesser, Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, Llp,Joshua A. Materese, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP & Edward W. Ciolko, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.

John C. Hoffman, Plaintiff, represented by Johnston Whitman,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Natalie Lesser, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, Llp,Joshua A. Materese, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP & Edward W. Ciolko, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.

Daniel M. Maga, II, Plaintiff, represented by Johnston Whitman,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Natalie Lesser, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, Llp, Joshua A. Materese, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP & Edward W. Ciolko, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.

PHH Mortgage Corporation, a New Jersey corporation formerly known
as Cendant Mortgage, Defendant, represented by David M. Souders --
souders@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, Joseph S.
Genshlea -- joe@genshlealaw.com -- Joe Genshlea Law and Mediation
&Sandra B. Vipond -- vipond@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider
PC.

PHH Corp., a Maryland corporation, Defendant, represented by David
M. Souders, Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, Joseph S. Genshlea, Joe
Genshlea Law and Mediation & Sandra B. Vipond, Weiner Brodsky
Kider PC.

PHH Home Loans, LLC, Defendant, represented by David M. Souders,
Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, Joseph S. Genshlea, Joe Genshlea Law and
Mediation & Sandra B. Vipond, Weiner Brodsky Kider PC.

Atrium Insurance Corp., a New York corporation, Defendant,
represented by David M. Souders, Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, Joseph
S. Genshlea, Joe Genshlea Law and Mediation & Sandra B. Vipond,
Weiner Brodsky Kider PC.

Marcella Villalon, Intervenor, represented by Edward W. Ciolko,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP & Johnston Whitman, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.


PHYSICIANS AND DENTISTS: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua R. Auxier, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Physicians and Dentists Credit Bureau Inc., et al.,
Docket No. 2:16-cv-00025-JLR (W.D. Wash., January 7, 2016) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.

Physicians and Dentists Credit Bureau Inc. operates a credit
reporting agency located at 12720 Gateway Dr., Tukwila, WA 98168.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Antoinette Marie Davis, Esq.
      ANTOINETTE M. DAVIS, PLLC
      528 Third Avenue W., STE 102
      Seattle, WA 98119
      Telephone: (206) 486-1011
      E-mail: tonie@toniedavislaw.com

         - and -

      Guy William Beckett, Esq.
      BERRY & BECKETT, PLLP
      1708 Bellevue Ave
      Seattle, WA 98122-2017
      Telephone: (206) 441-5444
      E-mail: gbeckett@beckettlaw.com

         - and -

      Kim Williams, Esq.
      Roblin John Williamson, Esq.
      WILLIAMSON & WILLIAMS
      2239 W. Viewmont Way W
      Seattle, WA 98199
      Telephone: (206) 466-6230
      Facsimile: (206) 535-7899
      E-mail: kim@williamslaw.com
              roblin@williamslaw.com


PMZ REAL ESTATE: Faces Fraud Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Garth Stapley, writing for The Modesto Bee, reports that a
Southern California law firm has launched a class-action fraud
lawsuit against Modesto's PMZ Real Estate, the leading property
firm in Stanislaus County and the surrounding area.

PMZ got payments from a Concord company producing natural-hazard
reports for home transactions without clients knowing, the lawsuit
claims.  PMZ concealed the payments by directing clients to deal
with another firm -- in reality, a shell company run by PMZ, the
document says.

The lawsuit lists as plaintiffs three former PMZ clients from
Stockton and another from Lodi who used the Modesto firm to sell
homes in 2009 and 2010.  In theory, hundreds or thousands of PMZ's
former clients from Modesto and beyond could join the lawsuit if a
judge deems it worthy of class-action status, but PMZ says the
claim is bogus and has asked a judge to throw out the entire
lawsuit.

"The whole case is non-meritorious from the word go," said
Jay Varon, a Washington, D.C., attorney representing PMZ, which
faces no known criminal prosecution.

Knowing that hiding from clients any source of profit is against
the law, PMZ "conspired to devise a way to avoid detection" by
inventing Valley NHD -- a firm sharing the same Scenic Drive
address as PMZ -- and pretending that the company provided $89
natural-hazard disclosures, the lawsuit says. Such reports list
risks from floods, forest fires and earthquakes.

In reality, Concord-based Disclosure Source would do the work for
$40 and PMZ would clear $49, the lawsuit says.

"It's a secret profit," said Francis Bottini Jr., a La Jolla
attorney.  His firm is suing Paul M. Zagaris Inc., PMZ's former
name, as well as broker of record Jon Paul Zagaris, five PMZ "top
producing" agents, and both natural-hazard report companies.  The
Concord company is owned by Fidelity National Financial, whose
owner previously got in hot water with state and federal officials
for devising an unrelated scheme rewarding real estate agents for
"undefined costs."  Fidelity paid nearly $6 million in fines and
settlements, the lawsuit says.

Mr. Bottini said it's nothing new for agents to direct business to
cronies in exchange for payment.

"It's all incestuous," Mr. Bottini said.  Agents say, "'I'm the
one who decides whether you get some business; what will you give
me if I pick you?' It's fundamentally against the freedom of
competition that our country is based on," he said.

PMZ contends that Valley NHD performed service of value rather
than just slapping its label on Disclosure Source's reports.  For
example, Valley NHD "assumed any liability for inaccuracies in the
report if the customers took issue," a PMZ court document says.

If clients had gone directly to Disclosure Source, they would have
paid $89 -- the same price charged by Valley NHD, the defendants
say.

"Nobody is hurt in this claim.  They got exactly what they wanted
for the same amount of money," Mr. Varon said.

Those suing didn't do their homework because none of the four
plaintiffs rounded up for the lawsuit used PMZ's alleged shell
company, Valley NHD, a court briefing says.  And none of the
plaintiffs used any of the five PMZ agents named in the lawsuit,
the document says.


POWERCET CORP: Steel Tubing Release Pollutant, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Powercet Corp. et al.'s
corrugated steel tubing can fail and release carbon monoxide into
homes, a class action claims in Jefferson, City, Mo.

The defendants are Powercet Corp., Gas Technology Institute, Omega
Flex Inc., Ward Manufacturing LLC, and Titeflex Corp.


PREMIERCANCUNVACATIONS: Sued in Cal. Over Unsolicited Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Menichiello, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PremierCancunVacations.Com, et al., Case No.
8:16-cv-00024-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal., January 7, 2016) seeks to put an
end to the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls.

PremierCancunVacations.Com operates a travel agency in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
      Todd M Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
      324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com
              tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

         - and -

      Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
      324 S Beverly Drive No. 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: mgeorge@toddflaw.com


PRINCIPAL LIFE: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of McCaffree Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a decision dismissing a
class action complaint against Principal Life.

On March 18, 2014, McCaffree Financial Corp. Employee Retirement
Program ("McCaffree") filed a putative class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
against Principal Life. The complaint alleged, among other things,
breach of duty of loyalty, breach of duty of prudence and
prohibited transactions under ERISA. McCaffree seeks a nationwide
class action on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of
defined contribution retirement plans that invested in any
Principal Separate Account in the last six years. McCaffree seeks
disgorgement of all fees it alleges Principal Life improperly
retained in addition to other general claims for relief. Principal
Life filed a motion to dismiss the case and on December 11, 2014,
the court granted the motion. On January 8, 2016, the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision
dismissing the complaint against Principal Life. Principal Life
will continue to aggressively defend the case.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. ("PFG") is a leader in global
investment management offering businesses, individuals and
institutional clients a wide range of financial products and
services, including retirement, asset management and insurance
through our diverse family of financial services companies. We had
$527.4 billion in assets under management ("AUM") and
approximately 19.1 million customers worldwide as of December 31,
2015.


PULASKI FINANCIAL: Files Additional Info Related to Merger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pulaski Financial Corp. reported that a putative class action
lawsuit captioned Patel v. Douglass, et al., has been filed in the
Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, Missouri, Case No. 16SL-
CC00406 (the "Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit relates to the Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") between First Busey
Corporation ("First Busey") and Pulaski, dated as of December 3,
2015. Pursuant to, and subject to the terms and conditions of the
Merger Agreement, Pulaski will merge with and into First Busey,
with First Busey as the surviving entity following the merger (the
"Merger"). The Lawsuit names as defendants the members of
Pulaski's board of directors, Pulaski and First Busey. A demand
for jury trial has been made. The Lawsuit alleges breaches of
fiduciary duty due to the process leading to the proposed Merger
of Pulaski and First Busey, potential conflicts of interest,
inadequate merger consideration, the terms of the Merger
Agreement, and the failure to disclose allegedly material
information related to the proposed merger in the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus of First Busey and Pulaski, dated February 3,
2016 and filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") on February 3, 2015 (the "Proxy
Statement/Prospectus"). The Lawsuit also alleges that First Busey
aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duty. The relief sought
includes class certification, declaratory relief, an injunction
against the Merger, rescission or rescissory damages if the Merger
is consummated, costs and attorney's fees.

Pulaski and First Busey believe that the factual allegations in
the complaint are without merit and intend to defend vigorously
against these allegations, Pulaski said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10,
2016.

Pulaski provided additional information related to the Lawsuit in
a supplement to the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. A copy of the
Supplement is available at http://is.gd/EJge3E


QUEENSLAND TREASURY: Writ Has Not Been Served in Flood Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Queensland Treasury Corporation, a Statutory Corporation of The
State of Queensland, Australia, said in its Form 18-K Annual
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 10, 2016, for the year ended December 31, 2015, that due
to a flood event in 2015 caused by Cyclone Maria, a writ was
lodged seeking compensation from SunWater  Limited through a class
action for losses caused by the operation of the automatic gates
at the Callide Dam during the flood. To date, the writ has not
been served.


REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Won't Cover Cost for Harvoni, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Regence Blueshield refuses
to cover the cost of Harvoni, a "miracle cure" for hepatitis C,
because of its cost, a class action claims in King County Court in
Seattle.


RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leonardo Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Resource Management Inc. of Wisconsin, et al., Case
No. 3:16-cv-00017-wmc (W.D. Wis., January 8, 2016) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Established in 1975, Resource Management Inc. of Wisconsin is a
full service debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Karl Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (646) 459-7971
      Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

         - and -

      Kyla N. Motz, Esq.
      FREUND LAW OFFICE
      920 S. Farwell St.
      P.O. Box 222
      Eau Claire, WI 54702
      Telephone: (715) 832-5151
      E-mail: kyla.motz@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Matthew Z. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
      HERRICK & HART, S.C.
      116 West Grand Ave., P.O. Box 167
      Eau Claire, WI 54702
      Telephone: (715) 832-3491
      Facsimile: (715) 832-3424
      E-mail: Matthew@eauclairelaw.com


SANTA FE NATURAL: "Cuebas" Sues over False Advertising
------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Cuebas individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco
Company, Inc., and Reynolds American Inc., Defendants, Case No.
7:16-cv-00270 (S.D.N.Y., January 13, 2016), seeks actual,
compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages, recovery of civil
penalties, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, compensatory,
injunctive, equitable or declaratory relief including refunds and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Cuebas switched to American Spirits specifically because of
Defendants' advertising and other statements stating or implying
that American Spirits are natural, additive free and organic.
However, Defendants have no competent or reliable scientific
evidence to back their labeling and advertising claims, says the
complaint.

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. is a New Mexico corporation
with principal place of business at One Plaza La Prensa, Santa Fe,
New Mexico 87507. Santa Fe manufactures, promotes and sells
Natural American Spirit cigarettes. Santa Fe is a subsidiary of
Reynolds American Inc.

Reynolds American Inc. is a North Carolina corporation. Its
principal place of business is 401 North Main Street, Winston-
Salem, North Carolina 27101.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
      Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
      Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
      SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
      1212 SE Third Avenue
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Tel: (954) 320-9507
      Fax: (954) 320-9509
      Email: scott@schlesingerlaw.com
             jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com
             jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Still Defends Morning Song Bird Food Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
disputes the plaintiffs' assertions and intends to vigorously
defend the consolidated action, Morning Song Bird Food Litigation.

In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were
the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been
named as a defendant in four putative class actions filed on and
after June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case
No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutory
and common law claims associated with the Company's sale of wild
bird food products and a plea agreement entered into in previously
pending government proceedings associated with such sales. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, a purported class action on
behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who
purchased certain bird food products. The plaintiffs assert
hundreds of millions of dollars in monetary damages (actual,
compensatory, consequential, and restitution), punitive and treble
damages; injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest; and costs and attorneys' fees.

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company and its subsidiaries are engaged in
the manufacturing, marketing and sale of consumer branded products
for lawn and garden care.


SEATAC: Workers File Class Action Over Minimum Wage Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blanca Torres, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that SeaTac
workers at 14 companies have filed lawsuits seeking class-action
status that allege their employers have been paying them less than
the $15 per hour called for under the minimum-wage ordinance
approved by the city's voters in 2013.

The employers named in the 14 separate suits include car-rental
firms Hertz and Fox, baggage-handling companies Menzies Aviation
and Bags Inc., and global shipping company Hanjin.  The other
defendants are also rental-car, food-service and logistics firms.

Some workers reported being paid wages as low as $9.75 per hour,
while most were paid close to $12 per hour, said one of their
attorneys, Duncan Turner of Badgley Mullins Turner.

The lawsuits list more than 40 plaintiffs, but attorneys
representing them said the lawsuits could ultimately cover about
1,500 workers who work at companies based at or near Sea-Tac
International Airport.

That number includes people who work at airport restaurants and
rental-car agencies, and for firms that contract with airlines to
handle baggage, clean airplanes and facilities and ferry
passengers in wheelchairs through the airport.

"Our goal is to obtain a full accounting of the unpaid wages and
benefits and to provide a full redress for these workers,"
Mr. Turner said during a news conference on Feb. 17.

SeaTac voters approved an ordinance in 2013 that required
employers of transportation and hospitality workers to pay a
minimum wage of $15 per hour starting Jan. 1, 2014.  The ordinance
does not include airlines.

The attorneys working on the case, who also include Cleveland
Stockmeyer and Daniel Whitmore, estimate that some workers were
shortchanged by up to a third of their earnings and are owed
upward of $20,000 in unpaid wages during the two years the
ordinance has been in effect.

The total back pay owed could total $14 million to $21 million,
Mr. Stockmeyer said.

Many of the affected workers are immigrants, people with poor
English skills, or employees afraid of retaliation, Mr. Turner
said.

Khalif Mahamad, who works for GCA Services, a firm that provides
services to rental-car agencies, said he wanted to speak up for
many co-workers who are not receiving proper wages.

"We are just requesting to get our rights," he said.  "Without us,
these companies could not make a penny."

Lawsuits started not long after the ordinance went into effect in
2014, and recently two similar suits were filed against Shuttle
Express and Enterprise Holdings, which operates Alamo and National
Car Rental.

"I don't know how long it's going to take for these employers to
accept reality and accept that SeaTac Prop. 1 is the law of the
land," said Dmitri Iglitzin, the attorney representing the
plaintiffs in those two lawsuits.

While the city of SeaTac and the state Department of Labor and
Industries take complaints about wage theft, many workers are
turning to class-action lawsuits for help, Mr. Iglitzin said.

Some employers operating at or near the airport were waiting for
lawsuits challenging the ordinance to be resolved before
increasing worker wages, said Matt Haney, a director at SEIU Local
6, a union that represents some SeaTac workers.

Alaska Airlines and three other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit
claiming the ordinance shouldn't apply to the airport.  The State
Supreme Court ruled against that argument last August and in
December rejected a request to review the case.

Since the August ruling, some employers have started paying
workers $15.24 per hour, the current minimum wage adjusted for
inflation.

Mr. Turner said various airport employers expected the Alaska
Airlines lawsuit to exempt them from paying higher wages.

Menzies said in an email Feb. 17 that it is complying with the
law: "While we cannot comment on ongoing litigation, as of
February 15, 2016, Menzies Aviation is paying its employees at
SeaTac a base rate of $15.24 per hour."

Meanwhile, aviation-services firm ASIG, which is also being sued,
lists an opening on its website for an aircraft fueler at SeaTac
that pays a base salary of $12 per hour.

ASIG, as well as several other companies named in the suits, did
not respond to requests for comment on Feb. 17.


SENIOR HEALTH: Illegally Reduces Home Care Services, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olga Caballero, Jie Du, by her next friend Michael Tong, and
Alejandra Negron, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Senior Health Partners, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-00326-CBA-CLP (E.D.N.Y., January 21, 2015) seeks
injunctive relief from the Healthfirst Defendants' systemic
practice of threatening to reduce or actually reducing Medicaid-
funded home care services based on arbitrary limits and without
the timely and adequate notice required by law.

The Defendants provide variety of programs through which Medicaid
recipients can receive home care services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq.
      Michelle Movahed, Esq.
      Benjamin E. Taylor, Esq.
      NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
      7 Hanover Square, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 613-5000
      Facsimile: (212) 750-0820
      E-mail: jstevens@nylag.org
              mmovahed@nylag.org
              btaylor@nylag.org


SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS: $11.7MM Settlement Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LAURA McCABE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SIX
CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 12-cv-04818 NC (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins granted final
approval of the class action settlement in which the defendant Six
Continents Hotels, Inc. agreed to pay $11,700,000.

A class action was brought against Six Continents on behalf of all
California residents who called the defendant, alleging that its
policy and practice of recording calls made to its call centers
without giving notice to callers violate the California Penal
Code.

The parties agreed to settle the case, wherein Six Continents
agreed to pay $11,700,000 as part of the settlement.  The
individuals subject to the settlement are all persons who, while
residing or located in California, placed a call to one of Six
Continents' toll-free telephone numbers at any time during the
period from March 1, 2011 through July 18, 2012, inclusive, and
spoke with a representative.

After a final approval hearing held on February 3, 2016, Judge
Cousins concluded that the settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable.  Payments from the settlement fund were approved by
the judge in the following amounts:

     1. $10,000 to Laura McCabe and Latroya Simpson, and
        $7,500 to Christy Sarabia;

     2. $491,684 to the claims administrator;

     3. $100,000 in attorneys' costs;

     4. $2,925,000 in attorneys' fees;

     5. The remaining fund to be allocated pro rata amongst
        class members who have filed valid claim forms; and,

     6. An equal payment of any funds from uncashed settlement
        checks to the two cy pres recipients, Consumer Action
        and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Consumer Action
        and the Electronic Frontier Foundation must use the
        funds for activities that benefit California resident.

A full-text copy of Judge Cousins' February 8, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/kuMWEyfrom Leagle.com.

Laura McCabe, Plaintiff, represented by Eric A. Grover, Keller
Grover LLP,Carey Gavin Been, Keller Grover LLP & Scot David
Bernstein, Law Offices of Scot D. Bernstein.

Latroya Simpson, Plaintiff, represented by Eric A. Grover, Keller
Grover LLP,Carey Gavin Been, Keller Grover LLP & Scot David
Bernstein, Law Offices of Scot D. Bernstein.

Six Continents Hotels, Inc.,, Defendant, represented by Edward
Dean Totino -- edward.totino@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, Anahit
Tagvoryan, DLA Piper US, Monica D. Scott --
monica.scott@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Perrie Michael
Weiner, Esq. -- perrie.weiner@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP.

Objectors, Objector, represented by Objectors, PRO SE.

Objectors, Objector, represented by Charles Robert Messer --
messerc@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP.


SKULLCANDY INC: "Davis" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Davis, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Skullcandy, Inc., Seth Darling, Jason Hodell, and
Richard P. Alden, Case 2:16-cv-00121-RJS (Utah Dist., February 12,
2016), was filed on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired SKUL securities between August 7,
2015 and January 11, 2016, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act.

SKUL is a designer, marketer and distributer of audio and gaming
headphones, earbuds, speakers and other accessories under the
Skullcandy, Astro Gaming and 2XL brands.  The Company offers an
array of styles and price points and includes audio products and
categories, such as gaming and sports performance, women's and
wireless offerings, as well as partnerships with manufacturers to
license its brand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey L. Silvestrini, Esq.
     COHNE KINGHORN, PC
     111 E. Broadway, 11th Floor
     Salt Lake City, UT 84111
     Phone: (801) 363-4300
     E-mail: jeff@cohnekinghorn.com

        - and -

     Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
     Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
     SAXENA WHITE P.A
     Boca Center
     5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
     Boca Raton, FL 33486
     Phone: (561) 394.3399
     E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com

        - and -

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     Katharine Ryan, Esq.
     RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
     995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
     Wayne, PA 19087
     Phone: (484) 588-5516
     Fax: (484) 450-2582


SNACK FACTORY: "Dedrick" Suit Stayed; Conference Reset to May
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IAN DEDRICK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SNACK FACTORY, LLC,
a New Jersey limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-
cv-01605-EMC (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Edward M. Chen issued a
stipulation and order staying the case and vacating the February
18, 2016 case management conference.

On August 5, 2015, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement and
[Proposed] Order Continuing Case Management Conference, explaining
that they have reached an agreement to settle the action on an
individual basis, contingent on final approval of a classwide
settlement in Barron v. Snyder's-Lance, Inc., Case No. 0:13-cv-
62496 (S.D. Fla).

Thus, Judge Chen ordered that the action be stayed pending the
court's decision in Baron v. Snyder-Lance, Inc.  The February 18,
2016 case management conference was reset to May 26, 2016 at 9:30
a.m.

A full-text copy of Judge Chen's February 11, 2016 stipulation and
order is available at http://is.gd/HzXoTUfrom Leagle.com.

Ian Dedrick, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Keith King --
bking@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot and Wolfson, P.C., Theodore W.
Maya -- tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C.,
Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C. & Tina Wolfson --
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C..

Snack Factory, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Groves --
agroves@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP.

Snack Factory, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kiran H. Mehta --
kiran.mehta@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP & Sean D.
Meenan -- smeenan@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn.


SOLARCITY CORP: Court Allowed Plaintiffs to File Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
SolarCity Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a district court has
dismissed an amended complaint in a stockholder class action and
allowed the plaintiffs until February 15, 2016 to file a further
amended complaint.

"On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against us and two of our officers," the Company said.
"The complaint alleges claims for violations of the federal
securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our
securities from March 6, 2013 to March 18, 2014."

"On April 16, 2015, the District Court dismissed the complaint and
allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in an attempt
to remedy the defects in the original complaint.

"The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, and we filed a
renewed motion to dismiss on August 7, 2015.

"On January 5, 2016, the District Court dismissed the amended
complaint and allowed the plaintiffs until February 15, 2016 to
file a further amended complaint in an attempt to remedy the
defects in the amended complaint.

"We believe that the claims are without merit and intends to
defend ourselves vigorously. We are unable to estimate the
possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit.

SolarCity installs more solar energy systems than any other
company in the United States with over 110,000 new installations
in 2015.


SOLARCITY CORP: Seeks Dismissal of TCPA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
SolarCity Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has filed a
motion to dismiss a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class
action.

"On November 6, 2015, a putative class action was filed against us
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California," the Company said. "The complaint alleges that we made
unlawful telephone marketing calls to the plaintiff and others, in
violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The
plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages, on behalf
of himself and a certified class."

"On January 25, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
ourselves vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible loss,
if any, associated with this lawsuit."

SolarCity installs more solar energy systems than any other
company in the United States with over 110,000 new installations
in 2015.


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Sued Over Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Leak
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Polonsky and Eleanor Polonsky, d/b/a Polonsky Family Day
Care, a/k/a Granada Childcare, individuals, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Southern
California Gas Company, Sempra Energy, and Does 1-50, Case No.
BC606736 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 11, 2016) is brought by
businesses and business owners who suffered loss as a result of
the Aliso Canyon natural gas leak in the Los Angeles County.

The Defendants store and sell natural gas in California and
transmits such through the City of Los Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan Himmelfarb, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF ALAN HIMMELFARB
      80 W. Sierra Madre Blvd., #304
      Sierra Madre, CA 91024
      Telephone: (626) 325-3104
      E-mail: Consumerlawl@earthlink.net

         - and -

      David C. Parisi, Esq.
      Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
      PARISI & HAVENS LLP
      212 Marine Street, Suite 100
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (818) 990-1299
      Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
      E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
              shavens@parisihavens.com

         - and -

      Gary Luckenbacher, Esq.
      Sheri Manning, Esq.
      MANNING, MANNING, & LUCKENBACHER
      20750 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 203
      Woodland Hills, CA 91364
      Telephone: (818) 883-8000


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: 67 Cases Filed Over Leak as of Feb. 10
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy and Southern California Gas Company said in their
Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 11, 2016, that as of February 10, 67 lawsuits have
been filed against Southern California Gas, some of which have
also named Sempra Energy, asserting causes of action for
negligence, strict liability, property damage, fraud, nuisance,
and trespass, among other things.

On October 23, 2015, the Southern California Gas Company (the
"Company"), an indirect subsidiary of Sempra Energy, discovered a
leak at one of its injection and withdrawal wells, SS25, at its
Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, located in the northern
part of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County.  The Aliso
Canyon facility, which has been operated by the Company since
1972, is situated in the Santa Susana Mountains.  SS25 is more
than one mile away from and 1,200 feet above the closest homes.
It is one of more than 100 injection and withdrawal wells at the
storage facility.

Addressing the Leak and Mitigation Efforts

On December 4, 2015, the Company commenced drilling a relief well
designed to stop the leak by plugging SS25 at its base.  On
February 11, 2016, the Company began pumping fluids through the
relief well into SS25 near the base of the well, which has
temporarily controlled the flow of natural gas through the well
and has stopped the leak.  While this is a positive development,
to permanently seal the well, cement will need to be injected into
SS25 at its base, which could occur over the next several days.
The Company will continue to work in coordination with the
California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
("DOGGR") and other agencies during the course of attempting to
permanently seal the well.  The Company is also continuing its
preparations to drill a back-up relief well as a precautionary
measure and will continue those efforts at least until it is
confident that the leak has been permanently sealed, which at this
point is not assured.

The Company has been providing temporary relocation support to
residents in the nearby community who request it.  As of February
10, 2016, approximately 6,400 households utilized temporary
relocation services, and over 1,700 have since moved back into
their homes.  In addition, the Company has been providing air
filtration and purification systems to those residents in the
nearby community requesting them.  Once the DOGGR confirms that
the SS25 well has been permanently sealed, the Company will start
winding down its temporary relocation program.  Subject to certain
exceptions, residents who temporarily relocated to short-term
housing, such as hotels, will have up to eight days/seven nights
to transition back home, and residents who have been placed in
rental housing will have through the agreed term of their leases
to return home.  The Company also intends to mitigate the
environmental impact of the actual natural gas released.

The total costs that will be incurred to remediate and stop the
leak and to mitigate environmental and local community impacts
will be significant, and to the extent not covered by insurance,
or if there were to be significant delays in receiving insurance
recoveries, such costs could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's and Sempra Energy's cash flows, financial condition and
results of operations.

Governmental Investigations and Civil and Criminal Litigation

Various governmental agencies, including the DOGGR, Los Angeles
County Department of Public Health, South Coast Air Quality
Management District ("SCAQMD"), California Air Resources Board
("CARB"), California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC"), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Los Angeles District Attorney's
Office and California Attorney General's Office, are investigating
this incident.  On January 25, 2016, the DOGGR and CPUC selected
Blade Energy Partners to conduct an independent analysis under
their supervision and to be funded by the Company to investigate
the technical root cause of the Aliso Canyon leak.  The Company
has been working in close cooperation with these agencies.

As of February 10, 2016, 67 lawsuits have been filed against the
Company, some of which have also named Sempra Energy, asserting
causes of action for negligence, strict liability, property
damage, fraud, nuisance, and trespass, among other things, and
additional litigation may be filed against us in the future
related to this incident. Many of these complaints seek class
action status, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees. The Los Angeles City Attorney and Los
Angeles County Counsel filed a complaint on behalf of the people
of the State of California against the Company for public nuisance
and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. The
California Attorney General, acting in her independent capacity
and on behalf of the people of the State of California and the
CARB, joined this lawsuit. The complaint, as amended to include
the California Attorney General, adds allegations of violations of
California Health and Safety Code sections 41700, prohibiting
discharge of air contaminants that cause annoyance to the public,
and 25510, requiring reporting of the release of hazardous
material, as well as California Government Code section 12607 for
equitable relief for the protection of natural resources. The
complaint seeks an order for injunctive relief, to abate the
public nuisance, and to impose civil penalties. The SCAQMD filed a
complaint against the Company seeking civil penalties for alleged
violations of several nuisance-related statutory provisions
arising from the leak and delays in stopping the leak. That suit
seeks up to $250,000 in civil penalties for each day the
violations occurred.

On February 2, 2016, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office
filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint against the Company seeking
penalties for alleged failure to provide timely notice of the leak
pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 25510(a),
Los Angeles County Code section 12.56.030, and Title 19 California
Code of Regulations section 2703(a), and for violating California
Health and Safety Code section 41700 prohibiting discharge of air
contaminants that cause annoyance to the public.

All of these complaints are being reviewed by the Company and
outside legal counsel.  The costs of defending against these civil
and criminal lawsuits and cooperating with these investigations,
and any damages and civil and criminal fines and other penalties,
if awarded or imposed, could be significant, and to the extent not
covered by insurance, or if there were to be significant delays in
receiving insurance recoveries, could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's and Sempra Energy's cash flows, financial
condition and results of operations.

Governmental Orders, Additional Regulation and Reliability

During the month of January 2016, the Hearing Board of the SCAQMD
conducted public hearings on a stipulated abatement order
regarding the Aliso Canyon leak. On January 23, 2016, the Hearing
Board ordered the Company to, among other things:  stop all
injections of natural gas except as directed by the CPUC, withdraw
the maximum amount of natural gas feasible in a contained and safe
manner, subject to orders of the CPUC, and permanently seal the
well once the leak has ceased; continuously monitor the well site
with infrared cameras until 30 days after the leak has ceased;
provide the public with daily air monitoring data collected by the
Company; provide the SCAQMD with certain natural gas injection,
withdrawal and emissions data from the Aliso Canyon facility;
prepare and submit to the SCAQMD for its approval an enhanced leak
detection and reporting well inspection program for the Aliso
Canyon facility; provide the SCAQMD with funding to develop a
continuous air monitoring plan for the Aliso Canyon facility and
the nearby school and community; prepare and submit to the SCAQMD
for its approval an air quality notification plan to provide
notice to SCAQMD, other public agencies and the nearby community
in the event of a future reportable release; and provide the
SCAQMD with funding to conduct an independent health study on the
potential impacts of exposure to the constituents of the natural
gas released from the facility as well as any odor suppressants
used to mitigate odors from the leaking well.  Additional hearings
in the state legislature as well as with various other regulatory
agencies have been or are expected to be scheduled.

The Company estimates that as of February 10, 2016, approximately
57 Bcf of natural gas has been delivered to customers or moved to
other gas storage facilities from an initial starting point of
approximately 77 Bcf of gas in storage on October 23, 2015 at the
Aliso Canyon facility.  The Company has been directed by the CPUC
to maintain a minimum of 15 Bcf of working natural gas to ensure
reliability of the system through the spring and summer months,
and based upon the CARB estimates of lost gas, the facility is
approximately at this level. As a result and consistent with the
order issued by the Hearing Board of the SCAQMD, the Company is no
longer withdrawing gas from this facility.  As the amounts of
natural gas set forth are approximations, the Company cannot at
this time reliably measure the amount of natural gas lost from the
leak.  Once the well has been permanently sealed, the Company will
conduct a measurement of natural gas lost from the leak and will
provide that information to the relevant regulatory bodies.

Natural gas withdrawn from storage is important for ensuring
service reliability during peak demand periods, including heating
needs in the winter, as well as peak electric generation needs in
the summer. Aliso Canyon, with a storage capacity of 86 Bcf, is
the largest and most important element of the Company's natural
gas delivery system, serving millions of homes and businesses
across Southern California.  Aliso Canyon represents 63 percent of
the Company's owned natural gas storage capacity.

As previously announced in the Company's Form 8-K dated January 6,
2016, the Governor of California issued an order (the "Governor's
Order") proclaiming a state of emergency to exist in Los Angeles
County due to the natural gas leak and implementing a number of
orders applicable to the Company and various state agencies.  The
Company has not injected natural gas into the Aliso Canyon natural
gas storage facility since October 25, 2015, and in accordance
with the Governor's Order and subject to contrary CPUC
reliability-based direction, the Company will continue this
moratorium on further injections until the completion of (i) a
comprehensive review, utilizing independent experts, of the safety
of the storage wells and air quality of the surrounding community
and (ii) an evaluation by an independent panel of scientific and
medical experts on whether additional measures are needed to
protect public health.

In addition, effective February 5, 2016, the DOGGR amended the
California Code of Regulations to require all underground natural
gas storage facility operators, including the Company, to take
further steps to ensure the safety of their gas storage
operations.  If this facility were to be taken out of service for
any meaningful period of time, it could result in significantly
higher than expected future operating costs and/or additional
asset requirements, and natural gas reliability and electric
generation could be jeopardized, which could result in impairment
of the Aliso Canyon facility.  The Aliso Canyon facility had a net
book value of $243 million at December 31, 2015.  Any significant
impairment of this asset could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's and Sempra Energy's results of operations for the
period in which it is recorded, and higher operating costs and
additional capital expenditures may not be recoverable in customer
rates, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
and Sempra Energy's results of operations, cash flows and
financial condition.

Cost Estimates

Pursuant to the Company's Form 8-K dated January 6, 2016, the
Company estimated that as of December 31, 2015 it had spent
approximately $50 million addressing the leak and mitigating
environmental and community impacts, including temporary
relocation, and drilling the relief well and attempts to stop or
mitigate the emissions.  Since that time, the number of households
that have participated in the temporary relocation program has
increased from approximately 2,200 as of December 31, 2015 to
approximately 6,400 households as of February 10, 2016,
contributing substantially to our total cost estimate.

The Company's total costs consisting of amounts paid and
forecasted to be paid to address the leak and mitigate certain
environmental and community impacts, including temporary
relocation, drilling relief wells, attempts to stop or mitigate
the emissions, and the value of lost gas are estimated to be
between $250 million and $300 million.  The Company believes that
it is probable that this amount, less deductibles of $4 million,
will be covered by insurance.  These amounts do not include any
reserves for damage awards, any civil or criminal fines and other
penalties that may be imposed, and associated legal costs, or the
costs related to our intention to mitigate the environmental
impact of the actual natural gas released from the leak, as these
amounts are not reliably estimable as to amount or timing at this
time.

Insurance

The Company said, "We have at least four types of insurance
policies that we believe will cover many of the current and
expected claims, losses, costs, and litigation (collectively,
"Claims") associated with the natural gas leak at Aliso Canyon.
The total combined limit available under all of these policies is
in excess of $1 billion.  We have put these insurers on notice
about the leak, the nature of potential losses and the filing of
lawsuits and are actively pursuing coverage with these carriers.
These policies are subject to various policy limits depending on
the type of Claim and are subject to various exclusions and other
coverage limitations.  The Company does not anticipate that the
payment of deductibles on these policies will be material."


SUBSTANCE ABUSE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Coleman" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Coleman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Substance Abuse Center of Kansas, Inc., Case
No. 6:16-cv-01025-JTM-GEB (D. Kan., January 22, 2016) is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Substance Abuse Center of Kansas, Inc. specializes in the
prevention, treatment, and case management of individuals affected
by substance abuse.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Boyd A. Byers, Esq.
      Sarah Burch Macke, Esq.
      FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
      1551 North Waterfront Pkwy, Ste. 100
      Wichita, KA 67206-4466
      Telephone: (316) 267-6371
      Facsimile: (316) 267-6345
      E-mail: bbyers@foulston.com
              smacke@foulson.com


SUNEDISON INC: Faces "Linton" Suit Alleging ERISA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Linton, individually and on behalf of the SUNEDISON
Retirement Savings Plan, and all other similarly situated Plan
participants and beneficiaries, v. SUNEDISON, Inc., Board Of
Directors Of SUNEDISON, Inc., SUNEDISON, Inc. Investment
Committee, State Street Bank & Trust CO., Ahmad R. Chatila,
Emmanuel T. Hernandez, Antonio R. Alvarez, Peter Blackmore,
Clayton C. Daley, Jr., Georganne C. Proctor, Steven V. Tesoriere,
James B. Williams, Randy H. Zwirn, Matthew Herzberg, and John Doe
Defendants 1-10, Case: 4:16-cv-00199 Doc (E.D.Mo., February 12,
2016), was filed on behalf of the SunEdison, Inc., Retirement
Savings Plan, and all other similarly situated Plan participants
and beneficiaries.   Mr. Linton brought this action against the
Defendants pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

SUNEDISON, Inc. is a global renewable energy development company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark Potashnick, E.D. Esq.
     WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
     11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
     St. Louis, MO, 61341
     Phone: 314-997-9150
     Fax: 314-997-9170
     E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

        - and -

     Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
     Timothy J. Straub, Esq.
     LEVI KORSINSKY LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: (212) 363-7171
     E-mail: lfeldman@zlk.com
             tstraub@zlk.com


SUNTECH POWER: $5-Mil. Settlement Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Suntech Power will pay $5 million to settle a federal class
action in San Francisco accusing it of hiding bad financial news
from shareholders.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg approved the final settlement
on Feb. 12, one day after a fairness hearing.

Lead plaintiff Scott Bruce's 2012 lawsuit claimed Suntech Power
Holdings and its CEO Zhengrong Shi kept shareholders in the dark
about $700 million in German government bonds pledged as a part of
a loan guarantee.

Bruce claimed Shi knew for months that bogus bonds pledged by
investment fund Global Solar Fund Capital had been fabricated, and
when the news came out, Suntech share price sank by 15 percent in
a day, July 30, 2012, to $1.34.

Several 2009 emails from Global Solar Fund official Javier Romero
to Shi said the loan guarantee collateral should be kept
confidential, according to the amended complaint. Additional
correspondence allegedly showed that the company never conducted
due diligence on Global Solar Fund, though the Suntech board said
precautions were necessary.

The parties agreed on a stipulated settlement on Aug. 14, 2015.

Seeborg wrote in a 7-page order: "The court has determined that
the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and is herby
finally approve in all respects. Defendant has agreed to pay or
cause to be paid $5,000,000 in cash for the benefit of the class.
Among other things, the recovery of individual class members
depends on the number of shares of Suntech American Depository
Shares and the amount of Suntech 3.0 percent Convertible Senior
Notes those class members purchases and sold and the prices and
amounts of transactions by other class members who filed claims."

Class counsel will receive 28 percent of the balance of the
settlement fund, after settlement administration expenses and
costs, plus $95,445.21 for expenses.

Investment woes and a glut in the market for solar products in
2008 almost doomed Suntech, but Shunfeng International Clean
Energy acquired the company in 2014 after it filed for bankruptcy
in 2013. The company's American Depository Receipts were
subsequently delisted from the New York Stock Exchange and placed
on the over-the-counter exchange.

The case captioned, SCOTT BRUCE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SUNTECH
POWER HOLDINGS CO., LTD, et al., Defendants. Case No. 12-cv-04061-
RS (N.D. Cal.).


SWISS PARK: "Vargas" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Eleazar Vargas, and all others similarly-situated v. Swiss Park,
Inc., Heidi's World LLC and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC606372
(Cal. Super., January 7, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay regular and overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a park.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Travis Hodgkins, Esq.
      CIVIL JUSTICE LAW, PC.
      12100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 800
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Tel: (213) 529-0003
      Fax: (310) 496-0533
      E-mail: travis@civiljustice.com

          - and -

      Joseph Cho, Esq.
      LATRIA LAW, P.C.
      12100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 800
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Tel: (310) 806-9264
      Fax: (844) 806-9265


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Faces "Kincaid" Suit Over TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael W. Kincaid, DDS, Inc. dba Riverside Family Dental Group,
and all others similarly-situated v. Synchrony Financial, Case No.
1:16-cv-00796 (N.D. Ill., January 20, 2016), is brought against
the Defendant for sending unsolicited advertisements for goods and
services via facsimile in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Synchrony Financial is a consumer financial services company
headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, United States. The
Defendant is a publicly traded corporation that does extensive
business in the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
      Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP
      1114 Dublin Road
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Tel: (614) 488-0400
      Fax: (614) 488-0401
      E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com

          - and -

      Lauren E. Snyder, Esq.
      1350 N. Wells Street, Apt. A214
      Chicago, IL 60610
      Tel: (419) 344-1146
      E-mail: lauren.elizabeth.snyder@gmail.com

          - and -

      Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
      1 South Ave, Third Floor
      Natick, MA 01760
      Tel: (508) 655-1415
      E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

          - and -

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


TARGA RESOURCES: "Lindeman" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
John F. Lindeman, and all others similarly-situated v. Targa
Resources Partners, L.P., Joe Bob Perkins, Rene R. Joyce, James W.
Whalen, Ruth I. Dreessen, Robert B. Evans and Barry R. Pearl, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00165 (S.D. Tex., January 19, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants have violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) the Exchange Act by causing a materially
incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement to be
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December
3, 2015.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Targa Resources is a provider of
midstream NGL services in the United States that was formed in
October 2006 to own, operate, acquire, and develop a diversified
portfolio of complementary midstream energy assets. Targa
Resources is engaged in the business of gathering, compressing,
treating, processing, and selling natural gas, and storing,
fractionating, treating, transporting, and selling NGLs and NGL
products. The Individual Defendants are officers and members of
the board of Targa Resources.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
      THE BILEK LAW FIRM, LLP
      700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 227-7720
      E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com

          - and -

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 363-7500
      Fax: (212) 363-7171


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: October 2016 Trial Set in Case v. Barr
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that a trial has been scheduled for October 2016 in a California
class action lawsuit against Barr Laboratories, Inc.

Barr Laboratories, Inc., a subsidiary of Teva ("Barr"), is a
defendant in actions in California, Florida and Kansas alleging
that a January 1997 patent litigation settlement agreement between
Barr and Bayer Corporation was anticompetitive and violated state
antitrust and consumer protection laws.

In the California case, the trial court granted defendants'
summary judgment motions, and the California Court of Appeal
affirmed in October 2011. While an appeal was pending before the
California Supreme Court, the trial court approved a $74 million
class settlement with Bayer.

On May 7, 2015, the California Supreme Court reversed and remanded
the case back to the trial court for a rule of reason inquiry as
to the remaining defendants, including Barr. A trial has been
scheduled for October 2016.

Based on the plaintiffs' expert testimony in a prior federal
multidistrict litigation, estimated sales of ciprofloxacin in
California were approximately $500 million during the alleged
damages period.

Barr remains a party to both the California and Florida actions.

In the Kansas action, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement Bayer entered into with plaintiffs on June 5, 2015.
On July 22, 2015, Barr and the remaining co-defendants also agreed
to settle with the plaintiffs. The settlement has been submitted
to the court for approval, following which the case will be
dismissed.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is a global pharmaceutical
company, committed to increasing access to high-quality healthcare
by developing, producing and marketing affordable generic
medicines and a focused portfolio of specialty medicines.  Teva
operates in pharmaceutical markets worldwide, with a significant
presence in the United States, Europe and other markets. As a
world leading pharmaceutical company, Teva is strategically
positioned to benefit from ongoing changes in the global
healthcare environment.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Litigation Resumed in Suit v. Teva & GSK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that litigation has resumed in the district court in both the
direct purchaser and indirect purchaser actions, and Teva and
GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings in the indirect purchaser action on December 28, 2015.

In February 2012, two purported classes of direct-purchaser
plaintiffs sued GSK and Teva for alleged violations of the
antitrust laws in connection with their settlement of patent
litigation involving lamotrigine (generic Lamictal(R)) entered
into in February 2005.

In August 2012, a purported class of indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed a nearly identical complaint against GSK and Teva. The
plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement unlawfully delayed
generic entry and seek unspecified damages. In December 2012, the
District Court dismissed the cases.

On January 24, 2014, the District Court denied the direct
purchaser plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and affirmed its
original dismissal of the cases. On June 26, 2015, the Third
Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The
defendants' petitions for review by the full court were denied on
September 23, 2015.

Litigation has resumed in the district court in both the direct
purchaser and indirect purchaser actions. Teva and GSK filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings in the indirect purchaser
action on December 28, 2015.

Annual sales of Lamictal(R) were approximately $950 million at the
time of the settlement, and approximately $2.3 billion at the time
generic competition commenced in July 2008.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is a global pharmaceutical
company, committed to increasing access to high-quality healthcare
by developing, producing and marketing affordable generic
medicines and a focused portfolio of specialty medicines.  Teva
operates in pharmaceutical markets worldwide, with a significant
presence in the United States, Europe and other markets. As a
world leading pharmaceutical company, Teva is strategically
positioned to benefit from ongoing changes in the global
healthcare environment.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Moved to Dismiss Actos Purchasers' Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the Defendants have moved to dismiss the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' amended complaint related to ACTOS(R) and ACTOplus
Met(R).

Since January 2014, numerous lawsuits have been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
by purported classes of end payors for and direct purchasers of
ACTOS(R) and ACTOplus Met(R) (pioglitazone and pioglitazone plus
metformin) against Takeda, the innovator, and several generic
manufacturers, including Teva. The lawsuits allege, among other
things, that the settlement agreements between Takeda and the
generic manufacturers violated the antitrust laws. Teva entered
into its agreement with Takeda in December 2010. Defendants'
motions to dismiss with respect to the end payor lawsuits were
granted on September 23, 2015.

On October 22, 2015, the end payors filed a notice of appeal of
this ruling. The lawsuits brought by the direct purchasers were
stayed pending a ruling on the motions to dismiss the end payor
lawsuits.

Following the ruling on the motions to dismiss in the end payor
lawsuits, the direct purchaser plaintiffs amended their complaint.
Defendants have moved to dismiss that complaint.

At the time of the settlement, annual sales of ACTOS(R) were
approximately $3.7 billion and annual sales of ACTOplus Met(R)
were approximately $500 million. At the time generic competition
commenced in August 2012, annual sales of ACTOS(R) were
approximately $2.8 billion and annual sales of ACTOplus Met(R)
were approximately $430 million.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is a global pharmaceutical
company, committed to increasing access to high-quality healthcare
by developing, producing and marketing affordable generic
medicines and a focused portfolio of specialty medicines.  Teva
operates in pharmaceutical markets worldwide, with a significant
presence in the United States, Europe and other markets. As a
world leading pharmaceutical company, Teva is strategically
positioned to benefit from ongoing changes in the global
healthcare environment.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Dropped as Defendant in Namenda Buyers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the direct purchasers of Namenda IR(R) withdrew their
complaint and filed an amended complaint that did not name Teva as
a defendant.

Since May 29, 2015, two lawsuits have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York by a
purported class of direct purchasers of, and a purported class of
end payors for, Namenda IR(R) (memantine hydrochloride) against
Forest Laboratories, LLC and Actavis PLC, the innovator, and
several generic manufacturers, including Teva. The direct
purchasers withdrew their complaint and filed an amended complaint
that did not name Teva as a defendant.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the claims made by the end
payors. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
settlement agreements between Forest and the generic manufacturers
violated the antitrust laws.

Teva entered into its agreement with Forest in November 2009.
Annual sales of Namenda IR(R) at the time of the settlement were
approximately $1.1 billion, and are currently approximately $1.4
billion.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is a global pharmaceutical
company, committed to increasing access to high-quality healthcare
by developing, producing and marketing affordable generic
medicines and a focused portfolio of specialty medicines.  Teva
operates in pharmaceutical markets worldwide, with a significant
presence in the United States, Europe and other markets. As a
world leading pharmaceutical company, Teva is strategically
positioned to benefit from ongoing changes in the global
healthcare environment.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Suit v. Cephalon over Actiq(R) Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that Cephalon has entered into an agreement to resolve the named
plaintiffs' individual claims without admitting any liability, and
the case was dismissed on January 14, 2016.

Cephalon is a defendant in a putative class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in which plaintiffs, third party payors, allege
approximately $700 million in losses resulting from the promotion
and prescription of Actiq(R) for uses not approved by the FDA
despite the availability of allegedly less expensive pain
management drugs that were more appropriate for patients'
conditions.

In March 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and that decision was affirmed by the Third Circuit
in August 2015. Cephalon has entered into an agreement to resolve
the named plaintiffs' individual claims without admitting any
liability, and the case was dismissed on January 14, 2016.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is a global pharmaceutical
company, committed to increasing access to high-quality healthcare
by developing, producing and marketing affordable generic
medicines and a focused portfolio of specialty medicines.  Teva
operates in pharmaceutical markets worldwide, with a significant
presence in the United States, Europe and other markets. As a
world leading pharmaceutical company, Teva is strategically
positioned to benefit from ongoing changes in the global
healthcare environment.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Suit v. Cephalon Over Provigil Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that Cephalon was named a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit with off-label claims involving Provigil(R) and
Gabitril(R), brought by the American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees, District Council 47 Health and Welfare
Fund.  The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint on
January 29, 2016.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is a global pharmaceutical
company, committed to increasing access to high-quality healthcare
by developing, producing and marketing affordable generic
medicines and a focused portfolio of specialty medicines.  Teva
operates in pharmaceutical markets worldwide, with a significant
presence in the United States, Europe and other markets. As a
world leading pharmaceutical company, Teva is strategically
positioned to benefit from ongoing changes in the global
healthcare environment.


TEXAS CONCIERGE: Faces "Saucedo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Saucedo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Texas Concierge, Inc., and Dallas Valet Service, Inc.
and Abdallah S. Demachkie, Case No. 3:16-cv-00186-D (N.D. Tex.,
January 22, 2016) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Texas Concierge, Inc. provides personal concierge services to its
clients, which include property management, residential services,
valet parking, and overseeing the maintenance of the building.

Dallas Valet Service, Inc. is in business of providing valet
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TINDER INC: Judge Tosses Gender Bias Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Eslinger and Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, report
that a  California judge on Feb. 17 tossed a putative class action
alleging the mobile dating app Tinder illegally discriminates
based on gender by charging more for men and allowing women more
matchups, saying the male plaintiff hadn't "connected the dots" to
show how he'd been harmed.

Prior to the Feb. 17 hearing, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
William F. Highberger issued a tentative ruling, which also
provided lead plaintiff Michael Manapol leave to amend his
complaint.  The ruling became final after neither party chose to
make court appearances on Feb. 17 to argue against it.

The complaint "does not yet 'connect the dots' to show the harm
that resulted to plaintiff as a result of this differential in the
kind of services provided based on gender," Judge Highberger wrote
in his ruling.

Mr. Manapol's allegation that users of Tinder Inc.'s free service
can get more "swipes" -- that is, opportunities to try to match up
with potential dates -- if they are registered as female customers
"has the potential" to back a discrimination claim under
California's civil rights law, but needs more support for its
inferences, the judge said, saying the plaintiffs could fix the
defect by amending the complaint.

John Kristensen of Kristensen Weisberg LLP, an attorney for the
plaintiffs, told Law360 on Feb. 17 that an amended complaint will
be filed by the judge's stated March 15 deadline.

Mr. Manapol, a Los Angeles resident, claims he purchased a
subscription to Tinder Plus for $19.99 per month around late April
2015 and shortly thereafter learned of a woman who was able to
subscribe to the same service for $14.99 per month.  Charging
different prices based on gender constitutes unlawful
discrimination and an unfair business practice, he claims in his
suit. Mr. Manapol also alleges that Tinder's free mobile app
provides men with fewer swipes than women, thus forcing them to
upgrade to the paid app, Tinder Plus, for unlimited use.

"Accordingly, Tinder's pricing model benefits women over men,
making it a discriminatory practice in violation of the Unruh
Civil Rights Act," Mr. Manapol states in his complaint.

In its Jan. 29 motion to have Mr. Manapol's complaint about the
dating app dumped, Tinder says he fails to state facts sufficient
to constitute a cause of action for gender discrimination under
California law, which means the claim for violation of the state's
unfair competition laws also fails because it was based on the
gender discrimination allegation.

The only source for the gender-pricing disparity cited by Mr.
Manapol, the mobile app maker notes, is an online TechCrunch
article published in March, a month before he purchased his
upgrade to Tinder Plus.

"This is akin to alleging that plaintiff suffered gender
discrimination because the entrance fee that he was charged by a
nightclub was higher than the fee it charged to a female patron
two months earlier," Tinder states in its January demurrer motion.
"Plaintiff offers no credible allegation that women are
consistently changed less than men for Tinder Plus."

In his Feb. 17 ruling, Judge Highberger agreed with Tinder,
calling Mr. Manapol's "one-off allegation regarding one female's
purchase of Tinder Plus at a lower price" not enough to show a
pattern of price discrimination based on gender.

The suit also offers no support to Mr. Manapol's allegation that
women get more swipes than men, Tinder states.

Mr. Manapol first filed his putative class action against Tinder
in California federal court in April 2015, a suit that also
alleged the dating app discriminated on the basis of age by
charging more for its premium service for users over the age of
30.  Two months later he had the complaint voluntarily dismissed
and refiled a nearly identical suit in California state court in
July.  The first amended complaint he subsequently filed in
January alleges only gender discrimination.

Mr. Manapol seeks to represent a class of California residents who
downloaded the Tinder app before March 2, 2015.

Mr. Manapol is represented by John P. Kristensen and David L.
Weisberg of Kristensen Weisberg LLP.

Tinder is represented by Donald Brown -- dbrown@manatt.com -- and
Christopher A. Rheinheimer -- crheinheimer@manatt.com -- of Manatt
Phelps & Phillips LLP.

The case is Michael Manapol et al. v. Tinder Inc. et al., case
number BC589036, in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles.


TLK GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Wage Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a
woman is suing TLK Group in a class action lawsuit after she
claims it violated the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection
Act.

Terina M. Hamilton was employed by TLK until Feb. 22, 2014,
according to a complaint filed Jan. 19 in Cabell Circuit Court.

Ms. Hamilton claims the defendant failed to pay her final wages in
a timely manner and she did not receive her final wages until
March 2014 and May 5, 2014.

The defendant's actions violated the West Virginia Wage Payment
and Collection Act, according to the suit.

Ms. Hamilton claims all persons formerly employed by the defendant
in West Virginia who were involuntarily discharged within five
years of the filing of the complaint and not paid all wages within
72 hours or within four business days or by the next regular
payday, depending on when they were discharged from the defendant.

Consistent with the defendant's pay practices, the defendant
failed to pay the plaintiff and other class members within the
time period mandated by the WPCA, according to the suit.

Ms. Hamilton is seeking compensatory damages.  She is being
represented by Jonathan R. Marshall and Sandra Henson Kinney of
Bailey & Glasser; and Todd S. Bailess and Rodney A. Smith at
Bailess Smith PLLC.

The case is assigned to Circuit Judge Christopher D. Chiles.

Cabell Circuit Court case number: 16-C-38


TOP OF THE VIADUCT: "Sharier" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Sharier, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Top Of The Viaduct, LLC, d/b/a/ Top Of The
Viaduct Restaurant, and Beth Brown, Case: 5:16-cv-00343 (N.D.Ohio,
February 12, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated
damages, and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees as a
result of Defendants' alleged wilful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant Top Of rhe Viaduct is doing business as a restaurant
which provides food and catering service in Massillon, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
     Phone: (877) 561-0000
     Fax: (855) 582-5297
     E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tower Semiconductor Ltd., Russell C. Ellwanger, and
Oren Shirazi, Case No. 2:16-cv-00487 (C.D. Cal., January 22, 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.

Tower Semiconductor Ltd. is an independent specialty foundry
dedicated to the manufacturing of semiconductors and operates a
semiconductor fabrication facility in Newport Beach, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Michael Goldberg, Esq.
      GOLDBERG LAW PC
      13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404
      Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
      Telephone: (1800) 977-7401
      Facsimile: (1800) 536-0065
      E-mail: info@goldberglawpc.com


TP-LINK USA: "Arroyo" Class Suit Sent to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOE ARROYO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TP-LINK USA
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:14-cv-04999-EJD (N.D.
Cal.), District Judge Edward J. Davila granted the request of TP-
Link USA and TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd. to transfer the case
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

Considering that TP-Link USA is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in San Dimas, a city located within
the Central District, Judge Davila found that the convenience and
fairness considerations applicable to analysis under section 28
U.S.C. 1404(a) weigh in favor of transferring the said action to
the Central District.

A full-text copy of Judge Davila's February 11, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/ib8RaIfrom Leagle.com.

Joe Arroyo, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Nguyen --
anguyen@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Alicia Elaine Hwang --
ahwang@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Ari Jonathan Scharg --
ascharg@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Benjamin Scott Thomassen,
Edelson P.C. -- bthomassen@edelson.com -- Samuel Lasser --
sam@samlasserlaw.com -- Law Office of Samuel Lasser & Todd M Logan
-- tlogan@edelson.com -- Edelson PC.

TP-Link USA Corporation, Defendant, represented by Enoch H Liang -
- enoch.liang@ltlattorneys.com -- Lee Tran & Liang LLP, James
Mitchell Lee -- james.lee@ltlattorneys.com -- Lee Tran & Liang
LLP, Heather Fai Auyang -- heather.auyang@ltlattorneys.com -- Lee
Tran & Liang LLP & Timothy Stephen Fox --
timothy.fox@ltlattorneys.com -- Lee Tran and Liang LLP.

TP-LINK Technologies Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Alfred
Eric Bjorgum, Karish and Bjorgum, PC.


TRANS-CONTINENTAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Haut" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Haut, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Trans-Continental Credit & Collection Corp., et al.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00061-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., January 6, 2016) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Trans-Continental Credit & Collection Corp. operates a loan agency
located at 44 S Broadway # 401, White Plains, NY 10601.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRI-STATE ENTERPRISES: "Martinez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Martinez, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Tri-State Enterprises LLC, Regina Brock,
Michael L. Brock, and Lee Brock, Case: 3:16-cv-00032-MPM-JMV
(N.D.Miss., February 12, 2016), seeks to recover past and ongoing
wages owed in the nature of unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs, and other damages
and remedies under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for
failure to pay overtime compensation.

Tri State Enterprises LLC is a licensed and bonded freight
shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business
from Walls, Mississippi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Wesley Hisaw, Esq.
     HOLLAND LAW, P.C.
     3010 Goodman Road West, Suite A
     Horn Lake, MS 38637
     Phone: (662) 342-1333
     Fax: (662) 342-7321
     E-mail: jwhisaw@hollandlaw.net


TRUEBLUE INC: Court Grants Joseph's Bid to Compel Doc Production
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DANIEL JOSEPH, Plaintiff, v. TRUEBLUE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C14-5963 BHS (W.D. Wash.), District Judge
Benjamin H. Settle granted the motion to compel filed by Daniel
Joseph.

On August 25, 2014, Joseph filed a class action complaint against
TrueBlue, Inc. asserting numerous violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  Joseph then filed a motion to
compel requesting that the court order TrueBlue to respond to
certain interrogatories and requests for production.

TrueBlue objected because (1) the requested information is not
relevant, (2) its position is consistent with the TCPA, and (3)
the requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome, seek private
information, and are premature.  TrueBlue requested that the court
defer ruling on Joseph's motion until it considers TrueBlue's
expected summary judgment motion later this month.

Judge Settle found TrueBlue's position to be completely without
merit.  Judge Settle stated that the court is unable to condone
objecting to discovery because the objecting party believes it
will win an unfiled dispositive motion.  The judge also found that
TrueBlue failed to specify how the requests are overly broad or
unduly burdensome.

A full-text copy of Judge Settle's February 10, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/PKOTbvfrom Leagle.com.

Daniel Joseph, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
Christopher A Johnston, Christopher Peter Martineau,Erika L.
Nusser -- enusser@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW
GROUP PLLC, Keith J Keogh, KEOGH LAW, LTD & Michael Hilicki, KEOGH
LAW, LTD.

TrueBlue Inc and Labor Ready Inc, Defendants, represented by
Amelia D Winchester -- awinchester@ongaropc.com -- ONGARO PC,
David R Ongaro -- dongaro@ongaropc.com -- ONGARO, PC & Michael E
McAleenan, SMITH ALLING, PS.


UDR INC: Faces "Pineda" Suit for Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------
Sally Pineda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UDR, Inc., and Does 1-10, inclusive, and
each of them, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-267 (C.D. Cal., January
13, 2016), seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, preliminary
and permanent enjoinment, exemplary or treble damages, costs of
suit, prejudgment interest and further relief for violation of
Penal Code Sec. 632 or Invasion of Privacy.

Defendant contacted Plaintiff multiples times regarding an alleged
debt and allegedly made a recording of the call, failing to
disclose to the Plaintiff that the call was being recorded.
Personal and sensitive information including Plaintiff's banking
information were discussed over the phone.

UDR, Inc. is a Delaware company with its principal place of
business in Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Bids to Intervene Okayed in 2 Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granted the motions to
intervene pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 24(b) filed in each of the
related cases captioned DAVID WIT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, and GARY ALEXANDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 14-
cv-02346-JCS, Related Case No. 14-cv-05337 JCS (N.D. Cal.).

The "Wit" putative class action was brought against United
Behavioral Health ("UBH") challenging the defendants' denials of
benefit claims relating to residential treatment of mental health
and substance abuse disorders.  The "Alexander" case asserted
claims very similar to the claims in "Wit."  The two cases were
related by the court on January 22, 2015.

The motions to intervene were filed on January 7, 2016.  Proposed
intervenor Michael Driscoll sought to intervene in the "Alexander"
case to protect the interests of his daughter relating to UBH's
denial of benefits for her intensive outpatient treatment.
Proposed Intervenor Linda Tillitt sought to intervene in the "Wit"
case to protect the interests of her deceased son relating to
UBH's denial of coverage for her son's in-patient treatment.

Judge Spero concluded that the threshold requirements for
permissive intervention are satisfied as to both Tillitt and
Driscoll.  The judge found that the modest delay on the part of
Driscoll and Tillitt in bringing their motions is not sufficient
to render the motions to intervene untimely, because "Wit" and
"Alexander" are still at a relatively early stage.  Judge Spero
also found that intervention at this early stage of the case will
not result in prejudice to UBH.  Further, the judge found that
exercising its discretion to permit permissive intervention by
Tillitt and Driscoll is appropriate based on judicial economy.

A full-text copy of Judge Spero's February 9, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/JwE5Sjfrom Leagle.com.

David Wit, Plaintiff, represented by Meiram Bendat, Psych-Appeal,
Inc., Andrew Caridas -- acaridas@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul -- afmaul@maulfirm.com -- The Maul
Firm, P.C., Caroline E Reynolds -- creynolds@zuckerman.com
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, D. Brian Hufford -- dbhufford@zuckerman.com
-- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Jason S. Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com
-- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP & Ramya Kasturi -- rkasturi@zuckerman.com
-- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP.

Natasha Wit, Plaintiff, represented by Meiram Bendat, Psych-
Appeal, Inc., Andrew Caridas, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F.
Maul, The Maul Firm, P.C. & Caroline E Reynolds, Zuckerman Spaeder
LLP.

Natasha Wit, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP.

Natasha Wit, Plaintiff, represented by Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP & Ramya Kasturi, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP.

Brian Muir, Plaintiff, represented by Meiram Bendat, Psych-Appeal,
Inc.,Andrew Caridas, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The
Maul Firm, P.C., Caroline E Reynolds, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, D.
Brian Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP & Ramya Kasturi, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP.

Brandt Pfeifer, Plaintiff, represented by D. Brian Hufford,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP,
Andrew Caridas, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul
Firm, P.C., Caroline E Reynolds, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Ramya
Kasturi, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP & Meiram Bendat, Psych-Appeal,
Inc..

Lori Flanzraich, Plaintiff, represented by D. Brian Hufford,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP,
Andrew Caridas, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul
Firm, P.C., Caroline E Reynolds, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Ramya
Kasturi, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP & Meiram Bendat, Psych-Appeal,
Inc..

Cecilia Holdnak, Plaintiff, represented by D. Brian Hufford,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP,
Andrew Caridas, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Anthony F. Maul, The Maul
Firm, P.C., Caroline E Reynolds, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Ramya
Kasturi, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP & Meiram Bendat, Psych-Appeal,
Inc..

Linda Tillitt, Intervenor Pla, represented by D. Brian Hufford,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP.

United Behavioral Health, Defendant, represented by Christopher
Flynn -- cflynn@crowell.com -- Crowell and Moring LLP, April
Nelson Ross -- aross@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP, Jennifer
Salzman Romano -- jromano@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP,
Katharine Fiedler Barach -- kbarach@crowell.com  Crowell & Moring
LLP & Nathaniel Philip Bualat -- nbualat@crowell.com -- Crowell &
Moring LLP.


UNITED STATES: CBP Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Gregory D. Beatley, Wade Plant, and Jason Woody, v. Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection and The United States of America,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00050 (D.C., January 11, 2016) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay Aviation Operations Analysts and
Aviation Enforcement Agents' overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection federal law enforcement
agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security is in
charge of regulating and facilitating international trade,
collecting import duties, and enforcing U.S. regulations,
including trade, customs, and immigration.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edgar James, Esq.
      Darin M. Dalmat, Esq.
      Daniel M. Rosenthal, Esq.
      Alice C. Hwang, Esq.
      JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C.
      1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 950
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202) 496-0500
      E-mail: ejames@jamhoff.com
              dmdalmat@jamhoff.com
              dmrosenthal@jamhoff.com
              achwang@jamhoff.com

         - and -

      Linda Lipsett, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN & LIPSETT
      1130 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 950
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202) 296-1798
      E-mail: chouse@bernstein-lipsett.com


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: UTC Fire Defending TCPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that UTC Fire &
Security Americas Corporation, Inc. (UTCFS) has been named as a
defendant in numerous putative class actions that were filed on
behalf of purported classes of persons who allege that third-party
entities placed "robocalls" and/or placed calls to numbers listed
on the "Do Not Call Registry" on behalf of UTCFS in contravention
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In each putative
class action suit, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and monetary
damages. Each violation under the TCPA provides for $500 in
statutory damages or up to $1,500 for any willful violation.

"We assert that the third-party entities that initiated the calls
were not acting on our behalf in making any such calls," the
Company said.  "We believe that UTCFS has meritorious defenses to
these claims. We are presently unable to estimate the damages for
which UTCFS could be liable in the event plaintiffs prevail in one
or more of these cases."

United Technologies Corporation was incorporated in Delaware in
1934. UTC provides high technology products and services to the
building systems and aerospace industries worldwide.


USG CORPORATION: Settlement in Wallboard Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the settlement of a
class action lawsuit related to wallboard remains pending.

USG Corporation, United States Gypsum Company and CGC Inc., or
CGC, have been named as defendants in class action lawsuits
brought on behalf of direct and indirect wallboard purchasers
alleging that North American wallboard manufacturers conspired to
fix the price of wallboard sold in the United States and Canada.

"In 2014, we entered into settlement agreements to resolve the
U.S. class action wallboard pricing lawsuits, for which USG
recorded a $48 million charge in the third quarter of 2014 ($39.25
million for the direct purchaser class settlement and $8.75
million for the indirect purchaser class settlement)," the Company
said.  "In 2015, the court entered final judgment orders approving
both the direct and indirect purchaser settlements. No member of
the direct purchaser class appealed from the final judgment order
approving the direct purchaser settlement, and therefore that
settlement is final. One person appealed from the final judgment
order approving the indirect purchaser settlement, and therefore
that settlement is not yet final. We believe that the appeal is
without merit and that the indirect purchaser settlement order
will be affirmed on appeal, but the indirect purchaser settlement
will not become final unless and until the appeal is favorably
resolved."

"The settlements do not include the Canadian lawsuits to which CGC
is a party. At this stage of the Canadian lawsuits, we are not
able to estimate the amount, if any, of any reasonably possible
loss or range of reasonably possible losses. We believe, however,
that these Canadian lawsuits will not have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial position, liquidity or results
of operations."

USG, through its subsidiaries, is a leading manufacturer and
distributor of building materials.


VANTAGE FOODS: "Pacheco" Class Suit Settlement Approved
-------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Christopher C. Conner approved the class
action settlement in the case captioned LEANNISH VELEZ PACHECO,
Plaintiff v. VANTAGE FOODS, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No.
1:14-CV-1127 (M.D. Pa.).

After the February 11, 2016 fairness hearing, Judge Conner
approved the settlement of the action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e).1 29
U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.

The deal provides for $210,000 payable to the class members.

Judge Connor also approved the requested service award of $2,500
to Leannish Velez Pacheco, and the requested payment of $107,500
to class counsel for attorney's fees and expenses.

A full-text copy of Judge Conner's February 11, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/aDs68yfrom Leagle.com.

Leannish Velez Pacheco, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Young,
Young Law Group, PC, Peter D. Winebrake, Winebrake & Santillo,
LLC, Mark J. Gottesfeld, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC & R. Andrew
Santillo, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC.

Vantage Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Marla N. Presley
-- marla.presley@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C..


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Awaits Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
Vocera Communications, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11,
2016, that in August 2013, Vocera and other related parties were
named as defendants in two purported securities class actions,
alleging claims for allegedly misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results. An agreement in
principle to settle these matters has been agreed to by Vocera and
lead plaintiff counsel in the third quarter of 2015 and is subject
to approval by the Court.

Vocera Communications, Inc. -- http://www.vocera.com/-- offers
clinical communications system in healthcare. Installed in more
than 1,300 organizations worldwide, Vocera delivers secure,
integrated and intelligent communication solutions that enable
care teams to collaborate more efficiently by delivering the right
information, to the right person, on the right device, in the
right location, at the right time.  Vocera is headquartered in San
Jose, California, with offices in San Francisco, Tennessee,
Canada, India, United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom.


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Retirees File Health Insurance Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles E. Ramirez, writing for The Detroit News, reports that
Wayne County commissioners took a step on Feb. 17 toward rejecting
a county executive's appointment to the pension board.

The move was fueled by a federal lawsuit retirees filed on
Feb. 15 against the county over changes to their health care and
oversight of the county's pension system.

"The lawsuit deals primary with health care benefits, but it
mentions the Retirement Commission's composition," said Commission
Chairman Gary Woronchak, D-Dearborn.

Meeting as a committee of the whole, the commissioners voted 10-2
against Wayne County Executive Warren Evans' appointment of
Yusuf Hai to the Wayne County Employees' Retirement System board.

Joe Palamara, D-Grosse Ile, and Al Haidous, D-Wayne, voted in
favor of the appointment.

Mr. Hai, a Canton resident, is the managing director of financial
services company CIG Capital Advisors in Southfield.

The Feb. 17 action isn't the final outcome for the topic.  The
committee of the whole only discusses proposals and forwards them
on to the commission's full board for its approval or rejection.
Commissioners were scheduled to meet next as a full board at 10
a.m. on Feb. 18.

Mr. Woronchak told commissioners they have three options on the
appointment: They can approve it, reject it or do nothing, which
means it would take effect in a month.

Last year, financially-strapped Wayne County transferred some
retirees from employer-paid group health care to a system in which
they get a monthly stipend toward buying coverage on the federal
Health Insurance Marketplace.  Wayne County has about 5,000
retired employees and the changes went into effect at the
beginning of the year.

The county also cut health care for active county workers,
eliminated health care for future retirees and restructured the
pension system.

Earlier this month, officials said they've cut the county's
unfunded health care liabilities by 64 percent from $1.3 billion
in January 2015 to $470 million by the end of the year.

On Feb. 15, however, a group of Wayne County retirees filed a
class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Detroit, alleging
the county's changes to their health insurance deprive them of
"their constitutionally protected property interests" and seeking
to have them restored.

On Feb. 16, attorneys for the retirees and the retirement
commission requested an injunction against the county from the
court.

The lawsuit also claims Evans has violated the county's charter by
seeking to change the composition of the board governing the
county employees retirement system, or the so-called Retirement
Commission.  Under the county's charter, the Retirement Commission
is made up of eight members: the county executive, the county
commission chair and six elected members.  Four of the elected
members must be active employees and the other two must be
retirees.  But under labor agreements approved by the county's
unions last fall, one of the retirees' representatives is to be
replaced by a county executive appointee, according to the
lawsuit.

The composition of the pension's board and Mr. Hai's appointment
were the two primary items on the committee of the whole's agenda.

"A difficulty has arisen in that there was no transition plan for
changing from the traditional charter board to the board that's in
the collective bargaining agreements," said Mr. Woronchak, who
serves on the Retirement Commission as an ex officio member.  "The
charter board, for lack of a better term, has continued to exist
and operate since the CBAs were put into effect."

Complicating things even more, Mr. Woronchak added, the pension
board's legal counsel said best way to solve the problem is to put
a charter amendment on a ballot for county residents to decide.

However, Deputy Wayne County Executive Richard Kaufman told
commissioners the administration's legal position is that the
county's collective bargaining agreements with its unions
supersede the charter.  He admitted the administration erred by
failing to come up with a transition plan from one retirement
commission to another, but said not acting now will only make
matters worse.

"It was a mistake to not put in a transition process in the CBAs
and because we didn't think it would be controversial, we waited
too long to make appointments to the pension board," he said.  "We
strongly believe failure to move forward will only increase the
complications."


WEIGHT WATCHERS: "Roberts" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------
Raymond M. Roberts, and all others similarly-situated v. Weight
Watchers International, Inc., Case No. 650073/2016 (N.Y. Sup.,
January 7, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for breach of
contract and violations of the New York General Business Law for
deceptive business practices and misleading advertising in their
sale of subscriptions to consumers prior to the Mobile App
operating properly.

The Defendant is a global branded consumer company and the a
commercial provider of weight management services, operating
globally through a network of Company-owned and franchise
operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel K. Rosen, Esq.
      Daniella Quitt, Esq.
      HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
      488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 935-7400


WELLS FARGO: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Simcha Podolski, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Wells Fargo & Company, Case No. 3:16-cv-00081-MAS-TJB
(D.N.J., January 6, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Wells Fargo & Company operates a banking and financial services
holding company which is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward B. Geller, Esq.
      15 Landing Way
      Bronx, NY 10464
      Telephone: (914) 473-6783
      E-mail: epbh@aol.com


WESLEY FINANCIAL: Damages Class Decertified, Bid to Seal Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TIMOTHY BARRETT, Plaintiff, v. WESLEY
FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 13cv554-LAB (KSC) (S.D.
Cal.), District Judge Larry Alan Burns granted the motion filed by
the plaintiff Timothy Barrett to decertify the damages-seeking
class, as well as his motion for leave to file documents under
seal.

In the class action, the court certified two classes: a damages-
seeking class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), and an injunction-
seeking class under Rule 23(b)(2).

Barrett filed a redacted motion to decertify the damages-seeking
class, along with a motion for leave to file documents under seal.
The documents to be sealed consist of Wesley Financial Group LLC's
financial information and an unredacted memorandum of points and
authorities.

Wesley Financial did not oppose Barrett's decertification motion
and agreed that it could not pay damages.

Judge Burns found good cause for sealing.  A protective order has
already been issued with respect to the information and the judge
agrees that disclosure of Wesley Financial's non-public financial
information would result in harm or prejudice to that business.
Judge Burns also found that the redacted motion speaks with enough
generality that the public would know the general nature of the
facts in the sealed documents, even without knowing the specifics.

Judge Burns found the superiority requirement under Rule 23(b)(3)
is no longer satisfied in light of Wesley Financial's poor
financial status, and thus, granted the motion to decertify the
statutory class, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).  The
injunctive relief class remained certified.

A full-text copy of Judge Burns' February 10, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/VWoOr4from Leagle.com.

Timothy Barrett, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian --
ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Jason A. Ibey --
info@kaslg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC & Mohammad Kazerouni,
Kazerouni Law Group, APC.

Wesley Financial Group, LLC., Defendant, represented by Lyndsay S.
Hyde -- lhyde@mckellarhyde.com -- McKellar & Hyde, PLC.


WESLEY FINANCIAL: Bid for Permanent Injunctive Relief Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TIMOTHY BARRETT, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WESLEY FINANCIAL
GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:13-cv-00554-LAB-KSC (S.D. Cal.),
District Judge Larry Alan Burns of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California granted the joint
motion filed by Timothy Barrett, on behalf of himself and the
class members, and Wesley Financial Group, LLC for permanent
injunctive relief in favor of Barrett and the class members.

A class action was filed against Wesley Financial for alleged
violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

Judge Burns issued a permanent injunctive relief prohibiting
Wesley Financial Group, LLC from calling, either directly or
indirectly, any cellular telephone number of Barrett or the class
members using an automatic telephone dialing system or artificial
pre-recorded voice without their prior express consent if the call
is for a non-marketing purpose, or without their prior express
written consent if the call involves a marketing purpose.

A full-text copy of Judge Burns' February 9, 2016 amended order is
available at http://is.gd/clraKGfrom Leagle.com.

Timothy Barrett, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian --
ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Jason A. Ibey --
info@kaslg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC & Mohammad Kazerouni,
Kazerouni Law Group, APC.

Wesley Financial Group, LLC., Defendant, represented by Lyndsay S.
Hyde -- lhyde@mckellarhyde.com -- McKellar & Hyde, PLC.


WEST 12TH STREET: Wage Statements Don't Satisfy NYLL, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned HAAS KHEREED, Plaintiff, v. WEST 12TH STREET
RESTAURANT GROUP LLC, EAST 6TH STREET RESTAURANT GROUP LLC and
JASON SOLOWAY, Defendants, No. 15-cv-1363(PKC) (S.D.N.Y.),
District Judge P. Kevin Castel granted Haas Khereed's motion for
summary judgment as to his claim that his wage statements did not
satisfy NYLL section 195(3), and his contention that defendant
Jason Soloway was an employer.

Haas Khereed, a former server at Wallflower, a restaurant in New
York City, originally brought his claims as a putative collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and a putative
class action under the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), but has not
moved to certify a collective action or a class.

Khareed moved for summary judgment solely on his own behalf,
contending that the defendants did not provide sufficient notice
that they were applying tips to his minimum wage.  Defendant West
12th LLC operates Wallflower while defendant Soloway is
Wallflower's owner and general manager.

Judge Castel found that Khereed's wage statements do not
specifically reflect that Khereed's tips are part of an allowance
claimed as part of the minimum wage.  The judge thus concluded
that Khereed is entitled to summary judgment on the claim that his
wage statements did not satisfy the NYLL.

Judge Castel also granted the motion to the extent that it is
directed to Soloway's status as an employer, which is undisputed.
The motion was denied in all other respects.

A full-text copy of Judge Castel's February 11, 2016 memorandum
and order is available at http://is.gd/gwgenIfrom Leagle.com.

Haas Khereed, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Melissa Seelig, Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC.

West 12th Street Restaurant Group LLC, Defendant, represented by
Kevin Sean O'Donoghue -- kevin@helbraunlevey.com -- Helbraun Levey
& O'Donoghue LLP.

East 6th Street Restaurant Group LLC, Defendant, represented by
Kevin Sean O'Donoghue, Helbraun Levey & O'Donoghue LLP.

Jason Soloway, Defendant, represented by Kevin Sean O'Donoghue,
Helbraun Levey & O'Donoghue LLP.

Xavier Herit, Defendant, represented by Kevin Sean O'Donoghue,
Helbraun Levey & O'Donoghue LLP.

Brendan Mchale, Defendant, represented by Kevin Sean O'Donoghue,
Helbraun Levey & O'Donoghue LLP.

Jason Soloway, Counter Claimant, represented by Kevin Sean
O'Donoghue, Helbraun Levey & O'Donoghue LLP.

West 12th Street Restaurant Group LLC, Counter Claimant,
represented by Kevin Sean O'Donoghue, Helbraun Levey & O'Donoghue
LLP.

East 6th Street Restaurant Group LLC, Counter Claimant,
represented by Kevin Sean O'Donoghue, Helbraun Levey & O'Donoghue
LLP.

Jason Soloway, Counter Defendant, represented by Kevin Sean
O'Donoghue, Helbraun Levey & O'Donoghue LLP.

West 12th Street Restaurant Group LLC, Counter Defendant,
represented by Kevin Sean O'Donoghue, Helbraun Levey & O'Donoghue
LLP.

East 6th Street Restaurant Group LLC, Counter Defendant,
represented by Kevin Sean O'Donoghue, Helbraun Levey & O'Donoghue
LLP.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Faces 2 Class Suits Related to SanDisk Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended January 1, 2016, that plaintiffs
filed in November 2015, two putative class action complaints in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, challenging the Agreement and Plan of Merger the Company
entered into with SanDisk Corporation ("SanDisk") on October 21,
2015 (the "Merger Agreement"). The complaints allege, among other
things, that the members of the SanDisk board breached their
fiduciary duties to SanDisk's shareholders by agreeing to sell
SanDisk for inadequate consideration, failing to properly value
SanDisk, agreeing to inappropriate deal protection provisions that
may inhibit other bidders from coming forward with a superior
offer, not protecting against alleged conflicts of interest
resulting from the SanDisk directors' own interrelationships or
connection with the proposed transaction, and failing to disclose
all material information regarding the proposed transaction.  The
complaints also allege that the Company aided and abetted the
SanDisk board members' breaches of their fiduciary duties.  The
plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to prevent the merger from
closing.  The plaintiffs also seek, among other things, to recover
costs and disbursement from the defendants, including attorneys'
fees and experts' fees.  The Company intends to defend itself
vigorously in this matter.


WILSON ROOFING: Faces "Dominguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Aldo Dominguez, on behalf of himself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wilson Roofing Division
LLC, Robin Hill-Wilson, and Seth Wilson, Case No. 1:16-cv-00177
(D. Colo. January 22, 2016) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Wilson Roofing Division LLC provides roof installation, repair,
and replacement services for homes and businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Miller, Esq.
      Rachel Graves, Esq.
      SAWAYA & MILLER LAW FIRM 1600 Ogden Street
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (303) 839-1650
      Facsimile: (720) 235-4377
      E-mail: DMiller@sawayalaw.com
              RGraves@sawayalaw.com


* New Zealand Class Action Lawyer Eyes New Cladding Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rob Stock, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that potentially
flammable building panels could be the next cladding scandal
according to a litigation lawyer.

Adina Thorn is seeking contact with owners of buildings clad with
aluminium composite panels (ACPs) after they were implicated in
fires in Dubai and Melbourne.

ACPs are a modern-looking cladding made of two sheets of aluminium
sandwiching a non-aluminium core.  They are commonly used on the
outside of high-rise and commercial buildings like banks.

The panels have two types of cores.  The cheaper "PE" or
polyethylene-filled panels, and the "FR" or fire resistant panels,
filled with a fire-retardant mineral compound.

Fires in ACP-clad buildings in Australia and Dubai causing
millions of dollars of damage have raised international concern.

Ms. Thorn, who is behind the current $250 million-plus class
action against James Hardie companies on behalf of leaky building
owners, said the core of PE-filled panels was combustible and
panels could create a chimney effect which caused fire to spread
rapidly.

Ms. Thorn said the fires overseas had prompted her to begin
inquiring about the use of ACP in New Zealand.

But John Cobb from Symonite, the country's largest importer and
installer of ACP, believed Thorn was "boxing at shadows".

"We as a company don't use PE core at all," Mr. Cobb said.

Building control processes at councils would prevent it being used
in high-rise buildings.

"The whole process is very strictly monitored," he said.

As PE panels were cheaper, Mr. Cobb said there was always a risk
that there had been substitution without the knowledge of building
developers.

"I do understand that one of the issues in Australia is product
being substituted."

Mr. Cobb said it was possible some buildings put up 10 or more
years ago may have been clad with PE-filled panels.

Ms. Thorn said: "Reports say that the cladding products concerned
have not been legal in Britain since the 1980s and their use in
the United States is generally restricted to low-rise buildings".

"In New Zealand the Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment (MBIE) said it was looking at the issue some eight
months ago but doesn't seem to have made any announcements since."

It is taking action, however.

Ministry spokesman John Gardiner said: "We are aware of the issues
which have arisen in Australia surrounding the inappropriate use
of aluminium composite panels".

"In the past eight months we have been closely monitoring the
investigations of the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) into the
use of the panels in buildings following the fire in Melbourne,"
Mr. Gardiner said.

"The VBA have shared their findings with us and we have used these
to determine how this problem might affect buildings in New
Zealand."

The ministry had briefed city councils on ACP, but: "At this point
MBIE has not been advised of any instances of inappropriate use of
the material."

"We will soon be issuing two sets of guidance to help designers,
councils, product suppliers and assessors deal with aluminium
composite panels."

Thorn's James Hardie class action was being funded by London-based
Harbour Litigation Funding.

She said Harbour had expressed interest in funding a case for
owners of buildings with ACP, if fire-safety issues could be
proved.


* Kelley Drye Discusses Impact of Scalia Death on Consumer Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal N. Skelton, Esq., and Cathy D. Lee, Esq., of Kelley Drye &
Warren LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that while the
sudden death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia creates an
immediate vacancy on the bench, it also likely will leave the high
court's docket in limbo on number of key consumer class actions
awaiting the Court's decision.

Many are predicting that President Obama will not be able to
replace Scalia before the 2016 Presidential election, meaning that
the seat may remain vacant for at least the rest of the term.
Democrats have been urging the President to immediately nominate a
successor, with Republicans imploring the President to give that
right to the next Commander-in-Chief.  Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell has stated that the Senate should not confirm a
replacement until after the 2016 election.

Until a successor is confirmed, it means that the Supreme Court
will be comprised of four reliable liberals, three reliable
conservatives, and one Justice Kennedy, who typically leans to the
right but has often acted as the Court's swing vote.  With only
eight justices, there is likelihood that we are about to see a
number of important cases end in a 4-to-4 split this year,
including several key cases relating to consumer protection
issues.  In the case of a tie, the appeals court decision will be
upheld, no precedent will be set, and the Supreme Court
traditionally will not issue an opinion.

Here's a brief rundown of how Scalia's passing may affect three
key consumer class actions in front of the Court this term.

Case: Spokeo Inc. v Robins (Docket No. 13-1339) Issue: Whether
Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who
suffers no concrete harm, but alleges a private right of action
based on a bare violation of a federal statute.  Outcome in a
split:  Plaintiff's win--would make a bare violation of a federal
statute sufficient to confer Article III standing, thereby making
it easier for plaintiffs to move forward in litigating cases
alleging statutory violations.

Plaintiff, Thomas Robins, alleged that "people search engine,"
Spokeo, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by
disclosing inaccurate personal information about him that harmed
his employment prospects and violated his rights under the FCRA.
Spokeo moved to dismiss on the ground that Robins lacked standing
under Article III.  Typically, a plaintiff must demonstrate
"injury-in-fact" to have Article III standing, but the Ninth
Circuit held in this case that Robins met the standing requirement
"by virtue of the alleged violations of his statutory rights."
Facebook, Google, eBay and Yahoo submitted a joint amicus brief in
the case warning that if the Court upholds the Ninth Circuit's
decision, it could result in a flood of "no-injury" litigation
under the FCRA and several other wide-reaching federal statutes
such, as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and other
privacy and data security actions.

Case: Microsoft Corp. v. Baker (Docket No. 15-457) Issue: Whether
a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction to review an order
denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily
dismiss their claims with prejudice.  Outcome in a split:
Plaintiffs' win -- plaintiffs effectively would have the right to
immediate review of a district court order denying a motion to
certify a plaintiff class.

The case involves a dispute over a class action brought by Xbox
360 purchasers who alleged that the Xbox console contained a
design defect causing game discs to become scratched.  In 2012,
the district court struck down the class allegations, finding that
the defect was present in less than one percent of the total
number of consoles purchased.  This ordinarily would leave
plaintiffs with the option of pursuing individual claims until
final judgment, before the denial of class certification could be
appealed.  Instead, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss their claims
with prejudice, a motion that would create a final judgment far
more quickly, allowing a speedier appeal of the denial of class
certification. The Ninth Circuit granted the motion finding the
appeal could proceed.  The Ninth Circuit eventually held that in
the absence of a settlement, a stipulation that leads to a
dismissal with prejudice does not destroy the adversity in that
judgment necessary to support an appeal of a class certification
denial.

Case: Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo (Docket No. 14-1146) Issue:
Two key questions are before the Court: (1) whether differences
among individual class members may be ignored, and a class
certified, when plaintiffs use statistical techniques that presume
that all class members are identical; and (2) whether a class may
be certified if it contains many members who were not injured.
Outcome in Split: Plaintiffs' win -- class actions could be
certified absent a showing that specific legal claims predominate
among the entire class.

In Tyson Foods, the district court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class
action and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action for
claims alleging that Tyson Foods had not paid its employees for
all time spent donning and doffing personal protective equipment
and walking to and from their work stations.  Under Rule 23, a
court may not certify a damages lawsuit as a class action unless
"there are questions of law or fact common to the class" that
"predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members."  The FLSA imposes similar certification requirements on
collective actions.  Plaintiffs sought to prove injury and damages
using statistical evidence that averaged donning and doffing time,
even though employees used different equipment and it was
undisputed that hundreds of employees were not entitled to any
additional compensation.  Tyson Foods contended that that the
average time was meaningless and that plaintiffs' changing times
were different enough that they should not be able bring a class
action suit.  A jury found Tyson Foods liable, but awarded only
about half of the damages that plaintiffs' statistical experts had
calculated were due.  On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed.


* Seyfarth Discusses Impact of Scalia's Death on Employment Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., Christina M Janice, Esq., and Alex
W. Karasik, Esq. of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Lexology,
report that the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
on February 13 has sent shockwaves throughout the halls of power
in Washington, D.C.  The balance within the U.S. Supreme Court
between those Justices considered ideologically "conservative" and
those considered "liberal" is up for grabs in the middle of the
term of a Supreme Court considering employment-related class
actions and other major cases that will directly impact how
American employers will operate for years if not decades to come.

The Scalia Legacy

Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Justice Scalia
distinguished himself as a "conservative" jurist by promoting an
interpretive philosophy of looking to the original intent behind
relevant provisions of the U.S. Constitution, or "originalism."
Scalia also employed a textualist approach to his legal analyses,
according to laws their plain meaning and refusing the pleas of
what he sometimes deemed to be "social engineering" in order to
render expansive, activist decisions. Justice Scalia often led a
slim majority of the Supreme Court who insisted on adherence of
Constitutional principles and the narrow construction of laws.

It was little wonder then that Justice Scalia served as the
intellect behind and author of numerous landmark opinions that
curbed the excesses of the plaintiffs' class action bar.  Among
the most influential opinions he authored is Wal-Mart v. Dukes,
131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011).

In Wal-Mart, plaintiffs sought to represent a class of 1.5 million
female employees employed at one or more of the company's 3,400
stores across the country, in a sweeping class action for sex
discrimination in pay.  Plaintiffs contended that Wal-Mart's
corporate culture embodied sexual stereotypes that, when coupled
with corporate policies that give local managers unfettered
discretion in making personnel decisions, resulted in gender
stereotyping and unlawful discrimination against a nationwide
class of women in their compensation.  The plaintiffs sought and
obtained class certification at the district court level based on
a combination of anecdotal evidence and the statistical analysis
of their retained expert.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Justice Scalia's opinion on behalf of a 5 - 4 majority of the
Supreme Court scrutinized plaintiffs' showing under Rule 23. He
reasoned that: "Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading
standard.  A party seeking class certification must affirmatively
demonstrate his compliance with the Rule -- that is, he must be
prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous
parties, common questions of law or fact., etc." Id. at 2551.  The
Supreme Court determined that plaintiffs had failed to establish
common issues sufficient to warrant class treatment.

Specifically, the Supreme Court found that corporate policies
affording local supervisors discretion in pay decisions did not
establish the commonality necessary to maintain a class action.
The Supreme Court also rejected plaintiffs' statistical analysis
and expert testimony as failing to establish necessary linkage
between alleged pay disparities and their proposition that
Wal-Mart operated under a general policy of discrimination.  The
Supreme Court also found that individualized back pay claims
predominated over class claims for "injunctive relief," and
plaintiffs could not utilize the class action model to conduct a
"Trial by Formula" by which back pay damages would be based on a
statistical sample from a number of class members. Id. at 2546.
Wal-Mart derailed the emerging practice in the plaintiffs' bar of
bringing massive nationwide class actions for gender
discrimination in pay based on scant evidence of individual claims
bolstered by statistical sampling.

Also of significance to employers were the opinions penned by
Justice Scalia for the 5 - 4 majorities of the Supreme Court in
ATT Mobility LLC v Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011) and American
Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, et al.,133 S.Ct. 2304
(2013).  In ATT Mobility, the Supreme Court ruled that that the
Federal Arbitration Act, enacted by Congress to encourage the use
of arbitration, preempts state laws prohibiting contracts from
disallowing class-wide arbitration.  The Supreme Court held that
the FAA does not permit courts to invalidate a contractual waiver
of class arbitration on the grounds that the plaintiff's cost of
individually arbitrating a federal statutory claim exceeds any
potential recovery.

Although neither ATT Mobility nor AmEx involve employment
arbitration agreements, these opinions propelled employers'
reliance on the FAA as grounds for courts to enforce employment
arbitration agreements, including those with express class
waivers.  Justice Scalia's reasoning in ATT Mobility became an
immediate roadblock to the efforts of such regulatory bodies as
the National Labor Relations Board to strike down employment
arbitration agreements with express class action waivers on the
grounds that they violate an employee's right to collective
action.  D.R. Horton, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 737 F. 3d 344, 361 (5th
Cir. 2013) ("Neither the NLRA's statutory text nor its legislative
history contains a congressional command against application of
the FAA.")

Finally, the opinion written by Justice Scalia for a 5 - 4
majority of the Supreme Court in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.
Ct. 1426 (2013) not unlike Wal-Mart, also has played a major role
in increasing scrutiny of high volume individual damages claims
brought for certification under Rule 23.  After the plaintiffs
obtained class certification in this antitrust class action based
in part on the evidence of an expert who used a model of damages,
the Third Circuit refused to address Comcast's challenges to the
viability of the expert's methodology, holding that "attacks on
the merits of the methodology" have "no place in the class
certification inquiry."  Behrend v. Comcast Corp., 655 F.3d 182,
207 (3d Cir. 2011).  Justice Scalia's majority opinion rejected
the Third Circuit's approach, finding that it "ran afoul of our
precedents requiring precisely [the] inquiry [into the merits]" at
class certification that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly . . .
emphasized[.]" Comcast Corp., 133 at 1432-33. The Supreme Court
went on to find that the regression model presented by plaintiffs'
expert did not constitute evidence that damages were susceptible
to measurement across the entire class.  This expert evidence
failed to establish that questions of law or fact common to the
class predominate over individual questions, an element necessary
under Rule 23(b)(3) to proceed as a class action.

During his tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia's
leadership as an originalist and textualist jurist strengthened
Rule 23 as a gatekeeper to class action litigation, and compelled
recognition of the FAA both as preemptive of contrary state laws
and as support for an employer's enforcement of arbitration
agreements according to their contractual terms.  In Justice
Scalia's passing, the fate of several important employment cases
that may have resolved favorably for employers, now is far less
certain.

Major Employment Class Actions In The Balance

The trajectory of three highly-watched and consequential appeals
of major employment class actions now pending before the Supreme
Court may change radically in the absence of Justice Scalia's
leadership:

CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, No. 14-1375 - Following the
Eighth Circuit's reversal of the largest fee sanction award ever
levied against the EEOC -- nearly $4.7 million --the Supreme Court
granted certiorari and is set to hear oral argument in March in
this EEOC enforcement litigation on behalf of a class of similarly
situated women that was not commenced by the EEOC as a pattern-or-
practice lawsuit.  At issue is whether attorneys' fees are
appropriate in instances where the EEOC failed to satisfy its pre-
suit investigation duties under Title VII, but the employer was
not victorious "on the merits."  Had Justice Scalia led a majority
and written the opinion, employers likely could have expected
another opinion holding the EEOC accountable for failing to comply
with the 1972 congressional amendment of Title VII that both
authorized the EEOC to commence litigation in its own name, while
constraining the EEOC's power to engage in interminable litigation
by imposing on it the jurisdictional requirements of
investigation, determination, and conciliation.  Now, in the event
this case yields a 4 - 4 vote, the decision of the Eighth Circuit
will stand and courts across the country may allow the EEOC avoid
accountability for improvidently hailing employers into court, so
long as the EEOC does not lose "on the merits."

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 - In a putative class action
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act that will undoubtedly shake-up
the class action landscape, the Supreme Court was presented with
the following question: "Does a plaintiff who suffers no concrete
harm, but who instead alleges only a statutory violation, have
standing to bring a claim on behalf of himself or a class of
individuals?"  During the oral argument heard in November, Justice
Scalia tellingly asked the most number of questions.  Applying
originalist and textualist principles, Justice Scalia likely would
have kicked the Ninth Circuit opinion to the curb, requiring
litigants to allege actual injury in order to have standing to sue
under Article III of the Constitution.  Without Justice Scalia's
influence in a majority, the outcome of this case is much more
unpredictable.  A 4 - 4 split could maintain the status quo and
encourage the plaintiffs' bar to commence class actions with
plaintiffs who have not suffered injury.

Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146 - At at issue in this
case is whether plaintiffs may certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3)
or a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act upon
proof of "Trial By Formula" -- that is, the statistical technique
that presumes all class members suffered damages identical to the
composite or "average plaintiff" or "average class member."  Wal-
Mart suggests that the predominance of individualized inquiries
that would prohibit class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) also
prohibits averaging and aggregation. Tyson Foods also presents the
issue of whether a class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) or a
collective certified under the FLSA when the class contains
hundreds of members who were not injured and have no right to
damages.  While Justice Scalia's originalist and textualist
thinking likely would prohibit the Tyson Foods class action from
proceeding, whether his vote would have carried a majority of
justices in this instance, however, is not certain.  Oral argument
was held in this case in November of 2015.


                            *********

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  * * *