CAR_Public/160224.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, February 24, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 39


                            Headlines


AMAZON.COM LLC: "Harris" Antitrust Suit Moved to N.D. Cal.
APPLE INC: Publishers Win Summary Judgment in Abbey House Case
APPLE INC: Recalls Adapter Kits & Plug Adapters Due to Shock Risk
APPLE INC: Releases New Software to Fix iPhone Error 53
ARMEDICA CORPORATION: Recalls AM-BA Series Treatment Tables

ATLAS RAILROAD: Court Narrows "Espinoza" Class Suit
AVVO: Faces Class Action for Misappropriating Identity
BANK OF AMERICA: Chicago Title Sues Over Breach of Contract
BAUER HOCKEY: Recalls Goal Masks and Cages Due to Injury Risk
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Sodium Chloride Irrigation

BENCO DENTAL: "Winter" Suit Claims Violation of Antitrust Act
BESCOT HEALTHCARE: Recalls Zestica Ovulation Test
BHANDAL BROS INC: "Torres" Suit Seeks Compensatory Damages
BLUESTEM BRANDS: Court Granted Motion to Compel Arbitration
BOA TECHNOLOGY: Recalls Snowboard Boots Due to Fall Hazard

BOTHWELL CHEESE: Recalls Shredded Cheese Products Due to Listeria
BREVARD COUNTY, FL: Cocoa Area Resident to Dismiss Gun Range Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS: Settlement Reached with Wisconsin in AWP Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS: 5,200 Claims Related to Plavix Filed
BRISTOL-MYERS: Still Defending Reglan Product Liability Suits

BRISTOL-MYERS: 500 Product Liability Suits Pending Over Byetta
BYA SPORTS: Recalls Skyline Zipline Kits Due to Fall Hazard
C MART: Recalls Ovaltine Malt Choco Beverage Due to Milk
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Faces "McCoy" Suit in Calif. Ct.
CANADA: First Nations Bands Opt Into Day Scholars Class Action

CANYON CREEK: Recalls Meatball Soup Products
CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Class Action
CAREER SERVICE: Faces "Vasquez" Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
CHICAGO, IL: Residents File Class Action Over Water Contamination
CHOY FOONG: Recalls Ladies' Soybean Drink Due to Milk Allergen

CHRYSLER LLC: Recalls Grand Cherokee and Durango Models
CHRYSLER LLC: Faltermeier Loses Bid to Remand Class
COMPUTERTEL INC: Violated TCPA, "Mills" Suit Claims
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE: Kopelowitz Ostrow Files Class Action
CORESITE REALTY: Defending Wage-and-Hour Action in California

COUNTRY LIFE: Recalls Shelled Raw Pistachios Due to Salmonella
CROMWELL SOHO: "Chen" Suit Claims Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law
DATASCOPE CORP: Recalls Cardiosave System
DING HO: Recalls Seafood Products Due to Egg
DOONEY & BOURKE: Faces "Rael" Suit Over Trade Commission Act

DRAFTKINGS INC: "Spiegel" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to D. Mass.
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Cooper" Suit Moved from S.D. Fla. to Mass.
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Guarino" Suit Moved from S.D. Ill to Mass.
ENVE COMPOSITES: Recalls Bicycle Forks Due to Fall Hazard
FACEBOOK INC: "Brickman" Alleges B-day Announcements Violate TCPA

FANDUEL INC: "Genchanok" Suit Moved from E.D. La to Massachusetts
FANDUEL INC: "Gomez" Suit Moved from S.D. Fla. to Massachusetts
FINANCIAL ASSET MANAGEMENT: "Accardi" Suit Removed to N.D. Ga.
FITBIT INC: Faces False Advertising Class Action
FLYING FOOD: Recalls Edamame Hummus Wrap Due to Adulteration

FORD: Recalls Transit 2015 Models Due to Defective Rear Shafts
FOREVER CHEESE: Recalls Aged Cheese in Walnut Leaves
FRATERNITE PROVINCIALE: Court Tosses Act R-20 Class Action
FRESH CREATIVE: Recalls H-E-B Tartar Sauce Due to Fish
FURMANITE CORPORATION: "Azar" Suit Seeks to Block Team Merger

GARDEN OF LIFE: Expands Raw Meal Organic Shake Product Recall
GOODMAN COMPANY: Recalls Air Conditioner/Heat Pumps
GREENSPOON MARDER: Sued Over Debt Collection Practices
GROUPON INC: Illinois Securities Class Action Stayed
GROUPON INC: Court Approves New Accord in Marketing & Sales Case

HEALTH MATTERS: Recalls Sprouted Flax Seed Powder & Chia Products
HENRY INDUSTRIES: Court Decertifies Missouri Opt-In Claims
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: "Joo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
HONEST COMPANY: Faces Deceptive Advertising in New York
INDIANA PACKERS: Denies Allegations in Immigrant Hiring Suit

INSPERITY INC: To Defend Against Class Suit Over 401(k) Plan
INT'L RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "McKee" Suit Claims
INTERNATIONAL FOODSOURCE: Recalls Raw Pistachios Products
J CREW: Recalls Girls' Puffer Coats Due to Chocking Hazard
JARS LLC: Faces "Purdy" Complaint in Georgia State Court

JUST FOR MEN: Product Contains Harmful Chemicals, Suit Claims
KRAFT HEINZ: Sued in Calif. Over Mislabeling of Parmesan Cheese
LIFE'S TOUCH: Faces "Davis" Lawsuit Seeking Overtime Payment
LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Judge Recommends Dismissal of RICO Claims
LIPARI FOODS: Recalls Raw Pistachio Products Due to Salmonella

LIVANOVA PLC: Faces "Baker" Class Suit Over Personal Injury
LOUISIANA: "Marshall" Case Wins Conditional Certification
LTD FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bordeaux" Suit Claims
LUCINI ITALIA: Faces "Riedel" Suit Alleging Product Mislabeling
MANAGED TECHNOLOGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims

MARATHON OIL: "D'Aponti" Suit Alleges Employee Misclassification
MASTERCARD INC: Accrued $709MM Liability for Merchant Cases
MASTERCARD INC: Still Faces Class Suits by Canadian Merchants
MASTERCARD INC: ATM Surcharge Suits Remain Pending
MAVERICK OIL: "Campos" Alleges Fair Labor Standards Act Violation

MAYTAG DAIRY: Recalls Raw Milk Blue Cheese Due to Listeria
MAYTAG DAIRY: Recalls Raw Milk Blue Cheese Lot Number 150481
MAYTAG DAIRY: Recalls Blue Cheese Products Due to Listeria
MAZDA CANADA: Court Applies De Minimis Principle in Class Action
MCCAIN FOODS: Recalls Bacon Fritters Due to Plastic Materials

MERCEDES BENZ: Faces "Lynevych" Suit in N.J. Over Emission Test
MICHAELS STORES: Recalls Ashland(R) Holiday Paper Boxes
MICHAELS STORES: Recalls Poinsettia Stems and Bushes
MISSOURI BAR ASSOC: Sued Over Personal Injury Legal Fees
MONSTER INC: Violated Warranty Act, "Grays" Suit Claims

MONTANO'S LANDSCAPING: Faces "Mejia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MORAYA INVESTMENTS: Sued Over Breach of Employment Contract
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Faces "Cohen" Suit Over Unlawful Bylaws
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Oggi's Pizza Sue for Alleged Antitrust Acts
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY: Stay Lifted in Calif. Spying Cases

NEW SUN INT'L TRAVEL: "Xie" Class Suit Alleges Labor Violations
NEW YORK: Black Police Officer Fights Quota Practice
NUTIVA INC: "Jones" Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
OUR PLACE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Glover" Suit Says
PARADIGM SERVICE: "Christian" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

PATTERSON CO: Violated Antitrust Law, Comfort Care Suit Claims
PEKING FOOD: Recalls Steamed Bun Products Due to Eggs
PET SUPERMARKET: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
PFIZER CANADA: Appeals Court Overturns Class Action Certification
PHARMAKON PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Morphine Sulfate 0.5 mg/mL

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Class Certification in Parking Fee Suit Denied
PIONEER NATURAL: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Muhammad" Suit Says
PORSCHE CARS: Faces "Gotta" Class Suit in D. Mass.
RAUSCH STURM: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
RAYNOR MARKETING: Recalls Office Chairs Due to Fall Hazard

RE & FA LLC: Faces "Concepcion" Lawsuit for FLSA Violation
REA ENERGY: "Cessna" Suit Removed to W.D. Pa.
REMINGTON ARMS: Appeals Court Reinstates Defective Rifle Case
RM GALICIA: Faces "Gutierrez-Rodriguez" Suit Over Automated Calls
RUSTY NAIL: Faces "Jordan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages

SANDISK CORP: Summary Judgment Bid in Ritz Case Fully Briefed
SANDISK CORP: Discovery Remains Stayed in Antitrust Class Suit
SANDISK CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
SANDISK CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "Cloud" Suit
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: "Turner" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages

SEARS: Judge Approves Washer Class Action Settlement
SHERMAN CAPITAL: Court Denies Class Certification in "Cox" Suit
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces "Sipe" Suit Over Aliso Canyon Gas Leak
SOUTHERN WOLF: "Figueroa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Class Action Appeal Remains Pending

STATE FARM: "Sweis" Files Suit Over Insurance Claim
STELLAR RECOVERY: "Knapp-Ellis" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
STETSON DESERT: "Dancer" Claims Violation of FLSA, Ariz. Wage Act
SUNWATER: Flood Victims Drop Callide Dam Class Action
SYLVANIA WOODS SCHOOL: Parents Sue Over Serial Child Abuse

SYSTEMS & SERVICES: Faces "Hatcher" Suit Over Automated Calls
T.C.B. OF WAYNE LLC: "Salazar" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
TBI: Faces "Parrilla" Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection Policies
TEMPUR SEALY: Norfolk and Benning Cases Resolved
TEMPUR SEALY: Court Trims Claims in "Todd" Suit

THEMIE LLC: "Brownell" Alleges Violation of FLSA, R.I. Wage Act
THOMSON CONSUMER: May Seek Indemnification from Intersil
TIME WARNER: Settlement Being Finalized in Charter Merger Action
TIME WARNER: Still Defends Set-Top Cable TV Box Antitrust Cases
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims

TURN-KEY SYSTEMS: Violated TCPA, Says "Ramos" Suit
UBER TECH: Using Discovery to Learn Trade Secrets, Lyft Says
UNITED SERVICES: Judge Quizzes Attys Over Forum-Shopping Issue
UNITED STATES: PTIN Fees Suit v. IRS Gets Class Action Status
VIKING RECYCLING: Faces "Novella" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

VIZIO INC: Sued in Indiana for Collecting Personal Data
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Esneault" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Martin" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Oral Argument on Appeal Took Place Feb. 2
WASHINGTON MANAGEMENT: "Roman" Files Suit Over Sexual Harassment

WAWA: Former Employee Files Class Action Over Stock Policy
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Says Retirees' Health Care Suit Lacks Merit
WBY FOODS: Recalls Granola with Blueberries & Bananas
WELLS FARGO: "Torio" Suit Seeks Damages Related to Foreclosure
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Aged Cheese in Walnut Leaves Due to Listeria

WINDHAM PROFESSIONALS: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
WINTER GARDENS: Recalls Chicken Salad Products Due to Plastic
WOOD RANCH: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
WORLD WRESTLING: Discovery in Oregon Case Completed by June 1
WORLD WRESTLING: Wants Suit by Ganues and Varriale Dismissed

YURZ INC: "Ramos" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations

* Data Breach Suits Reveal Troubling Trend for Businesses
* Norcross Calls for Congress to Pass Paycheck Fairness Act
* Scalia's Death May Improve Chances of Class Action Plaintiffs
* Scalia Questioned SEC Interpretation of Insider Trading Law


                            *********


AMAZON.COM LLC: "Harris" Antitrust Suit Moved to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Harris v. Amazon.com, LLC, Case
No. BC606984, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior
Court - Central District, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00967 to the
proceeding.

Amazon.Com was founded in 2001. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of products by television, catalog, and
mail-order. The Company is based in Seattle, Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Harris, Esq.
          PRO SE


APPLE INC: Publishers Win Summary Judgment in Abbey House Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Denise Cote of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted Defendants' motion for
summary judgment in the case captioned, ABBEY HOUSE MEDIA, INC.,
d/b/a BOOKSONBOARD, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC.; HACHETTE BOOK GROUP,
INC.; HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS, LLC,; VERLAGSGRUPPE GEORG VON
HOLTZBRINCK GHBH; HOLTZBRINCK PUBLISHERS, LLC, d/b/a MACMILLAN;
THE PENGUIN GROUP, A DIVISION OF PEARSON PLC; and SIMON &
SCHUSTER, INC., Defendants, Case No. 14CV2000(DLC) (S.D.N.Y.).


Beginning on August 9, 2011, class action complaints were filed
against the defendants alleging violations of the Sherman Act,
culminating in a consolidated amended class action complaint being
filed on January 20, 2012. On April 11, 2012, the Department of
Justice and various States filed antitrust lawsuits against the
Defendants.

The Publisher Defendants eventually settled these actions. Apple,
however, proceeded to trial and was found liable in July 2013. It
was not until Apple was found liable in 2013 that e-book retailers
filed individual lawsuits against Apple and the Publisher
Defendants. Three such lawsuits were filed in 2013 and 2014, each
alleging that the retailer was directly harmed by the e-book
price-fixing conspiracy.

DNAML Pty, Ltd. filed its complaint on September 16, 2013; Lahovo,
LLC filed its complaint on March 14, 2014; and BOB filed its
complaint on March 21, 2014.

Plaintiff asserts two claims: (1) for violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1; and (2) for violation of the
Donnelly Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Sec. 340. Plaintiff alleges that
its business model was predicated on "aggressively pricing a wide
selection of e-books" and "offering a rewards program meant to
develop customer loyalty and encourage repeat business."

The Publisher Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds
that Plaintiff has not shown that the alleged conspiracy caused
the failure of its e-book business or that it suffered an
antitrust injury.

In her Opinion and Order dated January 22, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/zEeYhVfrom Leagle.com, Judge Cote concluded that
Defendants have provided an extensive record demonstrating that
BOB was failing as a business before the Publisher Defendants
implemented the agency model for distributing their e-books in
2010, and that BOB could not effectively compete through
discounting or otherwise. Rather than identifying agency pricing
as the cause of its demise, BOB instead touted agency pricing's
benefits to both investors and creditors. BOB fails to rebut the
evidence and thus has not raised a disputed issue of material fact
that would entitle it to a trial.

Abbey House Media, Inc. is represented by Eric M. Creizman, Esq. -
- ecreiz@creizmanllc.com -- CREIZMAN PLLC

It is also represented by:

     Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq.
     Donald R. Pepperman, Esq.
     Taylor Wagniere, Esq.
     BLECHER, COLLINS, PEPPERMAN & JOYCE, P.C.
     515 South Figueroa Street
     Suite 1750
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Tel: (213)622-4222

Defendants are represented by:

     Michael Lacovara, Esq.
     Richard Sutton Snyder, Sr., Esq.
     Samuel Joseph Rubin, Esq.
     FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER LLP
     601 Lexington Avenue
     31st Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212)277-4000


APPLE INC: Recalls Adapter Kits & Plug Adapters Due to Shock Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Apple, of Cupertino, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about
814,000 AC adapter kits and plug adapters (In addition, about
81,000 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The two-prong wall plug adapters for Australia/New
Zealand/Argentina, Brazil, Continental Europe and Korea can break
and expose the metal portion of the adapter, posing an electric
shock risk.

This recall involves Apple World Travel Adapter Kits and wall plug
adapters.  The kits contain three-prong and two-prong AC wall plug
adapters that fit different electrical outlets worldwide. The
recalled adapters were made for use in Australia/New
Zealand/Argentina, Brazil, Continental Europe and Korea and were
also sold with Mac computers and iOS devices. The wall plug
adapters are white plastic with the following characteristics:

Australia/New Zealand/Argentina - flat angled blades
Brazil - round thin pins
Continental Europe - round thin pins, slightly slanted inward
Korea - round thick pins

Recalled wall plug adapters have either four or five letters or
numbers, or no markings on the inside slot where the wall plug
adapter attaches to the main power adapter. Redesigned adapters
have a three-letter regional code in the slot (EUR, ARG, KOR, AUS
or BRA).

Apple has received 12 reports of wall plug adapters breaking and
consumers receiving shocks overseas, including three reports of
consumers who were medically evaluated and released. No reports of
incidents or injuries were reported by U.S. consumers.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Apple
stores and other home electronics stores, and online at Apple.com
from January 2003 through January 2015 for about $30.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled wall plug
adapters and contact Apple for free replacement adapters.


APPLE INC: Releases New Software to Fix iPhone Error 53
-------------------------------------------------------
Jason Cipriani, writing for Fortune, reports that facing a class-
action lawsuit and backlash from customers, Apple has released new
software to fix iPhones suffering from Error 53, as first reported
by TechCrunch.

The update, iOS 9.2.1, is the same version number currently
available for iPhones, only the operating system has been altered
to allow restoration of a bricked device and is available through
iTunes on a Mac or PC computer.

Users who aren't experiencing the issue or update using Apple's
over-the-air service do not need to update.

There's one caveat, however.  After restoring a repaired device,
the Touch ID sensor will remain disabled until repaired by an
official Apple repair technician.

Error 53 occurred after an iPhone user had his or her device
repaired by an unauthorized party.  If the repair included
replacing or tampering with the home button -- where Apple's Touch
ID fingerprint sensor is found -- the user's device would stop
working.  Users were unable to restore the device using iTunes on
a Mac or PC, with Apple requesting users impacted by the issue to
contact support or visit an Apple retail store. Ultimately, the
device couldn't be repaired and had to be replaced.

Stirring controversy around the decision to disable repaired
devices is that Apple gave no prior warning before implementing
the apparently new policy with the release of iOS 9 in September
2015.

That meant users who previously had a device repaired were able to
use it -- albeit with a disabled Touch ID sensor, as was how Apple
handled unauthorized repairs at the time -- only to discover after
updating to iOS 9, the device was rendered unusable.

A Seattle-based law firm filed a class-action lawsuit against
Apple due to the practice.

Apple provided Fortune with the following statement, detailing the
cause and offering possible refunds to those who've had to replace
a device:

"Some customers' devices are showing 'Connect to iTunes' after
attempting an iOS update or a restore from iTunes on a Mac or PC.
This reports as an Error 53 in iTunes and appears when a device
fails a security test.  This test was designed to check whether
Touch ID works properly before the device leaves the factory.
On Feb. 18, Apple released a software update that allows customers
who have encountered this error message to successfully restore
their device using iTunes on a Mac or PC.

We apologize for any inconvenience, this was designed to be a
factory test and was not intended to affect customers.  Customers
who paid for an out-of-warranty replacement of their device based
on this issue should contact AppleCare about a reimbursement."

The Apple support page specific to this issue has been updated and
now walks customers through restoring a device using iTunes and
troubleshooting any further issues.

Apple is currently working on a fix for another issue that
recently surfaced.  The bug involves setting the date on an iOS
device to January 1, 1970, which also renders the device unusable.
Apple has acknowledged the issue and promised to fix it in an
upcoming iOS update.


ARMEDICA CORPORATION: Recalls AM-BA Series Treatment Tables
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 21, 2015
Posting date: February 22, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57184

As a result of two reports of patients unintentionally causing the
table to lower, a design change was made to all Armedica BA model
tables. A notice was issued regarding a safety modification to the
owners of the AM-BA series treatment tables.


Affected products:
AM-BA Series Bar Activated Hi-Lo Treatment Table
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: AM-BA-XXX-XX

Manufacturer: Armedica Corporation
              212 Bell Road
              Greenwood
              72936-0880
              Arkansas
              UNITED STATES


ATLAS RAILROAD: Court Narrows "Espinoza" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted in
part Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
in the case captioned, RAFAEL ESPINOZA, Individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ATLAS RAILROAD
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 15-1189 (W.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff Rafael Espinoza initiated the action against his
employer Defendant Atlas Railroad Construction, LLC and Atlas'
parent company Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. over wages Plaintiff claims
he is owed for certain travel time associated with his employment.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a "Pennsylvania Worker"
from approximately June of 2014 until April of 2015, which
required Plaintiff to travel from his home in Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania, to various project sites and to travel between
project sites.

Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint in the Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, which was timely removed
to this Court on September 11, 2105. On October 30, 2015,
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, in which he brings a single
claim alleging that Defendants violated the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act (PMWA), 43 P.S. Sec. 333.104(c), by failing to properly
compensate him for certain time he spent travelling.

On November 13, 2015, Defendants filed Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the Court does not
have personal jurisdiction over Defendant Genesee and that
Plaintiff has nevertheless failed to state a claim against either
Defendant. Atlas argues that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
under the PMWA as the travel time of which Plaintiff complains is
not part of his duties and does not occur during normal working
hours and thus is not compensable under the PMWA.

In her Opinion and Order dated January 22, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/0on7Ngfrom Leagle.com, Judge Kelly found that
Plaintiff is entitled to compensation under the PMWA for time
spent traveling to begin an eight-day shift or time spent
traveling after the end of his eight-day shift, regardless of
whether he is traveling to and/or from his home or between project
sites. The Court denied without prejudice with respect to claims
revolving around all other travel time and directed Plaintiff to
file a Second Amended Complaint before February 5, 2016.

Rafael Espinoza is represented by:

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

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


AVVO: Faces Class Action for Misappropriating Identity
------------------------------------------------------
Karen E. Rubin, Esq. -- Karen.Rubin@ThompsonHine.com -- of
Thompson Hine LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
lawyer-rating site Avvo is violating a state statute barring
unauthorized use of "an individual's identity for commercial
purposes," an Illinois lawyer has charged in a putative class-
action complaint filed in the chancery division of Cook County
Circuit Court.

Fee-based marketing plan

The gist of the complaint is that without any authorization or
participation from plaintiff or any other lawyer, Avvo has created
profile pages for 97% of the of the attorneys in the country,
using publically-available data; then, Avvo's fee-based marketing
plan allows lawyers who pay a fee to put ads for their practices
on the profile pages of lawyers who don't pay the
fee -- and the lawyer profiles where the paid ads appear are those
of head-to-head competitors.

If you are the target of this shake-down tactic, you can then pay
a fee to keep Avvo from putting ads for your competitors on your
profile page.

The class-action plaintiff practices family law in the Chicago
area; in the complaint, she cites four family-law lawyers who
practice in the same geographic area as she does, and whose ads
are parked on the profile Avvo has created for her.

Free speech or misappropriation?

The theory behind the complaint is that Illinois' Right of
Publicity Act is violated when Avvo takes publically-available
personal data of a lawyer -- years in practice, practice areas,
bar discipline history, education -- and puts it to commercial use
without the lawyer's consent, by using the profile to sell
advertising or marketing space to those who pay for it.

According to the on-line ABA Journal, Avvo's chief legal officer
has called the allegations in the complaint "bizarre" and
"ludicrous."

To date, according to the ABA Journal article, Avvo has
successfully fended off attacks on its business model, obtaining
dismissal of a 2007 federal class action complaint in Washington,
over the site's lawyer-ranking system, and a suit filed in Florida
and transferred to Washington before it too, was dismissed.  A
suit similar to the current one in Illinois was filed in San
Francisco last year; a motion to strike the complaint under
California's anti-SLAPP law is pending.


BANK OF AMERICA: Chicago Title Sues Over Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Title Land Trust Company as successor trustee to Chicago
Title and Trust Company, a/t/u/t, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bank of America
N.A., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02161 (N.D. Ill., Chicago,
February 11, 2016), seeks to recover damages and relief as a
result of breach of contract committed by the Defendant.

Bank of America operates as full service bank. The Bank accepts
deposits, makes loans, and provides other financial and investment
services for the public. The bank serves individual and
institutional customers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth David Flaxman, Esq.
          EDWARD T. JOYCE & ASSOCIATES P.C.
          135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 641 2600
          Facsimile: (312) 641 0360
          E-mail: kflaxman@joycelaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Arthur W. Aufmann, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD T. JOYCE
          & ASSOCIATES P.C.
          135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 641 2600
          E-aaufmann@joycelaw.com


BAUER HOCKEY: Recalls Goal Masks and Cages Due to Injury Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 21, 2015
Posting date: December 21, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56370

This recall involves the following goal masks and cages:

The Concept C1 goal masks have a carbon fiber shell with a foam
liner and sweatband, and a titanium wire cage that attaches to the
mask with two screws on each side of the mask. The masks are
Senior masks in sizes S/M and M/L. The masks are available in two
shell colors: black and white. The model indication "Concept C1"
is marked on the top of the shell. A sticker inside the shell at
the jaw lists the model and size. A second sticker on the other
side of the shell at the jaw lists the country of origin (China),
the assembly date and the CE certification. Certification (CSA,
HECC) and warning stickers are affixed to the backplate of the
mask.

The NME 10 goal masks have a fiberglass/carbon fiber shell with a
foam liner and sweatband, and a titanium wire cage that attaches
to the mask with two screws on each side of the mask. The masks
are Senior masks in three sizes: Fit 1, Fit 2 and Fit 3. The masks
are available in two shell colors: black and white. The model
indication "NME10" is marked on the top of the shell. A sticker
inside the shell at the jaw lists the model and size. A second
sticker on the other side of the shell at the jaw lists the
country of origin (China), the assembly date and the CE
certification. Certification (CSA, HECC) and warning stickers are
affixed to the backplate of the mask.

The RP NME Ti Titanium Cage is a replacement cage intended for the
Concept C1 and NME 10 goal masks. It has a matte finish. The cage
has two side plates, one on each side of the cage. One side plate
includes a sticker with the model designation (RP NME Ti Sr) and
the CSA certification. The other sticker indicates HECC and CE
certification. On the inside of the side plate is a sticker with
the country of origin (Thailand).

Bauer has determined there may be a quality issue in some of the
titanium wire used in the manufacture of the cages. The affected
goal masks and cages do not provide adequate protection in the
event of impact from a puck. This could pose a hazard to
consumers, such as a facial injury.

Since the initial release of the recall, Health Canada has
received two reports of consumer injuries related to the use of
these goal masks and cages. These reports involved the wire cage
breaking upon impact with a puck and resulting in severe injuries
to the eye.

Bauer Hockey Corp. has received eleven reports, ten in Canada and
one in the United States, of the titanium wire cage cracking or
breaking upon impact with a puck, resulting in minor facial
injuries in four of the original reports and the two more serious
injuries mentioned above.

Approximately 1,300 units were sold in Canada, and approximately
1,200 units were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from April 2013 to February 2015.

Manufactured in Thailand and China.

Manufacturer: Masco Enterprise Co., Ltd.
              Chachoengsao
              THAILAND

Importer: Bauer Hockey Corp.
          Mississauga
          CANADA

Consumers should stop using the recalled goal masks with the
affected wire cages and contact Bauer Hockey Corp for a
replacement.

For more information, consumers may contact Bauer's Customer
Service toll-free at 1-844-448-4246, Monday to Friday, from 8:00
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST.  Consumers may also contact Bauer's
Customer Service by email or visit Bauer's website.

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

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/V2rCdb


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Sodium Chloride Irrigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. of Deerfield, Illinois, is voluntarily
recalling one lot of 0.9% Sodium Chloride Irrigation, USP, 500 mL
Plastic Pour Bottle solution to the hospital/user level. This
product is being recalled due to a customer complaint prior to use
for the presence of particulate matter, identified as an insect.

Sodium Chloride Irrigation solution with foreign material
contamination potentially could result in a series of
complications dependent in which anatomic location the irrigation
is used, which could include inflammatory reaction, foreign body
reaction, and infection which could be life-threatening.

To date, Baxter has not received any reports of adverse events
related to this recall. 0.9% Sodium Chloride for Irrigation USP -
500 mL is an isotonic solution intended for irrigation. This
solution can be used to rinse debris and residue from wounds and
as a single use for rinsing/irrigation during surgical procedures.
It may also be used to flush or rinse medical equipment such as
catheters. The recall affects the following lot:

  Product   Product         Lot        Expiration    NDC
  Code      Description     Number     Date          ---
  -------   -----------     ------     ----------
  2F7123    0.9 % Sodium    G120162    11/30/2018    0338-0048-03
            Chloride
            Irrigation,
            USP, 500 mL
            Plastic Pour
            Bottle

The lot being recalled was distributed to customers and
distributors in the United States between November 12, 2015 and
January 11, 2016.

Baxter is notifying its distributors and customers by letter that
they should not use product from the recalled lot. Recalled
product should be returned to Baxter for credit by contacting
Baxter Healthcare Center for Service at 1-888-229-0001, Monday
through Friday, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.,
Central Time. Unaffected lots of product are available for
replacement.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can call Baxter at
1-800-422-9837, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time, or e-mail Baxter at
onebaxter@baxter.com. Consumers should contact their physician or
healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may
be related to using this drug product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

                             About Baxter

Baxter International Inc. provides a broad portfolio of essential
renal and hospital products, including home, acute and in-center
dialysis; sterile IV solutions; infusion systems and devices;
parenteral nutrition; biosurgery products and anesthetics; and
pharmacy automation, software and services. The company's global
footprint and the critical nature of its products and services
play a key role in expanding access to healthcare in emerging and
developed countries. Baxter's employees worldwide are building
upon the company's rich heritage of medical breakthroughs to
advance the next generation of healthcare innovations that enable
patient care.


BENCO DENTAL: "Winter" Suit Claims Violation of Antitrust Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS M. WINTER, D.D.S., P.C. d/b/a IOWA DENTAL ARTS, P.C. on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. PATTERSON
COMPANIES, INC., HENRY SCHEIN, INC., AND BENCO DENTAL SUPPLY
COMPANY, Case 2:16-cv-00751 (E.D.N.Y., February 12, 2016), alleges
that Defendants' collusive and anticompetitive conduct constitutes
an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The Defendants are the three largest distributors of Dental
Supplies in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin D. Elga, Esq.
     Taylor Asen, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     16 Court Street, Suite 1012
     Brooklyn, NY 11241
     Phone: (202) 789-3960
     Fax: (202) 789-1813
     E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com
             belga@cuneolaw.com

        - and -

     Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
     Joel Davidow, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     507 C Street NE
     Washington, DC 20002
     Phone: (202) 789-3960
     Fax: (202) 789-1813
     E-mail: JonC@cuneolaw.com
             Joel@cuneolaw.com

        - and -

     W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
     Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
     Craig S. Davis, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
     100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 339-6900
     Fax: (612) 339-0981
     E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
             rkshelquist@locklaw.com
             csdavis@locklaw.com

        - and -

     J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
     HUDSON MALLANEY & SHINDLER, PC
     5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
     West Des Moines, IA 50265
     Phone: (515) 223-4567
     Fax: (515) 223-8887
     E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net


BESCOT HEALTHCARE: Recalls Zestica Ovulation Test
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 21, 2015
Posting date: January 14, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals

Unauthorised packaging and labelling activities were undertaken
for Zestica Ovulation Test by the importer/distributor, Bescot
Healthcare Canada Inc. The carton used in the packaging was from a
previously expired lot with preprinted information (lot 20120915,
expiry: 14/09/2014) on them. A stickered black-out label was
placed on top of the preprinted information with new lot number
and expiry date (lot 20140730 expiry 29/07/2016). The packaging
and labelling activity for Zestica conception pack involved
placing Zestica ovulation test kit and Zestica fertility lubricant
(licence #87093), and IFU into a carton.

Affected products
A. ZESTICA OVULATION TEST
Lot or serial number: 20140730
Model or catalog number: 5060203270780

B. ZESTICA CONCEPTION PACK
Lot or serial number: 20140730
Model or catalog number: 50602032270797

Manufacturer: Burdica Biomed Ltd.
              33 Research Ave. North
              Edinburg
              EH14 4AP
              UNITED KINGDOM


BHANDAL BROS INC: "Torres" Suit Seeks Compensatory Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeronimo Torres Sr. and Edward Jackson, individuals, on behalf of
themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Bhandal Bros, Inc., a California Corporation and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive,, Case No. 15798392 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Country, December 30, 2015), seeks compensatory damages
for minimum compensation due plus interest, wages of all
terminated employees, prejudgment interest, penalties, attorneys'
fees and cost of suit pursuant to the California Labor Code Sec.
218.5, 226 and 1194.

Torres and Jackson worked for the Defendants as truck drivers.
They alleged that they were not paid minimum wages for all
compensable work time, did not receive reporting time
compensation, and were not provided meal periods and paid rest
breaks as required by California law.

Bhandal Bros, Inc. is a California corporation and is an
established carrier in the bulk transportation industry. It is
headquartered in Hollister, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
      Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
      Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
      BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
      2255 Calle Clara
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Tel: (858)551-1223
      Fax: (858) 551-1232


BLUESTEM BRANDS: Court Granted Motion to Compel Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael H. Simon of the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon granted Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration in the case captioned, REBECCA V. CAMPOS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BLUESTEM BRANDS, INC. and WEBBANK, Defendants, Case
No. 3:15-CV-00629-SI (D. Or.).

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rebecca V. Campos filed for personal
bankruptcy. On October 8, 2014, Ms. Campos brought this adversary
proceeding on behalf of herself and a putative class in U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon. She alleges that
Bluestem and WebBank with whom she opened a credit account,
willfully violated an automatic stay by collecting a debt that Ms.
Campos contends was discharged in her Chapter 7 bankruptcy case.

While the adversary proceeding was before the Bankruptcy Court,
Defendants moved to compel arbitration based on a credit agreement
for the credit account that Ms. Campos opened. Judge Randall L.
Dunn issued a Report and Recommendation recommending withdrawal of
the reference for Ms. Campos's adversary proceeding.

Ms. Campos argues that arbitration of her claim on an individual
basis conflicts with the underlying purpose of the Bankruptcy Code
because individual arbitration is not economically viable. She
also argues that individual arbitration conflicts with purpose of
the Bankruptcy Code for three additional reasons: individual
arbitration would (1) deny her the fundamental protections under
the Bankruptcy Code; (2) encourage subversion of the automatic
stay's remedial scheme; and (3) restrict public notice of
Defendants' violation of Sec. 362(k).

In his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated January 22,
2016 available at http://is.gd/I9ImAkfrom Leagle.com, Judge Simon
adopted the Report and Recommendation finding that the parties
formed a valid arbitration agreement and that individual
arbitration of Ms. Campos's claim under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(k) does
not conflict with the underlying purpose of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Court also found no conflict between individual arbitration of
Ms. Campos's claim and the Bankruptcy Code.

Rebecca V. Campos is represented by Bonner Charles Walsh, Esq. --
WALSH, LLC & Michael R. Fuller, Esq. -- mfuller@olsendaines.com --
OLSENDAINES, PC

She is also represented by:

     Kelly D. Jones, Esq.
     KELLY D. JONES ATTORNEY AT LAW
     3650 S. Yosemite St. #404
     Denver, CO 80237
     Tel: (720)829-4880

Bluestem Brands, Inc. is represented by Aaron P. Knoll, Esq. --
aaron.knoll@FaegreBD.com -- Aaron D. Van Oort, Esq. --
aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- Charles F. Webber, Esq. --
Charles.webber@FaegreBD.com -- Erin L. Hoffman, Esq. --
erin.hoffman@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKERS DANIELS LLP, Brandy A.
Sargent, Esq. -- brandy.sargent@stoel.com -- Reed W. Morgan, Esq.
-- reed.morgan@stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES LLP


BOA TECHNOLOGY: Recalls Snowboard Boots Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Boa Technology, Inc., of Denver, Colo., announced a voluntary
recall of about 33,000 Snowboard Boots with Boa Secondary Reels
(in addition, about 4,500 in Canada). Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The secondary reel can become stuck in the open position, causing
the fit at the forefoot of the boot or tongue to loosen and posing
a fall hazard.

This recall involves snowboard boots with the M3v2 secondary reel
dials, which are used to adjust the fit at the forefoot and tongue
of the boots. This recall involves all sizes and colors of the
following snowboard boot brand models containing the M3v2 reel:

* 32 (Binary)
* Burton (Photon, Concord, Felix)
* DC (Control)
* DeeLuxe (Spark Summit, Vicious)
* Flow (Helios Focus)
* Head (Six Boa Focus)
* K2 (Darko)
* Ride (Fuze, Lasso, Triad, Hera, Norris)
* Rome (Inferno, Memphis)
* Salomon (Dialogue Focus)
* Scarpa (EVO F1)

If the M3v2 reel has an adhesive sticker dot on the front, then
the recalled dial has already been replaced and nothing further
needs to be done.

The firm received two reports of incidents. No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at REI
and other retailers nationwide and online, including at REI.com
and Backcountry.com, from June 2015 through October 2015 for
between $100 to $750.

Consumers should immediately stop using the snowboard boots and
contact the retailer where the boots were purchased or Boa for a
free repair kit. Free replacement reels and a repair tool will be
provided with instructions. A repair video is also available at
https://vimeo.com/boa/M3v2fix


BOTHWELL CHEESE: Recalls Shredded Cheese Products Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Bothwell Cheese Inc.
Distribution: Manitoba, Quebec, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10211

Bothwell Cheese Inc. is recalling certain Bothwell brand shredded
cheese products from the marketplace due to possible Listeria
monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume and
distributors, retailers and food service establishments such
hotels, restaurants, cafeterias, hospitals and nursing homes
should not sell or use the recalled products described below.

The following products have been sold in Quebec, Manitoba and
Saskatchewan.

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

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

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

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

  Brand     Common name     Size        Code(s) on     UPC
  name      -----------     ----        product        ----
  ----                                  ----------
  Bothwell  White Cheddar   10 kg       Lot # 151030   None
            Shred           (2 x 5 kg)
  Bothwell  Old Cheddar     10 kg       Lot # 151030   None
            Shred           (2 x 5 kg)
  Bothwell  Mild Shred      10 kg       Lot # 151030   None
  Bothwell  Old Shred       6.81 kg     Lot # 151030   None
                            (3 x 2.27 kg)
  Bothwell  Mozzarella      340 g       Lot # 160626   0 58898-
            Blend                       Best Before    34082 1
            Shredded                    JUN 26 16
            Cheese

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/WAym8J


BREVARD COUNTY, FL: Cocoa Area Resident to Dismiss Gun Range Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Berman, writing for Florida Today, reports that a resident of
the west Cocoa area who challenged the operation of nearby Brevard
County Sheriff's Office gun ranges agreed in court on Feb. 18 to
have his complaint dismissed so he can modify his lawsuit.

The resident, the Rev. Johnnie Dennis, was given 20 days to file a
new lawsuit in the case, which centers on complaints about noise
coming from the gun ranges at night.

Rev. Dennis, who represented himself in court, wasted no time in
submitting a modified lawsuit, which he filed with the Brevard
County Clerk of Courts Office shortly after leaving Circuit Judge
George Maxwell III's Viera courtroom.

"We are not anti-police," Rev. Dennis said after the hearing.  "We
don't mind them training.  But we would like for them to close
(the gun ranges) in or move it out of this neighborhood. What
about our constitutional rights?"

Keith Kromash, an attorney for the Brevard County Sheriff's
Office, declined to discuss specifics about the case.

"The ball is in Mr. Dennis' court," Mr. Kromash said after the
hearing before Maxwell.  "The judge agreed that there were
numerous procedural deficiencies" in Dennis' original filing.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Settlement Reached with Wisconsin in AWP Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has
reached a settlement with the State of Wisconsin related to the
Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) litigation.

The Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class
actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of
various states. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that
defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their
products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs,
entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on
AWPs.

The Company remains a defendant in two state attorneys general
suits pending in state courts in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The
Company has been designated as one of four defendants for separate
trials in Wisconsin in 2016. A settlement has been reached between
the Company and the other defendants on one hand, and the State of
Wisconsin on the other.


BRISTOL-MYERS: 5,200 Claims Related to Plavix Filed
---------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that over 5,200
claims involving injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses
and/or other beneficiaries, are filed in state and federal courts
in various states including California, New Jersey, Delaware and
New York related to Plavix*.

The Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a
number of individual lawsuits in various state and federal courts
claiming personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using
Plavix*. Currently, over 5,200 claims involving injury plaintiffs
as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, are filed
in state and federal courts in various states including
California, New Jersey, Delaware and New York.

In February 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted the Company and Sanofi's motion to establish a
multidistrict litigation to coordinate Federal pretrial
proceedings in Plavix* product liability and related cases in New
Jersey Federal Court.

It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome
of these lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Still Defending Reglan Product Liability Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is
one of a number of defendants in numerous lawsuits, on behalf of
approximately 3,000 plaintiffs, including injury plaintiffs
claiming personal injury allegedly sustained after using Reglan*
or another brand of the generic drug metoclopramide, a product
indicated for gastroesophageal reflux and certain other
gastrointestinal disorders, as well as claims by spouses and/or
other beneficiaries. The Company, through its generic subsidiary,
Apothecon, Inc., distributed metoclopramide tablets manufactured
by another party between 1996 and 2000. It is not possible at this
time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits. The
resolution of these pending lawsuits, however, is not expected to
have a material impact on the Company.


BRISTOL-MYERS: 500 Product Liability Suits Pending Over Byetta
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Amylin, a former
subsidiary of the Company, and Lilly are co-defendants in product
liability litigation related to Byetta*. To date, there are over
500 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of over 2,400 active
plaintiffs (including pending settlements), which include injury
plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other
beneficiaries, in various courts in the U.S.

The Company has agreed in principle to resolve over 510 of these
claims. The majority of these cases have been brought by
individuals who allege personal injury sustained after using
Byetta*, primarily pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis, and, in
some cases, claiming alleged wrongful death. The majority of cases
were pending in Federal Court in San Diego in a multi-district
litigation (MDL) or in a coordinated proceeding in California
Superior Court in Los Angeles (JCCP) and in November 2015, the
defendants' motion for summary judgment based on federal
preemption was granted in both the MDL and the JCCP. Plaintiffs
have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The cases in the JCCP have not yet been formally dismissed. Amylin
has product liability insurance covering a substantial number of
claims involving Byetta* and any additional liability to Amylin
with respect to Byetta* is expected to be shared between the
Company and AstraZeneca. It is not possible to reasonably predict
the outcome of any lawsuit, claim or proceeding or the potential
impact on the Company.


BYA SPORTS: Recalls Skyline Zipline Kits Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
BYA Sports, of Louisville, Colo., announced a voluntary recall of
about 5,700 Bring Your Adventure Sports (BYA) Skyline Zipline Kits
(in addition, 990 units were sold in Canada). Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

A crimp in the zipline can fail allowing the cable to pull free or
become slack while in use, posing a fall hazard to the user.

This recall involves BYA Sports Skyline backyard zipline kits sold
in 60-, 75- and 90-foot cable lengths. The kits were sold in
camouflage packaging containing a main cable, trolley, short
cable, turnbuckle and u-clamps. The following bar codes are found
on the bottom left side of the packaging: 7456111220012 (60-ft.),
7456111220029 (75-ft.), and 7456111220036 (90 ft.). The BYA logo
and "Skyline (60, 75 or) 90 Zipline Kit" are printed on the front
of the packaging.

CPSC and the firm have received nine reports of cable failure,
including six reports of injuries. In three of the reported
incidents, consumers sustained bruising and other unknown injuries
from a fall. In the remaining three reported incidents, consumers
reported head injuries.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/2jy0Vl

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at REI
and other sporting goods stores nationwide and online at
promotive.com from August 2013 through July 2015 for between $100
and $130.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled zipline kits
and contact BYA Sports for a free replacement kit.


C MART: Recalls Ovaltine Malt Choco Beverage Due to Milk
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: C Mart Enterprises Ltd.
Distribution: Saskatchewan
CFIA reference number: 10287

  Brand     Common       Size    Code(s) on     UPC
  name      name         ----    product        ----
  ----      ------               ----------
  Ovaltine  All-in-One   840 g   All codes      4 808591 800063
            Ready Mixed          where milk is
            Malt Choco           not declared
            Beverage             on the label


CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Faces "McCoy" Suit in Calif. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
Donatus McCoy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-267 (Cal. Super., December 24, 2015), seeks
statutory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs on
behalf of himself and injunctive relief for violation of the Unruh
Act, California Civil Code Sec. 51, et seq. and the California
Disable Persons Act.

Defendant is a restaurant chain incorporated under the laws of
Delaware. Plaintiff McCoy, a quadriplegic, alleged that the
Defendant's rest room does not have adequate facilities for wheel-
chaired persons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esquire (SBN 242352)
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 534-2590
      Fax: (310) 247-0160


CANADA: First Nations Bands Opt Into Day Scholars Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Net News Ledger reports that momentum is building for the Day
Scholars Class Proceeding.  In addition to the original two Bands,
twenty two other First Nations Bands have opted into the action
and several more have committed to joining. The deadline for other
First Nation Bands to opt in is
February 29, 2016.

In 2012 Tk'emlups te Secwepemc and shishalh Indian Bands launched,
the Day Scholars Class Action lawsuit which seeks compensation on
behalf of all Aboriginal who attended an Indian Residential
School, but who did not sleep there.  The case also seeks
declarations regarding Canada's role in the failure to protect
Aboriginal language and culture, we are certified at three levels:
Survivor, Descendent and Band Class.  The day scholar class action
is seeking compensation for the children of survivors, and the
bands to which survivors belong.

Canada has, for several years now, recognized that the Indian
Residential Schools had a profound impact not just on those who
resided at the schools, but also on their communities and
families.  Until the new Liberal Government was elected Canada
failed to recognition of "cultural genocide" Canada has refused to
provide compensation for those who did not sleep at the schools.
This lawsuit aims to rebalance that difference.

In addition to seek compensation for individuals who attended the
Indian Residential Schools, an important part of the lawsuit is
includes Indian Bands that were affected by the presence of an
Indian Residential School on or near their lands.  Individual
Bands can decide whether or not they wish to opt-in, or be a part
of the lawsuit.  Only those Bands that opt in will be eligible for
compensation if any is awarded by the Courts.

Chief Calvin Craigan stated "Nation to Nation standing together we
can show the Canadian Government that they can no longer ignore
the predicament of those who lost our sacred language and culture
at the Government's hands.  Needless to say that is not just an
isolated story of a few children in British Columbia, it is a
national issue."

Chief Fred Seymour "We thank the bands that have joined us already
and we continue to encourage our follow nations to come on board
to show strength, unity and a commitment to moving our day scholar
class action forward.  Now is the critical time to address the
remaining legacy of the Residential Schools and their effects not
just on people.  Together we can speak to the Government with one
voice, representing Aboriginal people from coast to coast to
coast."

Bands have until February 29, 2016 to decide if they wish to opt-
in. Individual survivors, and their first descendents as or
November 30, 2015 are now "in".


CANYON CREEK: Recalls Meatball Soup Products
--------------------------------------------
Canyon Creek Soup Co., an Edmonton, AB, Canada establishment, is
recalling approximately 7,275 pounds of meatball soup products
that were not presented at the U.S. point of entry for inspection,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced. Without the benefit of full inspection,
a possibility of adverse health consequences exists.

The soup kit containing broth with meatballs, rice noodles,
sriracha packets, and hoisin packets were imported on Jan. 29,
2016. The following products are subject to recall:

  -- 291 Cases - containing ten 2.56 lb. plastic soup package
     kits labeled "Vietnamese inspired Pho Bo Vein" containing
     broth with meatballs, rice noodles, sriracha packets, and
     hoisin packets bearing package code 16AL20 or 16AL24.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
422" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped
to retail outlets in California.

The problem was discovered when a Customs and Border Protection
official notified FSIS personnel that the items had been shipped
without inspection.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction
should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/U5gHXS


CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Feb. 18
disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed
against Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's securities between September 12, 2011 and
January 21, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").

CSI shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their legal
options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

For additional information about this lawsuit, or to request
information about this action online, please visit
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/cardiovascular-systems-inc

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

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that CSI and
certain of its executive officers made a series of false and
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.  Specifically, the defendants are alleged to have made
materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) CSI distributed illegal kickbacks to
health care providers; (2) CSI engaged in the off-label promotion
of its medical devices; and (3) CSI violated the Food and Drug
Administration's laws and regulations in connection with its
medical devices.

As more fully detailed in the shareholder class action complaint,
on May 9, 2014, CSI disclosed that it had received a letter from
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of North
Carolina reporting that the U.S. Attorney was investigating
whether the Company had violated the False Claims Act.  Following
this news, shares of CSI's stock fell $1.62 per share, or over 5%,
to close at $27.43 per share on May 12, 2014.

On October 7, 2015, CSI reported disappointing First Quarter 2016
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."  Following this news,
shares of CSI's stock fell an additional $3.01 per share, or
approximately 18%, to close at $13.62 per share on October 8,
2015.

Finally, on January 21, 2016, CSI reported disappointing Second
Quarter 2016 financial results, again "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."
Following this news, shares of CSI's stock fell an additional
$3.72 per share, or nearly 30%, to close at $8.74 per share on
January 22, 2016.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
(Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or (610) 667-7706, or via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com

CSI shareholders who purchased their securities during the Class
Period may, no later than April 12, 2016, petition the Court to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff of the class.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  Members of the
purported class may petition the Court to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check or other counsel,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  In
order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must
determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims
of other class members, and that the class member will adequately
represent the class in the action.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- prosecutes
class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate
governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf
of institutional and individual investors from the United States
and around the world.  The firm represents investors, consumers
and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent
practices against the government and share in the recovery of
government dollars).  The complaint in this action was not filed
by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check.


CAREER SERVICE: Faces "Vasquez" Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Norma Vazquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Professional Diversity Network, Inc.,
Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00013-WCO (N.D.
Ga., Gainesville Division, January 13, 2016), seeks actual and
statutory damages, injunction requiring Defendant to cease sending
unsolicited text messages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
and other and further relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq.

Professional Diversity Network, Inc., doing business as Career
Service Advisor, markets their service by sending unsolicited text
messages to the wireless telephones of Plaintiff without prior
express written consent and incurred charges.

Professional Diversity Network, Inc. is a publicly traded company
organized in and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware
with principal place of business at 801 W. Adams Street, Suite
600, Chicago, Illinois, 60607. It is in the business of job
placement.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Caplan, Esq.
      T. Brandon Waddell, Esq.
      CAPLAN COBB LLP
      75 Fourteenth Street, NE, Suite 2750
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Tel: (404) 596-5610
      Fax: (404) 596-5604
      Email: mcaplan@caplancobb.com
             bwaddell@caplancobb.com

           - and -

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 North State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 236-0000
      Fax: (312) 241-1260
      Email: jsiprut@siprut.com
             isalam@siprut.com

           - and -

      Peter B. Bricks, Esq.
      PETER BRICKS, P.C.
      1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 502
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Tel: (770) 696-4577
      Fax: (678) 791-4788
      Email: peter@brickslaw.com


CHICAGO, IL: Residents File Class Action Over Water Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Milman, writing for The Guardian, reports that Chicago
residents have filed a class-action lawsuit against the city over
the safety of its drinking water, claiming that "elevated and
unsafe" levels of lead have contaminated their water supply for
years due to risky construction projects.

The lawsuit, filed on Feb. 18 at the circuit court of Cook County,
Illinois, claims that the city of Chicago has known for years that
lead has seeped into drinking water due to street work, water
meter installations or plumbing repairs, but failed to warn
residents about the risk of lead in their water.

The city's "negligent and reckless conduct" has caused a
substantial risk to residents, the lawsuit states, without proper
warnings.  The three named plaintiffs in the case want the city to
pay for diagnostic testing, as well as replace all of Chicago's
lead service lines in full.

The lawsuit states that the residents have shown symptoms of
elevated lead levels, although testing has yet to confirm this.

Studies have shown that lead pipes carrying water into homes can
be shaken or damaged by nearby construction work.  This
disturbance can cause the lead lining of the pipes to fracture and
leech into the water, causing dangerous contamination.

An Environmental Protection Agency report from 2013 identified the
problem in Chicago, warning that the city's attempts to upgrade
its water system could pose health risks from toxic metal
poisoning.  City officials have questioned the EPA's findings,
claiming that Chicago's water is completely safe from lead
contamination.

"We believe the city of Chicago knew well the risks and dangers of
toxic lead contamination associated with these construction
projects but chose to turn a blind eye to its own, allowing this
mounting problem to become a widespread public health issue across
the city of Chicago," said Steve Berman, managing partner of
Hagens Berman, the law firm representing the residents.

"The city has fully abandoned its duties to its residents. The
city of Chicago has put the health and safety of hundreds of
thousands of residents at risk by allowing alarming levels of lead
into the water supply and failing to arm residents with any
knowledge of how to avoid contamination."

A spokesman for Chicago's department of water management said:
"While we have not yet reviewed the lawsuit, Chicago's water is
safe and exceeds federal, state and industry standards,"

"The department of water management provides the cleanest, best
tasting water possible; aggressive programs that protect our water
supply from lead and thorough testing methods allow us to
continually achieve this goal."

Chicago is struggling with a legacy of lead service lines
throughout the city.  Although the installation of lead pipes was
banned nationally in 1986, the lawsuit claims that Chicago has one
of the highest concentration of lead pipes in the US. Nearly 80%
of Chicago's homes receive drinking water via lead pipes.

One of the named complainants, Tatjana Blotkevic, said that her
husband Yuriy Ropiy experienced heart attack-like symptoms during
and after the city conducted a construction project near their
home. Chicago has conducted more than 1,600 water main and sewer
replacement projects since January 2009 in an attempt to upgrade
its aging system.

"We trusted the city," Ms. Blotkevic said.  "It's the kind of
thing you just assume -- that your tap water is safe to drink and
that your city has done its due diligence to prevent a health
hazard like toxic levels of lead.  As soon as I found out that the
city was allowing this to happen, our family stopped drinking the
water from our taps. We had no idea that drinking the water in our
own home was putting us at risk for lead poisoning."

The toxic water crisis in Flint, Michigan has increased public
scrutiny of the quality of drinking water across the US.  The
nation still has up to six million miles of lead piping, which
would take billions of dollars to replace.  Rather than conduct a
widespread replacement of lead lines, water authorities have used
various chemicals to coat the inside of pipes to ensure they do
not leak lead into the water.

                           *     *     *

Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Chicago has been contaminating its drinking water with lead
for years as it tried to fix its aging lead pipes, and it knew it,
residents claim in a class action in Chicago that may have more
victims than the fiasco in Flint, Mich.

The report notes Chicago has more lead pipe water lines than any
other U.S. city -- nearly 80 percent of Chicago properties receive
their drinking water from lead pipes, according to lead plaintiff
Tatjana Blotkevic's lawsuit in Cook County Chancery Court.

Flint's catastrophe was caused by switching water sources in a
bungled attempt to save money. Chicago's was caused by work on the
aging pipes, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are represented by Elizabeth A. Fegan --
beth@hbsslaw.com -- with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.


CHOY FOONG: Recalls Ladies' Soybean Drink Due to Milk Allergen
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Choy Foong International Trading Co. Inc.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10258

Choy Foong International Trading Co. Inc. is recalling Soyspring
brand Ladies' Soybean Drink from the marketplace because it
contains milk which is not declared on the label. People with an
allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product described
below.

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

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

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

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

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

  Brand      Common name      Size   Code(s) on   UPC
  name       -----------      ----   product      ----
  ----                               ----------
  Soyspring  Ladies' Soybean  400 g  PRODUCTION   6 901432 031287
             Drink                   DATE: 08
                                     APR.2015
                                     BEST BEFORE:
                                     08 OCT.2016

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/nNI7B7


CHRYSLER LLC: Recalls Grand Cherokee and Durango Models
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
TC System: Electrical
Units affected: 26287
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015615TC
ID number: 2015615
Manufacturer recall number: R71

On certain vehicles equipped with illuminated sun visor vanity
mirrors with 120mm wiring, service repairs requiring removal of
the sun visors and/or headliner may cause an electrical short
circuit which could increase the risk of a fire causing injury
and/or damage to property. Vehicles equipped with 120mm wiring
that were previously repaired under recall 2014-275 will require
repair under this recall. Correction: To Be Determined.

  Make     Model              Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----              ----------------------
  JEEP     GRAND CHEROKEE     2011, 2012
  DODGE    DURANGO            2011, 2012


CHRYSLER LLC: Faltermeier Loses Bid to Remand Class
---------------------------------------------------
This is a putative class action arising from alleged violations of
the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA").  On June 2,
2015, Plaintiff David Faltermeier initiated the action in the
Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, against Defendant FCA
US LLC.  The Plaintiff alleges that FCA's misrepresentations
during a vehicle safety recall have caused the Plaintiff and all
other consumers who have purchased those vehicles since June 4,
2013, an ascertainable financial loss.  On June 29, 2015, FCA
removed the action to the United States District for the Western
District of Missouri, Western Division, alleging jurisdiction
based on the Class Action Fairness Act and bankruptcy-related
jurisdiction.

Before the Court are the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and the
Defendant's Motion to Transfer.  The Plaintiff argues the Court
lacks jurisdiction to hear the case because the aggregate amount
in controversy does not exceed $5 million, as required by CAFA.
In its Motion to Transfer, the Defendant argues transfer is
appropriate because this case is related to a case pending in the
Southern District of New York and transfer would serve the
interests of justice.

In an Order dated February 10, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/NiwGtofrom Leagle.com, Chief District Judge Greg
Kays of the United States District for the Western District of
Missouri, Western Division, denied the Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand and the Defendant's Motion to Transfer.

Finding that the Defendant has carried its burden of establishing
CAFA jurisdiction to hear the case, the Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand is denied, Judge Kays ruled.  The Court further finds that
the case is not sufficiently related to a bankruptcy proceeding,
as required for transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1412, thus the
Defendant's Motion to Transfer is denied.

The case is DAVID FALTERMEIER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:15-cv-00491-DGK (W.D. Mo.).

David Faltermeier, Plaintiff, is represented by Christopher S.
Shank, Esq. -- Shank & Moore, LLC, David Lee Heinemann, Esq. --
Shank & Moore, LLC & Stephen J. Moore, Esq. -- Shank & Moore, LLC.

FCA US LLC, Defendant, is represented by John W. Rogers, Esq. --
jrogers@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, Kathy Ann
Wisniewski, Esq. -- kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com --  Thompson
Coburn LLP  & Stephen A. D'Aunoy, -- Esq. --
sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP

            About Old Carco LLC (f/k/a Chrysler LLC)

Chrysler Group LLC, formed in 2009 from a global strategic
alliance with Fiat Group, produces Chrysler, Jeep(R), Dodge, Ram
Truck, Mopar(R) and Global Electric Motorcars (GEM) brand vehicles
and products.  Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan, Chrysler
Group LLC's product lineup features some of the world's most
recognizable vehicles, including the Chrysler 300, Jeep Wrangler
and Ram Truck.

Chrysler LLC and 24 affiliates on April 30, 2009, sought Chapter
11 protection from creditors (Bankr. S.D.N.Y (Mega-case), Lead
Case No. 09-50002).  Chrysler hired Jones Day, as lead counsel;
Togut Segal & Segal LLP, as conflicts counsel; Capstone Advisory
GroupLLC, and Greenhill & Co. LLC, for financial advisory
services; and Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC, as its claims agent.
Chrysler changed its corporate name to Old CarCo following its
sale to a Fiat-owned company.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, Chrysler had
$39,336,000,000 in assets and $55,233,000,000 in debts.  Chrysler
had $1.9 billion in cash at that time.

In connection with the bankruptcy filing, Chrysler reached an
agreement with Fiat SpA, the U.S. and Canadian governments and
other key constituents regarding a transaction under Section 363
of the Bankruptcy Code that would effect an alliance between
Chrysler and Italian automobile manufacturer Fiat.  As part of
that deal, Fiat acquired a 20% equity interest in Chrysler Group.

Under the terms approved by the Bankruptcy Court, the company
formerly known as Chrysler LLC on June 10, 2009, formally sold
substantially all of its assets, without certain debts and
liabilities, to a new company that will operate as Chrysler Group
LLC.  The U.S. and Canadian governments provided Chrysler with
$4.5 billion to finance its bankruptcy case.  Those loans are to
be repaid with the proceeds of the bankruptcy estate's
liquidation.  Old Carco's Second Amendment Joint Plan of
Liquidation was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court on April 23,
2010.


COMPUTERTEL INC: Violated TCPA, "Mills" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------
Steven Mills, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Computertel, Inc. et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00968, (C.D. Cal., Western Division - Los
Angeles, Feb. 11, 2016), seeks to recover damages and relief
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Computertel provides long distance telecommunication services
around the world. The company was founded in 1996 and is based in
Carson City, Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Mills, Esq.
          PRO SE


CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE: Kopelowitz Ostrow Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, a leading South
Florida law firm, filed a class action lawsuit on February 17 on
behalf of consumers who own or lease vehicles in the United States
that have defective airbags manufactured by Continental Automotive
and its supplier Atmel Corporation.  The lawsuit follows the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's recent recall of
approximately 500,000 U.S. vehicles that contain the defective
airbags.

The class action lawsuit, filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, names as defendants
Continental Automotive Systems and its German parent company
Continental AG, Atmel Corporation, Mercedes Benz USA and its
German parent Daimler AG, and American Honda and its Japanese
parent Honda Motor Co.  According to the complaint, Continental,
Atmel and Mercedes Benz have been aware of the airbag defect since
2008, based on a filing with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration that was recently made public.  The complaint
alleges that semiconductors inside the component parts of the
affected airbags can corrode, causing the airbags to deploy
unexpectedly or fail to deploy at all, placing vehicle occupants
in danger.  The affected U.S. models include the following
vehicles:

2008-2009 Chrysler Town & Country
2008-2009 Dodge Grand Caravan
2009 Dodge Journey
2008-2010 Honda Accord
2008-2009 Mercedes C Class
2010 Mercedes GLK Class
2009 Volkswagen Routan

Initial reports indicate that certain vehicles manufactured and
sold by other companies may also be affected.

"Once again, American consumers have been placed in harm's way
because an important safety device intended to protect them in the
event of a vehicle collision may not work at all, and may actually
endanger them and their families," said Robert C. Gilbert, who
filed the suit and chairs the class action and complex litigation
practice at Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert.
According to Gilbert, the class action lawsuit seeks to hold the
airbag manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers liable for all
costs and damages arising from the defective airbags: "We intend
to hold these companies accountable to the fullest extent of the
law."

If you or a family member owns or leases one of the potentially
affected vehicles described above, or if you are concerned that
your vehicle may be affected and have questions, please contact
attorneys Avi Kaufman or Scott Edelsberg at (877) 525-4100 or via
email at airbag@kolawyers.com to discuss the lawsuit and your
potential claims.

With offices throughout South Florida, Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson
Weiselberg Gilbert serves as lead and co-lead counsel in class
actions throughout the country.


CORESITE REALTY: Defending Wage-and-Hour Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
CoreSite Realty Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on July 9, 2015,
a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against the
Company, alleging various employment law violations related to
overtime, meal and break periods, minimum wage, timely payment of
wages, wage statements, payroll records and business expenses. The
lawsuit is in the early stages and the Company has filed a
responsive pleading generally denying the allegations.

"We intend to vigorously defend both of these legal proceedings,"
the Company said.

CoreSite is a fully integrated, self-administered, and self-
managed REIT.


COUNTRY LIFE: Recalls Shelled Raw Pistachios Due to Salmonella
--------------------------------------------------------------
Country Life Natural Foods of Pullman, MI is recalling shelled raw
pistachios, sold in 2 lb bags and 30 lb boxes, because it has the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience
fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e.,
infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The shelled raw pistachios were distributed in AR, CA, FL, IA, IL,
IN, MI, MN, MO, OK, SC, SD, TN, and WI through retail stores, mail
order, and direct delivery.

The 2 pound bags will bear the batch number 1357 in the lower left
corner of the Country Life Natural Foods Label.

The 30 lb boxes will bear the name "SAM International" lot number
102914, and best by date of April 29, 2016.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

This recall was initiated when FDA contract testing laboratory
analysis revealed the presence of Salmonella in one of the 19
samples obtained from SAM International. As a precaution,
additional products are being recalled as they may be contaminated
since they were packed from the master lot that came to our
facility. We are working closely with FDA to determine the cause
of this situation.

Consumers who have purchased this recalled product should not
consume it. They should return it to the point of purchase.
Consumers with questions should call Country Life Natural Foods at
800-456-7694, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST Monday through Thursday, 9:00
am - 1:00 pm EST Friday.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/VU1Tjr


CROMWELL SOHO: "Chen" Suit Claims Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAO FANG CHEN, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, v. CROMWELL SOHO OPERATING LLC, SIXTY HOTEL
MANAGER LLC, THOMPSON HOTEL ASSOCIATES LLC, THOMPSON HOTEL MANAGER
LLC, JOANNA POPEK, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case 1:16-cv-
01124 (S.D.N.Y., February 12, 2016), alleges violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law, arising from
Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices.

Cromwell Soho Operating LLC owns and operates a hotel in Manhattan
called Thompson Hotel located at 54 Thompson Street, New York, NY,
10012.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DATASCOPE CORP: Recalls Cardiosave System
-----------------------------------------
Starting date: December 21, 2015
Posting date: January 22, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-56728

In some CARDIOSAVE IABPs, the scroll compressor did not meet the
specifications for output pressure or vacuum at specific flow
rates. When the scroll compressor fails, one of two high priority
alarms will appear on the IABP display and patient therapy could
be interrupted.

Affected products
A. CARDIOSAVE SYSTEM - HYBRID & RESCUE INTRA-AORTIC BALLOON PUMP
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: 0998-00-0800-XX

Manufacturer: Datascope Corp.
              1300 Macarthur Blvd.
              Mahwah
              07430
              New Jersey
              UNITED STATES


DING HO: Recalls Seafood Products Due to Egg
--------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Ding Ho Foods Inc.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10279

Ding Ho Foods Inc. is recalling Ding Ho Foods brand seafood
products from the marketplace because they may contain egg which
is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should
not consume the recalled products described below.

These products may have been sold in bulk or in smaller packages
with or without a label and may not bear the same product names as
described below. Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased
the affected products are advised to contact their retailer.

The following products have been sold in Ontario.

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

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

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

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

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

  Brand     Common name   Size    Code(s) on     UPC
  name      -----------   ----    product        ----
  ----                            ----------
  Ding Ho   Cuttlefish    318 g   All codes      6 27590 04640 1
  Foods     Balls                 where egg is
                                  not declared
                                  on the label
  Ding Ho   Fish Balls    318 g   All codes      6 27590 04630 2
  Foods                           where egg is
                                  not declared
                                  on the label
  Ding Ho   Fried Shrimp  318 g   All codes      6 27590 04651 7
  Foods     Balls                 where egg is
                                  not declared
                                  on the label
  Ding Ho   Fat Choy      318 g   All codes      6 27590 04660 9
  Foods     Dace Fish             where egg is
            Balls                 not declared
                                  on the label
  Ding Ho   Fish Noodles  450 g   All codes      6 27590 04670 8
  Foods                           where egg is
                                  not declared
                                  on the label
  Ding Ho   Fried Fish    318 g   All codes      6 27590 04631 9
  Foods     Balls                 where egg is
                                  not declared
                                  on the label
  Ding Ho   Shrimp Balls  318 g   All codes      6 27590 04650 0
  Foods                           where egg is
                                  not declared
                                  on the label
  Ding Ho   Parsley Dace  450 g   All codes      6 27590 04547 3
  Foods     Fish Paste            where egg is
                                  not declared
                                  on the label
  Ding Ho   Fish Paste    450 g   All codes      6 27590 04549 7
  Foods                           where egg is
                                  not declared
                                  on the label

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


DOONEY & BOURKE: Faces "Rael" Suit Over Trade Commission Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Rael, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated the Plaintiff, v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc. et al., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00371-JM-DHB (S.D. Cal., Feb. 11,
2016), seeks to recover damages and relief pursuant to the Federal
Trade Commission Act.

Dooney & Bourke, a Connecticut corporation, manufactures and
retails handbags and accessories. The company's products include
travel bags, watches, briefcases, wallets, totes, umbrellas,
business card holders, iPad cases, keyfobs, bracelets, phone
cases, hooded hats, rain boots, gloves, scarves, and belts. It
serves customers through its retail and factory stores, as well as
online. The company was incorporated in 1975 and is based in
Norwalk, Connecticut. It operates retail stores in Costa Mesa,
California; Honolulu, Hawaii; Las Vegas, Nevada; White Plains and
New York, New York; Dallas, Texas; Tokyo, Japan; and Taipa, Macau.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter. Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA
          & CARPENTER LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756 6994
          Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Spiegel" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to D. Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cody Spiegel et al v. DraftKings,
Inc. et al. Case No., 2:15-cv-08142, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10231-GAO to the proceeding.

DraftKings provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts. The
defendants offer leagues for fantasy football, baseball,
basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college
basketball.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer L Duffy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JENNIFER DUFFY, APC
          28649 S. Western Ave. No. 6571
          San Pedro, CA 90734
          Telephone: (310) 714 9779
          Facsimile: (213) 217 5010
          E-mail: jduffy@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER & WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564 2300
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David McDowell, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024
          Telephone: (213) 892 5200
          E-mail: dmcdowell@mofo.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Cooper" Suit Moved from S.D. Fla. to Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cooper v. DraftKings, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-23870, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10240 to the
proceeding.

DraftKings provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts. The
defendants offer leagues for fantasy football, baseball,
basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college
basketball.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Todd Mathews. Esq.
          GORI, JULIAN AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          156 N. Main Street
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659 9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659 9834
          E-mail: Todd@GoriJulianLaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jorge David Guttman, Esq.
          GUNSTER
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 376 6054
          Facsimile: (305) 376 6010
          E-mail: jguttman@gunster.com

               - and -

          Dennis P. Waggoner, Esq.
          HILL, WARD & HENDERSON
          Barnett Plaza
          101 East Kennedy Boulevard
          Tampa, FL 33601
          Telephone: (813) 221 3900


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Guarino" Suit Moved from S.D. Ill to Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Guarino v. DraftKings, Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01123, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10234-GAO to the proceeding.

DraftKings provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts. The
defendants offer leagues for fantasy football, baseball,
basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college
basketball.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Todd Mathews. Esq.
          GORI, JULIAN AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          156 N. Main Street
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659 9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659 9834
          E-mail: Todd@GoriJulianLaw.com

               - and -

          Corey D. Sullivan, Esq.
          SULLIVAN LAW, LLC
          1814 E. Eagle Bay Dr.
          Bloomington, IN 47401
          Telephone: (314) 971 9353
          E-mail: sullivcd@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Theodore J. MacDonald, Jr.
          HEPLERBROOM LLC-ST. LOUIS
          One Metropolitan Square
          211 North Broadway, Ste. 2700
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 241 6160
          Facsimile: (314) 241 6116
          E-mail: TJM@heplerbroom.com

               - and -

          W. Jason Rankin
          HeplerBroom LLC - Edwardsville
          130 North Main Street
          P.O. Box 510
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 307 1138
          Facsimile: (618) 656 1364
          E-mail: wjr@heplerbroom.com


ENVE COMPOSITES: Recalls Bicycle Forks Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
ENVE Composites, of Ogden, Utah, announced a voluntary recall of
about 600 Bicycle Forks. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The left leg of the bicycle fork can crack above the disc brake
mount, posing a fall hazard.

This recall involves ENVE Carbon Fiber Road Fork 2.0 Disc 1.25"
taper models. The bicycle forks included in this recall have
serial numbers beginning with: VCT1406, VCT1410, VCT1411, VCT1501,
VCT1502, VCT1503, VCT1505, VCT1506, VCT1507, VCT1508, VCT1509 and
VCT1510. The serial number is located on the black steerer tube.

ENVE has received five reports of the left leg of the fork
cracking above the disc brake mount.  No injuries have been
reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/WpBhW6

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at
Authorized ENVE dealers nationwide and online from June 2014
through December 2015 for about $540 for the fork.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled forks and
contact ENVE for a full refund or a substitute Road Fork 2.0 Disc
1.5" taper model and appropriate headset replacement. ENVE is
contacting consumers who purchased the bicycle forks directly.


FACEBOOK INC: "Brickman" Alleges B-day Announcements Violate TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COLIN R. BRICKMAN, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case 3:16-cv-
00751 (N.D.Cal., February 12, 2016), was brought to stop
Facebook's practice of transmitting unsolicited text messages
containing birthday announcements to consumers' cellular
telephones, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its
conduct.

Facebook operates the online social networking service,
Facebook.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
     Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
     DWORKEN &BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
     60 South Park Place
     Painesville, OH 44077
     Phone: (440) 352-3391
     Fax: (440) 352-3469
     E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
             fbartela@dworkenlaw.com

        - and -

     Kristen L. Sagafi, Esq.
     Martin D. Quinones, Esq.
     TYCKO &ZAVAREEI LLP
     483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
     Oakland, CA 94607
     Phone: (510) 254-6808
     Fax: (202) 973-0950
     E-mail: ksagafi@tzlegal.com
             mquinones@tzlegal.com

       - and -

     Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
     TYCKO&ZAVAREEI LLP
     2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
     Washington, DC 20036
     Phone: (202) 973-0900
     Fax: (202) 973-0950
     E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com


FANDUEL INC: "Genchanok" Suit Moved from E.D. La to Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Genchanok v. FanDuel, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-05127, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10233-GAO to the proceeding.

FanDuel operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables
users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The company is
based in New York, New York with an additional office in
Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Dugan II, Esq.
          THE DUGAN LAW FIRM
          365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 648 0180
          Facsimile: (504) 648 0181
          E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          David B. Franco, Esq.
          Lanson Leon Bordelon, Esq.
          THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC
          365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 648 0180
          Facsimile: (504) 648 0181
          E-mail: dfranco@dugan-lawfirm.com
                  lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Seth Andrew Schmeeckle, Esq.
          LUGENBUHL, WHEATON, PECK, RANKIN & HUBBARD
          60l Poydras St., Suite 2775
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 568 1990
          E-mail: sschmeeckle@lawla.com

               - and -

          Daniel Rault Martiny, Esq.
          Joseph P. Lopinto III, Esq.
          MARTINY & ASSOCIATES
          131 Airline Hwy., Suite 201
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 834 7676
          E-mail: danny@martinylaw.com
                  joe@martinylaw.com


FANDUEL INC: "Gomez" Suit Moved from S.D. Fla. to Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gomez et al. v. FanDuel, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-23858, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10239-GAO to the proceeding.

FanDuel operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables
users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The company is
based in New York, New York with an additional office in
Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christos Lagos, Esq.
          LAGOS & PRIOVOLOS PLLC
          66 W. Flagler St., Suite 1000
          Miami, FL 33130-1809
          Telephone: (305) 960 1990
          Facsimile: (305) 891 2610
          E-mail: info@christoslagos.com

               - and -

          Ervin Amado Gonzalez, Esq.
          Patrick S. Montoya, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON
          Penthouse
          255 Alhambra Circle
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476 7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476 7444
          E-mail: ervin@colson.com
                  patrick@colson.com

               - and -

          John Priovolos, Esq.
          JOHN PRIOVOLOS PA
          2333 Brickell Avenue, Suite A-1
          Miami, FL 33129
          E-mail: johnpriovolos@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dennis P. Waggoner, Esq.
          HILL, WARD & HENDERSON
          Barnett Plaza
          101 East Kennedy Boulevard
          Tampa, FL 33601
          Telephone: (813) 221 3900

                - and -

          Brian Michael Ercole, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS, BOCKIUS
          200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 5300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 415 3416
          Facsimile: (325) 415 3001
          E-mail: bercole@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Jordan D. Hershman, Esq.
          BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP - MA
          One Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110-1726
          Telephone: (617) 951 8455
          Facsimile: (617) 951 8736
          E-mail: jordan.hershman@morganlewis.com.com

               - and -

          Matthew C. McDonough, Esq.
          Brian Michael Ercole, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 951 8840
          E-mail: matthew.mcdonough@morganlewis.com
                  bercole@morganlewis.com


FINANCIAL ASSET MANAGEMENT: "Accardi" Suit Removed to N.D. Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Accardi v. Financial Asset
Management Systems, Inc., Case No. 15A3173-7, was removed from
the State Court of Cobb County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00430-WCO-WEJ.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the Fair Debt
Collection Act.

Financial Asset Management Systems provides customized receivables
management services primarily in the United States. It offers
first and third party collection programs; skip tracing and
collection programs; default prevention programs; pre-subrogation
programs to locate, contact, and provide borrowers last
opportunity to resolve their defaulted loans prior to assignment
to the U.S. Department of Education; letter programs; and custom
programs. It serves education, financial services, government
services, healthcare, and telecommunications/media industries.
Financial Asset Management Systems, Inc. was founded in 1993 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifton Dorsen, Esq.
          James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
          Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
          Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR AND FEAGLE
          374 Main Street, Suite B
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Telephone: (404) 373 1978
          E-mail: cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
                  jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
                  jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                  krisskaar@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John H. Bedard Jr., Esq.
          Jonathan K. Aust, Esq.
          BEDARD LAW GROUP, P.C.
          2810 Peachtree Industrial Blvd., Suite D
          Duluth, GA 30097
          Telephone: (678) 253 1871
          Facsimile: (378) 860 1873
          E-mail: jbedard@bedardlawgroup.com
                  aust@bedardlawgroup.com


FITBIT INC: Faces False Advertising Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Feb. 18
disclosed that a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
complaint alleges that officers and directors of Fitbit, Inc.
(NYSE: FIT) violated California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and
California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200 by engaging in
unfair or deceptive trade practices and using misleading
advertising.  Fitbit, Inc. manufactures and provides wearable
fitness-tracking devices worldwide.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/fitbit-inc

Fitbit Accused of Engaging in False Advertising

According to the complaint, in widespread national advertising,
Fitbit touted the purported ability of its wrist-based activity
trackers to accurately record a wearer's heart rate during intense
physical activity.  To perform this function, Fitbit equipped its
fitness watches (the "PurePulse Trackers") with an LED-based
technology called PurePulse.  Fitbit employed slogans such as
"Every Beat Counts" and "Know Your Heart" to emphasize its ability
to track every beat.  Importantly, the heart rate monitoring
function is critical to the health and well-being of consumers
whose medical conditions require them to maintain (or not to
exceed) a certain hart rate.

The complaint alleges that the PurePulse Trackers do not and
cannot consistently and accurately record wearers' heart rates
during the intense physical activity for which Fitbit expressly
markets them.  Many PurePulse Tracker consumers have allegedly
experienced inaccurate heart rate recordings by a significant
margin, particularly during exercise.  Expert analysis has further
corroborated these heart rate discrepancies--a cardiologist tested
the PurePulse Trackers against an electrocardiogram, the gold
standard of heart rate monitoring, on a number of subjects at
various exercising intensities.  The PurePulse Trackers were
inaccurate by an average of 24.34 beats per minute, with some
readings off by as much as 75 beats per minute.  The complaint
further alleges that Fitbit's attempt to bind all purchasers of
its products to an arbitration clause and class action ban is
unconscionable, invalid, and unenforceable.

Fitbit Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney
Darnell R. Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com
or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a shareholder rights law firm.  The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped
its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves
and the companies in which they have invested.


FLYING FOOD: Recalls Edamame Hummus Wrap Due to Adulteration
------------------------------------------------------------
Flying Food Group, LLC, a Grapevine, Texas establishment, is
recalling approximately 1,006 pounds of Edamame Hummus Wrap
products due to adulteration and misbranding, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced. The Edamame Hummus Wrap products are mislabeled and may
contain Thai Style Chicken Peanut Wraps, which are formulated with
peanuts and tree nuts, known allergens not declared on the product
label.

The Edamame Hummus Wrap products were assembled on Feb. 16, 2016,
and are stamped with an ENJOY BY 02/19 date.  The following
product is subject to recall:

6.8-oz. container of Starbucks brand "Edamame Hummus Wrap
The products being recalled do not contain an establishment number
on the label, as the Edamame Hummus Wraps are regulated by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The products should
contain hummus, but may contain chicken, which makes the products
amenable to the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). These
items were distributed to retail locations in Texas and Oklahoma.

The problem was discovered after the establishment received a
complaint from a Starbucks store. As soon as Starbucks confirmed
the supplier labeling error; the impacted product was removed from
the 559 Texas and Oklahoma stores that received it.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

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


FORD: Recalls Transit 2015 Models Due to Defective Rear Shafts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: December 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Powertrain
Units affected: 95
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015608TC
ID number: 2015608
Manufacturer recall number: 15S37

Certain vehicles equipped with dual rear wheels may have been
manufactured with defective rear drive axle shafts. Under certain
conditions, these axles could fracture and break without warning.
This could result in a loss of motive power or cause unintended
vehicle movement when the transmission shift lever is placed in
the Park position, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace both
rear axle shafts.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  FORD       TRANSIT     2015


FOREVER CHEESE: Recalls Aged Cheese in Walnut Leaves
----------------------------------------------------
Forever Cheese Inc. of Long Island City, NY, is recalling 40 cases
of Mitica brand Pecorino Aged Cheese in Walnut Leaves (Pecorino
Foglie di Noci) from one specific production code because it has
the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only
short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection
can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The imported Mitica brand Pecorino Aged in Walnut Leaves was
shipped to distributors between January 27th and February 3, 2016.
The imported cheese was further sold to retailers and restaurants
located in Los Angeles, California, Cleveland, Ohio, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, New York, Colorado, Vermont, Virginia, Florida and
Connecticut.

The cheese in question, Mitica brand Pecorino Aged in Walnut
Leaves, is from one production code NOC15313 (found on shipping
case only) and invoiced as Lot X2537 which the retailer or
distributor would be familiar with. Each shipping case contains 2
wheels of varying weights; each wheel weighs a minimum of 2 lbs.
The Mitica brand Pecorino Aged in Walnut Leaves cheese has a
natural grayish rind, and will be labeled at the point of sale at
the retail level or on a restaurant menu.

There have been no reported illnesses related to this potential
contamination to date.

The recall was the result of a routine sampling program by Forever
Cheese which revealed that the imported cheese tested positive for
the bacteria. The company has ceased distribution of the affected
lot as the FDA and the company continue their investigation as to
what caused the problem.

Each and every distributor and retailer has been contacted in an
effort to recall any and all remaining product in the marketplace.
Consumers should not consume the imported Mitica brand Pecorino
Aged in Walnut Leaves cheese listed above. Consumers that believe
they have purchased the affected Mitica brand Pecorino Aged in
Walnut Leaves cheese should contact the retailer or the company
for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Sarah
Weisensel at Forever Cheese at 1-888-930-8693, Monday through
Friday, 9 am - 5 pm EST.

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


FRATERNITE PROVINCIALE: Court Tosses Act R-20 Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Andree-Anne Labbe, Esq., of McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article
for Lexology, reports that in Caron v. Fraternite provinciale des
ouvriers en electricite, section locale 1676, 2016 QCCS 25, the
Superior Court of Quebec refused to authorize a class action on
behalf of linesmen who had paid contributions to the Respondents,
Unions and Quebec Construction Board, pursuant to the Act
Respecting Labour Relations, Vocational Training, and Workforce
Management in the Construction Industry (the "Act R-20").

The Petitioner alleged that there was no legal relationship
between the members of the putative group and the Respondents,
given that the members of the putative group were working for
enterprises under federal jurisdiction that were therefore not
subject to the Act R-20.

The Court concluded that the class action could not be authorized,
notably because the Petitioner had failed to demonstrate that "the
recourses of the members raise identical, similar or related
questions of law or fact".  The Court found that the determination
of whether the employer of each member of the putative group was
of provincial or federal jurisdiction constituted a complex and
individual question not amenable to class proceedings.  Moreover,
given that some of the contributions were voluntary, the Court
would have had to determine whether the consent of each member of
the putative group was vitiated.  Finally, the Court found that an
action for recovery of contributions, should it be granted, would
mean that restitution of prestations would also have to be
ordered. Such an issue was complex and individual in nature.  For
these reasons, the Court concluded that the Petitioner's action
was more of an individual than a collective nature.

Caron supports the contention that a proposed class action that
will necessitate several mini-trials on the merits, as it is often
the case in proposed pharmaceutical class actions for example, is
not amenable to class proceedings and should therefore be
dismissed at the authorization stage.


FRESH CREATIVE: Recalls H-E-B Tartar Sauce Due to Fish
------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Creative Foods is recalling 8oz containers of H-E-B Tartar
Sauce due to an undeclared fish (anchovy) allergen. Some plastic
tubs have the correctly labeled Cocktail Sauce lid with a
container labeled as Tartar Sauce when the actual contents are
Cocktail Sauce. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity
to fish run the risk of a serious or life threatening allergic
reaction if they consume the product.

The affected product would have been purchased from an H-E-B
Seafood Department in a clear 8 oz. container and lid with a "use
by" date of 04/19/2016 on the bottom and a UPC of 41220 33244 on
the side. The product was distributed to H-E-B stores in Texas.

The problem was discovered during routine restocking. There have
been no consumer complaints or reports of allergic reactions at
this time.

Any product purchased as described above should be returned to any
H-E-B store for a full refund. Customers with concerns or
questions may contact H-E-B Customer Relations at 210-938-8357 or
1-800-432-3113 Monday through Friday between the hours of 8AM and
5PM CT.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/BkW1Hp


FURMANITE CORPORATION: "Azar" Suit Seeks to Block Team Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elia Azar, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Joseph E. Milliron, Jeffery G. Davis,
Kevin R. Jost, David E. Fanta, John K.H. Linnartz, Ralph J.
Patitucci and Kathleen G. Cochran, Furmanite Corporation, Team,
Inc. and TFA, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 11838, (Del. Ch.,
December 23, 2015) seeks preliminary and permanent enjoinment,
rescissory damages, costs and disbursements including reasonable
attorneys' fees and other and further equitable relief for breach
of fiduciary duties.

Furmanite announced that it will be acquired by Team, Inc. to
become its wholly-owned subsidiary in a stock-for-stock
transaction valued at approximately $335 million. Under the terms
of the Merger Agreement, Furmanite stockholders will receive 0.215
shares of Team common stock for each share of Furmanite common
stock they own, which has an implied value of $7.53 per Furmanite
share. Plaintiff claims this to be an undervalued transaction.

Furmanite is a publicly traded corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware, with principal executive
offices at 10370 Richmond Avenue, Suite 600, Houston, Texas 77042.
It provides on-site industrial plant turnaround maintenance and
on-line contractor engineered services. Joseph E. Milliron,
Jeffery G. Davis, Kevin R. Jost, David E. Fanta, John K.H.
Linnartz, Ralph J. Patitucci and Kathleen G. Cochran serves as the
company's board of directors.

Azar is a shareholder of Furmanite.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Tel: (212) 363-7500

           - and -

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


GARDEN OF LIFE: Expands Raw Meal Organic Shake Product Recall
-------------------------------------------------------------
Garden of Life LLC is expanding its January 29th voluntary recall
to include additional lots of its Raw Meal Organic Shake & Meal
Chocolate, Original, Vanilla and Vanilla Chai products because an
ingredient used in certain lots of the product has the potential
to be contaminated with Salmonella Virchow. Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis. If you have symptoms or concerns,
please talk to your doctor.

Garden of Life has requested that retailers remove the lots of Raw
Meal from sale and that consumers check the lot number on their
Raw Meal product and return any products involved in this recall
to their point of purchase for a full refund.

After extensive testing of the product and its ingredients, and
working in collaboration with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, the manufacturer, suppliers and other third-party
experts, the Company has now identified the likely source of
Salmonella contamination to be Organic Moringa Leaf powder from a
supplier used only in Raw Meal. Because other Garden of Life
products containing Moringa use different suppliers, only Raw Meal
is exposed.

Following is the list of lots affected added to this recall.
Consumers can find the lot codes prominently stamped on the
underside of the plastic container.

February 12, 2016 Recall Lots

  Item          Lot       UPC           Sachet        Exp
  Description   Number    ---           UPC           Date
  -----------   ------                  ------        ----
  RAW Organic   47200200  658010116114  658010116107  8/1/2017
  Meal
  Chocolate 10
  CNT Tray
  RAW Organic
  Meal          47215800  658010115933                8/1/2017
  Chocolate
  Full Size
  RAW Organic   47243600  658010115933                8/1/2017
  Meal
  Chocolate
  Full Size
  RAW Organic   47198400  658010116954                8/1/2017
  Meal
  Chocolate
  Half Size
  RAW Organic   47222300  658010114141                8/1/2017
  Meal Full
  Size
  RAW Organic   47248900  658010114141                8/1/2017
  Meal Full
  Size
  RAW Organic   47225700  658010116961                8/1/2017
  Meal Half
  Size
  RAW Organic   47198700  658010116961                8/1/2017
  Meal Half
  Size
  RAW Organic   47183200  658010116428  658010116435  8/1/2017
  Meal Vanilla
  Chai 10
  CNT Tray
  RAW Organic   47215400  658010116947                8/1/2017
  Meal Vanilla
  Chai Half
  Size
  RAW Organic   47202000  658010116947                8/1/2017
  Meal Vanilla
  Chai Half
  Size
  RAW Organic   47200100  658010116022                8/1/2017
  Meal Vanilla
  Full Size
  RAW Organic   47198600  658010116022                8/1/2017
  Meal Vanilla
  Full Size
  RAW Organic   47198500  658010116930                8/1/2017
  Meal Vanilla
  Half Size
  RAW Organic   47200000  658010115933                8/31/2017
  Meal
  Chocolate
  Full Size
  RAW Organic   47243000  658010116954                8/31/2017
  Meal
  Chocolate
  Half Size
  RAW Organic   47215600  658010116046                8/31/2017
  Meal Vanilla
  Chai Full
  Size
  RAW Organic   47202100  658010116022                8/31/2017
  Meal
  Vanilla Full
  Size
  RAW Organic   47247700  658010115933                11/30/2017
  Meal
  Chocolate
  Full Size
  RAW Organic   47247801  658010116954                11/30/2017
  Meal
  Chocolate
  Half Size
  RAW Organic   47257001  658010116954                11/30/2017
  Meal
  Chocolate
  Half Size
  RAW Organic   47246501  658010114141                11/30/2017
  Meal Full
  Size
  RAW Organic   47269900  658010116961                11/30/2017
  Meal Half
  Size
  RAW Organic   47275400  658010116138  658010116121  11/30/2017
  Meal Vanilla
  10 CNT Tray
  RAW Organic   47247601  658010116046                11/30/2017
  Meal Vanilla
  Chai Full
  Size
  RAW Organic   47225602  658010116022                11/30/2017
  Meal Vanilla
  Full Size
  RAW Organic   47273200  658010116930                11/30/2017
  Meal Vanilla
  Half Size
  RAW Organic   47247900  658010116930                11/30/2017
  Meal Vanilla
  Half Size
  RAW Organic   47256902  658010115933                12/31/2017
  Meal
  Chocolate
  Full Size
  RAW Organic   47257100  658010116022                12/31/2017
  Meal Vanilla
  Full Size
  RAW Organic   47287600  658010116930                12/31/2017
  Meal Vanilla
  Half Size

No other Garden of Life products are affected by this recall.
To prevent a recurrence of this issue, Garden of Life will remove
Organic Moringa powder from Raw Meal and expects new Raw Meal
products to be available in stores and through online retailers
within the next few weeks.

"The health of our consumers matters more than anything to every
Garden of Life employee," said Brian Ray, Garden of Life's
President. "We are using this as an opportunity to review our
entire sourcing, manufacturing and distribution system with an eye
to making a safe system even better. We will always work to be the
industry leader in food safety; we expect nothing less and know
you do as well. You can expect to hear more from us on this topic
going forward. On behalf of all of us, I apologize to everyone
affected by this situation."

ABOUT RAW MEAL: Raw Meal is sold at better health food stores,
natural grocers and online. Consumers who have a Raw Meal product
affected by this recall should stop consuming the product and if
they wish to return it, they should return the unused portion of
the product to the place of purchase for a full refund. Questions
may be directed Monday-Friday between the hours of 9:00 AM and
5:00 PM EST to GOL Retail Support.


GOODMAN COMPANY: Recalls Air Conditioner/Heat Pumps
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Goodman Company, L.P. of Houston, Texas, announced a voluntary
recall of about 5,300 Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner/Heat Pumps
(PTAC) and Room Air Conditioners (RAC) (In addition, about 233,500
PTAC units were recalled in August 2014.). Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The power cords on the air conditioning and heating units can
overheat, posing burn and fire hazards.

This recall involves Amana, Century, Comfort-Aire, Goodman and
York International-branded Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and
Heat Pumps (PTAC), and Amana-branded Room Air Conditioners (RAC).
The units are rated 230/208 volt, 3.5 kW and are most often
installed through the walls of hotels, motels, apartment buildings
and commercial spaces to provide room climate control. The RAC
units are installed through the walls or windows of the same types
of properties. The recalled units are beige and have serial
numbers ranging from 0701009633 through 0804272329. The brand name
is located on the unit's front cover. The serial number is located
on the label found by lifting the front cover of PTAC units or the
grille of RAC units. Additionally, any PTAC and RAC units that
have a beige power cord labeled with a four-digit date code in the
MMYY format and ending in 06 or 07, or ranging from 0108 through
1808 are included in this recall.

Goodman has received approximately 10 reports of PTACs catching on
fire, including four involving property damage.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/IDAp4F

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold at Goodman and heating and cooling equipment dealers
nationwide from January 2007 through June 2008 for between $700
and $1,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the air
conditioning and heating units and call the number listed for your
brand or go to www.amana-ptac.com to request a free replacement
power cord. Non-commercial owners will receive free installation
of the power cord and inspection of the PTAC control board for
damages. If the control board has been damaged by the recalled
power cord, non-commercial owners will also receive a free
installation of a replacement control board. Commercial owners are
being contacted directly and will install the power cord and
inspect the control board. If the control board has been damaged
by the recalled power cord, Goodman will provide a new control
board for commercial owners to install. Recalled RAC units do not
have a control board.


GREENSPOON MARDER: Sued Over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit has been filed against the Florida-based
law firm Greenspoon Marder P.A., alleging that it engaged in
unfair debt collections practices when it sent collections letter
to consumers claiming that a debt would be assumed valid if not
disputed within 30 days after receipt of the notice.

The suit, Regalado, et al. v. Greenspoon Marder, P.A., case no.
0:16-cv-60025-KMW, was filed Jan. 4 in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Florida.

The plaintiffs, who are Florida residents, received a form debt
collection letter relating to a defaulted timeshare loan. The form
debt collection letter contained the following language:

"You have thirty (30) days from the date of your receipt of this
notice to dispute the validity of the debt of any portion thereof.
If you fail to dispute the validity of this debt, the debt will be
assumed to be valid."

The plaintiffs allege that the language used by the defendant is
false and misleading under federal and Florida law because it
leads a debtor to believe that anyone, not just debt collectors,
can and will assume a debt is valid and owed if it is not disputed
within 30 days.

The plaintiffs have asked the Court to certify a class consisting
of consumer debtors who have received an identical or
substantially similar form collection letter from Greenspoon
Marder.  The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that the letter
violates federal and Florida law, as well as statutory damages,
attorneys' fees and an injunction prohibiting the defendant from
using the form debt collection letter.

Michael D. Finn, managing member of Finn Law Group representing
the plaintiff and the potential class, stated, "Law firms must
follow the law.  While a debt collector like Greenspoon Marder may
assume a debt is valid if a consumer doesn't dispute it within 30
days that doesn't mean everyone, including courts, must assume it
is valid."

The Finn Law Group, which has an office in Florida, represents
consumers in timeshare and related real estate matters.  For more
information, contact Michael D. Finn by calling 855-346-6529 or
michaeldfinn@finnlawgroup.com


GROUPON INC: Illinois Securities Class Action Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
Groupon, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has entered an
order staying all deadlines in the securities class action lawsuit
after the parties entered into a term sheet to settle the
litigation.

On February 8, 2012, the Company issued a press release announcing
its expected financial results for the fourth quarter of 2011.
After finalizing its year-end financial statements, the Company
announced on March 30, 2012 revised financial results, as well as
a material weakness in its internal control over financial
reporting related to deficiencies in its financial statement close
process.  The revisions resulted in a reduction to fourth quarter
2011 revenue of $14.3 million. The revisions also resulted in an
increase to fourth quarter operating expenses that reduced
operating income by $30.0 million, net income by $22.6 million and
earnings per share by $0.04.  Following this announcement, the
Company and several of its current and former directors and
officers were named as parties to the following outstanding
securities class action and purported stockholder derivative
lawsuits all arising out of the same alleged events and facts.

The Company is a defendant in a proceeding pursuant to which, on
October 29, 2012, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed against the Company, certain of its directors and
officers, and the underwriters that participated in the initial
public offering of the Company's Class A common stock.  Originally
filed in April 2012, the case is currently pending before the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois: In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Allegations in the consolidated
amended complaint include that the Company and its officers and
directors made untrue statements or omissions of material fact by
issuing inaccurate financial statements for the fiscal quarter and
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 and by failing to
disclose information about the Company's financial controls in the
registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering of Class A common stock and in the Company's
subsequently-issued earnings release dated February 8, 2012.  The
lawsuit seeks monetary damages, reimbursement for fees and costs
incurred in connection with the actions, including attorneys'
fees, and various other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief.

On June 29, 2015, the parties concluded fact discovery, including
the depositions of fact witnesses. On July 30, 2015, class notice
was mailed to all identifiable members of the certified class and
subclass. On September 1, 2015, plaintiff filed an agreed motion
to dismiss without prejudice all claims against the Underwriters
defendants, which the court granted on September 10, 2015. Expert
discovery concluded on December 21, 2015. Trial has been scheduled
for December 2016.

The parties participated in mediations and settlement discussions
during the year ended December 31, 2015 and the first quarter of
2016 and recently entered into a term sheet to settle the
litigation. The term sheet provides for a settlement payment to
the class of $45.0 million in cash, including plaintiff's
attorneys' fees, in exchange for a full and final release and also
includes a denial of liability or any wrongdoing by the Company
and the other defendants.

On February 1, 2016, the court entered an order staying all
deadlines in the case. As the settlement is subject to and
requires court approval, the parties intend to memorialize the
term sheet in a stipulation of settlement and then seek court
approval. The Company is fully reserved for the settlement amount.


GROUPON INC: Court Approves New Accord in Marketing & Sales Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the district court has
granted preliminary approval of a new settlement in the Marketing
and Sales Practices Litigation.

In 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in a series of class
actions that came to be consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California. The consolidated actions
are referred to as In re Groupon Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation. The Company denies liability, but the parties agreed
to settle the litigation for $8.5 million before any determination
had been made on the merits or with respect to class
certification.

On December 18, 2012, the district court approved the settlement
over various objections to the settlement lodged by certain
individual class members. Thereafter, certain of the objectors
filed an appeal, and on February 19, 2015, the Court of Appeals
vacated the settlement and remanded the case for further
proceedings concerning the proposed settlement consistent with the
Court of Appeals' opinion.

On June 22, 2015, the Company terminated the settlement agreement
as is permitted under its terms. In July 2015, the parties reached
an agreement in principle regarding a new settlement involving a
combination of cash and Groupon credits, worth a total of $8.5
million.

On October 22, 2015, the district court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement and the parties are currently engaged
in complying with the process for the district court to consider
granting final approval of the settlement.

The Company continues to deny liability and if the settlement is
not approved by the court or is not consummated for any reason,
will contest the case vigorously.

Groupon is a global leader in local commerce, making it easy for
people around the world to search and discover great businesses
and merchandise.


HEALTH MATTERS: Recalls Sprouted Flax Seed Powder & Chia Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Health Matters America of Cheektowaga, NY, is recalling specific
lots of Organic traditions SPROUTED FLAX SEED POWDER and Organic
traditions SPROUTED CHIA & FLAX SEED POWDER because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience
fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e.,
infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

Organic traditions Sprouted Chia Seed Powder and Organic
traditions Sprouted Chia & Flax Seed Powder were distributed
nationwide in flexible plastic bags.

Here is a list of the recalled products and lots:

  --- Organic traditions SPROUTED FLAX SEED POWDER, NET WT. 8
      oz./227g, UPC barcode 854260006261; Lots AHM626151103 Exp.
      09/2017, AHM626151229 Exp.10/2017 (lot number located near
      UPC barcode on back of bag);
  --- Organic traditions SPROUTED CHIA & FLAX SEED POWDER, NET
      WT. 8 oz./227g; UPC barcode 854260006216; Lots AHM621151217
      Exp. 10/2017; AHM621151229 Exp. 10/2017 (lot number located
      near UPC barcode on back of bag);
  --- Organic traditions SPROUTED CHIA & FLAX SEED POWDER, NET
      WT. 16oz./454g bag, UPC barcode 854260005479; Lot
      AHM547151217 Exp. 10/2017 (lot number located near UPC
      barcode on back of bag).

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Random samples taken by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
from retail stores in Canada tested positive for Salmonella. CFIA
then notified the supplier. Health Matters America Inc. had
received the affected lots. As soon as Health Matters America was
made aware of this situation by their supplier, the company ceased
packaging and distribution of the lots.  The FDA, CFIA and Health
Matters America continue their investigation as to what caused the
problem.

Consumers who purchased the affected products/lots should return
them to place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company by phone at 1(888) 343-3278,
Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 pm, or by e-mail at:
orders@healthmattersamerica.com

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


HENRY INDUSTRIES: Court Decertifies Missouri Opt-In Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Henry Industries operates a delivery service for pharmaceutical
products. Its drivers are engaged as putative independent
contractors, but James Hose alleges that the drivers are
effectively Henry's employees, and thus the failure to pay drivers
overtime benefits violates the Fair Labor Standards Act. Hose
brought suit on behalf of himself and other drivers working for
Henry in eleven states. On September 24, 2014, the court granted
conditional certification of the action. Subsequently, 116 other
plaintiffs have filed opt-in forms to join the action.

While the present action was pending, Hose also filed an action in
St. Louis County, Missouri District Court, alleging that the
Henry's actions violate the Missouri Minimum Wage Maximum Hour
Law. Following an extensive evidentiary hearing, the Missouri
court approved an opt-out class action on May 27, 2015,
recognizing a class of some 400 Missouri delivery drivers.

Hose has moved to dismiss without prejudice from the action the 85
Missouri opt-in plaintiffs, thus leaving the federal FLSA with the
claims of the drivers making deliveries outside of Missouri. Hose
argues that decertification or dismissal without prejudice is
appropriate in light of the state law action.

In the Memorandum and Order dated January 22, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/oh8xG4from Leagle.com, District Judge J. Thomas
Marten of the United States District Court for the District of
Kansas found that decertification of the claims by the Missouri
opt-in plaintiffs advances the interests of justice by allowing
those plaintiffs to join in the ongoing state action, premised on
state law. The Court found that no basis for imposing any
sanctions upon the opt-in plaintiffs at this time, let alone the
death penalty sanction of dismissal without prejudice.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jason Finkes, Esq. --
jason.finkes@dolleylaw.com -- Kevin J. Dolley, Esq. --
Kevin@dolleylaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC

They are also represented by:

     Cyrus Dashtaki, Esq.
     DASHTAKI LAW FIRM, LLC
     5205 Hampton Ave,
     St. Louis, MO 63139
     Tel: (314)932-7671

Henry Industries, Inc. is represented by Alisa Nickel Ehrlich,
Esq. -- alisa.ehrlich@stinson.com -- Molly E. Walsh, Esq. --
molly.walsh@stinson.com -- Stephanie N. Scheck, Esq. --
stephanie.scheck@stinson.com -- STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP


HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: "Joo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Joo, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., d/b/a Hillstone Restaurant and
George W. Biel, Case No. 36530187 (Fla. Cir. Ct., January 13,
2016) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation,
liquidated damages, and other relief under the Florida Minimum
Wage Act.

The Defendants operate the Hillstone restaurant, located at 201
Miracle Mile, Coral Gables, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
      17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 358-6800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-6808
      E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com


HONEST COMPANY: Faces Deceptive Advertising in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Blakely, writing for Inc., reports that for the second
time, Jessica Alba's Honest Company faces allegations that the
consumer product brand has been dishonest with its customers.  A
suit filed on Feb. 12 in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan
accuses Honest of deceptively advertising at least 41 of its
products -- including laundry detergent, children's toothpaste,
and soap -- as natural, plant-based, and free of harsh chemicals.

"These products in fact contain a spectacular array of synthetic
and toxic ingredients" including toxins phenoxyethanol and
methylisothiazolinone, plaintiffs Brad and Manon Buonosera allege
in their class-action complaint.

This isn't the first time Honest has faced such allegations.  A
previous class-action suit filed in California in September 2015
made similar accusations about the brand's advertising as well as
the effectiveness of its products. Honest is currently trying to
get that case dismissed.

In response to the latest suit, the company released the following
statement:

"The Honest Company takes its responsibility to our consumers
seriously and strongly stands behind our products.  These
allegations are without merit and we will vigorously defend this
baseless lawsuit.  Our formulations are made with integrity and we
remain steadfast in our commitment to transparency."

The negative attention the suits bring -- whether or not the cases
have any merit -- would present a challenge for any consumer
brand, but the timing is especially bad for Honest, which is
reportedly exploring an inital public offering.  Reports surfaced
recently that the company, whose most recent funding round valued
the company at more than $1.7 billion, is working with Goldman
Sachs and Morgan Stanley on a potential IPO.

"It creates an unknown liability to have one or more class actions
[against a company]," says Chris Dore -- cdore@edelson.com --
partner at Chicago-based Edelson, a law firm that specializes in
class-action suits and represents startups.  "They're attacking
the core of what this company claims to be . . . when you're on
the IPO circuit and trying to price your stock appropriately,
these things can be harmful."

To be clear, the Buonosera case is not about whether or not Honest
products have done harm to the plaintiffs; rather, the purpose of
the case, which centers on the allegation of false advertising, is
to prove that consumers aren't getting what they paid a premium
for.

Mr. Dore points to a similar case in California in 2004 where a
class-action suit was brought against a company called Kwikset
that sold locks prominently advertised as "made in the U.S."  It
turned out some of the parts on the locks, which sold at a higher
price than competitor brands, were made overseas.  The case went
all the way to the California Supreme Court and the consumers won.

What's different about the Honest case is that the particular
advertising claims at stake aren't defined or regulated by the
Food and Drug Administration. (The USDA regulates the term
"organic" only when it applies to agricultural products.)
So-called "natural" products that don't contain any "harsh
chemicals," as Honest's products are advertised, also fall into
this murky, unregulated territory.

"Who defines what 'harsh' chemicals mean?" Dore says.  Honest
defines them as chemicals that cause long-term health issues.

The Buonosera suit is seeking $5 million in damages, which is the
minimum requirement for a case seeking class-action status in a
federal court.

To be sure, proving a case worthy of class-action status is
notoriously difficult, vague advertising claims aside, Mr. Dore
says.  The burden is on the plaintiffs to prove that a lot of
consumers have had a similar experience of seeing the company's
advertising and labels and concluding they didn't get what they
paid for.

"Is 'all-natural' a term that everyone saw and cared about? Maybe
not.  Maybe they just cared that Jessica Alba is behind the
company," Mr. Dore says.


INDIANA PACKERS: Denies Allegations in Immigrant Hiring Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kristine Guerra, writing for IndyStar, reports that a day after
employees of a Northern Indiana pork processing plant were accused
of habitually hiring undocumented immigrants, the company
responded, saying it finds no merit in the allegations.

A statement on Feb. 17 from Indiana Packers Corp., based in
Delphi, about 20 miles northeast of Lafayette, points to a
May 2014 inspection by federal immigration officials.  It involved
a review of Indiana Packers's I-9 forms, which are required by
federal law to verify that employees are authorized to work in the
United States.

"The outcome -- in which the government thanked Indiana Packers
Corporation for its cooperation and concluded 'there is no basis
for further investigation' obviously speaks for itself,"
Jeff Feirick, the company's vice president for corporate planning,
said in the statement, citing a letter that U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement sent to the company months after the
inspection.

Two of the company's human resources employees are facing a
federal lawsuit accusing them of hiring undocumented immigrants
despite evidence they're using fake Social Security cards and IDs.
The suit claims the practice began at least as far back as 2012,
is rampant and ongoing and drove down wages for all hourly
employees.

The complaint was filed on Feb. 16 by Andrew O'Shea, a former
Indiana Packers employee, against Marisol Martinez, an employee in
the company's human resources department, and James Harding,
director of human resources. Martinez has been with Indiana
Packers for 15 years and Harding for seven years, Mr. Feirick
said.

Indiana Packers indicated in its statement that Mr. O'Shea worked
at the company only briefly.  He accepted a job as a production
worker in 2013, making about $10.50 an hour.  He was fired in 2014
for insubordination, said his attorney, Chicago lawyer Howard
Foster.  He was hired back but later quit.

Mr. Feirick said the company will have no further statement other
than its formal response, which will be filed in court.  The
lawsuit is seeking class-action status in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Indiana.

Indiana Packers, owned jointly by Japan-based companies Mitsubishi
Corp. and Itoham Foods Inc., is the largest employer in rural
Carroll County.

The company, founded in 1991, processes 3.5 million pounds of
fresh pork every day and produces and packages smoked meat
products, including ham, bacon and sausage, under the Indiana
Kitchen brand, according to a news release.  It employs more than
2,000 full-time employees and sells pork and bacon in the U.S.,
Japan and Mexico.  The majority of its U.S. customers are in the
Midwest.


INSPERITY INC: To Defend Against Class Suit Over 401(k) Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Insperity, Inc. intends to defend against a class action lawsuit
related to the Worksite Employee 401(k) Retirement Plan, the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015.

The Company said, "In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was
filed against us and the Company's third party discretionary
trustee of the Worksite Employee Plan (the "Plan") in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division on behalf of participants in the Plan, which is
the Insperity 401(k) retirement plan covering worksite employees.
This suit generally alleges that the Company's third party
discretionary trustee of the Plan and Insperity breached their
fiduciary duties to plan participants by selecting an Insperity
subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper for the Plan, by causing
participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees to
the Insperity subsidiary and by making imprudent investment
choices."

"We believe the Company has meritorious defenses and we intend to
vigorously defend this litigation."

Insperity, Inc., ("Insperity") provides an array of human
resources ("HR") and business solutions designed to help improve
business performance.


INT'L RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "McKee" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Evelyn McKee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. International Recovery Resources, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00753, (E.D.N.Y. February 12, 2016),
alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David M. Barshay, Esq.
     Sanders Law, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Tel: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 706-5055
     Email: dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com


INTERNATIONAL FOODSOURCE: Recalls Raw Pistachios Products
---------------------------------------------------------
International Foodsource, LLC issued a voluntary recall of various
raw pistachios products due to possible salmonella risk.
Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella can experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The products were distributed to food service and retail stores
nationally.

The affected products can be identified by:

  Product     IFS Lot         Weight   Best by      UPC
  -------     Number          ------   Date        ----
              -------                  -------
  Bulk Raw    76114 (Sam      30 LBS   4/29/16     N/A
  Whole       International   Boxes
  Pistachio   Lot# 102914)
  80% VP
  Valued     79249            5 oz    08/10/16    790429241428
  Naturals                    Bags
  Raw
  Pistachio
  Kernels
  IFS Club   78634            3 LBS   7/16/16     790429243026
  Bag                         Bags
  Pistachio
  Raw Shelled
  80% Wholes
  IFS Web    78998            30 LBS  07/30/16    790429239630
  Bulk                        Boxes
  Pistachio-
  Shelled 80%
  Whole

There are no reported illnesses in connection with this product.
This was brought to our attention by FDA after their contract
testing laboratory analysis revealed the presence of Salmonella in
one of the 19 retail 5oz bags of Valued Naturals Raw Pistachio
Kernels, Lot 79249. As a precaution, additional products are being
recalled as they may be contaminated since they were packed from
the master lot that came to our facility. We are working closely
with FDA to determine the cause of this situation.

Consumers who have purchased this recalled product should not
consume it. They should return it to the point of purchase.
Consumers with questions should call Customer Service at 973-361-
7044, 8:15 am - 4:30 pm, EST, Monday through Friday.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/yR8daM


J CREW: Recalls Girls' Puffer Coats Due to Chocking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
J. Crew Group Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary
recall of about 16,400 Girls' Crewcuts puffer coats (in addition,
63 units were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The buttons on the front of the coat can detach, posing a choking
hazard to young children.

This recall involves Crewcuts brand girls' puffer coats in dark
wine (maroon), navy (blue), and sun washed peony (pink) colors.
The coats are padded with geometric squares with six buttons down
the front of the coat. There is a faux fur trim lining the hood
and the coats were sold in girls sizes 2-14.  Only coats with
style number C9048 and PO numbers: 5055794, 5056319, 50565325,
8053606, 8053098 or 8053603 are included in the recall. The style
and PO number are printed on a care label sewn into the inside
seam of the coats along with "FA 15" or "HO 15."

J. Crew has received four reports of the buttons detaching. No
injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/w18Yyc

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at J.
Crew and Crewcuts stores nationwide, the J. Crew catalog and
online at www.jcrew.com from August 2015 through January 2016 for
about $155.
Importer(s)

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled coats and
return them to J. Crew or Crewcuts stores for a full refund.
Online purchasers will receive email notifications with
instructions for returning the coats for a full refund including a
postage-paid shipping label. J. Crew is contacting known
purchasers directly.


JARS LLC: Faces "Purdy" Complaint in Georgia State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Louise Purdy and Evelyn Riley, individually on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jars LLC and John Hane
Doe 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. STCV1600194, (Ga. State
Ct., Chatham County, February 12, 2016), allege damages.  The case
is assigned to Judge Hermann Coolidge.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Dwight T. Feemster, Esq.
     Post Office Box 10144
     Savannah GA, 31412
     Tel: (912)236 6311


JUST FOR MEN: Product Contains Harmful Chemicals, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Martin Publishing reports that plaintiffs have filed a
class action lawsuit in Missouri in connection with their use of
the Just For Men hair product line, saying that the defendants
omitted or concealed "critical safety information" regarding
exposure to chemicals in the product.

The class action lawsuit, filed Feb. 17 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri, specifically identifies the
chemical p-Phenylenediamine (PPD) as an ingredient in the Just For
Men hair product line.


KRAFT HEINZ: Sued in Calif. Over Mislabeling of Parmesan Cheese
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
San Francisco claims Kraft Heinz Foods advertises its grated
Parmesan cheese as "100% Parmesan cheese," though it's actually
3.8% percent cellulose, a filler "derived from wood pulp."


LIFE'S TOUCH: Faces "Davis" Lawsuit Seeking Overtime Payment
------------------------------------------------------------
La Tanna Davis on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. LIFE'S TOUCH HOME HEALTH, INC., UNIQUE PERSONAL CARE
INC., VANESSA RIDING, and MELVIN RIDING, Case 1:16-cv-00361-TWP-
DML (S.D.Ind., February 14, 2016), was filed on behalf of a class
consisting of all similarly situated persons who are or were
employed as home health aides or nurses for Defendants and were
allegedly not paid overtime wages.

Life's Touch Home Health, Inc. is a home health care and medical
staffing agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ronald E. Weldy, Esq.
     WELDY LAW
     8383 Craig Street, Suite 330
     Indianapolis, IN 46250
     Phone: (317) 842-6600
     Fax: (317) 842-6933
     E-mail: weldy@weldylaw.com


LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Judge Recommends Dismissal of RICO Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
LifePoint Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the United States
Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Alabama has
recommended that certain claims in a class action lawsuit be
dismissed with prejudice and that the court not exercise
jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, resulting in
those being dismissed without prejudice.

"We and/or Vaughan Regional Medical Center and several of our
subsidiaries, as well as Dr. Seydi V. Aksut and certain parties
unaffiliated with us, are named defendants in 26 individual
lawsuits filed since December 2014, and two putative class action
lawsuits, all filed in the Circuit Court of Dallas County,
Alabama," the Company said.  These lawsuits allege that patients
at Vaughan Regional Medical Center received improper
interventional cardiology procedures.

One of the putative class action lawsuits, filed on November 21,
2014, seeks certification of a class consisting of all Alabama
citizens who underwent an invasive cardiology procedure at any
LifePoint owned Alabama hospital and who received notice regarding
the medical necessity of that procedure.  The other putative class
action lawsuit, filed on February 6, 2015, seeks certification of
a class of individuals that underwent an interventional cardiology
procedure that was not medically necessary and performed by Dr.
Aksut.  This action asserts, among other claims, claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"),
which, if successful, would result in the awarding of treble
damages for any injury resulting from the RICO violation and
attorneys' fees.

"In March 2015, we removed this action to the U.S. District Court
in Mobile, Alabama and filed a motion to dismiss and for summary
judgment, as well as a stay of discovery pending resolution of
these motions," the Company said.

On April 17, 2015 the court entered an order granting the
requested stay of discovery. On November 17, 2015, the United
States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Alabama filed
a Report and Recommendation, wherein she recommended, among other
things, that the RICO claim be dismissed with prejudice and that
the court not exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims, resulting in those being dismissed without prejudice.

LifePoint Health, Inc., formerly known as LifePoint Hospitals,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, acting through its subsidiaries,
owns and operates community hospitals, regional health systems,
physician practices, outpatient centers, and post-acute
facilities.


LIPARI FOODS: Recalls Raw Pistachio Products Due to Salmonella
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lipari Foods, LLC, of Warren, Michigan, has issued a voluntary
recall of various raw pistachio products packaged by sister
company JLM due to potential Salmonella risk. Salmonella is an
organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella can
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea,
vomiting, and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection
with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the
bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial
infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The products were distributed to food service and retail stores
throughout Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Wisconsin and West Virginia.

Products were distributed under the following brand names: Blue
Goose Market, Hollywood Market, Market Fresh Fine Foods, Roger's
Foodland, Marv & Alison's Marketplace, Long Lake Market, Martin's,
Holiday Market, The Purple Onion, Trentwood Farms, Angeli Foods,
Market Square, Village Food Market, Martha's Vineyard, Remke
Market or as generic product without branding.

The affected products can be identified by:

             Lipari                          Best Buy
  Product    Product #    Lot #     Weight    Date       UPC
  -------    ---------    -----     ------    --------   ---
  Fancy       583524      26201508  9oz       8/25/2016  094776-
  Fruit &                           (254.7g)             144594
  Nut Mix                           Tubs
  (Blue
  Goose
  Market,
  Hollywood
  Market,
  Market
  Fresh
  Fine
  Foods,
  Market
  Square,
  Roger's
  Foodland,
  Trentwood
  Farms)
  Fancy       583524      07201510  9oz       10/6/2016  094776-
  Fruit &                           (254.7g)             144594
  Nut Mix                           Tubs
  (Blue
  Goose
  Market,
  Hollywood
  Market,
  Market
  Fresh
  Fine
  Foods,
  Market
  Square,
  Roger's
  Foodland,
  Trentwood
  Farms)




  Fancy       583524      04201512  9oz       12/3/2016  094776-
  Fruit &                           (254.7g)             144594
  Nut Mix                           Tubs
  (Blue
  Goose
  Market,
  Hollywood
  Market,
  Market
  Fresh
  Fine
  Foods,
  Market
  Square,
  Roger's
  Foodland,
  Trentwood
  Farms)
  Fancy       583524      13201601  9oz       1/12/2017  094776-
  Fruit &                           (254.7g)             144594
  Nut Mix                           Tubs
  (Blue
  Goose
  Market,
  Hollywood
  Market,
  Market
  Fresh
  Fine
  Foods,
  Market
  Square,
  Roger's
  Foodland,
  Trentwood
  Farms)
  Fancy       582164      26201508  9oz       8/25/2016  094776-
  Fruit & Nut             26201508  (254.7g)             144594
  Mix                               Tubs
  (Generic)
  Fancy
  Fruit &     582164      07201510  9oz       10/6/2016  094776-
  Nut Mix                          (254.7g)              144594
(Generic)                          Tubs
  Fancy
  Fruit &     582164      04201512  9oz       12/3/2016  094776-
  Nut Mix                          (254.7g)              144594
(Generic)                          Tubs
  Fancy
  Fruit &     582164      13201601  9oz       12/3/2016  094776-
  Nut Mix                          (254.7g)              144594
(Generic)                          Tubs
  Fancy       464677      12201508  25 Pound  8/11/2016  094776-
  Fruit &                           Bag                  129195
  Nut Mix
  (Generic)

  Fancy       464677      01201509  25 Pound  8/11/2016  094776-
  Fruit &                           Bag                  129195
  Nut Mix
  (Generic)
  Pistachio   481966      22201508  5 Pound   8/21/2016  094776-
  Raw Whole                         Bag                  132119
  Shelled
  (Generic)
  Pistachio   481966      14201509  5 Pound   9/13/2016  094776-
  Raw Whole                         Bag                  132119
  Shelled
  (Generic)
  Pistachio   333803      25201511  9oz       11/24/16   760208-
  Raw Whole                        (254.7g)              123818
  Shelled                           Tubs
  (Generic)
  Pistachio   333803      25201511  9oz       10/20/16   760208-
  Raw Whole                        (254.7g)              123818
  Shelled                           Tubs
  (Generic)
  Pistachio   333803      26201508  9oz       8/25/16    760208-
  Raw Whole                        (254.7g)              123818
  Shelled                           Tubs
  (Generic)
  Pistachio   333803      29201601  9oz       1/28/17    760208-
  Raw Whole                        (254.7g)              123818
  Shelled                           Tubs
  (Generic)
  Pistachio   333803      04201601  9oz       1/3/17    760208-
  Raw Whole                        (254.7g)             123818
  Shelled                           Tubs
  (Generic)
  Pistachio   206661      25201511  9oz       11/24/16  760208-
  Meat Raw                         (254.7g)             123818
  (Marv &                          Tubs
  Alison's
  Marketplace,
  Long Lake
  Market,
  Martin's,
  Holiday
  Market, The
  Purple Onion,
  Trentwood
  Farms, Angeli
  Foods, Market
  Square,
  Village Food
  Market,
  Martha's
  Vineyard,
  Remke Market)
  Pistachio   206661      25201510  9oz       10/20/16  760208-
  Meat Raw                         (254.7g)             123818
  (Marv &                          Tubs
  Alison's
  Marketplace,
  Long Lake
  Market,
  Martin's,
  Holiday
  Market, The
  Purple Onion,
  Trentwood
  Farms, Angeli
  Foods, Market
  Square,
  Village Food
  Market,
  Martha's
  Vineyard,
  Remke Market)
  Pistachio   206661      25201508  9oz       8/25/16   760208-
  Meat Raw                         (254.7g)             123818
  (Marv &                          Tubs
  Alison's
  Marketplace,
  Long Lake
  Market,
  Martin's,
  Holiday
  Market, The
  Purple Onion,
  Trentwood
  Farms, Angeli
  Foods, Market
  Square,
  Village Food
  Market,
  Martha's
  Vineyard,
  Remke Market)
  Pistachio   206661      25201501  9oz       1/28/17   760208-
  Meat Raw                         (254.7g)             123818
  (Marv &                          Tubs
  Alison's
  Marketplace,
  Long Lake
  Market,
  Martin's,
  Holiday
  Market, The
  Purple Onion,
  Trentwood
  Farms, Angeli
  Foods, Market
  Square,
  Village Food
  Market,
  Martha's
  Vineyard,
  Remke Market)

There are no reported illnesses in connection with these products
to date.

This was brought to our attention by our supplier, International
Foodsource, LLC who recalled raw pistachios after testing
performed by an FDA contract testing laboratory revealed the
presence of Salmonella. As a precaution, Lipari Foods products are
being recalled as they have the potential to be contaminated due
to the fact that they were packed from an affected lot that was
received from International Foodsource, LLC. We are working
closely with International Foodsource, LLC and the FDA to
understand the cause of the situation and ensure that all affected
product has been pulled from commerce.

Consumers who have purchased this recalled product should not
consume it. They should return it to the point of purchase.

Consumers with questions should call Customer Service at 1-800-
729-3354, 8:15 am - 4:30 pm, EST, Monday through Friday.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/uYDA1z


LIVANOVA PLC: Faces "Baker" Class Suit Over Personal Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edward Baker and Jack Miller, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LivaNova PLC, formerly
known as Sorin Group, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00260-JEJ, (M.D.
Pa., February 12, 2016), alleges personal injury.  The case is
assigned to Judge John E. Jones, III.

LivaNova, PLC -- http://www.livanova.com/-- is an London,
England-based medical device manufacturer. The company develops
devices used for cardiac surgery, neuromodulation and cardiac
rhythm management.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David S. Senoff, Esq.
     ANAPOL WEISS
     One Logan Square
     130 N. 18th Street, Suite 1600
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 735-1130
     Email: dsenoff@anapolweiss.com

          - and -

     Melissa F. Hague, Esq.
     ANAPOL SCHWARTS
     1710 Spruce Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 735-1130

          - and -

     Paola Pearson, Esq.
     One Logan Square
     130 North 18th Street, Suite 1600
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 735-1130

          - and -

     Sol H. Weiss, Esq.
     ANAPOL, SCHWARTZ, WEISS, COHAN, FELDMAN & SMALLEY, P.C.
     1710 Spruce Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 735-2098
     Email: sweiss@anapolschwartz.com

          - and -

     William M. Audet, Esq.
     AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
     221 Main Street, Suite 1460
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Tel: (415) 568-2555


LOUISIANA: "Marshall" Case Wins Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted in
part Plaintiff's "Motion to Proceed As a Collective Action, for
Court-Authorized Notice, and for Disclosure of the Names and
Addresses of the Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs" in the case
captioned, DONALD L. MARSHALL, JR. v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, et al.,
SECTION: "G" (2), Case No. 15-1128 (E.D. La.).

On April 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint against Sheriff Marlin N. Gusman, in his official
capacity as Sheriff of Orleans Parish, and the Law Enforcement
District for the Parish of New Orleans seeking unpaid wages and
overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Marshall
alleges that, in the three years prior to filing his complaint, he
worked for Defendants as a deputy sheriff, and that he and other
similarly situated individuals were not paid in compliance with
the FLSA.

Plaintiff Donald L. Marshall, Jr. moved to proceed as a collective
action, for court-authorized notice, and for disclosure of the
names and addresses of the potential opt-in plaintiffs. He argued
that he was hired by Orleans Parish Sheriff's Department to work
as a deputy, with duties including prisoner transport,
supervision, and paperwork. Marshall claims that, under policies
that were uniform throughout Defendants' operations, he and other
similarly situated employees were not paid the proper overtime or
straight time wages for their work for Defendants.

According to Defendants, for the purposes of the lawsuit, the
conditionally certified class, if any, should be limited to the
dates of April 9, 2013-April 9, 2015, rather than a three-year
statute of limitations as authorized by 29 U.S.C. Sec. 255(a),
because Plaintiff "has failed to put forth even a prima facie case
of willfulness such that the three (3) year statute of limitations
would apply," and "as such, the relevant time period is two (2)
years prior to the filing of the lawsuit by Plaintiff."

In her Order dated January 22, 2016, available at
http://is.gd/R3lhAmfrom Leagle.com, Judge Brown found that
Marshall's allegedly unique attendance record does not bar
conditional certification in the matter and that conditional
certification of a three-year class is appropriate at the stage,
subject to any motion for decertification following discovery.

The Court ordered that notice shall be sent to: "All individuals
who worked or are working for Defendants, Marlin N. Gusman, in his
official capacity as Sheriff of Orleans Parish, and the Law
Enforcement District for the Parish of Orleans, who are or were
employed at any of the following: Civil District Court; Criminal
District Court; Municipal District Court; the Temporary Detention
Center; the Orleans Parish Prison; Templeman Phase V; the Tents;
and the Conchetta Facility, performing the duties of a sheriff's
deputy, and working on a tour of duty shift schedule, in the three
years directly preceding April 9, 2015, and who are or were
eligible for overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Sec. 207, and who did not receive overtime pay or straight
time pay for hours actually worked." And that the parties shall
meet and confer regarding the form and content of the proposed
notice and submit a joint proposed notice within 10 days of the
date of the Order.

Donald L. Marshall is represented by:

     Richard Alvin Tonry, II, Esq.
     Brian L. Glorioso, Esq.
     Douglass Evans Alongia, Esq.
     Raymond Joseph Brinson, Esq.
     TONRY, BRINSON & GLORIOSO, LLC
     245 Pontchartian Dr.
     Slidell, LA 70458
     Tel: (985)643-7007

Defendants are represented by Henry Philip Julien, Jr., Esq. -
hpj@kullmanlaw.com -- Adria N. Kimbrough, Esq. --
ank@kullmanlaw.com -- Eric R. Miller, Esq. -- em@kullmanlaw.com
-- KULLMAN FIRM, Inemesit U. O'Boyle, Esq. -- iuo@chehardy.com --
James McClendon Williams, Esq. -- jmw@chehardy.com -- CHEHARDY,
SHERMAN, ELLIS, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, LLP


LTD FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bordeaux" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roberta Bordeaux, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Ltd Financial Services, L.P., et al., Case No. 2:16-
cv-00243-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., January 13, 2016) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Ltd Financial Services, L.P. owns and operates a debt collection
agency headquartered in Houston, Texas.

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


LUCINI ITALIA: Faces "Riedel" Suit Alleging Product Mislabeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Riedel and John Does 1-100, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lucini Italia
Company, Defendant, Case No. CV-16169 (E.D.N.Y., January 13,
2016), seeks:

* restitution and disgorgement of all amounts illegally obtained
   by Defendant,

* recoverable compensatory and other damages,

* actual and/or statutory damages for injuries,

* enjoinment from unfair and deceptive business acts and
   practices,

* statutory pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,

* reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and other relief

resulting from negligent misrepresentation, breach of express
warranty, unjust enrichment and violation of New York General
Business Law Sec. 349 (Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act)
and the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2301 et. seq.

Defendant sold Plaintiff Lucini Delicate Cucumber and Shallot
Vinaigrette, Lucini Bold Parmesan and Garlic Vinaigrette and
Lucini Tuscan Balsamic Vinaigrette which Defendants claim as all-
natural as marked on their respective labels. However, Plaintiff
alleges that the products contain processed ingredients.

Lucini Italia Company is a corporation organized under the laws of
Illinois with its headquarters at 1367 East Lassen Suite A-l,
Chico, CA 95973. Defendant develops, markets and sells food
products under the "Lucini(R)" brand throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MANAGED TECHNOLOGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Curtis Associates, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Managed Technology, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-00291-DLC (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2016) seeks to put an end
to the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls.

Managed Technology, Inc. is a computer support and services
company located at 3920 Veterans Memorial Hwy #5a, Bohemia, NY
11716.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq.
      BELLIN & ASSOCIATES
      85 Miles Avenue
      White Plains, NY 10606
      Telephone: (212) 358-5345
      Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
      E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com


MARATHON OIL: "D'Aponti" Suit Alleges Employee Misclassification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirt D'Aponti, On Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly
Situated v. MARATHON OIL COMPANY and WORLDWIDE SAFETY & SECURITY,
LLC, Case 5:16-cv-00152-OLG (W.D.Tex., February 12, 2016), alleges
that Plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors by
Marathon and/or Worldwide, and are/were instead employees of
Marathon and/or Worldwide under the Fair Labor Standards Act's
economic realities test.

Marathon Oil Corporation is an international independent energy
company engaged in exploration and production, oil sands mining
and integrated gas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
     BARON & BUDD, P.C.
     3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
     Dallas, TX 75219
     Phone: (214) 521-3605
     Fax: (214) 520-1181
     E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


MASTERCARD INC: Accrued $709MM Liability for Merchant Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as of December 31,
2015, MasterCard had accrued a liability of $709 million as a
reserve for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and
anticipated opt-out merchant cases.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against MasterCard International,
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a
number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in
the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or
conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of
these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state
law. The complaints allege, among other things, that MasterCard,
Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the
price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules
(including the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws
and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and
services.

The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No.
1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
that seeks treble damages.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the
"IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between
MasterCard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO:
(1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent
conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted
to release, without adequate consideration, MasterCard's right to
assess them for MasterCard's litigation liabilities. The class
plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including,
but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.

In February 2011, MasterCard and MasterCard International entered
into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement
sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa
International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions; and (2) a MasterCard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of financial institutions.  The agreements
provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities
which MasterCard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions
may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse
judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant
litigations.

Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the
event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the
financial institutions and MasterCard, MasterCard would pay 12% of
the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a
settlement involving only MasterCard and the financial
institutions with respect to their issuance of MasterCard cards,
MasterCard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such
settlement.

In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including
with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that
were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus
judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement. MasterCard also
agreed to provide class members with a short-term reduction in
default credit interchange rates and to modify certain of its
business practices, including its No Surcharge Rule.

Objections to the settlement were filed by both merchants and
certain competitors, including Discover. Discover's objections
include a challenge to the settlement on the grounds that certain
of the rule changes agreed to in the settlement constitute a
restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The court granted final approval of the settlement in December
2013. Objectors to the settlement appealed the decision, and an
oral argument was heard on the appeal in September 2015.

Separately, the objectors filed a motion in July 2015 to set aside
the approval order, contending that the merchant class was
inadequately represented and the settlement was insufficient
because a counsel for several individual merchant plaintiffs
improperly exchanged communications with a defense counsel who at
the time was representing MasterCard.

Merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the MasterCard
and Visa purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out
of the class settlement. MasterCard anticipates that most of the
larger merchants who opted out of the settlement will initiate
separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out
complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in
various jurisdictions.

The defendants have consolidated all of these matters (except for
one state court action in New Mexico) in front of the same federal
district court that is overseeing the approval of the settlement.

In July 2014, the district court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the opt-out merchant complaints for failure to state a
claim.

MasterCard recorded a pre-tax charge of $770 million in the fourth
quarter of 2011 and an additional $20 million pre-tax charge in
the second quarter of 2012 relating to the settlement agreements.
In 2012, MasterCard paid $790 million with respect to the
settlements, of which $726 million was paid into a qualified cash
settlement fund related to the merchant class litigation.

As of December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, MasterCard had $541
million and $540 million, in the qualified cash settlement fund
classified as restricted cash on its balance sheet. The class
settlement agreement provided for a return to the defendants of a
portion of the class cash settlement fund, based upon the
percentage of purchase volume represented by the opt-out
merchants. This resulted in $164 million from the cash settlement
fund being returned to MasterCard in January 2014 and reclassified
at that time from restricted cash to cash and cash equivalents.

In the fourth quarter of 2013, MasterCard recorded an incremental
net pre-tax charge of $95 million related to the opt-out
merchants, representing a change in its estimate of probable
losses relating to these matters.

MasterCard has executed settlement agreements with a number of
opt-out merchants and no adjustment to the amount previously
recorded was deemed necessary.

As of December 31, 2015, MasterCard had accrued a liability of
$709 million as a reserve for both the merchant class litigation
and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases.

The portion of the accrued liability relating to the opt-out
merchants does not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the
opt-out merchant matters were litigated to a final outcome, in
which case MasterCard cannot estimate the potential liability.
MasterCard's estimate involves significant judgment and may change
depending on progress in settlement negotiations or depending upon
decisions in any opt-out merchant cases. In addition, in the event
that the merchant class litigation settlement approval is
overturned, a negative outcome in the litigation could have a
material adverse effect on MasterCard's results of operations,
financial position and cash flows.

MasterCard is a technology company in the global payments industry
that connects consumers, financial institutions, merchants,
governments and businesses worldwide, enabling them to use
electronic forms of payment instead of cash and checks.


MASTERCARD INC: Still Faces Class Suits by Canadian Merchants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend against class action lawsuits filed by
Canadian merchants.

In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced
against MasterCard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. That
suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a
previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to
the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in MasterCard's
favor) related to certain MasterCard rules related to point-of-
sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no
surcharge" rules. The suit sought compensatory and punitive
damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief.

In the first half of 2011, additional purported class action
lawsuits containing similar allegations to the Quebec class action
were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against MasterCard,
Visa and a number of large Canadian financial institutions. The
British Columbia suit seeks compensatory damages in unspecified
amounts, and the Ontario suit seeks compensatory damages of $5
billion. The British Columbia and Ontario suits also seek punitive
damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief,
interest and legal costs.

The Quebec suit was later amended to include the same defendants
and similar claims as in the British Columbia and Ontario suits.
With respect to the status of the proceedings: (1) the Quebec suit
has been stayed, (2) the Ontario suit is being temporarily
suspended while the British Columbia suit proceeds, and (3) the
British Columbia appellate court issued an order in August 2015
allowing several of the merchants' claims to proceed on a class
basis.

Additional proposed class action complaints have been filed in
Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in
the British Columbia and Ontario suits.

"If the class action lawsuits are ultimately successful, negative
decisions could have a significant adverse impact on the revenue
of MasterCard's Canadian customers and on MasterCard's overall
business in Canada and could result in substantial damage awards,"
the Company said.

MasterCard is a technology company in the global payments industry
that connects consumers, financial institutions, merchants,
governments and businesses worldwide, enabling them to use
electronic forms of payment instead of cash and checks.


MASTERCARD INC: ATM Surcharge Suits Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend against the so-called ATM Non-Discrimination
Rule Surcharge Complaints.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both
MasterCard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").  Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals
that operate ATM terminals in the United States with the
discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the
terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and Visa
have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that
require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges
for transactions processed over MasterCard's and Visa's respective
networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions
over other networks accepted at the same ATM.  Plaintiffs seek
both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages
they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations
and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs
have not quantified their damages although they allege that they
expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.
Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").  The claims in these actions largely mirror
the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although
these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM
services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-
bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to
treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the
alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys'
fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they
allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of
dollars.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the
district court granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals reversed the district court's order in August 2015 and
sent the case back for further proceedings.

MasterCard is a technology company in the global payments industry
that connects consumers, financial institutions, merchants,
governments and businesses worldwide, enabling them to use
electronic forms of payment instead of cash and checks.


MAVERICK OIL: "Campos" Alleges Fair Labor Standards Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN CAMPOS v. MAVERICK OIL TOOLS LLC & JIMMY LEON DANE,
Individually, Case 6:16-cv-00008 (S.D.Tex., February 12, 2016),
seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants offer hole completion and other oilfield services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jack Siegel, Esq.
     SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
     10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
     Dallas, TX 75231
     Phone: (214) 706-0834
     Fax: (469) 339-0204

        - and -

     J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
     Jay Forester, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 749-1400
     Fax: (214) 749-1010


MAYTAG DAIRY: Recalls Raw Milk Blue Cheese Due to Listeria
----------------------------------------------------------
Maytag Dairy Farms in Newton, IA announced a voluntary recall of
lot number 150482 of Maytag Raw Milk Blue Cheese due to possible
contamination with Listeria monocytogenes. This follows the recall
of lot number 150481 that was announced this past weekend.
Lot 150482 includes approximately 1100 pounds of cheese, some of
which has been distributed to retail locations prior to the
initial recall by Maytag Dairy Farms. No cheese has been
distributed since the initial positive test for Listeria
monocytogenes.

The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship's Dairy
Products Control Bureau discovered the possible contamination as
part of the follow-up testing of cheese products from the
facility. To date there have been no reported illnesses linked to
the product.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged to not
consume them. Customers can call Maytag Dairy Farms at 800-247-
2458 or 641-791-2010 to arrange for a refund and return of the
product.

Department has been in contact with the Iowa Department of Public
Health and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding this
situation. Listeria is a pathogen found in the environment. The
very young, elderly, and those who are immunocompromised are
especially susceptible if they eat product contaminated with
listeria. More information can be found on the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) website at www.cdc.gov/listeria/


MAYTAG DAIRY: Recalls Raw Milk Blue Cheese Lot Number 150481
------------------------------------------------------------
Maytag Dairy Farms in Newton, IA today announced a voluntary
recall of lot number 150481 of Maytag Raw Milk Blue Cheese due to
possible contamination with Listeria monocytogenes.

The recalled product was packaged on Jan. 6, 2016 and is packaged
in 4 oz. wedges, 8 oz. wedges, 2 pound wheels, 4 pound wheels and
5 pound crumbles (batch numbers 960020, 960037, 960040, 960041,
960049, 960053, 960054). The lot included 896 pounds of cheese and
was distributed to HoQ restaurant in Des Moines, the Bear
Restaurant in Ankeny, Wine Experience in West Des Moines, Fareway
in Newton, Lomar Distributing, Inc. in Des Moines or purchased
directly from Maytag Dairy Farms.

The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship's Dairy
Products Control Bureau discovered the possible contamination
during routine testing. To date there have been no reported
illnesses linked to the product.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. Customers can call Maytag Dairy Farms at 800-247-
2458 or 641-791-2010 to arrange for a refund and return of the
product.

Department has been in contact with the Iowa Department of Public
Health and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and there have
been no reported cases of Listeria monocytogenes since the product
was package in January 2016. Listeria is a pathogen found in the
environment. The very young, elderly, and those who are
immunocompromised are especially susceptible if they eat product
contaminated with listeria. More information can be found on the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website at
www.cdc.gov/listeria/.


MAYTAG DAIRY: Recalls Blue Cheese Products Due to Listeria
----------------------------------------------------------
Maytag Dairy Farms is voluntarily recalling 5 lots of "Maytag
Blue" blue cheese wedges and wheels and 15 batches of blue cheese
crumbles because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled product was distributed through retail stores,
restaurants, and direct mail orders nationwide between December
11, 2015, and February 11, 2016. Affected products are packaged as
follows:

  Product(s)        Lot #s
  ----------        ------
  4 oz. wedges
  8 oz. wedges
  2 pound wheels
  4 pound wheels   150479, 150480, 150481, 150482, 150483

  Product          Batch #s
  -------          --------
  5 pound          950826, 960020, 960037, 960040, 960041,
  crumbles         960049, 960053, 960054, 960067, 960068,
                   960069, 960070, 960071, 960072, 960073

The lot number or batch number appears on the side or the bottom
of the product.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
issue.

The potential for contamination was discovered after testing by
the State of Iowa revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes
in two lots of product. Maytag Dairy Farms has voluntarily
suspended production and distribution while the company
collaborates with FDA and the State of Iowa to determine the cause
of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged to discard
them immediately and not consume them. Customers can call Maytag
Dairy Farms at 800-247-2458 or 641-791-2010 Monday - Friday 9AM-
5PM CST to arrange for a refund and return of the product.

Maytag apologized for any temporary inconvenience or concern that
its voluntary recall is causing its customers and the families who
have enjoyed our products for generations. To learn more and for
updates, please visit www.maytagdairyfarms.com.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/A2yTmP


MAZDA CANADA: Court Applies De Minimis Principle in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claude Marseille, Esq., of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, in an
article for JDSupra, report that in its November 2015 Blakes
Bulletin: De Minimis Rule is Back in the Context of Class Actions,
the law firm analyzed the Sofio c. Organisme canadien de
reglementation du commerce des valeurs mobiliŠres (Sofio) decision
of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Court), which applied the legal
maxim de minimis non curat praetor, according to which courts
should not concern themselves with trifles, in the context of a
class action.  This principle has been recognized again by the
Court in the recent Fortin c. Mazda Canada Inc. (Fortin) decision.

CONTEXT

The class action in Fortin results from a latent defect that
affected the locking system of a car model marketed in 2004.
According to the Court, a push, a kick or a punch strategically
directed above the handle of the driver's door was enough to
neutralize the vehicle's locking system. Based on the provisions
of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, the Court found that the
owners of this car model who have been victims of theft were
entitled to compensation for the cost of the required repairs, the
value of the stolen items and the cost of related insurance
deductibles.

Non-monetary damages were also claimed by class members respecting
the risk of having their car vandalized and the continual search
for safe parking spaces, as well as the troubles, damages and
inconvenience resulting from visits to their car dealership to
repair the locking system.

REASONS

The Court rejected the claims for non-monetary damages based on
the Sofio decision and the de minimis maxim.

Regarding the class members' concerns of the risk of having their
car vandalized and the continual search for safe parking spaces,
the Court first noted that the application was silent on this
aspect.  It added that the evidence was tenuous in this respect,
to the point where the damages claimed seemed hardly provable.

With respect to the trouble, damages and inconvenience resulting
from visits to the car dealership to repair the locking system,
the Court shared the view of the trial judge, who rejected these
damages on the ground that they were ordinary life inconveniences.
First, according to the Court, because of its highly individual
aspect, this part of the claim does not lend itself to collective
compensation.  Second, even assuming that the class members have
experienced such inconveniences, the Court concluded that
"obviously, they do not exceed the normal inconveniences that all
vehicle owners face from time to time in the course of a normal
year", and adopted the following proposition:

[171]  "The law of civil liability does not aim to compensate a
party for all frustrations and sensitivities related to any
failure on the part of those with whom he or she interacts, if
only because of the great degree of subjectivity that comes with
requests of this nature. Also, it is not appropriate to seize the
courts for individual claims based on trivial consequences [...],
rules often expressed contained in the form of the Latin maxim de
minimis non curat lex."

CONCLUSION

In two recent decisions, the Court of Appeal of Quebec has upheld
the application of the de minimis principle in class action
matters to reject claims based on "troubles, damages and
inconvenience" that do not exceeded normal inconveniences in the
circumstances.  The Court also confirmed that the rule is,
notably, based on the principle of proportionality, now a guiding
principle of Quebec civil procedure, under which it is not
appropriate to monopolize judicial resources for individual claims
based on trivial consequences.  Thus, it can safely be said that
the de minimis principle has made a comeback in the Quebec law of
class actions.


MCCAIN FOODS: Recalls Bacon Fritters Due to Plastic Materials
-------------------------------------------------------------
McCain Foods USA, Inc., a Lisle, Ill. establishment, is recalling
approximately 25,215 pounds of bacon fritters that may be
contaminated with extraneous plastic materials, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The potato, egg, cheese, and bacon fritters were produced on Nov.
11, 2015. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 1,681 cases bearing a batch code 1001487402 containing four
      3.75-lb. plastic vacuum-packed packages containing "McCain
      EARLY RISERS Potato, Egg, Cheese & Bacon Fritters."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
18846" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were
shipped to food service distributors in Arkansas, Florida, Iowa,
Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Oklahoma, Ohio, Texas,
Tennessee, and Utah.

The problem was discovered after the firm received a consumer
complaint and subsequently notified an in-plant FSIS inspector.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. FSIS has received no additional
reports of injury or illness from consumption of these products.
Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a
healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.


MERCEDES BENZ: Faces "Lynevych" Suit in N.J. Over Emission Test
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
in a federal class action in Newark, New Jersey, similar to the
Volkswagen scandal, Mercedes-Benz is accused of programming
shutoff devices in its "Clean Diesel" engines to disguise
pollution levels "more than 65 times higher" than permitted by
law.

Lead plaintiff Ulyana Lynevych sued Mercedes-Benz USA on Feb. 18.
She claims that road testing has showed that the Mercedes vehicles
"emit dangerous oxides of nitrogen at a level at a level more than
65 times higher than the United States Environmental Protection
Agency permits."

Mercedes "vigorously" marketed its BlueTEC diesel engine as "the
world's cleanest and most advanced diesel" with "ultra-low
emissions, high fuel economy and responsive performance" that
emitted "up to 30 percent lower greenhouse-gas emissions than
gasoline," Lynevych says in the 58-page lawsuit.

Mercedes claims that its BlueTEC diesel engines "convert the
nitrogen oxide emissions into harmless nitrogen and oxygen" and
"reduces the nitrogen oxides in the exhaust gases by up to 90
percent." It calls its Clean Diesel fleet "earth friendly," and
adds that "with BlueTEC, cleaner emissions are now an equally
appealing benefit," according to the complaint. "In fact, Mercedes
proclaims itself as 'No. 1 in CO2 emissions for luxury vehicles.'"

But Mercedes programmed its BlueTEC vehicles to turn off nitrogen
reduction systems when ambient temperatures dropped below 50
degrees Fahrenheit, Lynevych says. She says that Mercedes has
acknowledged that a shutoff device in the engine management of
some BlueTEC diesel cars stops nitrogen scrubbing.

Road testing showed that the Clean Diesel cars emit 19 times more
nitrogen than permitted by U.S. standards and 7.5 times more than
the Euro 6 standard, according to the complaint.

Instantaneous nitrogen values in the vehicles peaked at 2000
mg/km: 25 times the Euro 6 standard and 65 times higher than the
federal limit, Lynevych claims.

The Mercedes models affected include ML 320, ML 350, GL 320, E320,
S350, R320, E Class, GL Class, ML Class, R Class, S Class, GLK
Class, GLE Class and Sprinter, the complaint states.

"Mercedes manufactures, designs, markets, sells, and leases
certain 'BlueTEC Clean Diesel' vehicles as if they were 'reduced
emissions' cars that comply with all applicable regulatory
standards, when in fact, these Mercedes vehicles are not 'clean
diesels' and emit more pollutants than allowed by federal and
state laws -- and far more than their gasoline fueled
counterparts," the lawsuit states.

Volkswagen faces more than 100 class action lawsuits and billions
of dollars in potential fines on similar claims: that it
programmed "clean diesel" engines to turn off emissions controls
when vehicles were not being tested.

VW admitted in September 2015 that 11 million diesel autos
worldwide had the cheating software installed. At least 600,000 of
them were sold in the United States, the federal government
claimed in January. That lawsuit included Volkswagen, Porsche and
Audi engines.

Lynevych's attorney Steve Berman, with Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, called Mercedes' environmental efforts a "sham."

"Mercedes never divulged to consumers that BlueTEC diesels pollute
at illegal levels when driven at lower temperatures and that its
'champion of the environment' mantra was a sham," Berman said. "It
appears that Mercedes has been caught in a similar scheme as
Volkswagen and programmed these BlueTEC vehicles to pollute, all
the while reaping profits from those who have fallen victim to its
aggressive and deceptive eco-conscious branding.

"Mercedes' deception involves a cover-up of even higher levels of
pollution, and consumers paid high prices for these luxury
vehicles they thought were clean, only to be forced to drive
diesel cars dirtier than their gasoline counterparts."

Mercedes spokesman Matthias Brock told Courthouse News: "We
believe the complaint is without merit. . . . We are reviewing the
documents and will defend ourselves."

Lynevych seeks class certification, an injunction and punitive
damages for violation of consumer protection laws, breach of
contract, fraud and deceptive trade.

She is represented by James Cecchi -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com --
with Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Angelo of Roseland,
N.J., and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro's Seattle office.

                           *     *     *

Autoblog reports that Mercedes-Benz touts its BlueTec diesel
technology as a clean, green-friendly "hero" of the environment.
But certain diesel-powered models from the company sold in the
United States contain defeat devices that hinder effectiveness of
pollution-control systems, according to a lawsuit.

The class-action civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of
New Jersey alleges the company's nitrogen oxide reduction system
turns off when ambient temperatures drop below 50 degrees
Fahrenheit.  As a result, affected cars pollute the environment at
an average of 19 times allowable federal standards. In some cases,
NOx emissions were 65 times higher than those limits.

"Mercedes labeled its BlueTec vehicles as 'earth friendly,'
selling consumers the false notion that these diesel cars were
less harmful to the environment, but Mercedes never divulged to
consumers that BlueTec diesels pollute at illegal levels when
driven at lower temperatures and that its 'champion of the
environment' mantra was a sham," said Steve Berman, managing
partner at Hagens Berman, the Texas-based firm which filed the
lawsuit, which seeks punitive damages related to the lowered value
of the vehicles.

"Mercedes never disclosed to consumers that Mercedes diesels with
BlueTec engines may be 'clean' diesels when it is warm, but are
'dirty' diesels when it is not," the court filing said.  "Mercedes
never disclosed that, when the temperature drops below 50 degrees,
it prioritizes engine power and profits over people." The lawsuit
alleges plaintiffs suffered damages because of "deception,"
because they thought they were buying environmentally friendly
cars.

Mercedes-Benz did not respond to a request for comment.  A
spokesperson for the Environmental Protection Agency said the
agency's testing of previously certified light-duty diesel
vehicles is ongoing, and that the agency does not comment on
private lawsuits.

Diesel emissions have been linked to an assortment of respiratory
illnesses and health problems, and the NOx emission have fallen
under greater scrutiny since September, when the EPA charged
Volkswagen with installing devices that circumvented emissions
testing in millions of cars equipped with diesel engines.

In an advertisement on Mercedes-Benz website, the automaker says
"today's BlueTEC models are simply the world's most advanced
diesels, with the ultra-low emissions, high fuel economy and
responsive performances that makes them not merely available in
all 50 states, but desirable."

Emissions controls on the BlueTec vehicles include a diesel
particulate filter and a selective catalytic reduction system,
which plaintiffs say turns off below 50 degrees to help the cars
maintain their high-performance driving characteristics.

Mercedes-Benz diesels with BlueTec technology that are implicated,
according to the plaintiffs, include the: ML 320, ML 350, GL 320,
S 350, E 320, R 320, E Class, GL Class, ML Class, R Class, S
Class, GLK Class, GLE Class and Sprinter.

Hagens Berman is the same legal firm serving as lead counsel for
plaintiffs in several lawsuits regarding fatal flaws in General
Motors ignition switches.


MICHAELS STORES: Recalls Ashland(R) Holiday Paper Boxes
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Michaels Stores Procurement Company Inc. (MSPCI), Irving, Texas,
announced a voluntary recall of about 288,000 Ashland(R) holiday
paper boxes (in addition, 1,170 were sold in Canada). Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Mold can be present on the boxes, posing a risk of respiratory or
other infections in consumers with compromised immune systems,
damaged lungs or an allergy to mold.

This recall involves Ashland gift and storage cardboard boxes
covered in decorative paper. The boxes were sold in nine themes
and have ribbon, burlap and other embellishments. Each of the
three shapes of boxes, circle, square and rectangle were sold in
three sizes, small, medium and large. Boxes with the following SKU
numbers are included in the recall: 434397, 434398, 434399,
434458, 434459, 434460, 434465, 434467, 434468, 434470, 434471,
434472, 434474, 434475, 434476, 434479, 434480, 434481, 484483,
434484, 434485, 434487, 434488, 434489, 434490, 434492, 434493.
"Ashland" and the SKU number can be found a label affixed to the
underside of each box.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/9W9KTc

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Michaels stores nationwide from October 2015 through November 2015
for between $5 and $20, depending upon the size of the box.
Consumers should immediately stop using the paper boxes and return
them to any Michaels store for a full refund.


MICHAELS STORES: Recalls Poinsettia Stems and Bushes
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Michaels Stores Procurement Company Inc. ("MSPCI"), of Irving,
Texas, announced a voluntary recall of about 425,000 Ashland
Poinsettia Stems and Bushes (in addition, 6,600 were sold in
Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Mold can be present on the stems and bushes, posing a risk of
respiratory or other infections in consumers with compromised
immune systems, damaged lungs or an allergy to mold.

This recall involves Ashland(R) artificial poinsettia flowers sold
in single stems and bushes. The poinsettia has red leaves, green
stems and gold-colored accents in the center of the leaves. A
label affixed to the stem at purchase has SKU number 426830 on the
single stem and SKU number 424066 on the bush. The Ashland logo is
printed on a sticker attached to the product.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/04Azjm

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Michaels stores nationwide from October 2015 through November 2015
for about $4 for the stem and $7 for the bush.

Consumers should immediately stop using the poinsettia flowers and
return them to any Michaels store for a full refund.


MISSOURI BAR ASSOC: Sued Over Personal Injury Legal Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a pseudonymously filed class action in Clayton, Mo. claims the
Missouri Bar Association and its members fix prices for personal-
injury cases.

Y.M.D. sued the Missouri Bar Association, the law firm of Berger,
Cohen & Brandt and its partner Corey Berger. Y.M.D. says she
retained Berger as counsel to recover damages for injuries from a
vehicle accident, including loss of a leg.

"This case is about the stone-cold unfairness of a defendants'
class of Missouri lawyers, acting together in a monopoly, as a
cartel in order to avoid competition, and setting the price for
personal injury legal services at an artificially high rate," the
complaint states.

Y.M.D. is represented by Aviston, Ill. attorney Mark B. Moran in
his Feb. lawsuit in St. Louis County Court. He complains that
Y.M.D. Berger charged a "standard 1/3 minimum contingent fee."

"The poor people are being told that these fees are standard that
they are approved and are set by the Bar, and that's just plain
silliness," attorney Moran told Courthouse News.

"The standard fee is not approved or required or suggested by the
Bar. But people are being told that every day in Missouri and tens
of thousands of times throughout the United States every day."

The complaint cites the U.S. Supreme Court's 1975 ruling in
Goldfarb vs. State of Virginia, which found that fixed contingency
legal fees in real estate transactions were illegal.

"That particular type of fee is a very close cousin to the
personal injury contingency fee, because in the real estate
context the lawyer doesn't get paid unless the deal closes, so
there's a certain percentage that was set and it was somewhat
relatively ridiculously high," Moran said.

"The Goldfarb court had a case where Mr. Goldfarb sent out
requests for title services to about 30 different lawyers.
Nineteen of them responded, and they all cited the same rate, and
they all said, 'We have to, because that's what the Bar says.' The
Goldfarb court said, 'No, you can't do that.'"

Moran said he will tackle this case that same way Goldfarb proved
his.

"All we have to do is get copies of all the letters lawyers had to
file with insurance companies and in every one of those attorney
lien letters it's going to say the rate," Moran said in an
interview.

"And what we're saying is that 80 to 85 to 90 percent of those
letters is going to have a rate of at least one-third, and that is
a slam-dunk proof of price fixing."

Farrah Fite, media relations director for the Missouri Bar, told
Courthouse News in an email that the Bar had just learned of the
lawsuit and could not yet comment.

Moran said the price-fixing isn't just a Missouri problem, but a
national one, whose effects are profound.

"There's some real social injustice in this, and I'm not a
bleeding heart, OK, but we're talking facts," Moran said.

"There's social and financial injustice in this. People's lives
are getting ruined. 'I'm either not going to get my medical
treatment done or I'm going to get it done and I'm not going to be
able to pay the bill.' Either way it's not good and it drives the
income capacity for that family down."
Moran says statistics show that people with personal injury claims
are paying $50 million to $100 million every day in legal fees. He
says the problem affects 50,000 people a day in the United States:
enough to fill Yankee Stadium every day.

Part of the reason the fees are at least one-third, Moran said, is
lawyer referral fees. An attorney who refers a client to a fellow
attorney specializing in personal injury generally gets a one-
third referral fee from the specialist's contingency fee.

Many states, including Missouri, do not require attorneys to
disclose referral fees in lower courts.

"It puts the clients in a black hole of non-information, so they
can't make a reasoned decision about the finances of it because
they aren't told all the relevant facts," Moran told Courthouse
News.

"So the rules are written by the lawyers that benefit, that they
don't have to explain to the client why you're getting a (part) of
his tax-free money that is supposed to go to pay for his medical
bills. The deck is stacked against the clients."

Moran said hopes the class action will bring more competition and
information to the legal marketplace and that other states will
follow suit.

"What we're talking about is more of a market rate so the people
will be able to get transparency and be able to bargain and barter
for a better rate," Moran said. He seeks an injunction and cease-
and-desist order, corrective advertising, preservation of
documents, a constructive trust, and attorney's fees.


MONSTER INC: Violated Warranty Act, "Grays" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Antonette Grays, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Monster, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00693 (N.D. Cal., February 11, 2016), seeks to
recover damages and relief pursuant to Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Monster manufactures and supplies high performance audio cables
that connect audio/video components for computers, computer games,
home applications, car interiors, and professional use. The
company offers HDMI cables, audio cables, video cables, A/V power
centers, voltage stabilizers, uninterruptible power supplies,
power cords, cable management solutions, flat screen mounts, and
remote control systems for home theater applications; and over-
ear, on-ear, in-ear, and noise cancelling solutions for
headphones.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antonette Grays, Esq.
          PRO SE


MONTANO'S LANDSCAPING: Faces "Mejia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Mejia, individually and all other similarly situated
persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. Montano's Landscaping and
Nursery, Inc., and Juan Montano, Case No. 1:16-cv-01035 (N.D.
Ill., January 25, 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 landscaping business in Lisle,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MORAYA INVESTMENTS: Sued Over Breach of Employment Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Benavidez v. Moraya Investments, LLC, Rolando Collantes,
and Does 1-30, inclusive, Case No. RG16799862 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
January 13, 2016) arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of
employment contract, specifically by discharging the Plaintiff on
March 6, 2015, without notice or cause, prior to the end of the
contract term.

Moraya Investments, LLC is a small organization in the investors
industry located in Granite Bay, CA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tyler Rougeau, Esq.
      TYLER ROUGEAU ATTORNEY AT LAW
      520 Frederick Street #3 2
      San Francisco, CA 94117
      Telephone: (510) 301-2493
      E-mail: tyler@trougeaulaw.com


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Faces "Cohen" Suit Over Unlawful Bylaws
-----------------------------------------------------------
Belle Cohen v. Mueller Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 11899
(Del. Ch. Ct., January 13, 2016) arises out of the Company's
Bylaws that unlawfully deprive Mueller stockholders of their right
to remove directors without cause.

Mueller Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells copper, brass,
aluminum, and plastic products in the United States, Canada,
Mexico, Great Britain, and China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
      919 Market Street, Suite 1401
      Citizens Bank Center P.O. Box 1070
      Wilmington, DE  19899-1070
      Telephone: (302) 656-4433
      E-mail: jzeldin@rmgglaw.com

         - and -

      Carl L. Stine, Esq.
      Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 759-4600
      E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com
              fqian@wolfpopper.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Oggi's Pizza Sue for Alleged Antitrust Acts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sir Waldon Inc. d/b/a Oggi's Pizza, for itself and for all others
similarly situated, v. National Football League, NFL Enterprises
LLC, DirecTV, LLC, DirecTV Holdings LLC and DIRECTV Group
Holdings, LLC, Case 2:16-cv-01025 (C.D.Cal., February 12, 2016),
was brought as an antitrust action for damages and injunctive
relief under the Sherman Act, and of the Clayton Act.

Defendant National Football League was an unincorporated
association of 32 professional football teams in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
     Jodie M. Williams, Esq.
     Jin Young Choi, Esq.
     THE MOGIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
     707 Broadway, Suite 1000
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 687-6611
     Fax: (619)687-6610
     E-mail: dmogin@moginlaw.com
             jwilliams@moginlaw.com
             pchoi@moginlaw.com

          - and -

     David W. Kesselman, Esq.
     Amy T. Brantly, Esq.
     Trevor V. Stockinger, Esq.
     KESSELMAN BRANTLY STOCKINGER LLP
     1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 690
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Phone: (310) 307-4555
     Fax: (310) 307-4570
     E-mail: dkesselman@kbslaw.com
             abrantly@kbslaw.com
             tstockinger@kbslaw.com


NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY: Stay Lifted in Calif. Spying Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that for the first time, mass surveillance opponents can dig into
evidence on the National Security Agency's phone and Internet
spying programs, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled Feb. 19.


Heeding the words of a December 2015 Ninth Circuit ruling , U.S.
District Judge Jeffery White lifted a 12-month stay in two related
class actions that accuse the government of illegally spying on
citizens.

An attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which
represents the plaintiffs, said this is the first time the court
has allowed a party to gather evidence on the NSA's warrantless
surveillance program.

Lead plaintiffs Carolyn Jewel and Virginia Shubert filed the two
lawsuits in 2007 and 2008, respectively, long before NSA
contractor Edward Snowden exposed classified records on the
government surveillance programs in 2013.

The class appealed White's February 2015 ruling that struck one of
17 claims accusing the NSA of spying on U.S. citizens' Internet
activities without a warrant.

The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal in December, finding it
premature and ordering the judge to resolve the class's 16
remaining claims.

On Feb. 19, White granted the plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay
and seek evidence to support three of its claims.

Those claims accuse the government of violating the Wiretap Act,
the Stored Communications Act and the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act.

The NSA said the claims are barred by the state secrets privilege,
but White found the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
authorizes citizens to seek damages for violations of federal
privacy laws, even from the federal government.

Any materials the government claims are classified and protected
from disclosure will be reviewed behind closed doors and remain
hidden until the judge decides whether they can be viewed by the
public.

"This is an important step forward to lifting the cloak of secrecy
that has thus far shielded the NSA from judicial scrutiny, and EFF
looks forward to finally getting to the nuts and bolts of this
extraordinarily important lawsuit," Electronic Frontier Foundation
civil liberties director David Greene said.

In May 2015, the Second Circuit found the Patriot Act did not
authorize the NSA to scoop up telephone metadata on millions of
U.S. citizens without a warrant.

The cases are captioned, CAROLYN JEWEL, ET AL., Plaintiffs, V.
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, ET AL., Defendants. No. C 08-04373 JSW,
VIRGINIA SHUBERT, ET AL., Plaintiffs, V. BARACK OBAMA, ET AL.,
Defendants., No. C 07-00693 JSW (N.D. Cal.).


NEW SUN INT'L TRAVEL: "Xie" Class Suit Alleges Labor Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xin Lin Xie, Rock Xu, and Qi Xing Wang, Qi Xing Wang individually
and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. New Sun International Travel LLC, Wei Rong Ma, John
Doe, Jane Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00752, (E.D.N.Y,
February 12, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs are representing themselves.


NEW YORK: Black Police Officer Fights Quota Practice
----------------------------------------------------
Saki Knafo, writing for The New York Times, reports that over the
last two years, Edwin Raymond, a 30-year-old officer in the
New York Police Department, has recorded almost a dozen officials
up and down the chain of command in what he says is an attempt to
change the daily practices of the New York Police Department.  He
claims these tactics contradict the department's rhetoric about
the arrival of a new era of fairer, smarter policing.  In
August 2015, Raymond joined 11 other police officers in filing a
class-action suit on behalf of minority officers throughout the
force.  The suit centers on what they claim is one of the
fundamental policies of the New York Police Department: requiring
officers to meet fixed numerical goals for arrests and court
summonses each month.  In Mr. Raymond's mind, quota-based policing
lies at the root of almost everything racially discriminatory
about policing in New York. Yet the department has repeatedly told
the public that quotas don't exist.

Since January 2014, the start of the two-year period during which
Raymond made most of his recordings, the department has been led
by Police Commissioner William Bratton, who has presided over a
decline in summonses and arrests even as crime levels have
remained historically low.  He has revamped the department's
training strategy and has introduced a new program that encourages
officers to spend more time getting to know the people who live
and work in the neighborhoods they patrol.

Chief of Department James O'Neill told me that the expectations of
officers have changed.  "Whatever arrests we make, whatever
summonses we write, I want them connected to the people
responsible for the violence and crime," he said.  The department
is now focused on the "quality" of arrests and summonses rather
than the "quantity," he said.

Ms. Raymond and his fellow plaintiffs will try to prove otherwise.
The suit accuses the department of violating multiple laws and
statutes, including a 2010 state ban against quotas, and the 14th
Amendment, which outlaws racial discrimination.  It asks for
damages and an injunction against the practice.  Although
plaintiffs in other cases have provided courts with evidence
suggesting the department uses quotas, this is the first time
anyone has sued the department for violating the 2010 state ban
against the practice.


NUTIVA INC: "Jones" Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jones v. Nutiva, Inc., Case No.
C16-00014, was removed from Contra Costa Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of. California
(Oakland). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-
00711-KAW to the proceeding.

Nutiva an organic foods manufacturer. The Company produces cooking
oil, butter and plant-protein based products. It is based in
Richmond, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Kenneth Joseph
          THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
          4125 West Point Loma Blvd., No. 206
          San Diego, Ca 92110
          Telephone: (619) 767 0356
          Facsimile: (619) 331 2943
          E-mail: pkjoseph@umich.edu

               - and -

          John Joseph Fitzgerald IV, Esq.
          Trevor Matthew Flynn, Esq.
          Melanie Rae Persinger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692 3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362 9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew Ryan Orr, Esq.
          CALL & JENSEN
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 717 3000
          Facsimile: (949) 717 3100
          E-mail: morr@calljensen.com


OUR PLACE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Glover" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lurana Glover, on her behalf and others similarly situated v. Our
Place in Dudendin, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00179-MSS-AEP (M.D.
Fla., January 25, 2016) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Our Place in Dudendin, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located
at 1617 Main St, Dunedin, FL 34698.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. John Gadd, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF W. JOHN GADD, PA
      2727 Ulmerton Road-Suite 250
      Clearwater, FL 33762
      Telephone: (727) 524-6300
      E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


PARADIGM SERVICE: "Christian" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Christian, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Paradigm Services Incorporated,
dba Allied Commercial Financial, a Minnesota corporation, and
Blake Zinke, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00399-
DKD, (D. Ariz., February 12, 2016) alleges violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN LLC
     201 S Biscayne Blvd., 28th Fl.
     Miami, FL 33131
     Tel: (877) 333-9427
     Fax: (888) 498-8946
     Email: law@stefancoleman.com

          - and -

     Steven Jay German, Esq.
     Steven Woodrow, Esq.
     ADELMAN GERMAN PLC
     8245 N 85th Way
     Scottsdale, AZ 85258
     Tel: (480) 607-9166
     Fax: (480) 607-9031
     Email: steve@adelmangerman.com


PATTERSON CO: Violated Antitrust Law, Comfort Care Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Comfort Care Family Dental, P.C., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Patterson Co., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00696-BMC-GRB E.D.N.Y. (Brooklyn),
February 11, 2016), seeks to recover damages and relief for
Defendant's Dental Supplies Antitrust violation.

Patterson Companies distributes dental, veterinary, and
rehabilitation supplies. Its Dental Supply segment offers
consumable dental supplies; impression and restorative materials;
hand pieces; hand instruments; sterilization products;
anesthetics; infection control products; paper, cotton, and other
disposable products; and toothbrushes and dental accessories. The
Company is based in St. Paul, Minnesota.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric Cramer, Esq.
          Joshua T. Ripley, Esq.
          Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
                  jripley@bm.net
                  pmadden@bm.net

               - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Teresa Becvar, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          205 N Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Colin Kass, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 416 6890
          Facsimile: (202) 416 6899
          E-mail: ckass@proskauer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James J. Long, Esq.
          Jay William Schlosser, Esq.
          Scott M. Flaherty, Esq.
          BRIGGS AND MORGAN, P.A.
          2200 Ids Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 977 8582
          Facsimile: (612) 977 8650
          E-mail: jlong@briggs.com
                  jschlosser@briggs.com
                  flaherty@briggs.com

               - and -

          Michael B. Miller, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          250 West 55 Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 468 8000
          Facsimile: (212) 468 7900
          E-mail: mbmiller@mofo.com

               - and -

          Howard D. Scher, Esq.
          Carrie G. Amezcua, Esq.
          Jackson E. Warren, Esq.
          Kenneth L. Racowski, Esq.
          Thomas P. Manning, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          50 S 16th Street, Suite 3200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 665 3920
          Facsimile: (215) 665 8760
          E-mail: howard.scher@bipc.com
                  carrie.amezcua@bipc.com
                  jackson.warren@bipc.com
                  kenneth.racowski@bipc.com
                  thomas.manning@bipc.com


PEKING FOOD: Recalls Steamed Bun Products Due to Eggs
-----------------------------------------------------
PEKING FOOD LLC of BROOKLYN, NY, is recalling Chef Hon brand
STEAMED BUNS WITH SEAFOOD & VEGETABLE and STEAMED BUNS WITH
SEAFOOD MARINATED IN XO-SAUCE, because they contain undeclared
eggs. People who have an allergy to eggs run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

Chef Hon brand STEAMED BUNS WITH SEAFOOD & VEGETABLE and STEAMED
BUNS WITH SEAFOOD MARINATED IN XO-SAUCE were distributed to retail
stores in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois,
Michigan, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas, and
Puerto Rico.

PEKING FOOD LLC is recalling the following frozen products
packaged in flexible plastic bags, Net Wt. 1 lb. 8 oz.:

  --- Chef Hon brand STEAMED BUNS WITH SEAFOOD & VEGETABLE, UPC 7
      47518 00156 2;
  --- Chef Hon brand STEAMED BUNS WITH SEAFOOD MARINATED IN XO-
      SAUCE, UPC 7 47518 00163 0;

The following lots of the listed products are being recalled:
16021 (BEST BEFORE 01/21/17), 15348 (Best Before 12/14/16), 15337
(BEST BEFORE 12/3/16), 15271 (BEST BEFORE 9/28/16), 15240 (BEST
BEFORE 8/28/16), 15176 (BEST BEFORE 6/25/16), and 15120 (BEST
BEFORE 4/30/16). The lot and "BEST BEFORE" codes can be found on
the front of the bag.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered during a USDA
inspection that the products used an ingredient in the filling
that contains eggs, and the steamed buns were distributed in
packaging that did not reveal the presence of eggs.

Consumers who have purchased Chef Hon brand STEAMED BUNS WITH
SEAFOOD & VEGETABLE and STEAMED BUNS WITH SEAFOOD MARINATED IN XO-
SAUCE are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-888-
686-7888, Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, EST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/7k2I7B


PET SUPERMARKET: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Kirchein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pet Supermarket, Inc., Case No. 0:16-cv-60090-RNS
(S.D. Fla., January 14, 2016) is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Pet Supermarket, Inc. operates a chain of pet care supply retail
stores in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PFIZER CANADA: Appeals Court Overturns Class Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tristram Mallett, Esq. -- tmallett@osler.com -- and Kelly Osaka,
Esq. -- kosaka@osler.com -- of Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an
article for Lexology, report that Canada's patent laws are a
complete code giving consumers no right to independent civil
actions.  This was the conclusion of the British Columbia Court of
Appeal in Low v Pfizer Canada Inc., a decision which may impede
indirect purchaser class actions for patent law breaches that
might have resulted from several recent Supreme Court of Canada
decisions addressing indirect purchaser class actions.

The Fight Against Pfizer

In Low v Pfizer, the British Columbia Court of Appeal overturned
the certification of a class action relating to Viagra.  In 2012,
the Supreme Court of Canada determined that Pfizer's patent for
Viagra was invalid based on the failure of the company to comply
with patent disclosure requirements.  Low, who was a consumer of
Viagra, alleged that Pfizer had unlawfully abused the patent
system and had thus prevented cheaper generic versions of the drug
from entering the market. Low argued that, as a result, Pfizer had
overcharged the purchasers of Viagra.  He sued Pfizer in a
proposed class action on behalf of all purchasers of Viagra in
British Columbia between 2006 and 2012.

The chambers judge certified the class, finding that Low's claims
of unjust enrichment and unlawful interference with economic
relations were not bound to fail.  However, the Court of Appeal
disagreed.

The Canadian patent regime is made up of a number of statutes and
regulations.  The Court of Appeal found that it is a complete code
in that it governs the marketing of patented drugs, including all
rights and remedies.  The regime confers no direct rights or
protections on consumers.  That does not leave the door open for
enterprising consumers to search out civil causes of action under
which to sue patent holders.  The Court stated that in
circumstances such as these, where the government has
comprehensively legislated a particular area of the law, the
reasonable conclusion is that it did not intend to extend rights
of recovery beyond those expressly included in the regime.

One of the effects of this conclusion was that the claim of
unlawful interference with economic relations could not succeed.
That cause of action requires, in order to fulfill the "unlawful"
requirement, that a breach of statute be actionable outside of the
context of the statute itself.  Having concluded that the
completeness of the patent regime forecloses all civil actions of
consumers rooted in the Patent Act, this cause of action had no
likelihood of success.

The Court further distinguished its earlier decision in Wakelam v.
Wyeth Consumer Healthcare on the grounds that the British Columbia
consumer protection regime at issue in Wakelam is not a complete
statutory code that excludes equitable claims in unjust
enrichment.  Even if the patent regime was not a complete code,
Low's claim of unjust enrichment was bound to fail, as contracts
between Pfizer and direct purchasers constituted a juristic reason
for Pfizer's gains.

Impact Going Forward

It remains to be seen whether this decision will be applied to
other heavily regulated industries.  For now, it is clear that
consumers attempting to bring patent-related class actions may
find it difficult to find a cause of action that will lead to
certification.


PHARMAKON PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Morphine Sulfate 0.5 mg/mL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is alerting health care
professionals of a voluntary recall of morphine sulfate 0.5 mg/mL
preservative free in 0.9% sodium chloride, 1 mL syringe, CII, for
intravenous use made and distributed by Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals,
in Noblesville, Indiana, because the product is super-potent.
Pharmakon initiated the voluntary recall on February 11, 2016,
after receiving laboratory results showing the product was super-
potent.
Injecting a patient with super-potent morphine could result in
serious consequences including respiratory depression, coma, and
death. Health care professionals should immediately check their
medical supplies, quarantine the recalled product from Pharmakon,
and not administer them to patients.

The recalled product was made on February 3, 2016, with an
expiration date of March 19, 2016, and labeled with lot
E52418EV11C and NDC 45183-0322-78. The recalled product was
distributed to two medical facilities - one in Indiana and one in
Illinois.

On February 16, 2016, FDA was alerted of serious adverse events in
three infants associated with the use of the recalled morphine
sulfate products from Pharmakon. Patients who have received this
drug product and who have concerns should contact their health
care professionals.

FDA encourages health care professionals and patients to report
adverse reactions to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting
program:

Complete and submit the report online at
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm; or
Download and complete the form, then submit it via fax at 1-800-
FDA-0178.

FDA inspected Pharmakon in March and April 2014, and issued a
warning letter in May 2015. Pharmakon is registered under section
503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) as an
outsourcing facility. The Drug Quality and Security Act, signed
into law on November 27, 2013, added a new section 503B to the
FDCA. Under section 503B, a compounder can elect to become an
outsourcing facility. Outsourcing facilities:

Must comply with current good manufacturing practice requirements;

Will be subject to inspection by FDA according to a risk-based
schedule; and

Must meet certain other requirements, such as reporting adverse
events and providing FDA with certain information about the
products they compound.


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Class Certification in Parking Fee Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Malfitano, writing for PennRecord.com, reports that a
federal court has denied certification to a plaintiff seeking to
establish a class action lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia
for allegedly improperly collected parking fees.

Judge Thomas N. O'Neill Jr. opted to deny class certification in
the matter brought by Angela Parsons alleging unjust enrichment,
and remanded the case to its point of origin in the Philadelphia
County Court of Common Pleas.

Ms. Parsons alleges she and others "paid for metered parking in
the City when and where such parking was free of charge and paid
for metered parking beyond the time required by the applicable
parking regulation signs."

Ms. Parsons further asserts the defendant "collected and retained
fees for street parking from the Class Members for times during
which no fee was required, pursuant to applicable parking signage
through parking meters including electronic parking meter kiosks"
and "failed and refused to deactivate the meters and kiosks or
program them so that they did not accept payment for parking for
times which no payment was required."

In the lawsuit, Ms. Parsons seeks to recover on a theory of unjust
enrichment on behalf of herself and her proposed class, for the
money allegedly paid to defendant when no payment was due. (The
City of Philadelphia is the lone remaining defendant in the case,
as all claims against the Philadelphia Parking Authority have been
dismissed.)

The defendant argued Ms. Parsons "failed to show ascertainability
and predominance" as required to certify a class under Rule 23 of
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and O'Neill agreed.

"Through her claim for unjust enrichment, plaintiff primarily
seeks to recover monetary damages for overpayments for metered
parking on behalf of the class -- quintessential individualized
monetary claims," Judge O'Neill said.  "She has not shown that
there is a limited fund available to pay the claims of putative
class members."

Under Rule 23 (b)(1), Judge O'Neill stated Ms. Parsons failed to
illustrate that "the prosecution of separate actions would create
a risk of multiple actions that would establish incompatible
standards of conduct or that the denial of class certification
would substantially impair or impede the ability of other putative
class members to protect their interests."

With respect to potential class certification under Rule 23
(b)(3), which would determine if a class-action suit would be a
superior option for litigating the case, Judge O'Neill found
Ms. Parsons did not meet the burden of proof on this point, as
well -- under the terms of ascertainability and predominance.

"Although 'there is no records requirement' to proving
ascertainability, the burden remains on plaintiff to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the class members are
identifiable," Judge O'Neill said.

Judge O'Neill added Parsons couldn't link payments to the
defendant to potential class members, nor explain if she can link
payments to circumstances when "parking was to be free of charge
or where payments were made beyond the time required by the
applicable parking regulation."

"Plaintiff has failed to identify any mechanism by which the
putative class may be ascertained and she has not provided any
evidence to show that any method could be successful. Thus, I find
that plaintiff has not met her burden of demonstrating the
ascertainability of the proposed class," Judge O'Neill said.

As to predominance, Judge O'Neill said Ms. Parsons' complaint
lacked this necessary quality.

"In order to certify a class, Rule 23(b)(3) requires that I find
'that the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,"
Judge O'Neill said.

"Defendant argues that plaintiff cannot meet the predominance
requirement because a finding of unjust enrichment depends on each
putative class member's individualized circumstances and
knowledge," Judge O'Neill stated.

Judge O'Neill indicated it would be necessary to undertake
"individual inquiries to determine whether each class member's
payments have unjustly enriched the defendant", a process which
makes a class-action "inappropriate".

"Common questions of law or fact do not predominate over the
individual questions that must be addressed for all class members
to adjudicate their unjust enrichment claims," Judge O'Neill said.
"Plaintiff has not met her burden of demonstrating
ascertainability or predominance of common questions or law or
fact as required by Rule 23(b)(3). I will therefore deny
plaintiff's motion for class certification."

With no federal issues remaining in the case and absent class
certification, O'Neill further declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Parsons' remaining state law claim of unjust
enrichment.

"Plaintiff's case will be remanded to plaintiff's original choice
of forum, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,"
O'Neill said.

The plaintiff is represented by Edward S. Mazurek of The Mazurek
Law Firm, in Philadelphia.

The defendant is represented by Christopher H. Rider, Daniel
Auerbach and Robert D. Aversa of the City of Philadelphia's Law
Department.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case
2:13-cv-00955


PIONEER NATURAL: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Muhammad" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Farriz Muhammad, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pioneer Natural Resources Company, Case No.
5:16-cv-00078 (W.D. Tex., January 25, 2016) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Pioneer Natural Resources Company is an oil, natural gas, and
natural gas liquids exploration company based in Irving, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PORSCHE CARS: Faces "Gotta" Class Suit in D. Mass.
--------------------------------------------------
Gregory M. Gotta, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Porsche Cars North America,
Inc., Audi of America, LLC, Audi of America, Inc., Audi AG,
Volkswagen AG, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-10242, (D. Mass., February 12, 2016), alleges fraud.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     LEVI KORSINSKY LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Tel: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: (866) 367-6510
     Email: shopkins@zlk.com

Porsche is a manufacturer of exclusive Sportscars.


RAUSCH STURM: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Colston, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik LLC, Case No.
4:16-cv-00027-EJM (D. Ariz., January 13, 2016) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik LLC operates a law firm
that provides clients with outstanding retail collection services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russell Snow Thompson IV, Esq.
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC
      5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Telephone: (602) 388-8898
      Facsimile: (866) 565-1327
      E-mail: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com


RAYNOR MARKETING: Recalls Office Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Raynor Marketing, LTD, of West Hempstead, N.Y., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,200 Eurotech Lume office chairs.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The chair seat can detach, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

This recall involves Eurotech Lume office chairs. The black, mesh
mid-back, adjustable chairs have a black base with five wheels.
Item number MF2500 and the date of manufacture in YY/MM/DD format
are printed on a label located on the underside of the seat. Dates
of manufacture included in the recall are between 14/10/08 and
15/10/16.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/8Lchhm

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Davies Office in New York and Office Furniture Depot stores in New
Jersey and by other independent distributors from January 2015
through November 2015 for about $300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and
contact Raynor to receive a full refund.


RE & FA LLC: Faces "Concepcion" Lawsuit for FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
RAFIEL CONCEPCION v. R.E & F.A., LLC a limited liability company,
d/b/a LOMBARDI'S, Case 1:16-cv-20526-KMW (S.D.Fla., February 12,
2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Re & FA LLC is an establishment located in Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard Caldwell, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD J. CALDWELL, P.A.
     66 West Flagler Street, Suite #601
     Miami FL 33130
     Phone: (305) 529-1040
     E-mail: richard@caldwell.legal

        - and -

     Luis Navarro, Esq.
     NAVARRO HERNANDEZ PL
     66 West Flagler Street, Suite #600
     E-mail: lounavarro@nhlawpl.com


REA ENERGY: "Cessna" Suit Removed to W.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cessna et al. v. Rea Energy
Cooperative, Inc., Case No. 2015 GN 3973, was removed from
the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Johnstown). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00042-KRG to the
proceeding.

REA Energy Cooperative offers electric services. The Company
constructs windmills, solar panels, and cogeneration plants, as
well as distributes electricity, and provides home electricity
services including generator solutions, heating and cooling
solutions, water heater management, installation of electrical
docking stations, and surge protection. The Cooperative is based
in Indiana, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Troy M. Frederick, Esq.
          MARCUS & MACK, P.C.
          P.O. Box 1107
          57 South 6th Street
          Indiana, PA 15701
          Telephone: (724) 349 5602
          Facsimile: (724) 349 8362
          E-mail: TFrederick@MarcusandMack.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jesse D. Daniel, Esq.
          THE DANIEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          138 South Seventh Street
          Indiana, PA 15701
          Telephone: (724) 801 8629
          Facsimile: (724) 801 8495
          E-mail: DanielLawGroup@gmail.com


REMINGTON ARMS: Appeals Court Reinstates Defective Rifle Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martina Barash, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that an
expert's opinion that a Remington Arms Co. rifle was defective and
could have caused an Alabama hunter's death was reliable and
admissible at trial, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit ruled.

The court reinstated the case, which stemmed from the discharge of
a Remington Model 700 bolt action rifle. That model is at the
center of a tentatively settled nationwide class action over its
trigger mechanism.

The expert here, Charles Powell, properly accounted for possible
alternative causes and used a reasonable inference, not
speculation, when looking at the circumstances of the shooting,
the Eleventh Circuit said.

The opinion is by Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who sat by
designation on the appellate panel.

The ruling reversed summary judgment for the gumaker.

Powell's expert testimony was also at issue in another appellate
reversal in a Remington Model 700 case, O'Neal v. Remington Arms
Co, 803 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2015) .

But, in that case, the question was whether his testimony was
sufficient to allow the case to survive summary judgment, even
though the rifle had been destroyed.

Plaintiffs in the class action, in O'Neal, and in this case allege
that certain Model 700 rifles are susceptible to inadvertent
discharge because of the design of the trigger mechanism, called
the Walker trigger assembly.

Attempts to reach Remington and attorneys for the parties weren't
successful Feb. 17.

Mysterious Death

Kenneth Seamon went hunting alone and was found dead in a tree
stand with a gunshot wound to the chest, according to the appeals
court.  The rifle was found on the ground with a rope attached to
it. The police concluded "that the rifle was at least five to ten
feet away from Mr. Seamon when it fired," the court said.

"The question, therefore, is a veritable whodunit: what caused the
rifle to fire?" the Eleventh Circuit panel asked.

Remington argued that Seamon or someone else pulled the trigger.

Mr. Seamon's widow, Cynthia Seamon, argued the rifle discharged
due to a defect when her husband was raising or lowering it.

Mr. Powell opined that dirt, corrosion or other particles can
cause the part restraining the firing pin to drop out of position
when it shouldn't, causing the rifle to fire.  He said that if Mr.
Seamon's rifle was jostled by the tree, the rope or the ground, it
could have fired without a trigger pull.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama found
the opinion speculative and therefore unreliable.  The district
court excluded Powell from testifying and granted summary judgment
in favor of Remington.

But the Eleventh Circuit panel said the evidence in the case was
inconsistent with the defense theory and consistent with
Mr. Powell's theory.  His inference was reasonable, the appeals
court said.

The district court made other errors about Mr. Powell's testimony
as well, amounting to an abuse of discretion, the court said.

The case returns to the district court for further proceedings.

Judges Julie E. Carnes and Adalberto Jose Jordan also served on
the panel.

Monsees Mayer in Kansas City, Mo., and Beasley Allen Crow Methvin
Portis & Miles PC in Mongomery, Ala., represented the plaintiff.

Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC in Birmingham, Ala., and Swanson
Martin & Bell LLP in Chicago represented Remington.


RM GALICIA: Faces "Gutierrez-Rodriguez" Suit Over Automated Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Belinda Gutierrez-Rodriguez, on behalf of herself, and all others
similarly situated v. R.M. Galicia, Inc. d/b/a Progressive
Management Systems, Case No. 3:16-cv-00182-H-BLM (S.D. Cal.,
January 25, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
routinely contacting alleged debtors through telephone calls with
automatic telephone dialing equipment.

R.M. Galicia, Inc. is a debt collector offering both first party
and third party debt collection services primarily to the
healthcare industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
      Alexis Wood, Esq.
      Kas Gallucci, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
      E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
              alexis@consumersadvocates.com
              kas@consumersadvocates.com


RUSTY NAIL: Faces "Jordan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teri Jordan, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Rusty Nail, Inc. d/b/a Temptations, Thomas
Murray, Jacob Gutierrez, and/or any other related entities, Case
No. 605777/2015 (N.Y. Super. Ct., September 4, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in
violation of New York Labor Law.

The Defendants operate an adult entertainment establishment under
the name "TEMPTATIONS," located at 10 Carlough Road, Bohemia, New
York, 11716.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550


SANDISK CORP: Summary Judgment Bid in Ritz Case Fully Briefed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2016, that the Company's renewed
motion for summary judgment in the Ritz Camera federal antitrust
class action has been fully briefed and is under submission with
the district court.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company
violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and
monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit
captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc.
and Eliyahou Harari, former SanDisk Corporation Chief Executive
Officer, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash
memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled
by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The
complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a
monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to
restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for
its competitive use.

On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting
in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss, which
resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On
September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to
file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit") for the portion of the
District Court's Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss
based on Ritz's lack of standing to pursue Walker Process
antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court
administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's
ruling on the Company's petition.

On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District
Court's order denying SanDisk's motion to dismiss. On December 2,
2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to
the District Court.

On July 5, 2013, the District Court granted Ritz's motion to
substitute in Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz
bankruptcy estate, as the plaintiff in this case. On October 1,
2013, the District Court granted the Trustee's motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint, which adds CPM Electronics Inc.
and E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as named plaintiffs.

On September 19, 2014, the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which adds a
cause of action for attempted monopolization and adds MFLASH as a
named plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the Company filed a motion for summary judgment
as to all of the plaintiffs' asserted claims.

On May 14, 2015, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On June 22, 2015, the District Court denied the Company's motion
for summary judgment without prejudice to refile its motion once
the class notice has been approved and the period for class
members to opt out has expired. After the opt-out period expired,
the Company renewed its motion for summary judgment. The motion
has been fully briefed and is under submission with the court.


SANDISK CORP: Discovery Remains Stayed in Antitrust Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2016, that discovery remains stayed
in the federal antitrust class action against SanDisk, et al.
until after completion of the pleading stage.

On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD-
3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "District Court") on behalf
of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging
various claims against the Company, SD-3C, LLC ("SD-3C"),
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under
federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
California antitrust and unfair competition laws, and common law.
The complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct,
dissolution of "the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or
cross-licenses alleged herein," treble damages, restitution,
disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs allege that the Company (along
with the other members of SD-3C) conspired to artificially inflate
the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in
violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair
competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused the plaintiffs to
pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to,
and incorporate by reference the complaint in the Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic
Corporation of North America; and SD-3C LLC.

On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed.
On May 14, 2014, the appeals court issued a decision reversing the
District Court's dismissal on statute of limitations grounds and
remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
The appeals court denied the defendants' petition for rehearing
and issued its mandate to send the case back to the District
Court.

On December 1, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which the U.S. Supreme
Court subsequently denied. On February 3, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint in the District Court. On
February 27, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
the District Court granted, with leave to amend, on September 30,
2015.

On November 4, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint. On November 25, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss which is pending. Discovery remains stayed until after
completion of the pleading stage.


SANDISK CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2016, that a federal court has
granted defendants' motion to dismiss a federal securities class
action against SanDisk et al.

Beginning on March 30, 2015, the Company and certain of its
officers were named in three putative class action lawsuits filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Glore v. SanDisk Corp. et al. filed on March 30, 2015;
Bowers v. SanDisk Corp. et al. filed on May 6, 2015; City of
Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System v. SanDisk
Corp. et al. filed on May 27, 2015). Two of the complaints are
allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's securities between October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015,
and one is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
the Company's securities between April 16, 2014 and April 15,
2015.

The complaints generally allege violations of federal securities
laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the
defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek,
among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs on behalf of the putative classes.

On July 9, 2015, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed
Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as
lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
August 2015.

On September 30, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
On January 22, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion and
dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice.


SANDISK CORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "Cloud" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2016, that the plaintiff in the class
action lawsuit filed by Michael Cloud has filed an amended
complaint.

Commencing on November 4, 2015, two alleged stockholders of
SanDisk filed putative class actions captioned Michael Cloud v.
SanDisk Corp., et al., Case Number 1-15-cv-287706, and Jaromir
Koutnak v. Sanjay Mehrotra, et al., Case Number 1-15-cv-288079,
each in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Santa Clara (together, the "California Actions"). The defendants
are SanDisk, the members of SanDisk's board of directors, Western
Digital, and Schrader Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned
indirect subsidiary of Western Digital ("Merger Sub"). The
complaints in the California Actions allege that SanDisk's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to SanDisk's
stockholders in connection with the merger agreement and the
transaction contemplated thereby. Specifically, the complaints
allege, among other things, that the proposed merger arises out of
a flawed process which resulted in an unfair price for SanDisk's
shares and a failure to maximize stockholder value. The complaints
also allege that the terms of the merger agreement will deter
other purported interested parties from coming forward with a
superior offer. The California Actions further allege that
SanDisk, Western Digital, or Merger Sub aided and abetted the
SanDisk directors' breaches of fiduciary duties.

On January 26, 2016, the plaintiff in the Cloud action filed an
amended complaint. The amended complaint adds allegations that
defendants caused Western Digital to file a registration statement
that contains misleading statements and omits other information
about the proposed transaction. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, an order enjoining defendants from consummating the
proposed merger, rescinding the proposed merger if it is
consummated, awarding damages, and awarding attorneys' fees and
costs.


SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: "Turner" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randy M. Turner, and all others similarly situated under 29 USC
216(B) Plaintiff, v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00041 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division,
January 13, 2016), seeks unpaid back wages due, liquidated damages
equal in amount to the unpaid compensation, attorneys' fees, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec.
201, et seq.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an equipment operator whose
primary responsibilities consisted of manual labor related to the
hydraulic fracturing process, including rigging up and rigging
down fracturing equipment, operating mixers, and maintaining and
operating pumps at well sites. The Plaintiff routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, but was not paid overtime for any of
the hours he worked in excess of 40.

Schlumberger Technology Corporation is a domestic corporation
formed and existing under Texas law that maintains and operates
its principal office at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas,
Texas 75201.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      Jay Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 749-1400
      Fax: (214) 749-1010

           - and -

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Tel: (214) 706-0834
      Fax: (469) 339-0204


SEARS: Judge Approves Washer Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that more
than 10,000 people who paid to fix problems with certain kinds of
Kenmore and Whirlpool washing machines sold by Sears could be in
line for some money in coming months, as a Chicago federal judge
approved a settlement agreement to end nearly a decade of
litigation over the reliability of those home appliances.

However, just how much the attorneys who led the class action
should be paid from the case remains an open question, as the
judge waited to weigh in on the plaintiffs' attorneys demands that
Sears and Whirlpool pay them more than $6 million in fees and
costs -- demands Sears and Whirlpool argued were out of line with
the approximately $890,000 amount the companies believed consumers
will actually receive from the deal.

On Feb. 17, U.S. District Judge Mary M. Rowland gave final
approval to the settlement agreement between plaintiffs and
defendants Sears Roebuck & Co. and Whirlpool Corporation over the
lawsuit, which dates to 2006.

At that time, plaintiffs Susan Munch, Larry Butler, Joseph
Leonard, Kevin Barnes and Victor Matos first introduced their
action in Chicago federal court, demanding Sears pay for selling
Kenmore-brand washing machines the plaintiffs asserted Sears knew
would "repeatedly break down, do not clean clothes effectively and
otherwise fail to perform during normal home use."

The plaintiffs further alleged the machines' defective design,
which did not allow the machines to "circulate and drain
completely," allowed mold and mildew to grow inside the machines.

The litigation was expanded to two classes of plaintiffs: a
nationwide class, covering people who purchased Kenmore machines,
and a class limited to plaintiffs in California who purchased
certain Whirlpool-brand washing machines, which allegedly
experienced similar problems because of a similar alleged design
defect.

In all, the classes could have included more than 500,000 people
across the U.S.

A trial was scheduled to be held on the case in Chicago in July
2015.  But weeks before that trial's scheduled start date, the two
sides reached a settlement agreement.

According to memoranda filed in support of the settlement
agreement by both sides, Sears and Whirlpool agreed to pay anyone
with valid claims -- meaning, someone who had documentation to
prove they had paid to repair the washing machine to fix the
specific problem alleged in the litigation within three years of
purchasing the appliance -- the full amount of their repair costs.

According to court documents, as of the claims deadline in
December, more than 10,000 people had submitted potentially valid
claims. Of those paid to date, the average claim amount was about
$250.

Sears estimated claimants would likely receive a total of
$540,000-$890,000.

While the judge signed off on those terms at the hearing on Feb.
17, she did not render a ruling on the attorneys' fee request.

Class counsel, which included attorney Steven A. Schwartz --
SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com -- of the firm of Chimicles &
Tikellis, of Haverford, Pa., and James Rosemergy, of the firm of
Carey, Danis & Lowe, of St. Louis, had requested $6 million in
fees in a motion submitted in November.

However, in early January, Sears and Whirlpool disputed that fee
request, telling the judge they believed the attorneys' request
was "inflated" and should instead be limited to about half of what
class members should expect to receive, or at least no more than
$890,000. The companies cited precedent, which they argued meant a
fee award should not be based solely on how much time plaintiffs'
attorneys can reasonably claim they worked on the case, but also
how much money and other awards they actually obtained for the
named plaintiffs and class members. In this case, they argued fee
demands were far out of proportion to the size of the settlement.

Mr. Rowland said a written opinion would follow, but for now she
would take the fee request and related arguments "under
advisement."

Sears and Whirlpool were represented in the action by attorneys
from the firms of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, of Denver, and Barnes &
Thornburg, of Chicago.  Whirlpool was represented individually by
the firm of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, with offices in
Chicago and Denver.


SHERMAN CAPITAL: Court Denies Class Certification in "Cox" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the case captioned, ANDREW COX,
LUCINDA COX, STEPHANIE SNYDER, ROBERT GOODALL, Plaintiffs, v.
SHERMAN CAPITAL LLC, SHERMAN FINANCIAL GROUP LLC, LVNV FUNDING
LLC, RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, LP, JOHN DOES 1-50, SHERMAN
ORIGINATOR LLC, UNKNOWN S CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:12-
CV-01654-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind.).

The Plaintiffs, Andrew and Lucinda Cox, Stephanie Snyder, and
Robert Goodall, are residents of Indiana and alleged "victims" of
the Defendants' collection activities in the state. Each of the
Plaintiffs has in common an unpaid consumer debt that was "written
off" by the originating creditor after a period of 180 days of
non-payment. Thereafter, each Plaintiff was the subject of
collection activities by the Defendants and their agents, which
included telephone calls, dunning letters, and lawsuits. In
addition, each Plaintiff's purported "indebtedness" was repeatedly
reported to the major credit reporting agencies by the Defendants
and their agents. Pursuant to these collection activities, the
Defendants and their agents repeatedly indicated that each
Plaintiff owed a debt to LVNV.

Defendants claim that they, nevertheless, obtained valid title to
each of the named Plaintiffs' debts directly from the originating
banks. In addition, Defendants argue that there is competing
evidence to suggest that after a securitized receivable is
"written off" by the originating bank, the receivable or debt is
automatically removed from the securitized trust and is returned
to the originating bank rather than becoming merely "data."

Plaintiffs seek certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) of a class seeking damages against Defendant
Sherman Capital LLC and four of its subsidiaries and affiliates
for alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act,
the United States Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization
Act, fraud and constructive fraud, restitution and unjust
enrichment. The purported class consists of all Indiana residents
who were the subject of collection activity by the Defendants or
their agents or who paid monies to Defendants.

In her Entry dated January 22, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/7oyDRPfrom Leagle.com, Judge Pratt was not persuaded
that common issues predominate in this case or that a class action
is the superior method for litigating the Plaintiffs' claims. As a
result, the Plaintiffs also cannot satisfy the predominance and
superiority requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).


Plaintiffs are represented by Amy E. Romig, Esq. --
aromig@psrb.com -- F. Ronalds Walker, Esq. -- rwalker@psrb.com --
Frederick D. Emhardt, Esq. -- femhardt@psrb.com -- George M.
Plews, Esq. -- gplews@psrb.com -- Peter M. Racher, Esq. --
pracher@psrb.com -- PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN

They are also represented by:

     Matthew D. Boruta, Esq.
     Robert D. Cheesebourough, Esq.
     CHEESEBOUROUGH & BORUTA
     543 E Market St
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Tel: (317)637-7000

Defendants are represented by James W. Riley, Jr., Esq. --
jriley@rbelaw.com -- Stephanie Snell Chaudhary, Esq. --
schaudhary@rbelaw.com -- RILEY BENNETT & EGLOFF LLP, James A.
Rolfes, Esq. -- jrolfes@reedsmith.com -- Michael L. DeMarino, Esq.
-- mdemarino@reedsmith.com -- Nicholas G. Whitfield, Esq. --
nwhitfield@reedsmith.com -- Thomas L. Allen, Esq. --
tallen@reedsmith.com -- Timothy R. Carraher, Esq. --
tcarraher@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces "Sipe" Suit Over Aliso Canyon Gas Leak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Sipe, an individual, Lidia Sipe, an individual, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, and the general
public v. Southern California Gas Company, et al., Case No.
BC607087 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 13, 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:

      Hovanes Margarian, Esq.
      THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM
      801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 210
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818)553-1000
      Facsimile: (818)553-1005
      E-mail: hovanes@margarianlaw.com


SOUTHERN WOLF: "Figueroa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Figueroa, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated v. Southern Wolf Construction, LLC and Jose Ramon Lobo,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00674 (E.D. Lo., January 25, 2016) seeks to
recover unpaid wages, interest, liquidated  damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the construction business in the state of
Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
      THE COSTALES LAW OFFICE
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 914-1048
      Facsimile:  (504) 272-2956
      E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

         - and -

      William H. Beaumont, Esq.
      WILLIAM H. BEAUMONT LAW
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 483-8008
      E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
plaintiffs' appeal in a class action lawsuit remains pending.

On June 3, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The court-
appointed lead plaintiffs -- two pension funds that claim to
represent a class of investors in the Company's stock -- filed an
amended complaint on April 7, 2014, naming as additional
defendants Spirit's Vice President of the B787 Program Terry J.
George and former Senior Vice President of Oklahoma Operations
Alexander K. Kummant. The amended complaint alleges that
defendants engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the market
price of the Company's stock by making false statements and
omissions about certain programs' performance and costs. It
contends that the alleged scheme was revealed by the Company's
accrual of $590.0 million in forward loss charges on October 25,
2012. The lead plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all
persons other than defendants who purchased Holdings securities
between May 5, 2011 and October 24, 2012, and seek an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of the putative class.

In June 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims
set forth in the amended complaint. On May 14, 2015, the District
Court granted Spirit's motion to dismiss and dismissed the matter
with prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on June 11, 2015, which is
pending.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these
allegations, and management believes the resolution of this matter
will not materially affect the Company's financial position,
results of operations or liquidity.

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings is an independent non-OEM aircraft
parts designer and manufacturer of commercial aerostructures; and
an independent supplier of aerostructures to both Boeing and
Airbus.


STATE FARM: "Sweis" Files Suit Over Insurance Claim
---------------------------------------------------
Joanne K. Sweis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2015CH18757 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Chancery Division, December
30, 2015), seeks damages for breach of contract and consumer fraud
with respect to the non-compliance of the Defendant of her
insurance policy in accordance with Illinois Compiled Statutes 735
5/2-801 et. seq.

Plaintiff was involved in a rear-end vehicular accident on January
6, 2014, and sustained injuries in the accident and received
medical treatment and incurred medical expenses as a result. She
seeks action to enforce State Farm's agreement and provisions in
the policy with respect to the set-off of the medical expense
payments and to receive free and clear├║ finalization of her
settlement with the person who collided with her car as well as
the handling of attorneys liens, medical payment liens,
reimbursement of medical payments and set-offs in relation to
uninsured motorist claim.

State Farm is a Delaware corporation providing insurance coverage
with its principal place of business in Bloomington, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Langendorf
      ROBERT A. LANGENDORF, PC
      134 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1515
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 782-5933


STELLAR RECOVERY: "Knapp-Ellis" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Knapp-Ellis v. Stellar Recovery,
Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-01967, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-02187 to the
proceeding.

Stellar Recovery provides financial services. The Company offers
receivable collection, claims adjustment, asset identification,
and debt management services. Stellar Recovery conducts its
business in the State of Montana. Stellar Recovery, is a Florida
corporation, based in Kalispell, Montana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq.
          Adrienne McEntee, Esq.
          Mary B. Reiten, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 N. 34th St., Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816 6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  amcentee@terrellmarshall.com
                  mreiten@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Robert W. Mitchell, Esq.
          ROBERT MITCHELL, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          1020 N Washington
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 327 2224
          E-mail: bobmitchellaw@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Sara Ellen M Hutchison, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SARAELLEN HUTCHISON PLLC
          1752 NW Market St. No. 915
          Seattle, WA 98107
          Telephone: (206) 529 5195
          Facsimile: (877) 485 4893
          E-mail: saraellen@saraellenhutchison.com

               - and -

          Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G. JARRARD, PLLC
          1020 N. Washington
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (425) 239 7290
          E-mail: tjarrard@att.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Benjamin N Hutnick, Esq.
          BERMAN & RABIN PA
          15280 Metcalf
          Overland Park, KS 66223
          Telephone: (913) 649 1555
          E-mail: bhutnick@bermanrabin.com

               - and -

          Andrew David Shafer
          SIMBURG KETTER SHEPPARD & PURDY, LLP
          999 Third Avenue, Suite 2525
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 382 2600
          Facsimile: (206) 223 3929
          E-mail: ashafer@sksp.com


STETSON DESERT: "Dancer" Claims Violation of FLSA, Ariz. Wage Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Roe Dancer v. Stetson Desert Project, LLC, an Arizona LLC
d/b/a Le Girls Cabaret; Cory Anderson and Jane Roe Spouse 1,
husband and wife; Cary Anderson and Jane Roe Spouse 2, husband and
wife; and Doe Club Owners 1-10, Case 2:16-cv-00408-DLR (D.Ariz.,
February 12, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Arizona Minimum Wage Act and Arizona common law.

Defendants own and operate Le Girls Gentlemen's Club, a strip club
located in Phoenix, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     P. Andrew Sterling, Esq.
     RUSING LOPEZ & LIZARDI, P.L.L.C.
     6363 North Swan Road, Suite 151
     Tucson, AZ 85718
     Phone: (520) 792-4800
     Fax: (520) 529-4262
     E-mail: (asterling@rllaz.com


SUNWATER: Flood Victims Drop Callide Dam Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Blythe Moore, writing for ABC, reports that residents whose
properties flooded when the gates of Callide Dam opened
automatically during Cyclone Marcia last year will no longer fight
SunWater in a class action.

Maddens Lawyers had planned to represent about 50 residents living
in and around the small central Queensland town of Jambin.

However, in a statement to the ABC the lawyers said they would not
push ahead with the class action because they had determined it
did not have enough chance of success.

Wal Zischke, whose dairy farm was inundated when millions of
litres of water spilled downstream from Callide Dam, said it was a
disappointing outcome.

"The disappointing part about that is we felt as though that was
our last avenue to get some changes happening with SunWater," he
said.

"We just want to see some changes here with the Callide Dam and
operational procedures of that, so we can mitigate some of these
issues we have here in the lower Callide."

Mr. Zischke said the flooding of homes and businesses in February
2015 could have been avoided if SunWater had progressively
released water, rather than let the dam fill to capacity.

As per SunWater's operational procedures, the gates automatically
opened when the dam was 90 per cent full.

"They operated the dam correctly to their operating procedures.
However, their operating procedures need to be changed to allow
for those unusual weather events," Mr. Zischke said.

"[In] 2010, 2013 and 2015 [SunWater] contributed to the flooding
of the lower Callide, so they need to make some operational
changes."

Mr. Zischke said local residents had been campaigning for years
for SunWater to change its procedures, but they had not been
heard.

"They've decided upon themselves not to consult with the community
and not to take anything on board," he said.

"It's a simple thing of coming down here and having a public
meeting and everyone expressing their opinions on it, and
hopefully they can take some of that on board."

Jambin Pub owner Sue Wilkie also signed up to the class action and
said she was disappointed but not surprised it had been dropped.

"I just didn't think it would go ahead. There's too much involved,
too much government, we're only little people," she said.

Ms. Wilkie said even an apology from SunWater would be
appreciated.

"Just someone to say, 'We could have done more, we realise that
now'. That would be good," Ms. Wilkie said.

"It's only words but it would mean a lot."

Sunwater implements changes after Cyclone Marcia

SunWater's manager of service delivery Rob Keogh said the company
had made a number of changes since Cyclone Marcia, so that in
future residents would receive emergency warnings sooner.

"We've implemented multi-channels of communication so we don't
just rely on one channel," he said.

"We're using Facebook, Twitter, SMS and a new SunWater app we've
developed specifically to get more information out sooner.

"Over the last 12 months we've repaired a number of gauges and
we've added additional . . . rain gauges across the catchment.

"The more information that we have, the earlier we can forecast
what may occur and the earlier we can work in getting information
out to the community."

Mr. Keogh said if those systems had been in place during Cyclone
Marcia, people would have had more time to activate their
emergency plans.

"The flooding that occurred throughout the Callide Valley was a
natural event as a result of very heavy rainfall," he said.

"There is no doubt the flooding would have resulted in property
damage as a result of the water breaking the banks [of the dam].

"[However] warnings may have given people more information and
would have allowed them to formulate and implement their own
emergency management plans."

Mr. Keogh said Sunwater had worked extensively with the Banana
Shire Council and disaster management groups in the past 12
months.

Council in a better position to handle disasters

Banana Shire Council Mayor Ron Carige said the council was more
prepared than ever to face wild weather.

"I'd like to assure the public that we're in a much better
position now than we ever were in the past," he said.

"Since Marcia we've had the inquiry into the dam release, we've
had meeting after meeting, we've had to go through a fair
grilling, but we have come through that.

"We had 13 recommendations to work through, not all council's
[recommendations], but we've worked through them."

Queensland's Inspector-General of Emergency Management Iain
MacKenzie investigated the Callide Dam release last year and found
serious problems with the flood warning system.

However, he also determined major flooding would have hit the
region regardless of how the dam was operated.


SYLVANIA WOODS SCHOOL: Parents Sue Over Serial Child Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a Maryland elementary school choir director persuaded dozens
of children to perform sexual acts on camera by telling them they
were part of a "club," a mother claims in a class action in Upper
Marlboro, Md.

Jane Doe No. 2 sued the Prince George's County Board of Education,
elementary school principal Michelle Williams, and the alleged
molester, teacher assistant Deonte Carraway, on Feb. 11 in Prince
George's County Court.

A second mother, Jane Doe. No. 1, filed a similar complaint, which
was not a class action.

Carraway, 22, was arrested on Feb. 6 and charged with 10 counts of
felony child pornography and sexual abuse.

He worked for the Judge Sylvania Woods Elementary School in
Glenarden as a paid teacher's assistant from November 2014 to
September 2015, then as an unpaid volunteer, according to the
complaints.

According to the class action, "On multiple occasions, Carraway
coerced John Doe No. 2 to engage in sexual acts with him on school
property during school hours."

Carraway also made the boy "engage in sexual acts with him on
multiple occasions at the Glenarden Municipal Center" at Feb. 19
night choir practice, the mother says.

Carraway scheduled meetings with and sent photos and videos to
John Doe 2 through the smartphone app Kik, which allows people to
send anonymous photos and messages, Doe's mother says.

Carraway's predations began in early 2015 went on until January
this year, when another student's uncle "discovered that Carraway
had been communicating with his nephew and other children on Kik,"
the complaint states. "The student's uncle saw that there were
inappropriate pictures of students that were sent through Kik."

The uncle notified principal Williams on Feb. 4 this year and
called police that night, according to the complaint. County
police then found four SIM cards from Carraway's cellphone.

"On just one of the SIM cards, there were at least 44 recordings
of sexual acts involving children," the complaint states.

It continues: "Upon information and belief, on some of the
recordings, Carraway can be seen or heard directing the children
to perform certain sexual acts.

"Upon information and belief, one of the recordings is of a child
performing a sexual act on Carraway in a school bathroom while he
recorded the act on his cellphone. ...

"(T)he obscene recordings on Carraway's phone range from 8-second
clips to videos running over a minute."

So brazen was Carraway that he would call students out of class
and tell them they "would be participating in a 'club' with him to
help persuade them to engage in these sexual acts on camera," the
complaint states.

His victims were as young as 9, and "the number of victims is at
least 10, but it may be as many as 30," according to the
complaint.

Doe's mom says that Carraway's sexual abuse was "common knowledge
among the students."

She says that although parents and teachers "expressed concern"
about Carraway's "predatory behavior," principal Williams took no
action, claiming they had "no proof."

Doe blames the "complete absence of any supervision and oversight
of his conduct."

Doe seeks class certification and damages for Title IX violations,
other civil rights violations, violations of Maryland human rights
law, negligent supervision, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, invasion of privacy, and battery.

She is represented by Timothy Maloney with Joseph, Greenwald &
Laake in Greenbelt, who represents Jane Doe No. 1 in her lawsuit
against the same defendants.

Attorney Maloney said the criminal and civil cases are just
beginning.

"The shocking events at Sylvania Woods Elementary revealed a
profound breach of trust," Maloney said in an email Feb. 21.

Almost all of the nearly 700 students at Sylvania Woods are black
and Latino and/or qualify for free or reduced-price lunch,
according to The Washington Post.

Authorities have identified 17 victims so far, 9 to 13 years old,
according to the Post.

Principal Williams is on paid leave, and Carraway is being held on
a $1 million bond.

It is far from unusual in complaints such as this for parents to
claim that school administrators knew of or had reason to know of
a teacher's abuse, but failed to take action.

"Ruining someone's career can be actionable," one attorney with
knowledge of such cases told Courthouse News. "Failing to ruin
someone's career is less actionable."


SYSTEMS & SERVICES: Faces "Hatcher" Suit Over Automated Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pattravee Hatcher, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Systems & Services Technologies, Inc., Does
1-100, and Each of Them, Case No. 3:16-cv-00183-JM-BGS (S.D. Cal.,
January 25, 2015) seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice
of placing calls to the Plaintiff seeking to collect the debt
allegedly owed using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Systems & Services Technologies, Inc. operates a company involved
in consumer debt buying and recovery/collection.

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


T.C.B. OF WAYNE LLC: "Salazar" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Policarpio Villegas Salazar individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. T.C.B. Of Wayne, LLC (d/b/a
Amore of Wayne), Joseph Cappadora and Pierina Luciano, Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00225-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., January 13, 2016), seeks
unpaid overtime wages, compensatory damages including interest,
counsel fees and expert fees and other and further relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own, operate and control an Italian restaurant located
at 611 Ratzer Rd., Wayne, New Jersey 07470 under the name "Amore
of Wayne" with Joseph Cappadora and Pierina Luciano as co-owners
and managers.

Salazar was primarily employed to wash dishes, sweep and mop, re-
stock the bar, move wine and beer bottles from the freezer to
their proper place, throw out the garbage, twist and tye up
cardboard boxes, assist the cook, clean up the filters of the
grill and take out and bring in tables. He often worked in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of his hours worked.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bennet D. Zurofsky, Esq.
      BENNET D. ZUROFSKY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      17 Academy Street - Suite 1010
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Tel: (973) 642-0885
      Fax: (973) 642-0946
      E-mail: bzurofsky@zurofskylaw.com

           - and -

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com


TBI: Faces "Parrilla" Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Parrilla, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TBI a/k/a The Bureaus Incorporated and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 2:16-cv-00107-KM-JBC (D.N.J., January 8, 2016)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

TBI is a servicer for delinquent charged off receivables,
providing clients with the analytical tools and resources to
recover debt.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Donald S. Maurice, Jr.
      MAURICE WUTSCHER, LLP
      5 Walter E. Foran Boulevard, Suite 2007
      Flemington, NJ 08822-4672
      Telephone: (908) 237-4570
      Facsimile: (908) 237-4551
      E-mail: dmaurice@mauricewutscher.com


TEMPUR SEALY: Norfolk and Benning Cases Resolved
------------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that these two
class action cases have now been resolved in the Company's favor:

     -- Norfolk County Retirement System, Individually and on
        behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
        Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale
        E. Williams; filed June 20, 2012; and

     -- Arthur Benning, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all
        others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic
        International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams;
        filed June 25, 2012.

On June 20 and 25, 2012, the suits were filed against the Company
and two named executive officers in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, purportedly on behalf
of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased the Company's
stock between January 25, 2012 and June 5, 2012. The complaints
asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements
and concealment of material information concerning the Company's
competitive position, projected net sales, earnings per diluted
share and related financial performance for the Company's 2012
fiscal year. The plaintiffs sought damages, interest, costs,
attorney's fees, expert fees and unspecified equitable/injunctive
relief.

On November 2, 2012, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits and
on March 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.

On March 31, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice the consolidated
complaint. The Court issued its memorandum of opinion and entered
final judgment on May 23, 2014.

On June 6, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ("Appeals Court").
Following oral argument, the Appeals Court issued an order on June
4, 2015, ruling in favor of the Company. The Plaintiff had until
September 2, 2015 to file a petition seeking review by the United
States Supreme Court. The Plaintiff did not file for review,
therefore this matter has now been resolved in the Company's
favor.

Tempur Sealy is a bedding provider.


TEMPUR SEALY: Court Trims Claims in "Todd" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court
allowed certain claims to proceed in the case, Alvin Todd, and
Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy International,
Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and
Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendants; filed October 25,
2013

On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy
International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as
defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1761(d) who purchased, not for
resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of
California.

On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the first time in
the case but with an amended petition adding additional class
representatives for additional states. The purported classes seek
certification of claims under applicable state laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business
practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions
related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek
restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under
applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The
purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries.

The Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend
against the claims vigorously. The Court was scheduled to consider
class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2015;
however, the Plaintiff's filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, at
which time the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint.

A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held January 28, 2016 and
the Court denied in part and granted in part the Company's Motion
to Dismiss allowing certain claims to proceed.

The outcome of this case remains uncertain. As a result, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether
the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide
sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can
give no assurance that this matter will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of
operations.

Tempur Sealy is a bedding provider.


THEMIE LLC: "Brownell" Alleges Violation of FLSA, R.I. Wage Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARCY BROWNELL On behalf of herself and on behalf Of all other
similarly situated persons v. THEMIE, LLC, Case 1:16-cv-00062
(D.R.I., February 12, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Rhode Island Minimum Wage Act, and the Rhode
Island Payment of Wages Act.

The Defendant operates numerous Dunkin Donuts franchise locations
in both the State of Rhode Island and Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sonja L. Deyoe, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SONJA L. DEYOE
     395 Smith Street
     Providence, RI 02908
     Phone: (401) 864-5877
     E-mail: sld@the-straight-shooter.com


THOMSON CONSUMER: May Seek Indemnification from Intersil
--------------------------------------------------------
Intersil Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 1, 2016, that "In a correspondence dated
September 28, 2015, Thomson Consumer Electronics Television
Taiwan, Ltd., or TCETVT, notified us that it reserved its right to
seek indemnification from us for any and all costs, fees and
expenses incurred as a result of a toxic tort class action lawsuit
filed in Taiwan against TCETVT and others."

"The lawsuit pertains to alleged injuries resulting from
groundwater contamination at a manufacturing facility in Taiwan
currently owned by TCETVT, which was previously owned and operated
by predecessors (including General Electric and Harris
Corporation) of our Taiwan subsidiary, Intersil Ltd."

"In the September 28 correspondence, TCETVT also informed us that
the Taipei District Court entered a judgment of $18.5 million in
the lawsuit against TCETVT, which judgment has been appealed. In
addition, TCETVT informed us that they have incurred costs of
$11.2 million in defending against the lawsuit through September
1, 2015.

"We were also advised by TCETVT that additional claimants made be
added to the lawsuit and TCETVT believes that if such additional
claimants were successfully added, the resulting liability could
be as high as $200 million.

"TCETVT also informed us that it reserved its right to seek
indemnification from us for any and all costs associated with the
remediation of the contamination on that site and nearby areas.
TCETVT claims they have incurred $15.9 million in remediation-
related costs through September 1, 2015.

"Under the terms of the 1999 Master Transaction Agreement between
Harris Corporation and Intersil, whereby Harris transferred its
semiconductor business assets to us, environmental liabilities
(including those associated with Harris' Taiwan semiconductor
operations) were expressly retained by Harris.  The Master
Transaction Agreement also requires Harris to indemnify us for any
and all costs relating to those retained environmental
liabilities.

"We have denied liability to TCETVT for the costs associated with
the lawsuit as well as the costs associated with the remediation
of the contamination on the site. We have also submitted a claim
notice to Harris seeking defense and indemnification from Harris
under the Master Transaction Agreement for any and all claims made
by TCETVT in connection with this matter. Harris has not yet
agreed to indemnify us for the liability asserted by TCETVT."

Intersil designs and develops innovative power management and
precision analog integrated circuits, or ICs.


TIME WARNER: Settlement Being Finalized in Charter Merger Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties to the class
action lawsuits related to the Company's merger with Charter
Communications, Inc. have agreed to finalize and execute a
definitive settlement agreement.

In connection with the formerly proposed Comcast merger, eight
putative class action complaints were filed on behalf of purported
TWC stockholders in the New York Supreme Court (the "NY Actions")
and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These
complaints named as defendants TWC, the members of the TWC board
of directors, Comcast and Comcast's merger subsidiary. The
complaints generally alleged, among other things, that the members
of the TWC board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
TWC stockholders during merger negotiations and by entering into
the Comcast Merger Agreement and approving the Comcast merger, and
that Comcast aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaints further alleged that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed by Comcast with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on March 20, 2014 was misleading
or omitted certain material information. The complaints sought,
among other relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
injunctive relief and costs and fees.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement, conditioned inter
alia on the consummation of the Comcast merger. Now that the
Comcast Merger Agreement has been terminated, the settlement is no
longer operative, although the plaintiffs have the right to
petition the court for the award of attorneys' fees and TWC has
the right to oppose that application.

Following the announcement of the Charter merger, the parties in
the NY Actions on June 29, 2015, filed a stipulation agreeing that
plaintiffs could file a Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint
(the "Second Amended Complaint"), and dismissing with prejudice
Comcast and Comcast's merger subsidiary. 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 names 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 Charter Merger Agreement and approving the
Charter merger, and that Charter and its subsidiaries aided and
abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks,
among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the shareholder
vote on the Charter merger, unspecified declaratory and equitable
relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and costs
and fees.

On September 9, 2015, the parties in the NY Actions entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), which reflects an agreement
in principle to settle the case. Pursuant to the MOU, TWC and
Charter made certain supplemental disclosures in Current Reports
on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on September 9, 2015, and the
plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their motion for preliminary relief.
The parties have agreed to finalize and execute a definitive
settlement agreement by February 16, 2016.

TWC believes that the claims asserted against it are without merit
and, if the settlement does not receive final approval by the New
York Supreme Court or otherwise is not consummated, intends to
defend against this lawsuit vigorously. The Company is unable to
predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range
of possible loss.

On May 23, 2015, TWC entered into an Agreement and Plan of Mergers
(the "Charter Merger Agreement") with Charter and certain of its
subsidiaries, pursuant to which the parties will engage in a
series of transactions (the "Charter merger") that will result in
the Company and Charter becoming 100% owned subsidiaries of a new
public parent company ("New Charter"), on the terms and subject to
the conditions set forth in the Charter Merger Agreement. On
September 21, 2015, the Company's stockholders approved the
adoption of the Charter Merger Agreement, and Charter's
stockholders approved, among other things, the adoption of the
Charter Merger Agreement and the issuance of New Charter Class A
common stock to TWC stockholders in the Charter merger. The
Charter merger is subject to regulatory approvals and certain
other closing conditions.

Time Warner Cable Inc. is a provider of video, high-speed data and
voice services in the U.S., with cable systems located mainly in
five geographic areas -- New York State (including New York City),
the Carolinas, the Midwest (including Ohio, Kentucky and
Wisconsin), Southern California (including Los Angeles) and Texas.


TIME WARNER: Still Defends Set-Top Cable TV Box Antitrust Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is the
defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust
Litigation, ten purported class actions filed in federal district
courts throughout the U.S. These actions are subject to a
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Order transferring the cases for
pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On July 26, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
consolidated class action complaint (the "Third Amended
Complaint"), alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and state
unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes by tying the sales of
premium cable television services to the leasing of set-top
converter boxes. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease
such alleged practices.

On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Third Amended Complaint, which the court granted on April 8, 2011.
On June 17, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but
is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.

Time Warner Cable Inc. is a provider of video, high-speed data and
voice services in the U.S., with cable systems located mainly in
five geographic areas -- New York State (including New York City),
the Carolinas, the Midwest (including Ohio, Kentucky and
Wisconsin), Southern California (including Los Angeles) and Texas.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Aron Rosenzweig, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Transworld Systems Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
00227-ES-JAD (D.N.J., January 13, 2016) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Transworld Systems Inc. provides fixed fee accounts receivable
solutions & collections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Zemel, Esq.
      ZEMEL LAW LLC
      70 Clinton Ave.
      Newark, NJ 07114
      Telephone: (862) 227-3106
      E-mail: dzemellaw@gmail.com


TURN-KEY SYSTEMS: Violated TCPA, Says "Ramos" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Ronald Ramos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Turn-Key Systems, Inc., DOES 1 through 10
inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00376-
JAH-JLB, (S.D. Cal., February 12, 2016) demands $5,000,000 and
alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991.

The case is assigned to Judge John A. Houston.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Tel: (877) 206-4741
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@AttorneysForConsumers.com


UBER TECH: Using Discovery to Learn Trade Secrets, Lyft Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Uber is using discovery requests in a data-breach lawsuit to
snatch trade secrets from its archrival, Lyft claims in San
Francisco Federal Court.

Lyft sought a protective order on Feb. 18, accusing Uber of
conducting a "witch-hunt" to harass one of its employees, steal
trade secrets and "distract attention from its long and storied
history of data breaches."

Uber claims it needs the information to find out if Lyft or its
unnamed employee were involved in a data breach that compromised
the personal data of 50,000 Uber drivers.

The disputed discovery requests surfaced in October last year
after U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler dismissed a class action
from former Uber driver Sasha Antman, with leave to amend.

Antman claimed a data breach in May 2014 jeopardized his and tens
of thousands of Uber drivers' personal information.

Beeler found that Antman failed to allege an injury resulting from
the breach, which Uber claims exposed only drivers' names and
driver's license numbers.

Since the dismissal, Uber has served Lyft and its unnamed employee
with 11 discovery requests, seeking copies of "competitive
intelligence Lyft gathered about Uber" and access to the
employee's computers, emails and messages, including internal Lyft
communications.

Uber acknowledged its engineers left a confidential security key
"lying around" and available through a public website for about
six months before the breach occurred, Lyft stated in its motion
for a protective order.

Uber previously sought discovery from Comcast to identify a person
using an IP address that got access to the security key used in
the breach.

Reuters reported in October last year that two anonymous sources
identified the user of that IP address as Lyft's technology chief,
Chris Lambert.

But Lyft responded that it had investigated the allegations and
found Lambert had nothing to do with the breach.

In its Feb. 18 motion for a protective order, Lyft says Uber has
backpedaled on its claim that only names and driver's license
numbers were compromised by the breach, in a calculated effort to
continue its "witch hunt" for Lyft's secrets.
"What Uber saw was an opportunity to wrest control of this
(dismissed) case, string the plaintiff along for as long as it
needed, and issue a swath of subpoenas seeking confidential,
internal information about its chief competitor," Lyft stated in
the motion.

"Enough is enough. Lyft respectfully requests that this Court rein
Uber in, and that it grant Lyft's motion for a protective order
preventing any further abusive and harassing discovery," the
motion concludes.

Lyft is represented by Rachael Meny with Keker Van Nest in San
Francisco.

Uber, represented by Gibson, Dunn and Krutcher, has not yet filed
a response to Lyft's motion.

A hearing on the motion is scheduled for March 24.

The case captioned, SASHA ANTMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.; and DOES 1-50, Defendant., Case No. 3:15-cv-01175-LB (N.D.
Cal.).

Attorneys for Non-Party LYFT, INC.:

     KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
     Rachael E. Meny, Esq.
     Jennifer A. Huber, Esq.
     Nicholas D. Marais, Esq.
     Thomas E. Gorman, Esq.
     633 Battery Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
     Telephone: 415 391 5400
     Facsimile: 415 397 7188
     E-mail: rmeny@kvn.com
             jhuber@kvn.com
             nmarais@kvn.com
             tgorman@kvn.com


UNITED SERVICES: Judge Quizzes Attys Over Forum-Shopping Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hammersly, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that for
about two hours on Feb. 18, a federal judge asked the questions.
And the lawyers -- all 17 of them -- were the ones pleading
innocence.

Chief U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes asked a series of questions
about what the attorneys did, when they did it and what they knew
in connection with dismissing a multimillion-dollar class action
from his Western District courtroom in June.

Attorneys refiled the case almost immediately in state court in
Polk County with a settlement agreement attached.

"We believe that everything that we have done -- all the filings,
all the negotiations, were permitted by the rules," John Elrod,
attorney for 12 plaintiff lawyers in the class-action case, told
the court.

Mr. Elrod's clients, like all the lawyers at the hearing, "work
nationwide and deserve to carry their good reputations out of this
courtroom," he said.

The Feb. 18 hearing, ordered by Holmes in December, was for the
lawyers to "show cause" why they should not be sanctioned for
ethics violations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure in the case Adams v. United Services Automobile
Association (2:14-CV-2013). Holmes also may rely on the court's
"inherent disciplinary authority."

Judge Holmes said he'll take two to four weeks to decide whether
to impose sanctions against the 17 plaintiff and defense lawyers,
who include class-action specialists from Arkansas, Texas,
Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.

One of the best known in Arkansas is John Goodson of Texarkana,
who has won millions in class actions in his home court in Miller
County and elsewhere.  Mr. Goodson is a member of the University
of Arkansas System board of trustees, a large donor to state and
national political campaigns and married to Arkansas Supreme Court
Justice Courtney Goodson, who is running for chief justice this
year.

Sanctions could range from a continuing-education course to
suspension from the practice of law, according to legal texts and
experts.

Attorneys for the lawyers stressed on Feb. 18 that any ethical
sanction, "no matter how slight," could damage the attorneys'
careers.

"A lifetime of achievement is now in jeopardy," defense lawyers'
attorney David Matthews of Rogers told the judge.

Holmes is questioning whether the lawyers for both sides moved the
Adams case to Polk County Circuit Court for less stringent
scrutiny of the settlement and attorneys' fees.

That court-forum shopping could benefit the lawyers themselves at
the expense of the class that was harmed, according to the judge's
showcause order.

Class actions involve a named plaintiff who sues to represent a
group of people -- the class -- who were similarly harmed, usually
by the actions of a large company.  Because the unnamed class is
not present in the courtroom, federal and state judges are
responsible for overseeing the settlement with an eye to fairness
for the class.

When the Adams settlement went before Polk County Circuit Judge
Jerry Ryan, court records show that "in that hearing he didn't ask
one question about the settlement agreement," Judge Holmes said on
Feb. 18.

But plaintiffs' lawyers read and talked through the settlement
before Judge Ryan, Mr. Matthews told the judge.

"It was pretty well explained," Mr. Matthews said.

The settlement approved in Polk County Circuit Court in December
included an estimated $3.4 million for members of the plaintiff
class and $1.85 million in attorneys' fees and expenses for the
plaintiffs' lawyers, court records show.

Judge Holmes earlier had approved a settlement in a similar case,
authorizing about $332,000 in attorneys' fees.

Judge Holmes also was critical on Feb. 18 of certain provisions of
the settlement, including that USAA members had to fill out a
claims form to be reimbursed.

"How many claims have been filed?" Judge Holmes asked.

Mr. Matthews said that information was confidential.  Judge Holmes
decided to allow Matthews to submit it to the judge only, but may
make the information part of the public record later.

Judge Holmes also noted that the settlement provided that the
plaintiffs lawyers' fees be paid quickly, no matter what else
happened in the case.

And Judge Holmes took a head count of how many of the lawyers
present were aware, before the USAA settlement, of an 8th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals case in 2011, Thatcher v. Hanover Ins.
Group Inc.

The appeals court in that case was critical of a lower-court
decision that allowed a class action to be dismissed to return to
a more favorable state court forum, court records show.

About a half dozen of the lawyers at the Feb. 18 hearing were
involved in that Thatcher case, their attorneys said.

Adams v. USAA focused on whether the insurer underpaid claims to
policyholders by depreciating labor costs in actual cash value
policies, court records show.  It was one of at least 20 similar
cases filed over the issue in state and federal courts by many of
the same attorneys who represented plaintiffs in Adams.

Judge Holmes is considering the sanctions under the federal civil
code's Rule 11, which states that every document a lawyer signs
and files in court cannot be presented for "any improper purpose."

Judge Holmes reviewed a timeline of court filings on Feb. 18:
On June 16, 2015, attorneys for both sides signed a proposed
settlement that said the Adams case was pending in Polk County
Circuit Court, court records show. But the case actually was still
before Holmes in federal court until the attorneys submitted a
stipulation of dismissal on June 19 and the federal court clerk
filed that dismissal on June 22.

Plaintiffs' lawyers have said in statements that "counsel never
sought to evade judicial review of their class action settlement."

They pointed to a different benefit in settling in Arkansas' state
courts, "where objectors are required to comply with a more
stringent procedure as part of the settlement."  That benefited
the class by avoiding delays in payment of settlement sums,
plaintiffs' lawyers argued.

In a closing statement on Feb. 18, Mr. Matthews told Judge Holmes:
"You feel you and the court were taken advantage of."

Judge Holmes countered that his show-cause order came out of
"thought and consideration. This isn't about me."

Judge Holmes' Dec. 21 showcause order came a week after an
Arkansas Business article on Dec. 14 reported that a Little Rock
attorney, Robert Trammell, had challenged the settlement in the
Adams case in Polk County.  Judge Holmes' order cited the magazine
article in a footnote.

Besides John Goodson, other Arkansas plaintiffs' lawyers at the
Feb. 18 hearing include Matt Keil, a Goodson partner; W.H. Taylor,
Timothy Myers, Stevan Vowell and William Putman of Taylor Law
Partners in Fayetteville; Stephen Engstrom of Little Rock; and Tom
Thompson and Casey Castleberry of Murphy, Thompson, Arnold,
Skinner & Castleberry in Batesville.  The other plaintiffs'
attorneys are connected with law firms in Texas, Oklahoma and
Pennsylvania.

Four more lawyers at the Feb. 18 hearing were defense attorneys
for United Services Automobile Association and related companies,
court records show.  Lyn Pruitt of Little Rock's Mitchell,
Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard was the only Arkansas-based
attorney in that group.  The others are with a Connecticut law
firm.

The lawyers could appeal any sanctions Judge Holmes decrees to the
8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.


UNITED STATES: PTIN Fees Suit v. IRS Gets Class Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cohn, writing for Accounting Today, reports that a lawsuit
over the Internal Revenue Service's fees for Preparer Tax
Identification Numbers has received class-action status, according
to an attorney who has been trying to eliminate or reduce the PTIN
fee for over four years.

However, the court did not go so far as the plaintiffs would like
in allowing refunds of PTIN fees already paid by tax preparers.

"The ruling of about a week ago, as I interpret it, basically
granted class-action status to potentially receiving an injunction
to stop all the fees going forward, but it did not cover getting a
refund of the money that has already been paid," said Allen
Buckley, an attorney in Atlanta.  "On [Feb. 16] my
co-counsel and I filed a motion for reconsideration with a brief
saying we want class-action status for the whole case, including
getting the money that has already been paid, not just for an
injunction to stop them from charging fees in the future."

He noted that the court invited him to submit a new brief on the
refund issue. "It invited submission on that matter because we
hadn't briefed it when we filed the motion for class certification
and the related brief," said Mr. Buckley.  "We had just sought
class certification.  We didn't really delve into that issue.  My
co-counsel and I personally feel there's a good chance the court
will grant full class-action status for the whole case, but time
will tell.  It's up to the court obviously."

"The Court will deny plaintiffs' motion for certification as it
relates to their request for restitution," wrote U.S. District
Judge Royce C. Lamberth in a memorandum opinion on February 9.
"This ruling is subject to reconsideration, if needed, after the
parties more fully brief issues relating to subject matter
jurisdiction."

Mr. Buckley has had some setbacks over the years with the effort
to eliminate PTIN fees.  In June 2012, an appeals court upheld a
lower court ruling dismissing the complaint of Georgia tax
attorney and CPA Jesse Brannen III, who was represented by Buckley
(see Appeals Court Upholds PTIN Fee).  In December 2013, another
federal court also dismissed the case.

However, Mr. Buckley filed a separate suit in 2014 in Washington,
D.C., on behalf of two other CPAs, Adam Steele of Minnesota and
Brittany Montrois of Georgia.  Joseph Henchman, a vice president
at the Tax Foundation in Washington, D.C., was later added as a
plaintiff.  That lawsuit is the one that was recently granted
class-action status.

They are challenging the IRS's PTIN fee, arguing in part that the
PTIN does not represent or confer a "service or thing of value,"
so the IRS is not permitted to impose any fee at all for the ID
number.  Alternatively, they argue that even if the IRS is
authorized to impose a PTIN fee, the amount it charges is
excessive.  Therefore, they are seeking a judgment declaring that
either the IRS lacks the authority to charge a PTIN fee or that
the fee it charges is excessive.  They are also seeking
restitution or return of the PTIN fees charged by the IRS, or
alternatively just the fees collected that exceed the amount
authorized by law.

The IRS and the Treasury Department have been requiring paid tax
return preparers to obtain and pay for a PTIN since Sept. 30,
2010, arguing that federal law permits agencies to issue
regulations to establish a charge for a "service or thing of
value" provided by the agency.

In the 2013 case of Loving v. IRS, a federal court ruled that the
IRS exceeded its statutory authority in requiring continuing
education and testing of tax preparers, but it upheld the IRS's
authority to require registration of tax preparers, so the PTIN
has remained in effect.  The initial fee used to be $64.25 ($50
for the IRS and $14.25 for the third-party vendor who administers
the application and renewal process), and an annual renewal fee of
$63.  However, last October, the IRS lowered the application and
renewal fee to $33 per year, plus $17 paid to the third-party
vendor for both new applications and renewals.


VIKING RECYCLING: Faces "Novella" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose M. Novella and other similarly-situated individuals v. Viking
Recycling, Inc. and Pierre Pancorvo, Case No. 8:16-cv-00185-JSM-
EAJ (M.D. Fla., January 25, 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 recycling center located at 1624
FL-60, Lake Wales, FL 33853.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VIZIO INC: Sued in Indiana for Collecting Personal Data
-------------------------------------------------------
Kris Turner, writing for IndyStar, reports that an Indianapolis-
area man is suing TV manufacturer Vizio Inc. for collecting data
about his viewing habits and selling it to third parties.

The class-action lawsuit, filed on Feb. 18 in the U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Indiana, states that the "defendant's
smart televisions collect personally identifying information . . .
through its Smart Interactivity software, and then discloses this
private information to third parties, such as advertisers or data
brokers."

"What people don't understand is in this era of interactive
activity is who has access to your information and what they know
about you," said Lynn Toops -- ltoops@cohenandmalad.com -- an
attorney at Cohen & Malad, who is representing Indiana resident
Trent Strader.  "Consumers need to understand that if they connect
this TV to the Internet, Vizio is collecting information and
sending it to advertisers."

The lawsuit further states that people did not consent to or know
about Vizio's practices, which are facing several legal challenges
in other states.

The California-based company did not return a request for comment.
Mr. Strader also did not return a call seeking comment.

Ms. Toops said this case against Vizio most likely will be bundled
with others and heard in one central court.  Ms. Toops said she
will seek the maximum financial penalty against Vizio allowed
under the law on behalf of Mr. Strader.

"It needs to be absolutely clear what's happening," Ms. Toops
said.  "That way, the consumer can make the choice to buy the
product or not, and there should be an option to turn it off or
understand that they can't."


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Esneault" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Esneault v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-05801, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of. California
(San Francisco). The Northern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00708-CRB to the proceeding.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The Esneault case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 liter
diesel engines sold by defendants Volkswagen Group of America,
Volkswagen AG and affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when official emissions
testing occurs. In its December 8, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Blayne Honeycutt, Esq.
          FAYARD LAW
          519 Florida Avenue, SW
          Denham Springs, LA 70726
          Telephone: (225) 664 0304
          Facsimile: (225) 664 2010
          E-mail: dbhoneycutt@fayardlaw.com

               - and -

          Heidi M Gould, Esq.
          HEIDI MABILE GOULD, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          146 W. Livingston Place
          Metairie, LA 70005
          Telephone: (985) 413 8229
          E-mail: heidigould@me.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joy Goldberg Braun, Esq.
          April L. Watson, Esq.
          SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3815
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 582 1500
          Facsimile: (504) 582 1555
          E-mail: jgb@sessions-law.com
                  alw@sessions-law.com

               - and -

          Keith W. McDaniel, Esq.
          MCCRANIE, SISTRUNK (COVINGTON)
          195 Greenbriar Blvd., Suite 200
          Covington, LA 70433
          Telephone: (504) 831 0946
          Facsimile: (985) 809 9677
          E-mail: kmcdaniel@mcsalaw.com

               - and -

          Sidney Jay Hardy, Esq.
          MCCRANIE, SISTRUNK, ANZELMO, HARDY
          909 Poydras Street, Suite 1000
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 846 8407
          Facsimile: (800) 977 8810
          E-mail: shardy@mcsalaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Martin" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Martin v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-20195, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of. California
(San Francisco). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:16-cv-00712-CRB to the proceeding.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The Martin case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 liter
diesel engines sold by defendants Volkswagen Group of America,
Volkswagen AG and affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when official emissions
testing occurs. In its December 8, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
          GILMAN LAW LLP
          3301 Bonita Beach Rd., Suite 307
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134
          Telephone: (239) 221 8301
          Facsimile: (239) 676 8224
          E-mail: Kgilman@GilmanPastor.com


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Oral Argument on Appeal Took Place Feb. 2
----------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that oral argument on the
appeal related to the class action lawsuit by Merkin and Smith
took place on February 2, 2016.

On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law
by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees.

On October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On November 26, 2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the
Complaint. On December 4, 2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration, which the Court denied on February 4, 2014.

On March 5, 2014, Vonage appealed that decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 26, 2014,
the district court proceedings were stayed pending the appeal.
Oral argument on the appeal took place on February 2, 2016.

Vonage is a provider of cloud communications services for
businesses and consumers, offering a robust suite of feature-rich
consumer and business communication solutions that offer
flexibility, portability and ease-of-use across multiple devices.


WASHINGTON MANAGEMENT: "Roman" Files Suit Over Sexual Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perlita Jacqueline Roman, an individual on behalf of herself and
all other employees similarly situated in a representative
capacity, Plaintiff, v. Washington Management, LLC, a limited
liability company organized under the laws of the State of
California, d/b/a Gentleman's Club Spearmint Rhino, Shawn Marcano,
an individual, and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. BC605224 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles County December 23, 2015), seeks damages
resulting from sexual harassment in violation of
California Government Code Sec. 12940 et. seq., discrimination on
the basis of sex in violation Of California Government Code
12940(a), retaliation in violation of California Government Code
Sec. 12940(h), failure to pay minimum wages, provide meal and rest
breaks, failure to provide wage statements and attorney fees and
costs in violation Of California Labor Code Sec. 1102.5.

Plaintiff works as a bartender for the Defendants and claims to
have experienced sexual harassment by her manager, Marcano, and
alleges Defendants tolerated such as action. She claims that she
was eased out of her job arising from her complaints.

Defendant operates a gentlemen's club called Spearmint Rhino
located in Torrance, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arnold P. Peter, Esq.
      Melinda D. Minoofar, Esq.
      PETER LAW GROUP
      9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 880 West
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (310) 277-0010
      Fax: (310) 432-0599
      Email: mminoofar@peterlawgroup.com
             apeter@peterlawgroup.com


WAWA: Former Employee Files Class Action Over Stock Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tanenbaum, writing for Philly Voice, reports that a former
Wawa employee who spent seventeen years with the company has
proposed a class-action lawsuit contending that the popular
convenience store chain reneged on an agreement to allow departed
workers to maintain their company stock as its value continues to
grow.

The suit was filed by former employee Greg Pfiefer, who worked for
the company from 1992-2009, first as a retail associate and later
in the point-of-sale division at Wawa's Pennsylvania headquarters,
according to PhillyMag.

Mr. Pfiefer and his attorney, Daniel Feinberg, claim that Wawa
backed out of an agreement to allow former employees to keep their
growing Wawa stock until they retire or turn 68 years old, the
point at which beneficiaries are required to cash out.  The suit
alleges that Wawa altered its policy in August 2015, forcing
former employees to sell and prohibiting those who leave the
company in the future from keeping company stock.

Mr. Feinberg contends that the company's most recent valuation of
$7,652 per share has denied Mr. Pfiefer, now in his forties, at
least $30,000 in retirement income since the forced sale of his
stock last August.  The class-action suit, proposed to cover 3,000
former employees, alleges that Wawa acted in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Although Mr. Pfiefer's 17-year tenure with the company places his
losses on the higher end of the class, Mr. Feinberg believes
Wawa's policy has affected the whole class to the tune of more
than $20 million.

A Wawa spokeswoman told PhillyMag that its employee stock
ownership plan has grown to about a 41 percent of the company, but
added that she couldn't comment on the litigation or address
whether the Wawa changed its policy in August.

Plaintiffs in the case are seeking compensation from Wawa for any
losses suffered as a result of the alleged policy change and a
reversal of the alleged rule barring former employees from keeping
company stock.  They are also calling for the replacement of
Wawa's retirement plans committee with an independent fiduciary.


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Says Retirees' Health Care Suit Lacks Merit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric D. Lawrence, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that
Wayne County commissioners have rejected an appointment by County
Executive Warren Evans to the county's retirement board.

The 10-2 vote during a committee meeting -- three commissioners
were absent -- came following a confusing debate over an
administration attempt to reorganize the board from eight members
to 10 and raised questions about the legitimacy of the board
overseeing the county's pension system.

The change would shift the balance of power on the board, with
more members appointed by Mr. Evans and fewer elected by employees
and retirees.

The debate also comes as retirees have filed a federal lawsuit
challenging the board changes as well as the imposition of health
care cuts for an estimated 1,500 retirees.

The administration's office of corporation counsel sent a letter
to the retirement board saying that the board had lost authority
to act after Oct. 1 when new union contracts were ratified.  But
Commission Chair Gary Woronchak, D-Dearborn, an
ex-officio member of the retirement board, noted that Mr. Evans'
own designee to the board had been at board meetings and voted
since October and that the letter, which he said was an attempt to
stop legal action by the board, had opened up a "huge can of
worms."

Attorneys representing the retirement board said the county would
need to ask voters to approve changes to the county charter in
order to reorganize the board, a position rejected by the
administration.

Deputy County Executive Richard Kaufman acknowledged that the
administration had not planned adequately for the transition to a
new retirement board last year.

"That was a mistake," he said, noting that officials did not
believe that the issue would be controversial after changes to the
board were approved in collective bargaining agreements.

He urged the commission to approve the appointment and noted that
Mr. Evans has already made two other appointments to the board
that do not require commission approval.

"There is no dispute that the new board . . . will represent the
active employees of this county," Mr. Kaufman said.

But those on the other side argued that the new board would not
represent retirees and nonunion employees, setting up a potential
issue.

Commissioner Glenn Anderson, D-Westland, said the entire situation
reflects how the administration operates, "to charge forward and
leave the details for later."

The issue is referenced in a lawsuit filed Feb. 15 as a class
action in U.S. District Court, which also seeks to stop health
care changes.  Groups hoping to represent an estimated 1,500 Wayne
County retirees have sued in an attempt to stop the county from
imposing health care changes that they say would cost them
potentially thousands of dollars per year.

Jim Akhtar, an Onsted-based attorney representing the retirees,
says the county is planning to impose the changes March 1 without
notifying the retirees, who he noted are on fixed incomes.

"It's really unbelievably callous to do that to people and not
tell them about it," Mr. Akhtar said.

Those changes would raise the retiree medical insurance premium
from 10% to 25% and institute a deductible of up to $2,600 for a
family.

Mr. Evans, Mr. Woronchak and others involved with the retirement
system were also named as defendants.

In response to a request for comment, James Canning, a spokesman
for Mr. Evans, said, "We have reviewed the complaint and we are
confident this case lacks merit."

Evans earlier this month touted a 64% reduction in retiree health
care liabilities, from $1.3 billion in 2014 to $471 million in
2015.  Those affected by the cuts, however, have said they are
being forced to shoulder the costs of poor decisions made by
county leaders.

Part of the reduction resulted from the settlement of a lawsuit
that has allowed the county to institute a stipend in place of
employer-provided health care for other retirees.  As part of the
health care changes instituted in the county in recent months,
retiree health care has also been eliminated going forward.


WBY FOODS: Recalls Granola with Blueberries & Bananas
-----------------------------------------------------
WBY Foods of Marblehead, MA, is recalling its Chappaqua Crunch
Simply Granola with Blueberries & Bananas, in 13 ounce packages,
because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The recalled pouches of Chappaqua Crunch Simply Granola with
Blueberries & Bananas were distributed in retail stores in Maine,
New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New
Jersey Pennsylvania, Maryland, Washington DC, Virginia, No.
Carolina, So. Carolina, Georgia and Florida in retail stores and
through mail order.

The product comes in a 13 ounce clear plastic pouch and marked
with best by dates on the back. The recall includes best by dates
beginning with Feb. 5, 2016 and ending with May 31, 2016.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after our supplier
informed us that the bananas in the granola may be contaminated
with Salmonella. At that time, the recalled ingredient had been
used in production.

Consumers who have purchased 13 ounce packages of Chappaqua Crunch
Simply Granola with Blueberries & Bananas are urged to return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-800-488-4602, Monday thru
Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:30 PM, EST.

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


WELLS FARGO: "Torio" Suit Seeks Damages Related to Foreclosure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Torio and Victoriano Torio, individuals, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Wells Fargo Bank, NA et al., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-
00704-HRL (N.D. Cal., San Jose, February 11, 2016), seeks to
recover damages and relief as a result of real property
foreclosure.

Wells Fargo Bank Northwest, National Association provides
commercial banking services such as deposits accounts and loans.
The Bank is based in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Donald Matthews, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN MATTHEWS
          1321 40th Street, #223
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 283 6320
          E-mail: arbitrator@yahoo.com


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Aged Cheese in Walnut Leaves Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market of Austin, Texas is recalling Pecorino Aged
Cheese in Walnut Leaves sold in one Florida and one New York, NY
store, because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism, which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria monocytogenes infection can cause miscarriages
and stillbirths among pregnant women. Consumers should seek
immediate medical care if they develop these symptoms.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recalled cheese was cut and packaged in clear plastic wrap
with scale labels beginning with PLU code 294239 and "sell by"
dates of 3/3/16 through 3/8/16 in the Bowery, NYC store. In Coral
Gables*, FL the recalled cheese was sold with scale labels
beginning with PLU code 290107 and "sell by" dates of 2/29/16
through 3/8/16. The recalled cheese was pulled from store shelves
and destroyed on Monday, Feb. 8, 2016.

A sampling of the products tested positive for Listeria
monocytogenes during a routine inspection conducted by the
supplier.

Consumers who have purchased this product from Whole Foods Market
should discard it and bring their receipt to the store for a full
refund. Consumers with questions should contact their local store
or call 512-477-5566 ext. 20060 between the hours of 9am and 5pm
CST, Monday through Friday. For media inquiries, contact
Liz.Burkhart@wholefoods.com

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/4CsCnz


WINDHAM PROFESSIONALS: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Nieves II, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Windham Professionals, Inc. and Windham Professionals,
Inc. Case No. 1:16-cv-00293-VSB (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2016) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.

The Defendants operate a debt collection company that specializes
in collection of educational accounts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Alan Auslaender, Esq.
      THE AUSLAENDER FIRM, P.C.
      175 Varick Street
      New York, NY 10014
      Telephone: (917) 793-9022
      Facsimile: (917) 793-9037
      E-mail: justin@theauslaenderfirm.com


WINTER GARDENS: Recalls Chicken Salad Products Due to Plastic
-------------------------------------------------------------
Winter Gardens Quality Foods, Inc., a New Oxford, Pa.
establishment, is recalling approximately 3,710 pounds of chicken
salad products that may be contaminated with extraneous plastic
materials, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The chicken salad items were produced on various dates between
January 28 and February 11, 2016. The following product is subject
to recall:

  --- 10-lb. bulk plastic tubs containing "SOUTHWEST CHICKEN
      SALAD" with "USE BY" dates "2/18/16," "2/19/16," "2/23/16,"
      "2/25/16," "2/26/16," and "3/3/16."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-9815"
inside the USDA mark of inspection and case code "2444." These
items were shipped to a distributor in Pennsylvania for further
processing and distribution.

The problem was discovered when the establishment was notified by
its oil supplier of a packaging defect that could lead to
potential plastic contamination where plastic pieces may flake or
break off in the soybean salad oil used in the chicken salad.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

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


WOOD RANCH: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Pichilingue and AH Paga v. Wood Ranch Anaheim Hills, LP,
Wood Ranch Anaheim Hills, LLC, and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive,
Case No. BC600899 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 13, 2016) alleges that
the Defendant neglected to provide employees with accurate pay,
meal and rest break periods, accurate records, reimbursements and
pay at the time of separation.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 8022 E
Santa Ana Canyon Rd, Anaheim, CA 92808.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Julia Aparicio-Mercado, Esq.
      APARICIO-MERCADO LAW, L.C.
      3320 West Victory Boulevard
      Burbank, CA 91505
      Telephone: (818) 260-9904
      Facsimile: (818)450-0964


WORLD WRESTLING: Discovery in Oregon Case Completed by June 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that discovery
in the Singleton and LoGrasso cases is to be completed by June 1,
2016 and dispositive motions filed by August 1, 2016.

On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes
III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.  This complaint was amended on
January 30, 2015 and alleges that the Company ignored, downplayed,
and/or failed to disclose the risks associated with traumatic
brain injuries suffered by WWE's performers.

On March 31, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended class action complaint in its entirety or, if not
dismissed, to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut.  Without addressing the merits of the
Company's motion to dismiss, the Court transferred the case to
Connecticut on June 25, 2015.  The plaintiffs filed an objection
to such transfer, which was denied on July 27, 2015.

On January 16, 2015 a second lawsuit was filed in the U. S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled
Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment,
Inc., alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes.  On
February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut due to forum-
selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs
and that motion was granted on March 23, 2015.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and,
following a scheduling conference in which the court ordered the
plaintiffs to cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on June 15, 2015.

On June 29, 2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint in its entirety.

On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ
McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew
R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
asserting similar allegations to Haynes.  The Company again moved
to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due to forum-selection
clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs, which the
California court granted on July 10, 2015.

On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint and,
on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

Each of these suits seeks unspecified actual, compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical
monitoring.  The Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class
actions.

On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court
and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier,
individually and as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson
Lee Frazier, Jr., and as personal representative of the Estate of
Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc.  A similar suit was filed in the U. S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas entitled
Michelle James, as mother and next friend of Matthew Osborne,
minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a minor child v. World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc. These lawsuits contain many of the same
allegations as the other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain
injuries and further allege that the injuries contributed to these
former talents' deaths.

WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut based on forum-
selection clauses in the decedents' contracts with WWE, which
motions were granted by the respective courts.

On November 23, 2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and
Osborne, which the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015
and December 21, 2015, respectively.

Lastly, on June 29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
entitled World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham,
Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and
Jane Does seeking a declaration against these former performers
that their threatened claims related to alleged traumatic brain
injuries and/or other tort claims are time-barred.

On September 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
this complaint, which the Company opposed.  Motions to dismiss
remain pending in all cases, and the Court previously ordered a
stay of discovery in all cases pending decisions on the motions to
dismiss.

On January 15, 2016, the Court partially lifted the stay and
permitted discovery only on three issues in the case involving
Singleton and LoGrasso.  Such discovery is to be completed by June
1, 2016 and dispositive motions filed by August 1, 2016.

The Company believes all claims and threatened claims against the
Company in these various lawsuits are being prompted by the same
plaintiffs' lawyer and are without merit.  The Company intends to
continue to defend itself against these lawsuits vigorously.

WWE is an integrated media and entertainment company.  It has been
involved in the sports entertainment business for over 30 years,
and developed WWE into one of the most popular brands in global
entertainment today.


WORLD WRESTLING: Wants Suit by Ganues and Varriale Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its
entirety in the case filed by Warren Ganues and Dominic Varriale.

On July 26, 2014, the Company received notice of a lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut, entitled Warren Ganues and Dominic Varriale, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K. McMahon and George A.
Barrios, alleging violations of federal securities laws based on
certain statements relating to the negotiation of WWE's domestic
television license.  The complaint seeks certain unspecified
damages.

A nearly identical lawsuit was filed one month later entitled
Curtis Swanson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K.
McMahon and George A. Barrios.

Both lawsuits are purported securities class actions subject to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").

On September 23-24, five putative plaintiffs filed motions to be
appointed lead plaintiff and to consolidate the two cases pursuant
to the PSLRA.  Following a hearing on October 29, 2014, the Court
issued an order dated November 5, 2014 appointing Mohsin Ansari as
lead plaintiff and consolidating the two actions.

On January 5, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Among other things, the amended complaint adds Stephanie McMahon
Levesque and Michelle D. Wilson as named defendants.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
its entirety. The Company believes the claims are without merit
and intends to defend itself against these lawsuits vigorously.

WWE is an integrated media and entertainment company.  It has been
involved in the sports entertainment business for over 30 years,
and developed WWE into one of the most popular brands in global
entertainment today.


YURZ INC: "Ramos" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------
Ronald Ramos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Yurz, Inc., DOES 1 through 10 inclusive,
and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00376-JAH-JLB,
(S.D. Cal., February 12, 2016), demands $5,000,000 and asserts
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

The case is assigned to Judge Dana M. Sabraw.

Yurz designs and develops customized websites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Tel: (877) 206-4741
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@AttorneysForConsumers.com


* Data Breach Suits Reveal Troubling Trend for Businesses
---------------------------------------------------------
Olivia L. Eckerson, writing for SearchSecurity, reports that data
breaches are becoming more and more common -- as are class-action
lawsuits from affected customers and employees. So, what are the
costs of data breach lawsuits?

A number of recent enterprise data breaches have resulted in
class-action lawsuits, and those data breach lawsuits have
revealed a troubling trend about the rising costs of security
failures in today's world.

To this point, none of the major data breach lawsuits have gone to
trial.  While some are still pending, many others have resulted in
expensive settlements that saw the enterprise in question paying
out millions of dollars to the plaintiffs -- whether they are
customers, employees, banks or credit card companies.

The data breach settlements, like all legal settlements, don't
render any judgments about who was to blame or any substantial
details about the incidents themselves.  But the settlements offer
hints at how much these class-action lawsuits may contribute to
data breach costs in the near future, with liability depending on
what was breached, who was affected and what type of information
was exposed.

Whether hackers are mining for credit card numbers in poorly
guarded point-of-sale systems or searching for personally
identifiable information (PII) in the next vulnerable technology,
such as the Internet of Things (IoT), the influx of data breaches
continues and the lawsuits show no signs of slowing down.  As
enterprise security improves at a snail's pace, the financial
costs of preventing and dealing with security incidents appears to
be growing, as the data breach settlements have reached staggering
levels.

SearchSecurity took a closer look at the rash of data breach
lawsuits and settlements to see why enterprises have largely found
themselves on the losing end of these legal battles, and what it
means for the future of enterprise security.

The root of data breach lawsuits

A company is never 100% protected from cybercriminals, hackers and
nation-state actors, even with proper security measures, but there
is a fine line for enterprises to walk.  Experts said enterprises
must make significant efforts to secure their infrastructure, and
protect customer and employee data, or face the consequences in
court.

Dave Chatfield, president of security risk assessment firm
NetDiligence, based in Philadelphia, said when it comes to
information security, there are simply no guarantees.

"Security consultants are there to move clients up the practice
curve and get them to the point where the likelihood of a breach
will become much less over time," Mr. Chatfield said.  "But I
don't think you'll get any security vendor who will say, 'We will
guarantee you'll never be breached.'"

However, it's important to note that companies such as Target were
at fault because their information security programs were
inadequate.  Security reporter Brian Krebs acquired an internal
report that revealed the weaknesses found within Target's IT
systems.  The Verizon security consultants who performed the
investigation were able to crack 86% of Target's passwords, which
gave them access to internal networks.  Many systems were outdated
or missing security patches, and by exploiting apparent
vulnerabilities "from an unauthenticated standpoint," the
consultants gained full access to the network that contained all
sensitive data.

Many of the major data breaches that have occurred within the past
few years have faced class-action lawsuits and then settled, never
facing time in court.  Mr. Chatfield said that's likely because
the company that was breached has no defense, like in the case of
Target, and settling allows the company to move forward quickly
and maybe escape the media spotlight.

"We've been waiting for a number of years for one of these class
actions to work its way through the court and trial process, but
there are lots of incentives on all sides to avoid that outcome,
simply because it is the most unpredictable outcome," Mr.
Chatfield said.  "It's more efficient to deal with those issues
privately than bringing them to court."

Data breach lawsuits: A new precedent?

In addition, class-action data breaches have a high rate of
settlement, because the plaintiffs are required to show a
"substantial risk that [the customers] will suffer harm as a
result of a breach," according to Matthew Nelson, an information
governance attorney at Symantec, based in Mountain View, Calif.
But having a payment card stolen isn't enough to support a
lawsuit, because the damage that the customers are alleging can't
be too speculative.


* Norcross Calls for Congress to Pass Paycheck Fairness Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Caffrey, writing for NJ.com, reports that U.S. Rep.
Donald Norcross wants to talk wages, again.

On the heels of his recent effort to raise the country's minimum
wage to $15 an hour by 2023, Mr. Norcross spoke out at a press
conference on Feb. 17 as he called for Congress to pass the
Paycheck Fairness Act and ramp up legislative efforts to close the
wage gap between men and women.

"Some work is being done," Mr. Norcross told the crowd of elected
officials, local Girl Scouts administrators and gender equality
advocates who gathered at the Girl Scouts of Central and Southern
New Jersey headquarters. "But it's not enough."

U.S. Department of Labor Statistics show that women earn 79 cents
for every dollar man makes, a disparity that is even deeper for
minority women. Black women earn 60 cents on the dollar, and
Latina women bring home just 55 cents per a men's $1.

"Nobody disputes the numbers," said Mr. Norcross, a co-sponsor of
the bill, which would amend the Equal Pay Act of 1963.  The
legislative update would require employers prove any wage gaps
between employees of different genders were backed up with
legitimate reasons, increase protections for the workplace
transparency that experts say is crucial to making sure salary
inequalities come to light and empower women to pursue unfair
salary practices in class-action lawsuits.

"It's about leveling the playing field," said Mr. Norcross.
"That's what America is all about."

It was the combination of the sudden death of Supreme Court
Justice Anton Scalia and the current presidential race -- which is
expected to have a large influence on the process of nominating
Scalia's replacement -- that spurred Mr. Norcross to call the Feb.
17 press conference.

"What better time to have this discussion then when we're deciding
on the leadership of this country," said Mr. Norcross, who
represents all of Camden County as well as parts of Burlington and
Gloucester counties in Congress.

The decisions made by the next president and the country's highest
court will have a significant impact on the next generation of
women in the country, said Ginny Marino, the CEO of the Girl
Scouts of Central and Southern New Jersey.

She said current estimates show the wage gap will remain until
2058, and in some states, that gap will persist for another
century.

"For me, for the Girl Scouts, that's too long to wait," said
Marino, who stressed the organization's mission to teach young
women about the importance of financial independence and equality.
"We will lose another generation to financial disparity."

A successful fight against gender inequality would have a
significant impact in New Jersey alone, said Assemblywoman Pamela
Lampitt, who has taken up the issue on a statewide level.

"If we can raise the wage for women to be equal to men, the
economic status of the state of New Jersey will be elevated to a
level where we won't have to talk about property tax issues," said
Ms. Lampitt.

Opponents of the Paycheck Fairness Act and other efforts to combat
the wage gap have argued that the disparity between men and
women's paychecks comes down to workers' own choices, not
discriminatory practices in American workplaces.

Ms. Norcross -- who said it's not a matter of if the act is
passed, it's a "a question of when" -- did not agree.  He said
it's been shown that even women who put in the same amount of time
and effort in their career, performing the same jobs with the same
level of education and experience, still don't earn as much as
their male counterparts.

"You can always find an excuse," said Ms. Norcross.  "But the fact
of the matter is it's not fair."

Sophia Dejeng, an 11-year-old Junior Girl Scout who also spoke
during the Feb. 17 press conference, shared his sentiment.  That's
why she said she'd do her part to ensure gender pay equity when
she reaches her career goal -- becoming a CEO.

"I will make sure all of my employees are treated equally," Sophia
said.  "Especially in pay."


* Scalia's Death May Improve Chances of Class Action Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that U.S. Supreme
Court Justice Antonin Scalia was a vocal opponent of the class
action device. His death Feb. 13 could improve the chances of
class action plaintiffs in cases currently pending before the U.S.
Supreme Court, and in future cases.

"Scalia's death could affect not only the future of the court and
law generally but specifically the viability and continuation of
class actions," consumer advocate Arthur H. Bryant told Bloomberg
BNA Feb. 16.

Justice Scalia's class action opinions -- which included such
sweeping rulings as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, Comcast Corp.
v. Behrend and Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest.-- "included
words that laid the ground work to further limit class actions for
future cases," Mr. Bryant said.

"His passing, at a minimum, means that he will no longer be
working to limit class actions," said Mr. Bryant, who is chairman
of the public interest firm Public Justice in Oakland, Calif.

Columbia Law professor John C. Coffee Jr. in New York called
Scalia "the architect of the commonality requirement announced in
Wal-Mart."  That decision "has significantly reduced the size of
class actions because larger actions are much harder to certify,"
he told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 17.

Of course, Mr. Bryant said, "How the law develops from here will
depend enormously on [Scalia's] replacement."

Mr. Bryant predicted a shift in the types of cases that are
brought before the court in Justice Scalia's absence.

"Corporations, particularly corporate defendants in huge consumer,
worker and other cases, have been pushing very hard for Supreme
Court review of as many cases as they possibly can because this
court has proven to be interested in closing their access to the
courts," he said.

Many of the top court's recent class action and business rulings
were decided 5-4 with Scalia in the pro-business majority.

But if the 5-4 votes start going the other way, "you're going to
see corporations desperately seeking to avoid making new law in
the Supreme Court on these access to justice issues and you'll
likely be seeing plaintiffs pushing to reverse some of these
decisions to sustain access."

Business advocate Cory L. Andrews agreed this may prove the trend,
although he rejects the notion that the court was pro-business
during Scalia's tenure.

"It's idiosyncratic what any given attorney and parties decide to
do in any given case," Mr. Andrews, senior counsel at the
Washington Legal Foundation in Washington, which supports policies
in favor of business, told Bloomberg BNA.

Nonetheless, Justice Scalia's "absence on the court will have
ripple effects on all parties deciding litigation strategy on
appeal or seeking review," Mr. Andrews said.

While Justice Scalia was pivotal to class action jurisprudence
generally, he also took a personal interest in the issues at stake
in the cases, Mr. Andrews said.  "We're all poorer for not having
the benefit of his reasoning on these cases whatever the outcomes
may be."

Tyson Foods, Spokeo Uncertain

Most immediately, the fates of two closely watched class cases
argued in November are up in the air, as it's possible both were
going to be 5-4 decisions, though Bryant said that was less likely
than he once thought.

Those cases are Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, U.S., No. 13-1339, argued
11/2/15; and Tyson Foods Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, U.S., No. 14-1146,
argued 11/10/15.

If the court issues 4-4 decisions in these cases, the pro-
plaintiff rulings below would stand, Bryant said.

To avoid a tie, the court could decide to rehear arguments next
term once a successor to Scalia is appointed, he said.

Or the court could reach a very narrow procedural holding that
would win a majority of votes, Mr. Bryant said.

Mr. Andrews agreed that 4-4 opinions would make the lower courts'
decisions "the law of the land."

But they would likely invite further clarification in future terms
when the court is fully staffed, he said.

4-4 Rulings, Rehearing Possible

On Nov. 2 the court heard arguments in Spokeo, which asks the
court to consider whether a statutory violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, without additional "concrete" harm, gives the
plaintiff the right to sue.

Arguments followed Nov. 10 in Tyson Foods, where Tyson challenged
certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and
Rule 23 class action brought by pork processing workers.

Assuming the votes had already been cast in those cases, and
Scalia were part of a 5-4 minority, there would be no reason to
postpone judgment as the decision could be rendered 5-3, Bryant
said.

Only in cases that were 5-4 with Scalia in the majority, or where
he was tapped to write the dissent, will his absence make a
difference, he said.

Standing Was a Favorite Issue

But the outcome of the two cases may not hinge on Scalia's vote
anyway.

Erwin Chemerinsky, founding dean of the UC Irvine School of Law
and author of several books on constitutional law, predicted at an
American Constitution Society event Feb. 17 that Spokeo will go 4-
4.

Bryant, however, said the argument in Spokeo "made it sound as if
this case did not present the question that the defendants said
was presented."

"The whole case was supposed to turn on whether someone had
Article III standing if they had not suffered a concrete injury,
but this person clearly had suffered a concrete injury," he said.
"So given those facts, Justice Scalia's absence may not make any
difference."

But Andrews noted that standing was a particular pet issue of
Scalia.

"Justice Scalia was very pivotal to this jurisprudence," he said.
Scalia authored the opinion in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504
U.S. 555 (1992), which established that Congress can't create
standing where the plaintiff can't show injury-in-fact, a causal
connection and redressability.

Justice Scalia also wrote a law review article on the topic when
he was on the D.C. Circuit, Andrews said, lamenting the fact that
he won't be able to weigh in on the case posthumously.

Coffee agreed that Scalia would have had fun with Spokeo, which he
said "has a fact pattern that Scalia would have loved to pick
apart."

Justice Scalia's death is also likely to throw off the time line
for a decision in Spokeo, which could have been released as early
as Feb. 22.

Now that's unlikely, unless the justices had already reached their
decision with Scalia in the minority, Bryant said.

"Timing-wise, it is due for an opinion and I did not think it was
going to be one of the cases that would go down to the wire, even
though it was looking like it was going to be a divided case at
oral argument," Andrews said.

"If he had been tasked with drafting the majority opinion, or the
dissent, it's going to take some time for someone else to take the
laboring oar on that," he said.

No Effect on Tyson Foods?

The decision in Tyson Foods is even less likely to turn on
Scalia's vote, Bryant said.

The questioning at oral argument gave Bryant and many others the
sense that the case was going to turn on FLSA caselaw, and not
raise class action issues.

If the court had already come to a consensus on a narrow, FLSA
holding, the court could issue a ruling without any changes.

Tyson Foods raises issues like those addressed in Wal-Mart v.
Dukes and Comcast v. Behrend, two major Supreme Court class action
decisions that made class certification more difficult for
plaintiffs.  Justice Scalia wrote the majority in both.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) , held that
a proposed class of over a million female Wal-Mart workers
alleging pay and promotion discrimination couldn't be certified
because they failed to establish enough of a common thread in the
case to tie their claims together.

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), reversed class
certification and held that a proposed Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)
class couldn't satisfy the predominance requirement where the
plaintiffs' damages model didn't measure only those damages
attributable to their sole surviving antitrust impact theory.

Andrews said Tyson Foods presents similar issues.  "Whatever the
court ends up doing, it's probably safe to assume that there's one
less vote to overturn the court of appeals decision in both of
those cases."

Baker Yet to Be Argued

Another case still pending on the court's docket is Microsoft
Corp. v. Baker, U.S., No. 15-457, cert. granted 1/15/16, which the
court agreed to hear in January.

Baker concerns whether plaintiffs may voluntarily dismiss their
suit as a procedural tactic to guarantee appellate review of an
unfavorable class certification decision.

Bryant said he's not sure what Justice Scalia's absence will mean
Mr. for that case.

"Certainly it suggests that one likely vote against the plaintiffs
isn't there," he said. "But beyond that, we don't know what the
other eight think, so it's hard to say."

Mr. Andrews said he's optimistic that Baker will be a win for
defendants.

"It's about the appellate jurisdiction of federal courts and there
has been a broad consensus on the court on these kinds of
procedural issues," he said.

"In particular, Justice Ginsburg is sometimes very quick to insist
that there be one set of standard procedures for everyone, that
you can't have one set of procedures for one side and another for
the other side," he said.

He expects broad interest on the court to address this situation,
"where the plaintiffs have manufactured a trick that would allow
them an absolute right of appeal and not defendants."

He also pointed to the institutional interest of the court to act
on behalf of the federal appeals courts to preserve judicial
economy.

"The reason that the rules exist is to limit piecemeal appeals
from every adverse decision," he said.  If the circuit court's
ruling in Baker stands, the courts of appeals would see an
increased workload of appeals from adverse class action
determinations.

Baker is not yet scheduled for argument, but will likely be heard
during the April argument session.

Delayed Certiorari Petitions

Justice Scalia's absence has already affected other class cases
the court was considering teeing up for the rest of this term.

The court announced Feb. 17 that it won't hold its Feb. 19 private
conference, in which it was scheduled to consider certiorari
petitions in several class actions.  Among those was Direct
Digital LLC v. Mullins, U.S., No. 15-549, cert. petition filed
10/26/15.

The defendant in Mullins argues that there is a circuit split over
ascertainability-the issue of whether plaintiffs can reliably show
who belongs to a class in suits over low-cost consumer items.

There has been no word on when the petitions will next be
considered.


* Scalia Questioned SEC Interpretation of Insider Trading Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Tricchinelli, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Supreme
Court Justice Antonin Scalia's record on securities matters in the
Roberts Court matched his overall conservative reputation, and his
passing could tip the balance in a pending insider-trading case.

Scalia voted for a "restrictive," pro-management outcome in
securities-law cases more than half the time, according to a 2014
study by Harvard professor John C. Coates IV of Chief Justice John
Roberts's tenure on securities law matters.

Mr. Coates's study showed that despite the ideologically divided
court, the amount of polarization and dissent on securities-law
cases under Roberts decreased from previous chief justices' terms.

Over that span, Justice Scalia questioned the Securities and
Exchange Commission's interpretation of its own power to go after
insider trading, and he backed overturning the "fraud on the
market" theory used by class action plaintiffs in fraud cases.

Justice Scalia's death could lead to a jurisprudential shift on
the court, including in the securities realm.

Insider Trading

Justice Scalia was eager for the Supreme Court to take up an
insider trading case, and his passing removes from the court a
strong skeptic of deference to the SEC's interpretation of how to
pursue those cases.

After the Second Circuit upheld the insider-trading conviction of
Douglas Whitman, a hedge fund portfolio manager, he asked for
high-court review in 2014.

His petition was denied, but Justice Scalia and Justice Clarence
Thomas issued a statement saying "a court owes no deference to the
prosecution's interpretation of a criminal law" and professed
their suspicion of adhering to the SEC's interpretation "of law
that contemplates both criminal and administrative enforcement."

In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Bassan
Salman, whose conviction for insider trading was upheld by the
Ninth Circuit. Although the case, Salman v. United States,
presents questions of whether it is necessary for liability that
an insider must receive a "personal benefit" when tipping
nonpublic information, Justice Scalia's 2014 statement indicates
he was prepared to push for a less inclusive view of the
boundaries of insider-trading law.

"The rule of lenity requires interpreters to resolve ambiguity in
criminal laws in favor of defendants," Justice Scalia and Justice
Thomas wrote.  "Deferring to the prosecuting branch's expansive
views of these statutes 'would turn [their] normal construction .
. . upside-down, replacing the doctrine of lenity with a doctrine
of severity.'"

Class Actions

In June 2014, in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund Inc., the
Supreme Court didn't overturn the longstanding fraud on the market
theory used by plaintiffs in securities class actions but expanded
defendants' ability to rebut that theory.  The theory states that
investors presumably rely on efficient market prices, which
reflect any alleged fraud.

Justice Scalia didn't view the theory kindly. In a 2013 case
involving class certification, Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans and
Trust Funds, he said in dissent that it had been "invented by the
Court".

In Halliburton, Justice Scalia and Justice Samuel Alito joined
Thomas's concurring opinion that would have overturned the theory
altogether.

"Logic, economic realities and our subsequent jurisprudence have
undermined the foundations" of the theory, the concurrence said,
"and stare decisis cannot prop up the facade that remains."

The theory, they said, was based on "a questionable understanding
of disputed economic theory and flawed intuitions about investor
behavior."

In his study, Mr. Coates called the separate opinion "somewhat
ironic given their pro-market, de-regulatory ideological
commitments."


                            *********

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  * * *