CAR_Public/160229.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, February 29, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 42


                            Headlines


ADT CORP: Judge Narrows Claims in "Cheatham" Consumer Fraud Suit
ADVOCATE HEALTH: "Magpayo" Suit Alleges FLSA and IMWL Violations
AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: "Travis" Class Action Filed in Calif.
ALEXANDER DEMOLITION: Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Siadek" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

AMGEN INC: Trial Date in Onyx Litigation Set for April 28
AMGEN INC: Trial Date in Securities Litigation Set for July 12
AMGEN INC: Supreme Court Reversed Judgment in ERISA Litigation
ARTURO'S PIZZERIA: "Then" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay
ASSURANT INC: Defending Class Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance

AT&T DIGITAL: Amended Scheduling Order in "Spencer" Approved
BAJA MINING: Ontario Court Approves Class Action Settlement
BASIC RESEARCH: Court Nixes Attempt to Moot Plaintiff's Claims
BECK ENERGY: Ruling in Oil & Gas Lease Dispute Upheld
BHP BILLITON: Faces Securities Class Action by Retirement Fund

BLACKBERRY LTD: Dismissal Bids in "Semeran" Case Granted
BLUE BUFFALO: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $32MM
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Court Tosses "Lang" Race Bias Suit
BOEING COMPANY: Faces Securities Class Action in Illinois
BRITISH PETROLEUM: "Townsend" Case Transferred to N.D. Alabama

CALIFORNIA: Inmate's Suit Over Prison Riot Dismissed
CALIFORNIA CULINARY: Order Striking Class Allegations Affirmed
CANADA: Koskie Minsky Commences CPRI Class Action v. Ontario
CENTERPLATE: Super Bowl 50 Worker Files Class Action
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Jones" TCPA Class Suit in Conn.

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Oil & Gas Leases Suit Stays in Federal Court
CHICAGO: "Bell" Suit Seeks Damages Over Impoundment Code
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces "Wambach" Suit Over Deceptive Labels
COMMAND SECURITY: Expects Court Approval of "Leal" Settlement
COMPANIONS OF ASHLAND: "George" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay

CONAGRA FOODS: Faces "Backus" Suit Over Unhealthy Food Additive
CONAGRA FOODS: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Class Action
COVENANT CARE: Class Certification Bid in "Tinsley" Case Granted
CREDIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES: 2nd Class Certification Bid Granted
CSRA INC: Parties in "Strauch" Case Exploring Settlement

CVS PHARMACY: Attempts to Stop Disbarred Lawyer to File Suits
DA DI CHINESE: "Liu" Suite Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay
DAIICHI SANKYO: Gender Bias Case Settlement Gets Final Approval
DELTA FUNDING: "Smith" Foreclosure Suit Dismissed
DIRECTV: Outlines Details of MLB "Extra Innings" Settlement

EMC CORP: "Booth Family" Suit Challenges Sale Agreement with Dell
ETHICON: Jury Hears Closing Arguments in Pelvic Mesh Suit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Class Cert. Bid in "Beeman" Case Not Yet Briefed
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Motion for Decertify Class in "Brady" Pending
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Dismisses Biometrics Class Action

FEDCHOICE FEDERAL: "Horton" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
FLINT, MI: Water Crisis Lawsuits to Cost Taxpayers Millions
FLOYD COUNTY, IN: Inmates' Abuse Suit Gets Class Action Status
FOX SEARCHLIGHT: 2nd Cir. Enters Revised Opinion in "Glatt"
FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: "Magro" Sues over Share Price Drop

FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: March 28 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Mattoon Sues over Alum Price-Fixing
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Grand Marais Suit Alleges Alum Price Fixing
HAIN CELESTIAL: 9th Cir. Reinstates "Balser" Mislabeling Suit
HOBOKEN, NJ: Residents Lose Appeal in Rent Ordinance Case

HSBC BANK USA: Court Trims Claims in "Schwartz" Credit Card Suit
HUNTSMAN CORP: Bid to Dismiss Indirect Plaintiffs' Suit Pending
INDIANA: Judge Tosses Child Services Case Manager's Class Action
JOURNAL MEDIA: MOU Reached in Merger Class Actions
KATINA POWELL: Hearing Set in UofL Student's Class Action

KEURIG GREEN: 3 Additional Class Suits Filed Over Merger
KINDER MORGAN: Supreme Court to Hear Oral Argument on March 9
KINDER MORGAN: Court Approved Settlement in Capex Litigation
KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Class Action Dismissed
LIBERTY GLOBAL: Indemnity Does Not Cover Losses from Class Action

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Dismissal Bids in "Brewton" Case Granted
LIFE TIME FITNESS: Conditional Class Certification Bid Denied
LTD FINANCIAL: "Vandemark" Suit Seeks Damages under TCPA
LYFT INC: Balks at Uber Technologies' Data Breach "Witch Hunt"
M-I L.L.C.: Judge Won't Push Back Briefing Schedule in "Syed"

M&G POLYMERS: 6th Cir. Remands "Tackett" Suit
MARATHON: Faces Class Action Over Refinery Pollution Impacts
MDL 1917: Court Approves Thomson Displays Settlement
MDL 2580: Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss Payors' Amended Suits
MDL 2672: 48 Class Suits v. Volkswagen et al. Transferred

MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces Class Action Over BlueTEC Diesel Engines
MYLAN N.V.: Trial in Modafinil Class Action Stayed
MYLAN N.V.: Indirect Purchasers File Opening Brief in Appeal
MYLAN N.V.: Briefing in Shareholders Class Action Completed
NORTHLAND GROUP: Dismissal of Debt Collection Class Action Upheld

NOVATION COMPANIES: Still Defends Carpenters' Health Fund Suit
NYMOX PHARMACEUTICAL: "Sapir" Case Dismissed with Leave to Amend
OOMA INC: "Barnett" Sues over Share Price Drop
PETROBAS: Securities Case Wins Class Certification
PHILIP MORRIS: Smokers to Get $4.9MM in Marlboro Lights Suit

RADIANT LOGISTICS: Status Conference in "Barahona" Continued
RBC CAPITAL: "Luis" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
SQUAD SECURITY: "Tapper" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
ST. LOUIS, MO: "Furlow" Sues Cops Over Warrantless Arrests
STONEMAN FABRICATORS: "Marroquin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

TRS RECOVERY: Settlement in Debt Collection Suit Approved
UBER: Lyft Settlement Won't Impact Drivers' Class Action
UBER: Received Complaints of Kalamazoo Shooter's Erratic Driving
UNION HOSPITAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Schneider" Labor Case
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Issues Revised Opinion in Veterans' Suit

USS-POSCO INDUSTRIES: Attorney Fee Award in "Case" Suit Reversed
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff Appeals Case Dismissal
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Faces "Hannegan" Suit Over TCPA Violation
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: VPC Defending Class Suit over Capacitors
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Defending Class Action over Resistors

VIZIO INC: "Eddy" Sues over Illegal Data Gathering
WATTS WATER: Announced Settlement-in-Principle
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Court Approves $120-Mil. Settlement
WESTERN CULINARY: Order Denying Arbitration Bid Reversed
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Settlement Pending in Defective Washers Suit

WHITEWAVE FOODS: Lawyers Allocate Funds for Omega-3 Research
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Shareholders Challenge Merger
WORLDWIDE TRANSPORTATION: "Esquenazi" Seeks to Recover OT Pay
WYOMING, WI: Court Strikes Class Allegations in "Daniels" Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Trial in Taco Bell Wage & Hour Actions Began Feb. 22

YUM! BRANDS: Expects "Rodriguez" Suit to Be Dismissed

* Aerospace, Automotive Worst For Gender Equality, Report Shows
* CFPB Director Attacks Consumer Agreement Arbitration Provisions
* No End in Sight to NLRB Standoff Over Arbitration Agreements
* Private Class-Action Plaintiffs' Law Firms Eye Equal Pay Issues
* Scalia's Death May Impact Future of Class Action Litigation


                            *********


ADT CORP: Judge Narrows Claims in "Cheatham" Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David G. Campbell granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss in the case, Janet Cheatham, Plaintiff, v. ADT
Corporation, et al., Defendants, No. CV-15-02137-PHX-DGC, (D.
Ariz.)

Plaintiff Janet Cheatham initiated this action by filing a class
action complaint against Defendants ADT Corporation and ADT LLC in
the Maricopa County Superior Court. The complaint asserts claims
against ADT LLC for consumer fraud and unjust enrichment, and
claims against ADT Corp. for consumer fraud, unjust enrichment,
and strict products liability.  Plaintiff says ADT LLC violated
Arizona Consumer Fraud Act ("ACFA") by misrepresenting the
reliability and technical sophistication of its wireless security
system and by failing to disclose that this system was
"unencrypted and unauthenticated, and otherwise insecure."

Defendants removed the action to the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1441(a), asserting federal jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2).  Each
Defendant has filed its own motion to dismiss.

ADT Corp. asks the Court to dismiss it from this case for lack of
personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to dismiss the case
for failure to state a claim.

ADT LLC asks the Court to dismiss the case for failure to state a
claim or, in the event any of Plaintiff's claims survive, to
strike Plaintiff's class allegations.

In his Order dated February 11, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/IoGanQfrom Leagle.com, Judge Campbell granted ADT
Corp.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It
also granted ADT LLC's motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim with respect to any ACFA claims based on statements set
forth in the Complaint. It denied ADT LLC's motions to dismiss and
to strike.

The Court held that Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the
ACFA based on ADT LLC's statements about its technological
sophistication, its promise to provide "worry-free" living or its
claim that "you owe it to yourself and your family to talk to
(ADT). The Court granted ADT LLC's motion to dismiss as to these
statements.

Plaintiff has stated a claim, however, based on ADT LLC's
statements about the reliability and efficacy of its alarm system
and its representation that its customer support centers are
connected by "secure communication links." Plaintiff has also
stated a claim based on ADT LLC's failure to disclose that its
wireless security systems use unencrypted and unauthenticated
signals. The Court will not dismiss Plaintiff's claims based on
these statements and omissions.

The Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff's monitoring contract
with ADT LLC specifically governs the rights and obligations at
issue here. Therefore, the Court will not dismiss Plaintiff's
unjust enrichment claim.

Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq. -- fbalint@bffb.com -- and
William Fleming King, Esq. -- bking@bffb.com -- of Bonnett
Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC serve as counsel for Plaintiff
Janet Cheatham, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated

J Steven Sparks, Esq. -- steve.sparks@sandersparks.com -- of
Sanders & Parks PC and C Sanders McNew, Esq. -- mcnew@mcnew.net of
McNew PA serve as counsel for Defendant ADT Corporation


ADVOCATE HEALTH: "Magpayo" Suit Alleges FLSA and IMWL Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crixenia Magpayo, and all others similarly-situated v. Advocate
Health Care Network, Case No. 1:16-cv-01176 (N.D. Ill., January
26, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
earned overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

Defendant Advocate Health Care Network is an Illinois not-for-
profit corporation. It owns and operates Trinity Hospital, located
at 2320 East 93rd Street, Chicago, IL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: "Travis" Class Action Filed in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16,
2016, for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2015, that on
February 11, 2016, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court, Central District of California, by Juliann Travis,
purporting to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's
securities during the period from October 15, 2013 through
February 1, 2016, against the Company, Eileen Drake, Kathleen Redd
and Scott Seymour, Juliann Travis, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, v. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings,
Inc., Eileen P. Drake, Kathleen E. Redd, and Scott J. Seymour,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00961.

The complaint arises out of the announcement of the Restatement by
the Company on February 1, 2016. The complaint asserts that the
Company's securities traded at artificially inflated prices as a
result of such misstatements and alleges a violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
all defendants, and a violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by the individual defendants, Drake, Redd and Seymour.

The complaint seeks a determination that this matter is a proper
class action and designating the plaintiff as the lead plaintiff
and class representative, an award of compensatory damages in an
amount to be determined at trial, an award of reasonable costs and
expenses of trial, including counsel and expert fees, an award of
rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and an award of such
equitable/injunctive or other relief as deemed appropriate by the
Court. The Company believes this action is without merit and
intends to contest it vigorously.

Aerojet Rocketdyne is a manufacturer of aerospace and defense
products and systems which develops and manufactures propulsion
systems for defense and space applications, and armaments for
precision tactical and long-range weapon systems applications.  It
also has a real estate segment that includes activities related to
the re-zoning, entitlement, sale, and leasing of its excess real
estate assets.


ALEXANDER DEMOLITION: Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Escobar, and all others similarly-situated v. Alexander
Demolition and Hauling Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case No.
BC607174 (Ca. Super., January 14, 2016), seeks relief against the
Defendant for failure to pay all wages due, including both regular
and overtime wages, and minimum wages; failure to provide meal and
rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to pay wages
due during employment; failure to pay wages due at separation of
employment; and failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements upon payment of wages in violation of the California
Labor Code.

Alexander Demolition & Hauling Inc specializes in all phases of
demolition, recycling and debris removal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Siadek" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Siadek, Maria Jodar, and all others similarly-situated v.
American Airlines, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC607127
(Ca. Super., January 14, 2016), seeks to recover wages and
penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not
limited to unpaid minimum wages and unpaid wages, unpaid and
illegally calculated, overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest
period policies, failure to timely pay wages, failure to pay all
wages due to discharged or quitting employees, failure to maintain
required records, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties,
and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses under the
California Labor Code.

American Airlines, Inc. provides scheduled airline services. It
offers scheduled jet services primarily to Chicago, Dallas/Fort
Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, and New York City. The company also
operates as a scheduled air freight carrier providing a range of
freight and mail services to shippers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
      SOLOUKI & SAVOY, LLP
      316 Wr 2nd Street, Suite 1200
      Los Angeles, CA 90012
      Tel: (213) 814-4940
      Fax: (213) 814-2550

          - and -

      Dan B. Yakobian, Esq.
      DBY LAW
      3250 Wilshire Blvd, Floor 13
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Tel: (213) 316-8844
      Fax: (213) 618-4466


AMGEN INC: Trial Date in Onyx Litigation Set for April 28
---------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that trial date in the Onyx Litigation as
been set for April 28, 2016.

Between August 28, 2013 and September 16, 2013, nine plaintiffs
filed purported class action lawsuits against Onyx, its directors,
Amgen and Arena Acquisition Company (Arena), and unnamed "John
Doe" defendants in connection with Amgen's acquisition of Onyx.
Seven of those purported class actions were brought in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo (the San Mateo County Superior Court), captioned Lawrence I.
Silverstein and Phil Rosen v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(August 28, 2013) ("Silverstein"), Laura Robinson v. Onyx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (originally filed in the Superior
Court for the County of San Francisco on August 28, 2013, and re-
filed in the San Mateo County Superior Court on August 29, 2013)
("Robinson"), John Solak v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(August 30, 2013) ("John Solak"), Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System and Hubert Chow v. Onyx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (September 3, 2013) ("Louisiana
Municipal"), Laurine Jonopulos v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al. (September 4, 2013) ("Jonopulos"), Clifford G. Martin v. Onyx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (September 9, 2013) ("Martin") and
Merrill L. Magowan v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (September
9, 2013) ("Magowan"). The eighth and ninth purported class actions
were brought in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Mark D. Smilow, IRA v. Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.
(August 29, 2013) ("Smilow") and William L. Fitzpatric v. Onyx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (September 16, 2013) ("Fitzpatric").

On September 5, 2013, the plaintiff in the John Solak case
dismissed his case. On September 10, 2013, the plaintiff in the
Smilow case dismissed his case. On September 10, 2013, plaintiffs
in the Silverstein and Louisiana Municipal cases filed an amended
complaint alleging substantially the same claims and seeking
substantially the same relief as in their individual purported
class action lawsuits.

Each of the lawsuits alleges that the Onyx director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Onyx shareholders, and that the
other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to
sell Onyx through an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair
price and on unfair terms. The Magowan and Fitzpatric complaints
and the amended complaint filed in the Silverstein and Louisiana
Municipal cases also alleged that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the contents of
the tender offer solicitation material.

Each of the lawsuits sought, among other things, rescission of the
merger agreement and attorneys' fees and costs, and certain of the
lawsuits sought other relief. The Silverstein, Robinson, Louisiana
Municipal and Jonopulos cases were designated as "complex" and
assigned to the Honorable Marie S. Weiner of the San Mateo County
Superior Court, who subsequently entered an order consolidating
the Silverstein, Robinson, Louisiana Municipal, Jonopulos, Martin
and Magowan cases (the Consolidated Cases).

On October 31, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases
filed a consolidated class action complaint seeking certification
of a class and alleging breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and
good faith against the Onyx directors and aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duties against Onyx. The complaint sought
certification of a class of all Onyx shareholders, damages
(including pre- and post-judgment interest), attorneys' fees and
expenses plus other relief. The plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Cases simultaneously filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice
of Amgen and Arena.

On January 9, 2014, the court sustained a demurrer without leave
to amend as to Onyx. The plaintiff in the Fitzpatric case
dismissed his case on August 22, 2014. On January 30, 2015, the
court granted class certification and appointed Mr. Rosen as class
representative in the Consolidated Cases. A hearing on defendants'
summary judgment motion has been set for February 24, 2016, and
the trial date has been set for April 28, 2016.


AMGEN INC: Trial Date in Securities Litigation Set for July 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that trial date has been set for July 12,
2016, in the case, Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation.

The six federal class action stockholder complaints filed against
Amgen, Kevin W. Sharer, Richard D. Nanula, Dennis M. Fenton, Roger
M. Perlmutter, Brian M. McNamee, George J. Morrow, Edward V.
Fritzky, Gilbert S. Omenn and Franklin P. Johnson, Jr., (the
Federal Defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (the California Central District Court) on
April 17, 2007 (Kairalla v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 1, 2007
(Mendall v. Amgen Inc., et al., & Jaffe v. Amgen Inc., et al.),
May 11, 2007 (Eldon v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 21, 2007
(Rosenfield v. Amgen Inc., et al.) and June 18, 2007 (Public
Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado v. Amgen Inc., et
al.) were consolidated by the California Central District Court
into one action captioned In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation.
The consolidated complaint was filed with the California Central
District Court on October 2, 2007. The consolidated complaint
alleges that Amgen and these officers and directors made false
statements that resulted in: (i) deceiving the investing public
regarding Amgen's prospects and business; (ii) artificially
inflating the prices of Amgen's publicly traded securities and
(iii) causing plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase
Amgen publicly traded securities at inflated prices. The complaint
also makes off-label marketing allegations that, throughout the
class period, the Federal Defendants improperly marketed
Aranesp(R) and EPOGEN(R) for off-label uses while aware that there
were alleged safety signals with these products. The plaintiffs
seek class certification, compensatory damages, legal fees and
other relief deemed proper.

On February 4, 2008, the California Central District Court granted
in part, and denied in part, the Federal Defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Specifically, the
California Central District Court granted the Federal Defendants'
motion to dismiss as to individual defendants Fritzky, Omenn,
Johnson, Fenton and McNamee, but denied the Federal Defendants'
motion to dismiss as to individual defendants Sharer, Nanula,
Perlmutter and Morrow.

On August 12, 2009, the California Central District Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On April 14, 2014, the
California Central District Court entered an order allowing
plaintiffs leave to file a second consolidated amended class
action complaint. While the new complaint was filed under seal,
like the first consolidated class action complaint the new
complaint continues to assert that the Federal Defendants made
false statements and engaged in off-label marketing causing the
same results as alleged in the first consolidated class action
complaint. The complaint continues to name the same Federal
Defendants and the alleged class period remains the same.
Plaintiffs continue to seek compensatory damages, legal fees and
other relief deemed proper.

On May 5, 2014, plaintiffs filed an unsealed, redacted version of
their second consolidated amended complaint. On August 4, 2014,
the court issued an order granting the Federal Defendants' motion
to dismiss with respect to certain of the misrepresentations
alleged in the complaint and otherwise denying the motion to
dismiss. Following the court's order, the complaint continues to
assert that the Federal Defendants made false statements and
engaged in off-label marketing causing the same results as alleged
in the first consolidated class action complaint. The complaint
continues to name the same Federal Defendants and the alleged
class period remains the same. The trial date has been set for
July 12, 2016.


AMGEN INC: Supreme Court Reversed Judgment in ERISA Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the U.S. Supreme Court has reversed
the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court and remanded back to the
California Central District Court for further proceedings, the
ERISA Litigation.

On August 20, 2007, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) class action lawsuit of Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al., was
filed in the California Central District Court and named Amgen,
Kevin W. Sharer, Frank J. Biondi, Jr., Jerry Choate, Frank C.
Herringer, Gilbert S. Omenn, David Baltimore, Judith C. Pelham,
Frederick W. Gluck, Leonard D. Schaeffer, Jacqueline Allred, Raul
Cermeno, Jackie Crouse, Lori Johnston, Michael Kelly and Charles
Bell as defendants. Plaintiffs claim that Amgen and the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties and their duty of
loyalty by continuing to offer the Amgen stock fund as an
investment option in the Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan and the
Retirement and Savings Plan for Amgen Manufacturing Limited (the
Plans) despite the alleged off-label promotion of both Aranesp(R)
and EPOGEN(R) and despite a number of allegedly undisclosed study
results that allegedly demonstrated safety concerns in patients
using ESAs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants breached their
obligations under ERISA by not disclosing to plan participants the
alleged off-label marketing and study results. On February 4,
2008, the California Central District Court dismissed the
complaint with prejudice as to plaintiff Harris, who had filed
claims against Amgen. The claims alleged by the second plaintiff,
Ramos, were also dismissed but the court granted the plaintiff
leave to amend his complaint. On February 1, 2008, the plaintiffs
appealed the decision by the California Central District Court to
dismiss the claims of both plaintiffs Harris and Ramos to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Ninth Circuit Court).

On May 19, 2008, plaintiff Ramos in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et
al., action filed another lawsuit captioned Ramos v. Amgen Inc.,
et al., in the California Central District Court. The lawsuit is
another ERISA class action. The Ramos v. Amgen Inc., et al.,
matter names the same defendants in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et
al., matter plus four new defendants: Amgen Manufacturing Limited,
Richard Nanula, Dennis Fenton and the Fiduciary Committee of the
Plans. On July 14, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the
California Central District Court's decision in the Harris matter
and remanded the case back to the California Central District
Court. In the meantime, a third ERISA class action was filed by
Don Hanks on June 2, 2009 in the California Central District Court
alleging the same ERISA violations as in the Harris and Ramos
lawsuits.

On August 10, 2009, the Harris, Ramos and Hanks matters were
consolidated by the California Central District Court into one
action captioned Harris, et. al. v. Amgen Inc. Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on November 11, 2009 and added two additional
plaintiffs, Jorge Torres and Albert Cappa. Amgen filed a motion to
dismiss the amended/consolidated complaint, and on March 2, 2010,
the California Central District Court dismissed the entire lawsuit
without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March
23, 2010. Amgen then filed another motion to dismiss on April 20,
2010. On June 16, 2010, the California Central District Court
entered an order dismissing the entire lawsuit with prejudice. On
June 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Ninth Circuit Court. On June 4, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court
reversed the decision of the California Central District Court and
remanded the case back to the California Central District Court
for further proceedings. On June 18, 2013, Amgen petitioned the
Ninth Circuit Court for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc. The
Ninth Circuit Court issued an amended opinion and denied Amgen's
petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on October 23, 2013.

On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for
certiorari filed by Amgen and the other named defendants, vacated
the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court and remanded this case to
the Ninth Circuit Court for reconsideration in light of the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer,
decided June 25, 2014. On October 23, 2014, the Ninth Circuit
Court reaffirmed its earlier decision of June 4, 2013. On November
13, 2014, Amgen filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the
Ninth Circuit Court. On May 26, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court
denied Amgen's petition for rehearing en banc.

On January 25, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Amgen's
petition for certiorari, reversed the judgment of the Ninth
Circuit Court and remanded the case back to the California Central
District Court for further proceedings.


ARTURO'S PIZZERIA: "Then" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN THEN, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Elvir Vusanjin,
Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-00572 (S.D.N.Y., January 26, 2016), seeks
preliminary and permanent injunctions, damages, recovery of unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages and any other statutory
penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest and other and further relief for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Elvir Vusanjin operates Arturo's Pizzeria located at 5189
Broadway, Bronx, New York 10463 where Plaintiff works as a general
restaurant worker. Defendant required Plaintiff to regularly work
78-88 hours per week without overtime compensation. Defendant also
failed to provide Plaintiff with proper wage statements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis M. Leon, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel. (516) 248-5550
      Fax. (516) 248-6027


ASSURANT INC: Defending Class Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Assurant, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in class actions in a number of jurisdictions regarding
its lender-placed insurance programs. These cases assert a variety
of claims under a number of legal theories. The plaintiffs seek
premium refunds and other relief. The Company continues to defend
itself vigorously in these class actions.

"We have participated and may participate in settlements on terms
that we consider reasonable given the strength of our defenses and
other factors," the Company said.

Assurant is a global provider of specialty protection products and
related services.  Assurant operates in North America, Latin
America, Europe and other select worldwide markets through four
operating segments. Assurant Solutions, Assurant Specialty
Property, Assurant Health and Assurant Employee Benefits partner
with clients who are leaders in their industries to provide
consumers peace of mind and financial security.  Its diverse range
of products and services include mobile device protection products
and services; extended service products and related services for
consumer electronics, appliances and vehicles; pre-funded funeral
insurance; lender-placed homeowners insurance; property
preservation and valuation services; flood insurance; renters
insurance and related products; debt protection administration;
credit insurance; manufactured housing homeowners insurance; group
dental insurance; group disability insurance; and group life
insurance.


AT&T DIGITAL: Amended Scheduling Order in "Spencer" Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen granted Plaintiff's motion for
entry of an amended scheduling order in the case, KIRBY SPENCER,
Plaintiff, v. AT&T DIGITAL LIFE, INC, Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-
01136-APG-PAL, (D. Nev.)

This putative class action asserts claims for alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The court entered
a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order November 14, 2014,
establishing an April 22, 2015 discovery cutoff, with dispositive
motions due May 22, 2015. Plaintiff timely filed a motion to amend
the complaint to add class allegations on January 22, 2015. The
district judge granted the motion for leave to amend the on
September 1, 2015. The amended complaint was filed September 1,
2015, and on September 29, 2015, Defendant filed its Answer to
Plaintiff's first amended class action complaint.

In a minute order entered September 3, 2015, the district judge
denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment without prejudice
in light of the amended complaint to be filed, and denied
Plaintiff's motion to stay and motion to file surreply as moot.

Months after the district judge granted Plaintiff's motion for
leave to assert a first amended class action complaint, Plaintiff
filed this motion seeking "an amended scheduling order" to allow
Plaintiff to conduct discovery on the newly added class claims,
reset a date for dispositive motions, and deadline for filing a
motion to certify a class. The motion also requests an "extension"
of the deadlines to designate experts and rebuttal disclosures, a
May 20, 2016 discovery cutoff, and June 14, 2016 deadline to file
a motion for class certification. Plaintiff proposes that a
dispositive motion deadline be set 60 days after the court rules
on a motion for class certification.

Alternatively, if Plaintiff decides not to designate an expert,
Plaintiff requests that an April 1, 2016 discovery cutoff be set
with an April 29, 2016 deadline for a class certification motion.
Plaintiff moves for entry of an amended scheduling order and
incorporated memorandum of points and authorities.

In his Order dated February 9, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/7uArVJfrom Leagle.com, Judge Leen granted
Plaintiff's motion for entry of an amended scheduling order and
incorporated memorandum of points and authorities to the limited
extent he will be permitted to obtain the limited discovery
described in the body of this order, if the motion for summary
judgment is denied. Plaintiff will have 14 days from an order
denying summary judgment to serve Defendant with the 4 requests
for production described in the present order. Defendant will have
30 days from service of the 4 requests for production to serve
responses. Plaintiff will have 90 days from entry of an order
denying summary judgment to file a motion for class certification.
No additional depositions or expert designations will be allowed.
The deadline for filing dispositive motions has expired and will
not be extended. Any request for relief not specifically addressed
in this order is denied.

Spencer did not file a timely motion to extend the discovery
cutoff 21 days before the expiration of the deadline. Rather, this
motion was filed more than 8 months after the April 22, 2015
discovery cutoff expired. It is therefore a motion to reopen
discovery, not a motion to amend an existing plan, the judge said.

Evan Meyers, Esq. of McGuire Law, P.C. and Craig K Perry, Esq. of
Craig K. Perry & Associates serve as counsel for Plaintiff Kirby
Spencer

Douglas W. Sullivan, Esq. -- dsullivan@crowell.com -- and Joel D
Smith, Esq. -- jsmith@crowell.com -- of Crowell & Moring -- Ryan
M. Lower, Esq. -- rml@morrislawgroup.com -- and Raleigh C.
Thompson, Esq. -- rct@morrislawgroup.com -- of Morris Law Group
serve as counsel for Defendant AT&T Digital Life, Inc.


BAJA MINING: Ontario Court Approves Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Baja Mining Corp. on Feb. 22 announced that the previously
disclosed settlement of the Donohue class action has been approved
by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and, as part of the
settlement, the action has been dismissed.

In news releases dated October 6, 2015 and November 9, 2015, Baja
announced the execution of a settlement agreement (the
"Settlement") between the parties to the Donohue class action
litigation (the "Action") providing among other things that the
Action would be dismissed, no liability would be admitted, and the
Settlement Amount would be $11,000,000, inclusive of
administration and legal costs of the class, and of any other
costs or expenses related to the Action or the Settlement.  The
Settlement Amount will be covered by Baja's insurers.
On February 19, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
approved the Settlement and dismissed the Action.  The judge's
reasons for decision will be released at a later date.

Tom Ogryzlo, Interim CEO, stated, "I am pleased to have the
distraction caused by the class action litigation behind the
Company at last. As I noted previously, the prospect of this final
settlement has enabled us to focus on seeking opportunities for
creating value for our shareholders." Mr. Ogryzlo added, "While
these markets remain challenging, I believe that projects with the
right characteristics can be funded and advanced.  Our objective
remains to preserve the Company's longer-term participation in the
Boleo Project, through the development of a platform that will
enable the Company to pursue projects with potential to generate
short term cash flow."

The Company continues to evaluate the development of Cinto
Colorado, including the potential capability to supply feed to the
Boleo plant.  The possibility of supplying concentrate feed to the
Boleo process plant, which is currently underutilized, is
currently being investigated.  The Company has presented this
concept to KORES and has engaged SNC-Lavalin to undertake a
preliminary assessment of the installation and operation of an
autoclave at Cinto Colorado to process copper sulfide concentrates
with high levels of impurities as potential feed to the SX/EW
circuits of the adjacent Boleo plant.  Assuming positive results
of the SNC-Lavalin study and the cooperation of KORES, the Company
would expect to undertake a consolidation of its shares, a name
change and a financing to recapitalize the Company's balance sheet
and provide sufficient funds to support its development concepts.

Mr. Ogryzlo and Baja board director, Wolf Seidler, are currently
returning from Boleo where they met with senior management of
Minera y Metal£rgica del Boleo, S.A. P.I. de C.V. for an update on
the activities at site, including performance of the process plant
and commissioning of the cobalt and zinc circuits, and the
underground mine.  The Company will issue a further news release
in due course to update its shareholders.

Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider
(as that term is defined in policies of the TSX Venture Exchange)
accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this
release.


BASIC RESEARCH: Court Nixes Attempt to Moot Plaintiff's Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick T. Ryan, Esq. -- pryan@mmwr.com -- of Montgomery McCracken
Walker & Rhoads LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that a
federal district court judge in New York has denied a request by
the defendants in a putative class action to deposit funds with
the Clerk of Court in the amount of the defendants' Rule 68 offer
of judgment ($400) -- an amount the defendants assert would moot
the two named plaintiffs' individual claims and require dismissal
of the proposed class action.  Brady v. Basic Research, L.L.C. et
al., No. 2:13-cv-7169, 2016 WL 462916 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2016).
The decision represents an early response by a federal trial judge
to a question the United States Supreme Court left open in the
January decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016 WL 228345
(U.S. Jan. 20, 2016).

The Brady case involves claims, by two purchasers of Zantrex
weight control supplements, that the defendants falsely advertised
the effectiveness of the supplements.  The defendants made a Rule
68 offer of judgment to each plaintiff -- offering $200 to each --
and then, the day after the Supreme Court issued the Campbell-
Ewald decision, filed a motion under Rule 67 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure for permission to deposit the $400 with the
court.

In Campbell-Ewald, the Supreme Court ruled that a named
plaintiff's proposed class action is not rendered moot when the
defendant makes a settlement offer or a Rule 68 offer of judgment
that would satisfy the plaintiff's individual claim but the
plaintiff refuses to accept the offer.  2016 WL 228345, at *5-8.
Justice Ginsburg's majority opinion specifically noted, however,
that the Court was not deciding whether a case would be mooted if
a defendant goes one step further and actually "deposits the full
amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable
to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the
plaintiff in that amount" -- because that had not happened in the
Campbell-Ewald case.  Id. at *8.

The defendants in Brady wanted to take that extra step.  From the
various opinions in Campbell-Ewald, it appeared that at least
three (and perhaps four) justices had already expressed their
views on the question the majority reserved for a future case:
Chief Justice Roberts's dissent (joined by Justices Scalia and
Alito) would have held an unaccepted offer sufficient and indeed
said, "For aught that appears, the majority's analysis may have
come out differently if Campbell had deposited the offered funds
with the District Court."  2016 WL 228345, at *18.  And while
Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment that an unaccepted offer
was not enough, he wrote that he would construe Article III's
case-or-controversy requirement by looking to the common-law rules
of tender -- which he concluded required that a defendant actually
produce the sum of money being offered.  Id. at *10.  Justice
Scalia's death may thus affect how this issue ultimately gets
resolved by a closely divided Court.

In Brady, District Judge Sandra Feuerstein gave two reasons for
her denial of the defendants' request to deposit the funds with
the Clerk of Court.  First, she explained that Rule 67 (which
provides for depositing money with the court) expressly requires
"leave of court" and has been interpreted to relieve a depositor
of the burden of administering an asset.  2016 WL 462916, at *1.
She concluded, however, that the defendants were seeking
permission "to deposit funds into court to moot this case and not
to relieve themselves of the burden of administering an asset."
Id. at *2.  Second, she pointed out that in Campbell-Ewald, the
majority opinion states that "a would-be class representative with
a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to
show that certification is warranted."  Id. at *1-2 (quoting
Campbell-Ewald, 2016 WL 228345, at *7).  In light of that
"directive," Judge Feuerstein concluded that granting the
defendants' request was "not warranted." Brady, 2016 WL 462916, at
*2.

The defendants in Brady appear ready to test the issue further.
The docket in the case shows that the day after Judge Feuerstein
denied their Rule 67 motion, they wrote to the judge, informing
her that they had wired the $400 to an IOLTA account at Wells
Fargo Bank and that it would be held there for the benefit of the
two plaintiffs.  They said, "With the funds now deposited and
available to afford Plaintiffs complete relief, Defendants
respectfully submit that the Court should enter judgment in
Plaintiffs' favor and grant Defendants' pending motion to dismiss,
as Plaintiffs no longer have any live or justiciable claim."

In light of the Supreme Court's reservation of the issue in
Campbell-Ewald, it seems likely that other defendants will argue
that depositing funds with the court or in a bank account
earmarked for the named plaintiffs should moot the plaintiffs'
individual claims and require dismissal of the class action
allegations.  Plaintiffs will respond that the deposited funds do
not provide complete relief because there is no finding or
admission of liability and there is no determination of their
request to pursue claims on behalf of absent class members.  They
will point to the statement in Campbell-Ewald that "a would-be
class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded
a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted" -- and
defendants will respond that, once the funds are deposited with
the court or in a bank, that "would-be class representative" will
no longer have a "live claim of her own." Ultimately, it looks
like this question will need to go back to the Supreme Court.


BECK ENERGY: Ruling in Oil & Gas Lease Dispute Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case, THE STATE EX REL. CLAUGUS FAMILY FARM,
L.P., v. SEVENTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS ET AL. HUSTACK ET AL.,
Appellants, v. BECK ENERGY CORPORATION, Appellee, Nos. 2014-0423,
2014-1933, (Ohio), Justice Judith L. French of the Supreme Court
of Ohio affirmed an order by the Seventh District Court of Appeals
holding that certain oil and gas leases preclude the imposition of
an implied covenant to develop within the primary term of the
lease, and denied the motion for writs of mandamus and prohibition
as well as Beck Energy's motions to toll the terms of leases.

Larry A. and Lori Hustack -- along with Clyde A. and Molly A.
Hupp, who did not remain parties to the lawsuit when the complaint
was amended -- filed suit against Beck Energy in the Monroe County
Court of Common Pleas. The Hustacks are successors in interest to
lessors who signed a lease known as a "Form G&T (83) lease" with
Beck Energy in 2008. The lease contains blank lines for the
lessors' names, for the period during which a well was to be
commenced unless delay rental -- that is, an amount paid to the
landowner in lieu of development -- was paid, for the amount of
the delay rental, and for other information.

The complaint sought a judgment declaring that the Form G&T (83)
leases were void as against public policy and to quiet title. A
subsequently amended complaint asserted claims on behalf of a
class of over 400 Monroe County landowners who had signed Form G&T
(83) leases with Beck Energy.

Claugus Family, which was not a named plaintiff in the appeal,
owns a tract of land in Monroe County. A prior owner of the land
had signed a Form G&T (83) lease with Beck Energy. According to
Claugus Family, during the first ten years of the lease on its
property, no well was drilled, no oil or gas was produced, Beck
Energy did not search for oil or gas, and Beck Energy expressed no
intent regarding future production. Claugus Family then filed a
complaint in this court naming the Seventh District Court of
Appeals and three judges on that court as respondents. Beck Energy
was granted leave to intervene in the action.

Claugus Family asserts that the order in the appeal tolled its
lease with Beck Energy retroactively to October 1, 2012, without
notice. Claugus Family claims that the tolling order negatively
affected the value of its property, violated its right to due
process, and violated the rights of other landowners and that it
might expose the landowners to liability for breach of contract.
Claugus Family claims that it had or has no plain and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. Claugus Family requests an
order prohibiting the enforcement of portions of the September
2013 tolling order and an order vacating the order to the extent
that it applies to Claugus Family as an unnamed class member.

Beck Energy, on the other hand, claims that Claugus Family
breached its lease by entering into the Gulfport lease because the
Beck Energy lease prohibited the lessor from entering into any
other oil and gas lease while the lease was in effect.

These consolidated actions, an original action in this court and
an appeal of a judgment of the Seventh District Court of Appeals,
address the interpretation of a number of nearly identical oil and
gas leases. The appeal challenges the Seventh District's
interpretation of the leases in a class action.

The original action seeks writs of prohibition and mandamus. In
the original action, relator, Claugus Family Farm, L.P. an absent
and unnamed plaintiff in the class action, challenges the Seventh
District's order tolling the leases in the class action.

In his Opinion dated January 21, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/pKc6bMfrom Leagle.com, Justice French affirmed the
Appeals Court's judgment in case No. 2014-1933, because the leases
set forth a definite period of ten years in which development must
occur. The Supreme Court also denies a writ of mandamus or of
prohibition in case No. 2014-0423 because Claugus Family had an
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by moving to
intervene in the appeal and because the Seventh District did not
patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to issue an order
tolling the leases pending appeal. Finally, the Supreme Court
denies Beck Energy's motions to toll the terms of the leases.

Michael DeWine, Esq. of Attorney General; and Sarah Pierce, Esq. -
- Sarah.Pierce@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov -- and Tiffany Carwile,
Esq. -- Tiffany.Carwile@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov -- as Assistant
Attorneys General, serve as counsel for Respondents in case No.
2014-0423.

Richard V. Zurz Jr., Esq. -- rzurz@slaterzurz.com -- and Mark A.
Ropchock, Esq. -- mropchock@slaterzurz.com -- of Slater & Zurz,
L.L.P., serve as counsel for Appellants in case No. 2014-1933


BHP BILLITON: Faces Securities Class Action by Retirement Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson County Employees' Retirement System, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs v. BHP
Billiton Limited, BHP Billiton PLC, Jac Nasser, Andrew Mackenzie,
Peter Beaven and Graham Kerr, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01445 (S.D.N.Y., February 24,2016), seeks compensatory damages for
misrepresentations or failure to disclose material facts in its
financial reports during the class period.

The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of all
purchasers of the American Depositary Receipts of BHP between
September 25, 2014 and November 30, 2015, inclusive.  According to
the Plaintiffs, during the Class Period, the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's commitment to safety and implementation of safety and
monitoring protocols. Prior to and during the Class Period,
Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the precarious condition
of the Fundao dam and Samarco's tailings facilities in Brazil.
When the truth about the Company's operations was revealed in a
series of public disclosures and reports shortly after the Samarco
disaster, between November 5 and 30, 2015, the price of the ADRs
significantly declined, harming investors.

The Plaintiff contends that the "Safe Harbor" warnings
accompanying the Company's purportedly forward looking statements
during the Class Period were ineffective to shield those
statements from liability.  The Defendants, according to the
Plaintiff, are liable for any false or leading forward-looking
statement because at the time that each such statement was made,
the speaker knew it was false or misleading or that it was
authorized and/or approved by an executive officer who knew it was
false or misleading.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
     Joseph Russello, Esq.
     Michael G. Capeci, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Tel: 631/367-7100
     Fax: 631/367-1173
     Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
            drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
            jrussello@rgrdlaw.com
            mcapeci@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     Thomas Michaud, Esq.
     Jack Timmony, Esq.
     VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
     79 Alfred Street
     Detroit, MI 48201
     Tel: 313-578-1200
     Fax: 313-578-1201
     E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com
             jtimmony@vmtlaw.com

Defendant BHP is among the world's top producers of major
commodities, including iron ore, metallurgical and energy coal,
conventional and unconventional oil and gas, copper, aluminum,
managanese, uranium, nickel and silver. The Company operates under
a Dual Listed Company structure, with parent companies BHP Ltd.
And BHP Plc operated as a single economic entity by a unified
board and management team.

Defendant Jac Nasser (Nasser) has served as a director of BHP Ltd.
and BHP Plc since June 2006 and as Chairman of their Board of
Directors (the Board) since March 31, 2010.

Defendant Andrew Mackenzie (Mackenzie) has served as Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO") and as a member of the Group Management
Committee of BHP Ltd. and BHP Plc since May 10, 2013 and as a
member of the Board since May 2013. He joined the Company in
November 2008 as Chief Executive Non-Ferrous.

Defendant Peter Beaven ("Beaven") has served as Chief Financial
Officer ("CFO") and as a member of the Group Management Committee
of BHP Ltd. and BHP Plc since October 2014.

Defendant Graham Kerr ("Kerr") was CFO and a member of the Group
Management Committee of BHP Ltd. and BHP Plc from November 2011
until October 1, 2014. He joined the Company in 1994 and except
for a two-year hiatus, served in various executive roles,
including as President of Diamonds and Specialty Products. He
serves as CEO and a director of South32 Limited ("South32") a
mining company spun out of BHP in May 2015.


BLACKBERRY LTD: Dismissal Bids in "Semeran" Case Granted
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan D. Wigenton granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss in the captioned case RUSS SEMERAN, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLACKBERRY
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-CV-00750-SDW-LDW, (D. N.J.).

Russ Semeran brings this action on behalf of himself and all
similarly-situated individuals and entities who purchased
BlackBerry Cellular "Smart" Telephone Devices from BlackBerry
later found to be defective. BlackBerry is incorporated under
Delaware law, with its headquarters in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
BlackBerry's U.S. headquarters is in Irving, TX. BlackBerry
markets and sells the BlackBerry 10 Series Cellular Telephones.

Due to its allegedly defective operating system, BB10 phone users
experienced defects within the contact application, photo
application, and BB10's inability to support Yahoo Calendar.
Plaintiff alleges that BlackBerry knew or should have known about
the defects in their pre-market testing of BB10 phones.
BlackBerry continued to market and sell BB10 phones without curing
or disclosing the defects.

Plaintiff filed a six-count Class Action Complaint on behalf of
himself and similarly situated New Jersey and nationwide class
Plaintiffs, which was later amended on April 20, 2015, against
BlackBerry alleging:

     (1) violations of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA),
         N.J.S.A. Section 56:8-2 et seq. (Count I);

     (2) fraudulent concealment/nondisclosure (Count II);

     (3) breach of implied warranties (Count III);

     (4) breach of express warranties (Count IV);

     (5) negligent misrepresentation (Count V); and

     (6) unjust enrichment (Count VI).

BlackBerry seeks to dismiss all counts of Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6), which is opposed
by Plaintiff.

In her Opinion dated February 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/7wvJ3mfrom Leagle.com, Judge Wigenton granted
Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint without
prejudice.  Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this Opinion
and Order to amend his Complaint.

Judge Wigenton said Plaintiff has failed to satisfy Rule 9(b)'s
heightened pleading requirement. Plaintiff generally alleges that
Defendant made misrepresentations on its website and in an email
announcing the launch of the Q10 model. However, Plaintiff fails
to point to any specific statements from these sources. Plaintiff
also quotes a press release and television commercial from
Defendant, but does not identify which statements were false.
Moreover, Plaintiff fails to allege the particular date, place,
and time relating to any of these alleged misrepresentations.
Importantly, Plaintiff does not allege that he read any of these
specific statements prior to his purchase on June 5, 2013 or that
any of these statements caused him to purchase the Q10. Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim for fraudulent concealment under Rules
8(a) or 9(b).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant had "exclusive knowledge of the
Defects at the time of sale" and it nevertheless deceived
consumers into purchasing defective smartphones. According to
Plaintiff, Defendant stated on its website that the Blackberry Q10
smartphones provided a "contact" feature and made no mention of
the device's inability to place outgoing calls. However, Judge
Wigenton said, Plaintiff fails to allege that he read and
reasonably relied on that statement prior to his purchase on June
5, 2013. Moreover, Plaintiff does not plead that Defendant
intended that Plaintiff rely on its statement, or that his
particular phone was damaged as a result. Plaintiff has not
sufficiently set forth a claim for negligent misrepresentation
under Rules 8(a) or 9(b).

David Harrison, Esq. and Joseph Isaac Harrison, Esq. of Harrison
Harrison & Associates Ltd. serve as counsel for Plaintiff Russ
Semeran

Leah Kelman, Esq. -- lkelman@herrick.com -- and Ronald J. Levine,
Esq. -- rlevine@herrick.com -- of Herrick, Feinstein LLP serve as
counsel for Defendant Blackberry Corporation


BLUE BUFFALO: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $32MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Herald reports that Blue Buffalo, the natural pet food
company has agreed to pay $32 million after a customer complained
of their false advertising.  This would give their customers a
chance to claim refunds after Blue Buffalo settled the consumer
class-action lawsuit to allegedly prevent further proceedings'
expense.

The Connecticut-based pet food company claimed that their products
are free of poultry byproducts such as corn, and have no
artificial flavors, soy, wheat, or colors of preservatives.
However, laboratory tests indicated that Blue Buffalo products
indeed contain poultry byproducts, AL reports.  The results led to
consumer protest including mislabeling and false advertising
charges against Blue Buffalo.  The company dismissed the
allegations and pointed out that their supplier is the one
responsible for the issues.

"More than a year ago, we informed our pet parents about the
misconduct of a former ingredient supplier and broker.  While we
still continue to pursue our claims against them, we decided that
it is in the best interest of our pet parents and our company to
resolve the class actions now," Bill Bishop, chairman and founder
of Blue Buffalo said in a statement.

Blue Buffalo is offering a refund to consumers who bought products
included in the consumer class action lawsuit settlement covering
the period of May 7, 2008 to Dec. 18, 2015.  Consumers can file
and submit their claim at www.petfoodsettlement.com by April 14,
2016.  Those who purchased products with receipts can claim up to
a 10% refund, capped at $200.  Meanwhile, consumers who don't have
receipt can get $10 refund.

It is not the first time for Blue Buffalo to face a lawsuit over
false advertising claims. Last year, its St. Louis-based rival
Nestle Purina PetCare sued Blue Buffalo for the same allegations.
"Blue Buffalo's announcement of a $32 million consumer class
action settlement -- the largest pet food class action settlement
ever -- comes a full seven months after Blue admitted mislabeling
products and 19 months after Purina sued Blue Buffalo for false
advertising and misleading pet parents.  Purina is pleased Blue
Buffalo is beginning to accept responsibility for its false
advertising and mislabeling, Purina spokeswoman said of Blue
Buffalo's settlement, according to Biz Journals.

The case between Blue Buffalo and Nestle Purina is still being
heard in court.  Blue Buffalo continues to remain firm with its
claim that they hold no responsibility on the product ingredients
as it is fault by their supplier and broker.


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Court Tosses "Lang" Race Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge William T. Moore, Jr. granted Defendants' motion
for summary judgment in the case, EDWARD V. LANG, Plaintiff, v.
BLOOMIN' BRANDS, INC., and OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE, Defendants, Case
No. CV414-196, (S.D. Ga.)

Plaintiff is an African-American man who was employed as a busser
at an Outback Steakhouse in downtown Savannah, Georgia. During
Plaintiff's employment, the restaurant was managed by Sarah
Miller, the Managing Partner; Jeremy Webb and Joshua Curry, both
Managers; and David Schultz the Kitchen Manager. The restaurant,
in addition to several others, was overseen by Eldridge "Ridge"
Sink, II. As part of Sink's responsibilities, he conducted
training on Outback policies and procedures, and also addressed
serious issues of reported discrimination and harassment.

Plaintiff alleges that his initial hiring as a busser was only a
temporary position and that he was told by Mr. Shultz that he
would be promoted when a higher paying kitchen position became
available.

Plaintiff sent a complaint to Mr. Sink about racist behavior
towards African-Americans in the downtown Savannah Outback.
Generally, the complaint alleged (1) "diabolical blatant anti-
Black practice(s) at outback steakhouse downtown Savannah"; (2) a
"totally improper statement to Plaintiff regarding cleaning [a]
table"; (3) that Annie Miller3 "talked loud and unprofessionally
to Plaintiff" concerning cleaning tables; (4) that once Jeremy
Webb "confronted Plaintiff . . . in an extreme negative manner
pointing to another table as if Plaintiff was his slave"; (5) that
on one occasion Mr. Webb "became argumentative with Plaintiff;"
(6) Mr. Webb harassed Plaintiff about not performing his work
adequately, (7) that the managers were "using outback to implement
a clandestine and/or questionable business practice/ethic toward
Blacks;" (8) that Plaintiff was not receiving proper pay; and (9)
that Plaintiff was not receiving proper tips or wages. Upon
receipt of the complaint, Mr. Sink contacted Robert Donovan, an
in-house employment attorney for Outback. Mr. Donovan directed Mr.
Sink to investigate the complaint. Mr. Sink spoke with Sarah
Miller and Plaintiff as part of his investigation. While Mr. Sink
was unable to substantiate Plaintiff's complaints, he did discuss
the allegations with Plaintiff. In his discussion, Mr. Sink noted
that Plaintiff believed Mr. Webb had improved since his letter.
Although Mr. Sink believed that the situation was improving,
Plaintiff alleges that, in fact, the situation for African-
American employees at Outback deteriorated after his complaint and
that Mr. Sink spent very little time with him discussing his
complaint.

Defendant moves for summary judgment.

In his Order dated February 9, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/5xj20ofrom Leagle.com, Judge Moore, Jr. granted
Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Plaintiffs'
claims. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

The facts of this case clearly satisfy the first and second
elements of the prima facie hostile work environment claim, the
Court explained. Plaintiff is African-American and suffered some
level of harassment at the hands of his co-workers. However, even
if the conduct of Plaintiff's co-workers was motivated by
Plaintiff's race, the Court is unable to conclude that Plaintiff
experienced harassment that was severe or pervasive.  The Court
also said the harassing conduct was simply too infrequent; did not
permeate the workplace with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule,
and insult; and was not physically threatening or humiliating.


BOEING COMPANY: Faces Securities Class Action in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against The Boeing Company ("Boeing" or the "Company")
and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, and docketed
under 16-cv-02454, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased Boeing securities between
February 9, 2012 and February 11, 2016 inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Boeing securities during
the Class Period, you have until April 22, 2016 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Boeing, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops,
manufactures, sells, services, and supports commercial jetliners,
military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human space
flight, and launch systems and services worldwide.  The Company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes, Boeing
Military Aircraft, Network & Space Systems, Global Services &
Support, and Boeing Capital.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Boeing's use of program
accounting for the Company's 787 Dreamliner and/or 747 jumbo
aircrafts relied on inflated sales forecasts; (ii) Boeing's use of
program accounting for the Company's 787 Dreamliner and/or 747
jumbo aircrafts relied on understated estimates of production
costs; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Boeing's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On February 11, 2016, Bloomberg News reported that the SEC is
investigating whether Boeing properly accounted for the costs and
expected sales of its 787 Dreamliner and 747 jumbo aircraft.

On this news, Boeing shares fell $7.92, or 6.8%, to close at
$108.44 on February 11, 2016.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


BRITISH PETROLEUM: "Townsend" Case Transferred to N.D. Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. sends the case, ROBERT
JAMES TOWNSEND, v. BRITISH PETROLEUM, SECTION "J"(2), Civil Action
No. 15-5033 (E.D. La.) to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division.

"I find that venue is both proper and most appropriate in the
Northern District of Alabama. The convenience of the parties and
witnesses and the interests of justice warrant transfer of this
case," Judge Wilkinson said in his Feb. 19 Order, a copy of which
is available at http://goo.gl/i5q4Pwfrom Leagle.com.

The BELO portion of the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement in In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in
the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179, Record Doc.
No. 6427-1 at pp. 60-73, and this court's Case Management Orders,
Record Doc. No. 14099 in MDL No. 2179 and Record Doc. No. 6 in the
captioned case, provide for determination by this court, with the
input of the parties, of the appropriate venue for discovery and
dispositive proceedings, Judge Wilkinson explains.

Pro se plaintiff Robert James Townsend has requested that this
case "remain in the Eastern District of Louisiana under the Jones
Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920)."

Defendants have filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Robert James Townsend, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

British Petroleum, BP Exploration & Production Inc, and BP America
Production Company are represented by:

     Kevin Michael Hodges, Esq.
     Williams & Connolly, LLP
     725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
     Washington, D.C. 20005
     Tel: 202-434-5221
     Fax: 202-434-5029
     E-mail: khodges@wc.com

          - and -

     Catherine Pyune McEldowney, Esq.
     Maron Marvel Bradley and Anderson LLC
     1201 N. Market Street, Suite 900
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Telephone: (302) 425-5177
     Facsimile: (302) 425-0180
     E-mail: cpm@maronmarvel.com

          - and -

     Don Keller Haycraft, Esq.
     Liskow & Lewis
     One Shell Square
     701 Poydras Street, Suite 5000
     New Orleans, LA 70139
     Tel: (504) 581-7979
     Fax: (504) 556-4108/
          (504) 556-4120
     E-mail: dkhaycraft@liskow.com


CALIFORNIA: Inmate's Suit Over Prison Riot Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNY CHASE, Plaintiff, v. J. LOPEZ, Defendant, No.
1:14-cv-01853-EPG-PC, (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica P.
dismissed the first amended complaint but gave the plaintiff an
opportunity to file a revised complaint.

Kenny Chase is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Plaintiff filed
the Complaint commencing this action on November 3, 2014, as part
of a purported class action brought by a fellow inmate. The Court
dismissed that case because it was not a proper class action and
gave leave for the individual plaintiffs to file separate
lawsuits. Plaintiff filed his own first amended civil rights
complaint on December 4, 2014.

He alleges that prison officials negligently failed to secure
cleaning implements, which could have been used as weapons. He
then alleges that after an ensuing riot, prison officials put
Plaintiff back in the same environment as the inmates who rioted.
Plaintiff then asks for compensation.

In her Screening Order dated January 21, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/aKNiwafrom Leagle.com, Judge Grosjean dismissed the
Plaintiff's first amended complaint for failure to state a claim
under section 1983, with leave to amend. Under Rule 15(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "leave to amend shall be freely
given when justice so requires." It is unclear whether there exist
facts that would state a claim as to this individual Plaintiff,
but the Court will provide Plaintiff with time to file an amended
complaint.

The Court finds that, taken alone, Plaintiff's complaint fails to
state a claim. Plaintiff does not describe the involvement of any
individual defendant, does not allege facts showing that any
defendant knew of a risk and deliberately disregarded it, and does
not allege any injury to himself. Because the Court finds upon
screening that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, it dismisses
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint with leave to amend.

Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint
within 30 days if he chooses to do so. The amended complaint must
allege constitutional violations under the law. Specifically,
Plaintiff must state what each named defendant did that led to the
deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights.
There is no respondeat superior liability, and each defendant is
only liable for his or her own misconduct.

Plaintiff must also demonstrate that each defendant personally
participated in the deprivation of his rights by acting with
deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's health or safety, which is
sufficiently serious. Plaintiff must also describe how if at all
Plaintiff himself was injured.


CALIFORNIA CULINARY: Order Striking Class Allegations Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Therese M. Stewart affirmed a trial court order striking
all class allegations in the appellate case, MARIE ENEA, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA CULINARY ACADEMY, INC.,
ET AL., Defendants and Respondents, No. A141886, (Cal. App.).

Plaintiffs sued Defendants in the San Francisco City and County
Superior Court. They alleged that as a result of numerous
misrepresentations they and a putative nationwide class were
wrongly induced to become cosigners for, or direct borrowers of,
loans for students attending Defendant California Culinary Academy
(CCA), located in San Francisco, California, from 2003 to 2008.
They appeal from the trial court's order granting Defendants'
motion to strike all class allegations from their second amended
complaint.

The issue presented by this appeal is whether Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged a community of interest so as to maintain a
putative class action past the pleading stage.

In an Opinion dated February 3, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/YBdLNwfrom Leagle.com, Justice Stewart affirmed the
trial court's order striking all class allegations.

"We conclude plaintiffs' [second amended complaint] allegations
raise statute of limitations issues that necessarily require
individualized inquiries into the liability of many, if not all,
putative class members. As a result, there is no reasonable
possibility plaintiffs can establish a community of interest among
its proposed class because individual issues predominate over
common questions of law and fact. Therefore, we affirm the trial
court's order."


CANADA: Koskie Minsky Commences CPRI Class Action v. Ontario
------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP on Feb. 22 disclosed that it has commenced an
action on behalf of representative plaintiff, James Templin, in a
proposed class action against the Province of Ontario in respect
of the Child and Parent Resource Institute ("CPRI") in London,
Ontario.

CPRI was a "Schedule 1" facility that housed persons labelled as
developmentally challenged and delayed pursuant to the
Developmental Services Act.  It was formerly named the "Children's
Psychiatric Research Institute".

The lawsuit alleges that the Province was negligent and breached
its fiduciary duty by virtue of its operation, management,
administration, supervision and control of CPRI, resulting in
physical, sexual, and emotional abuse of residents, as well as
other harms.

The plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of all persons who
were alive as of February 22, 2014, and who resided at CPRI
sometime during the period from September 1, 1963 until July 1,
2011.  The lawsuit seeks $100 million in general damages and $100
million in punitive damages.

This case follows the settlements in class actions concerning the
Huronia, Southwestern and Rideau Regional Centres in 2013 and
2014, all of which were Schedule 1 facilities.  In addition, in
November 2015, Koskie Minsky settled another class action
concerning 12 other Schedule 1 institutions, for which a court
approval hearing is scheduled in April 2016.  In total, therefore,
settlements for individuals who were abused at 15 of the 19
Schedule 1 facilities have been reached.  While CPRI was initially
proposed for inclusion, the Province refused to include it in the
settlement.

"It is not clear why the Province chose to compensate those
individuals who were abused at other Schedule 1 Facilities, but
not at CPRI.  Many residents of CPRI have suffered horrible abuses
on the Province's watch that have gone ignored for far too long.
This lawsuit finally represents a real shot at access to justice
for these vulnerable people," says David Rosenfeld --
drosenfeld@kmlaw.ca -- a partner at Koskie Minsky LLP with
carriage of the matter.

On December 22, 2015, the Province was notified of the plaintiff's
intention to file this lawsuit pursuant to the Proceedings Against
the Crown Act.


CENTERPLATE: Super Bowl 50 Worker Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Chris Filippi, writing for KCBS, reports that a new lawsuit claims
many people who staffed Levi's Stadium during Super Bowl 50 were
not paid for all of the hours they worked, which could eventually
apply to thousands of workers.

Concession worker Gabriel Thompson says he worked a 17-hour shift
for the Super Bowl but was not paid for hours he spent on or
waiting for company shuttles to the stadium.

Attorney Caren Senser, who represents the plaintiff, told KCBS,
"The employees were entitled to be paid for all hours that they
worked, and because this extended the hours beyond 12 hours in the
day, they are actually entitled to double time for all the hours
that they worked after 12."

Ms. Sencer said Thompson and others were also not given required
breaks.

"California is very protective of workers in that role. And there
were long and hard fights in order to get meal periods and rest
periods and effective mechanisms to enforce the employee's rights
to have meal and rest periods.  And they seemed to completely
disregard them," the attorney said.

The lawsuit targets Centerplate as well as company executives. Ms.
Sencer said she's seeking class-action status for the lawsuit and
it could eventually cover as many as 3,000 workers.

Centerplate has yet to respond to requests for comment.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Jones" TCPA Class Suit in Conn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Jones, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs v. Charter Communications, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00296 (D. Conn, February 24, 2016),
seeks damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Complaint says the Defendant initiate calls to residential
landline telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members, in an effort
to sell or solicit its services, using an artificial or
prerecorded voice to deliver a message without their prior express
consent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
         URY & MOSKOW, L.L.C.
         883 Black Rock Turnpikes
         Fairfield, CT 06825
         Telephone: (203) 610-6393
         Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
         Email: neal@urymoskow.com

              - and -

         Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq.
         Tifanny M. Yiatras, Esq.
         CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
         8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
         Saint Louis, MO 63105-1643
         Telephone: (314) 725-7700
         Facsimile: (314) 721-0905
         Email: francisflynn@gmail.com
                tyiatras@careydanis.com

              - and -

         Anthony S. Bruning, Esq.
         Anthony S. Bruning, Jr., Esq.
         Ryan Bruning, Esq.
         THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC
         555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Tel: (314)231-9600
         Fax: (314)231-9480
         Email: tony@bruninglegal.com
                aj@bruninglegal.com
                ryan@bruninglegal.com

              - and -

         Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD
         1010 Market Street, Suite 1720
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Tel: (314)241-5799
         Fax: (314) 241-5788
         Email: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com

Defendant Charter Communications, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in Connecticut.  It provides
cable TV, internet and telephone services to customers nationwide.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Oil & Gas Leases Suit Stays in Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal appeals court recently sided with a group of oil and gas
companies, ruling that a lawsuit filed against them by a class of
post-foreclosure owners of disputed mineral interests should
remain in federal court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in an opinion
filed in January, also noted that the burden should be placed on
the plaintiffs who seek to remand a case based on one of the Class
Action Fairness Act's limited exceptions.

"If the applicability of an exception is not shown with reasonable
certainty, federal jurisdiction should be retained," Circuit Judge
Leslie Southwick wrote for a majority of the three-judge panel.

The defendant oil and gas companies, including Chesapeake Energy
Corp., operate producing wells in Johnson and Tarrant counties,
Texas.

The companies had obtained oil and gas leases on commercial and
residential property in downtown Fort Worth and adjacent
locations.  As a result, the defendants leased a substantial
number of third-of-an-acre, quarter-of-an-acre plots.

Allegedly, numerous lessors lost their property through
foreclosure subsequent to the execution of their leases.

A petition filed in state court claimed the defendants had not
always obtained subordinations of prior mortgages to the oil and
gas leases, which allegedly caused the mortgaged property to pass
free and clear of the leases to those who purchased through
foreclosure.  The petition also asserted that after foreclosure,
the defendants continued to produce from the relevant wells
without "undertaking the significant, expensive curative work" to
address the ownership changes.

Plaintiff Arbuckle Mountain Ranch of Texas Inc. filed a lawsuit on
behalf of itself and a putative class of 3,000 to 5,000 members in
a Texas state court in November 2014.

The class -- post-foreclosure owners of the disputed oil and gas
interests -- claims the defendants' oil and gas leases
automatically terminated upon foreclosure and the companies'
continued operation of these wellheads constituted trespass and
conversion.

The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, pursuant to CAFA, soon after.

In August, the Northern District of Texas granted Arbuckle's
motion to remand the case to Texas state court, holding the local
controversy exception applied.

The local controversy exception requires that two-thirds of the
proposed class, along with at least one defendant, be citizens of
the state where the class action was originally filed.  Under the
exception, the class' principal injuries also must be incurred in
that same state.

The defendant companies appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

The Fifth Circuit, in its Jan. 7 decision, reversed the Northern
District of Texas' ruling, concluding that Arbuckle's state court
petition was ambiguous as to the scope of the proposed class.

"Arbuckle's petition contains two conflicting class definitions,"
Southwick wrote in the 13-page majority opinion.  "After reviewing
Arbuckle's petition, the parties' briefs, and the record, we have
no basis to conclude the class is only of current owners, or
conversely that it covered all post-foreclosure owners including
interim owners.  Further, plaintiffs concede there is no evidence
that, under the broad definition, over two-thirds of the class are
Texas citizens.

"Because the class that the petition at the time of removal sought
to have certified is not clearly limited to current owners, and
with inadequate evidence of the citizenship of the interim owners
in the broader class, Arbuckle has not proven that the exception
for local controversies applies."

Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, in her dissent, agreed with
the district court's determination that the local controversy
exception required remand of the case to state court.

"The law of our circuit does not require such a presumption in
favor of federal jurisdiction, nor should it," she wrote.
"Moreover, if the facts of this case do not satisfy the local
controversy exception 'with reasonable certainty,' then the
majority's presumption is a strong one indeed."


CHICAGO: "Bell" Suit Seeks Damages Over Impoundment Code
--------------------------------------------------------
Dawain Bell and Alice Spinks, and all others similarly-situated v.
The City of Chicago, Case No. 2016-CH-00528 (Ill. Cir., January
14, 2016), seeks damages, declaratory and other relief against the
Defendant's vehicular impoundment code.

The Defendant is a municipal corporation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Donald K. Birner, Esq.
      2613 Mayflower Dr.
      Pekin, IL 61554
      Tel: (309) 347-7058


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces "Wambach" Suit Over Deceptive Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Wambach, Jason Finn, and all others similarly-situated v.
Church & Dwight, Co., Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01183 (N.D. Ill.,
January 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
claims under similar state statutes.

The class action stems from defendant's marketing and selling of
Vitafusion Multivites, L'il Critters Gummy Vites and other vitamin
supplements as "Made in the USA," when the products contain
substantial ingredients sourced from foreign countries.

Defendant Church & Dwight is the manufacturer of the Vitafusion
brand of Vitamins, including Vitafusion Multivites.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      John E. Norris, Esq.
      DAVIS & NORRIS LLP
      The Bradshaw House
      2154 Highland Avenue South
      Birmingham, AL 35205
      Tel: (205) 930-9900
      Fax: (205) 930-9989
      E-mail: jnorris@davisnorris.com

          - and -

      Gerald Bekkerman, Esq.
      Jennifer Bekkerman, Esq.
      BEKKERMAN LAW OFFICES, LLC
      444 N. Michigan Ave. #1000
      Chicago, IL 60611
      Tel: (312) 254-7399
      E-mail: gbekkerman@bekkermanlaw.com
              jbekkerman@bekkermanlaw.com


COMMAND SECURITY: Expects Court Approval of "Leal" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Command Security Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
expects court approval of the settlement in the "Leal" class
action within the next two to three months.

On April 29, 2014, the California Superior Court granted a
plaintiff's motion (Leal v. Command Security Corporation) to
certify a class consisting of all persons who were employed by the
Company in a non-exempt security officer position within the State
of California at any time since May 2, 2007 through the date of
trial who agreed to and signed an on-duty meal period agreement at
the time of their employment. The case is a certified class action
involving allegations that the Company violated certain California
state laws relating to on-duty meal and rest breaks.

On November 12, 2015, the Company agreed to a maximum settlement
amount of $2.0 million, including plaintiff's attorney fees and
costs, administration costs, and certain other miscellaneous
costs. As part of the settlement, the parties further agreed that
(i) the final settlement will be subject to court approval; (ii) a
minimum of 50% of the net proceeds will be distributed to the
class; and (iii) the settlement will be paid in two installments,
the first to be paid upon court approval of the final settlement
agreement and the second to be paid no later than one year from
final approval. The Company expects court approval within the next
two to three months.

The Leal v. Command Security Corporation lawsuit is one of
numerous class action lawsuits filed during the past year against
security guard companies in California related to meal and rest
break regulations. The Company aggressively defended its position
in this case; however, given the current environment in California
regarding similar lawsuits, the Company believes that settling
this matter under these terms provides a favorable outcome. In
addition, the Company considered its assessment of the cost to
continue to defend the case through trial and a potential appeal
in its decision to settle. While the parties have established a
maximum settlement amount at $2.0 million, the Company recorded a
$1.4 million provision in the quarter ended September 30, 2015.
This provision is based on the terms of the settlement and
historical statistical information as to the expected rate of
participation in similar cases provided to the Company by claims
administrators. In the event the rate of participation in the
settlement by class members were to exceed current estimates the
final settlement amount could increase to the maximum settlement
amount. The settlement will be administered over the next one to
two years.

Command Security principally provides uniformed security officers
and aviation services to commercial, residential, financial,
industrial, aviation and governmental customers through
approximately 26 offices throughout the United States.


COMPANIONS OF ASHLAND: "George" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dee Dee George, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs v. Companions of Ashland, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00429-JG (N.D. Ohio, February 24,
2016), seeks payment for all hours worked and overtime hours
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Complaint asserts that the FLSA requires that "non-exempt"
employees receive overtime compensation of "not less than one and
one-half times" the employees "regular rate" of pay and requires
that "non-exempt" employees receive a minimum hourly wage for all
work their employers suffer, permit or require them to perform.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
     SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
     The Superior Building
     815 Superior Avenue E., Suite 1325
     Cleveland, OH 44114
     Tel: 440-498-9100
     E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
             rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Faces "Backus" Suit Over Unhealthy Food Additive
---------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Backus, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case 4:16-
cv-00454-DMR (N.D. Cal., January 26, 2016), seeks restitution and
damages, disgorgement, punitive damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and further relief
for breach of express warranties and California Business and
Professions Code Sec. 17200 and 17500.

ConAgra is a Nebraska corporation with its principal place of
business in Omaha. It owns, manufactures, markets, distributes and
sells a large variety of margarine and vegetable oil spread
products under the brand name Fleischmann's. It contains partially
hydrogenated oil, a food additive banned in many parts of the
world due to its artificial trans-fat content.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONAGRA FOODS: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that ConAgra urged a
California federal judge on Feb. 22 to toss a putative class
action alleging the company's health plan is violating the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act by refusing to cover
treatments for autism, arguing the plan clearly -- and legally --
excludes the treatments at issue.

During a hearing in Los Angeles, Elizabeth A. Bozicevic --
elizabeth.bozicevic@huschblackwell.com -- of Husch Blackwell LLP,
representing ConAgra Foods Inc. Welfare Benefit Wrap Plan, urged
U.S. District Judge Andre Birotte to toss named plaintiff and
ConAgra employee Gabriella Raygoza's putative class action.


COVENANT CARE: Class Certification Bid in "Tinsley" Case Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the captioned case TYRAL TINSLEY on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COVENANT CARE SERVICES,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:14CV00026 ACL, (E.D. Mo.),
Magistrate Judge Abbie Crites-Leoni:

     -- granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

     -- granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion
        for summary judgment; and

     -- granted Plaintiffs' request to continue Defendants'
        motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs comprise a group of current and former employees who
worked for Defendant Covenant Care Services, Inc., a care agency
that provides services such as adult day care for disabled adults.
Plaintiffs represent a group of Independent Support Living Aides
and Lead Independent Support Living Aides, who provide care
services to Defendants' clients.

Lead ISL Aides are essentially the "head cheerleader" of multiple
Aides who work with the same client, but have no managerial
responsibility. ISL Aides are paid hourly.

ISL services are provided at the clients' residences, which can
include up to two other disabled roommates. Some ISL clients lease
properties from ABC Realty and BKC Properties.

ABC Realty is owned in part by Defendant Chris Reagan and his wife
Brandee Reagan; and BKC Properties is owned by Warren Reagan,
Rebecca Reagan, Chris Reagan, and Brad Reagan.

The Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants
failed to properly pay Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated
employees overtime compensation at a rate of not less than one-
and-one-half times the regular rate of pay for work performed in
excess of 40 hours per week, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 2010 et seq., and Missouri
law.

Plaintiffs bring the following three claims: (1) failure to pay
overtime wages to nonexempt employees in violation of the FLSA
(Count I); (2) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
Missouri Revised Statute Section 290.500, et seq. (Count II); and
(3) Missouri common law claims for quantum meruit/unjust
enrichment for Defendants' failure to pay overtime (Count III).

Plaintiffs seek to recover their back pay, individually and on
behalf of the proposed class. They also seek liquidated damages.

Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Class Certification, while
Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on the same
date as their Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims fail because Plaintiffs
were all properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA.
In the alternative, Defendants request that the Court dismiss
Plaintiffs' state law claims because they are preempted by the
FLSA, dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for liquidated damages, impose a
two-year statute of limitations, and dismiss certain individual
Plaintiffs from this action because their claims fail as a matter
of law.

In response to Defendants' Motion, Plaintiffs filed a request to
continue Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).

In her Memorandum and Order dated February 2, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/rtes8Wfrom Leagle.com, Judge Crites-Leoni granted
Plaintiffs' request to continue Defendants' motion for summary
judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d). Defendant's motion for summary
judgment is stayed as to Defendants' defenses of exemption and
good faith. Plaintiffs shall file their Response to Defendants'
motion for summary judgment on March 15, 2016. Defendants shall
file their Reply on March 29, 2016.

The Court also held that Plaintiff Tyral Tinsley is designated as
representative of the class. The parties shall confer and attempt
to reach agreement with respect to a proposed form of class
notice.  The parties were directed to file a proposed notice,
reflecting issues -- if any -- on which they are unable to reach
agreement.

The Court will grant Plaintiffs' request to stay Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendants' defense that
Plaintiffs are exempt employees under the FLSA and as to
Defendants' good faith defense. Although significant discovery has
been conducted, the focus of the discovery has been on the issues
related to collective and class actions. Indeed, the Court
contemplated that discovery would be conducted in two stages when
it issued the Initial Case Management Order (CMO), delineating
dates for discovery related to collective and class certification
only. The Court has yet to issue a CMO setting dates for the
merits phase of the litigation. It is, therefore, reasonable that
Plaintiff would seek additional discovery in order to properly
respond to Defendants' argument regarding the central issue in
this case of whether Plaintiffs are exempt employees under the
FLSA.

The Court said the resolution of individual opt-in Plaintiffs'
claims based on exemption will also be stayed. Even if Plaintiffs'
state law claims are duplicative of their FLSA claims, the state
law claims do not interfere with or stand as an obstacle to the
goals of the FLSA.

The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to
Plaintiff Janet Cargill's claims.  Summary judgment is denied as
to the issue of preemption.

The Court held that the filing of the Complaint did not toll the
statute of limitations as to Ms. Cargill's FLSA claim. Rather, the
statute of limitations, which is no longer than three years,
continued to run until Ms. Cargill filed her opt-in notice.  That
notice was filed more than three years after Ms. Cargill resigned
her employment. Plaintiffs have not argued that any inequitable
circumstances prevented Ms. Cargill from filing her opt-in notice,
which would support the application of equitable tolling. Thus,
Ms. Cargill's FLSA claims are barred by the statute of
limitations. The instant Complaint was filed more than two years
after Ms. Cargill resigned her employment. The undisputed facts
reveal that Ms. Cargill's FLSA claims and state law claims are
barred by the relevant statutes of limitations. Thus, summary
judgment will be granted in favor of Defendants as to Ms.
Cargill's claims.

Lara M. Owens, Esq. of Owens Law Firm, LLC and Michael A. Hodgson,
Esq. of Employee and Labor Law Group of Kansas City, LLC serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Tyral Tinsley

Bradley M. Bakker, Esq. -- bbakker@armstrongteasdale.com -- and
Robert A. Kaiser, Esq. -- rkaiser@armstrongteasdale.com -- of
Armstrong Teasdale, LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Covenant
Care Services, LLC


CREDIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES: 2nd Class Certification Bid Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon granted Plaintiffs'
second motion for class certification in the debt collection case,
LAURA POWERS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated; NICHOLE PALMER, JASON PALMER, Plaintiffs, v. CREDIT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., DANA K. FRIES, TESSA HERMANSON, JESSICA
L. V. PISKORSKI, BRADY W. KEITH, MICHAEL J. MORLEDGE, TESSA
HERMANSON, Defendants, No. 8:11CV436, (D. Neb.).

CMS sought recovery of three amounts: $24.51 for goods, services
and/or labor of Physicians of Ob/Gyn -- Dr. Benjamin Ryder,
stating the "reasonable value or agreed amount of these services
is $24.51 and such amount is a liquidated amount"; $602.39 for
goods, services and/or labor of Physicians of Ob/Gyn -- Dr. Mary
Kratoska, again stating $602.39 was the reasonable value of the
services and the amount was liquidated; and $229.48 for services
provided by Physicians of Ob/Gyn -- Dr. Nancy Hicks, also stating
the amount was reasonable and liquidated. Undisputed evidence
shows that the Palmer and Powers collection complaints are
examples of standard form pleading routinely filed by CMS.

Plaintiffs allege that CMS filed standardized collection
complaints that were misleading in that they included amounts for
recovery of prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees that are not
authorized under Nebraska law and included misrepresentations
concerning presenting a demand for payment.

The District Court earlier certified a class action comprised of
debtors who had received standardized collection complaints and
standardized discovery materials from CMS.

On interlocutory appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed this court's earlier class certification order and
remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Eighth
Circuit further stated that the classes, as certified, would
require individualized assessments of the purported class-members
state court collection actions. The Appeals Court also suggested
that the court should have ruled on then pending motions for
summary judgment before certifying the class.  The Appeals Court
noted two unresolved issues of law, which the district court has
now resolved, generally in favor of the Plaintiffs. The Eighth
Circuit also made other findings that are no longer relevant in
view of the changed posture of the case.

The Plaintiffs now seek certification of two classes: a Section
25-1801 class and a Section 45-104 class, with subclasses created
for the statute limitations period of one year under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and of four years under the
Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA).

In his Memorandum and Order dated February 2, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/RVhqjTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bataillon granted
Plaintiffs' second motion for class certification. A class is
certified consisting of: "(i) All persons with addresses in
Nebraska against whom Defendants filed a county court collection
complaint in the form of Exhibit C after January 1, 2008, for
purposes of the NCPA, and after December 18, 2010, for purposes of
the FDCPA (ii) which sought to recover attorneys' fees,
prejudgment interest, and costs, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec.
25-1801 (iii) where CMS did not personally provide the ninety-day
presentation of the claim (iv) in an attempt to collect an alleged
debt which, as shown by the nature of the alleged debt,
Defendants' records, or the records of the original creditors, was
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. (The Neb.
Rev. Stat. Section 25-1801 Class) (ii) All persons with addresses
in Nebraska upon whom Defendants served a county court collection
complaint in the form of Exhibit A after January 1, 2008, for
purposes of the NCPA, and after December 18, 2010, for purposes of
the FDCPA (ii) which sought to recover prejudgment interest
pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 45-104 (iii) in an attempt to
collect an alleged debt which, as shown by the nature of the
alleged debt, Defendants' records, or the records of the original
creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes. (The Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 45-104 Class)"

According to Judge Bataillon, the court has conducted a rigorous
analysis to ensure that the Plaintiffs satisfied all Fed.R.Civ.P.
Rule 23 requirements for certifying a class. The court has
reviewed the materials submitted in favor of and against class-
action certification, with an eye toward satisfying the concerns
expressed by the Eighth Circuit. The court finds that the
Plaintiff has shown that class action certification is
appropriate.

The second motion for class certification involves a proposed
class of debtors who received complaints filed by CMS. Discovery
materials are no longer at issue, the Court held. The common
contention among the class is that complaints filed by CMS were
false or misleading in several particulars, including that the
complaints sought interest and attorney's fees that were not
allowed by law, and the complaints misrepresented the nature of
the debt so as to obtain those additional amounts. The Court finds
that a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication
of the controversy. Because of the ceiling on recovery and the
difficulty of proving actual damages, an individual has little
incentive to bring a solo action to vindicate his or her rights
under the FDCPA. The Court also finds the Defendants' assertions
that it will take unreasonable amounts of time and effort to
determine who is in the class and the amount of actual damages for
each class member are not supported by the record.

Further, the Court is familiar with the experience and competence
of proposed class counsel and finds proposed class counsel can
adequately prosecute the interests of the class. Also, Plaintiff's
claim is typical of the claims of other putative class members,
all of whom received the same allegedly misleading complaint. The
record also shows that similar procedures were followed in all of
the cases and all of the in-house counsel could review all of the
cases. In light of the consumer-protection goals of the FDCPA and
NCPA, which permit, even encourage, consumers to act as private
attorneys general to pursue FDCPA claims, the Court finds
certifying a reasonably ascertainable FDCPA class for statutory or
actual damages will serve the purposes of the Act, which is
targeted at abusive debt collector activities.

The Court directed Plaintiffs' counsel to arrange and initiate a
conference call for the parties with United States Magistrate
Judge Thomas D. Thalken to schedule a planning conference.

O. Randolph Bragg, Esq. of Horwitz, Horwitz Law Firm Pamela A.
Car, Esq. and William L. Reinbrecht, Esq. of Car, Reinbrecht Law
Firm serve as counsel for Plaintiff Laura Powers

Christopher R. Morris, Esq. -- cmorris@bassford.com -- Jessica L.
Klander, Esq. -- jklander@bassford.com -- and Michael A. Klutho,
Esq. -- mklutho@bassford.com -- of Bassford, Remele Law Firm and
John M. Guthery, Jr., Esq. of Perry, Guthery Law Firm serve as
counsel for Defendant Credit Management Services, Inc.


CSRA INC: Parties in "Strauch" Case Exploring Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
CSRA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, for the quarter
ended January 1, 2016, that the parties in the case, Strauch et
al. Fair Labor Standards Act Class Action, have been conducting
discussions through a mediator to explore potential settlement
scenarios.

On July 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed Strauch and Colby v. Computer
Sciences Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut, a putative nationwide class action alleging that
CSC violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
with respect to system administrators who worked for CSC at any
time from June 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that CSC
improperly classified its system administrators as exempt from the
FLSA and that CSC, therefore, owes them overtime wages and
associated relief available under the FLSA and various statutes,
including the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, California Labor Code, California Wage Order No.
4-2001, and the California Private Attorneys General Act, CSC's
Motion to Transfer Venue was denied in February 2015. On September
28, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added
claims under Missouri and North Carolina wage and hour laws. The
relief sought by Plaintiffs includes unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, damages in
the amount of twice the unpaid overtime wages due, and civil
penalties. If a liability is ultimately incurred as a result of
these claims, CSRA would pay a portion to CSC pursuant to an
indemnity obligation. CSC and CSRA both maintain the position that
system administrators have the job duties, responsibilities, and
salaries of exempt employees and are properly classified as exempt
from overtime compensation requirements.

CSC's position is that its system administrators have the job
duties, responsibilities, and salaries of exempt employees and are
properly classified as exempt from overtime compensation
requirements.

On June 9, 2015, the Court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification under the FLSA of
a class of system administrators. The conditionally certified FLSA
and putative state classes include approximately 1,285 system
administrators, of whom 407 are employed by CSRA and the remainder
are employed by CSC. Courts typically undertake a two-stage review
in determining whether a suit may proceed as a class action under
the FLSA. In its order, the Court noted that, as a first step, the
Court examines pleadings and affidavits, and if it finds that
proposed class members are similarly situated, the class is
conditionally certified. Potential class members are then notified
and given an opportunity to opt-in to the action. The second step
of the class certification analysis occurs upon completion of
discovery. At that point, the Court will examine all evidence then
in the record to determine whether there is a sufficient basis to
conclude that the proposed class members are similarly situated.
If it is determined that they are, the case will proceed to trial;
if it is determined they are not, the class is decertified and
only the individual claims of the purported class representatives
proceed. CSRA's position in this litigation continues to be that
the employees identified as belonging to the conditional class
were paid in accordance with the FLSA and applicable state laws.

The parties have been conducting discussions through a mediator to
explore potential settlement scenarios. The next stage in the
litigation will be a motion for class certification, which is
currently due from plaintiffs in May 2016.

CSRA Inc. ("CSRA") is a provider of IT services to the U.S.
federal government. CSRA delivers IT, mission, and operations-
related services across the U.S. federal government to the
Department of Defense ("DoD"), the Intelligence Community and
homeland security, civil and healthcare agencies, as well as to
certain state and local government agencies through two segments:
(1) Defense and Intelligence and (2) Civil.


CVS PHARMACY: Attempts to Stop Disbarred Lawyer to File Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a disbarred
lawyer who has made it his mission to promote American-
manufactured products is facing opposition that would block him
from filing lawsuits in California.

Joel Joseph, chairman of the Made in the USA Foundation in Los
Angeles who was disbarred in 2011 in Maryland, has continued to
file suits as a pro se plaintiff against companies like Costco
Wholesale Corp., Trader Joe's Co. and CVS Pharmacy Inc. over the
labeling of ground meat and generic pharmaceuticals.  The cases
have been filed in California, where Joseph has used a private
attorney general action under the state's consumer laws to assert
the products were mislabeled in violation of the Tariff Act or
other federal laws.

On March 1, Mr. Joseph goes to court in Santa Monica, California,
to defend his case against CVS, which has filed a motion to
declare him a vexatious litigant.

In the motion, CVS attorney Trenton Norris, a partner in Arnold &
Porter's San Francisco office, cited 10 matters in the past seven
years that Joseph lost, plus "repeated frivolous, misleading, and
dilatory tactics" in other cases.  He declined to comment about
the motion.  If Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Nancy Newman
grants the motion, she could dismiss the CVS case and Joseph would
be unable to file future suits in California without getting the
approval of the presiding judge of that court.

In another case, a group of retailers and distributors of cashews
have turned up the heat on Joseph, claiming in motions to dismiss
that his crop of lawsuits should be stopped due to a lack of
standing.

Mr. Joseph declined to comment on the vexatious-litigant motion,
but in court papers denied the assertion, noting in an opposition
paper he filed on Jan. 22 that many of the matters cited by CVS
were petitions related to his law license.  In that filing he
wrote, "Plaintiff has never engaged in vexatious litigation and
has never done anything dishonest.  I have never brought a
frivolous case."

A 1973 graduate of Georgetown University Law Center, he was
disbarred in Maryland after that state's high court, the Court of
Appeals, found that he "lacked candor" when misrepresenting his
residence in an application to appear in court in California . He
was "suspended indefinitely" in Ohio the following year, and the
District of Columbia Bar disbarred him in 2015.

Among his recent cases, Mr. Joseph voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit
against Jennie-O and Trader Joe's.  He said that he settled with
Trader Joe's, which "changed their labeling."

Mr. Joseph has filed "a whole bunch of cases" since his
disbarment, said Jacob Harper -- jharper@troygould.com -- of
Los Angeles-based TroyGould, which represents Ralphs Grocery Co.,
Nature's Best Distribution LLC and Sun Ridge Farms Inc. in the
cashew case.  Citing a 2014 ruling dismissing a case that Joseph
brought against Costco, they are hoping to prevent him from
bringing the same claims again.

"We want to make it so the buck stops here," Harper said.

A lawyer for a fourth defendant, a division of The Kraft Heinz
Co., which filed a separate dismissal motion, did not respond to a
request for comment.

U.S. District Judge Andr‚ Birotte took the motions in the cashew
case under submission on Feb. 17.

In general, the defendants have argued that Joseph is not
permitted to bring the actions because he has suffered no
injuries. Joseph has cited the California Supreme Court's 2011
decision in Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (Benson), which found
that consumers could sue over misleading labels even when they
didn't suffer from economic damages or the product wasn't
defective.

"We brought these cases to move some of the principles of the
foundation forward," Mr. Joseph said.  "Basically, we're trying to
get companies to provide country-of-origin information that's
required by law."


DA DI CHINESE: "Liu" Suite Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zhen Guang Liu, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs v. Da Di Chinese Food, Inc.
d/b/a Kim Fai Chinese Food, Siu Ying Chen, John Li, Pun Chan, John
Doe and Jane Doe#1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00937
(E.D.N.Y., February 24, 2016), seeks payment of minimum wage, and
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to
payment of minimum wage, payment for overtime compensation worked
in excess of 40 per week, and entitled also to a credit for
expenses for tools of trade, the complaint asserts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

Da Di Chinese Food, Inc. owns and operates Kim Fai Chinese Food
located at 1628 Utica Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11234.


DAIICHI SANKYO: Gender Bias Case Settlement Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Heisler Kimpel, LLP, a national civil rights law firm,
continued its battle against Big Pharma, securing an $8.2 million
monetary settlement and impressive programmatic reforms for female
sales professionals at Daiichi Sankyo, the Japanese-based,
multinational drug company.

The nearly 1,600 female plaintiffs were represented in the class
action by the law firm's Chairman David Sanford, San Francisco
Managing Partner Felicia Medina and Associates Yonina Alexander
and Danielle Fuschetti.

According to the Complaint, Daiichi Sankyo historically paid its
female sales employees less than male employees for doing the same
work; promoted or advanced female sales employees at slower rates
than male sales employees and treated pregnant employees and
working mothers of young children adversely compared to non-
pregnant employees, male employees, or non-caregivers.

Wellens et al v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. was the first gender
discrimination collective action ever certified in the 9th Circuit
under the Federal Equal Pay Act.  Plaintiff Sara Wellens and five
other named plaintiffs filed the Complaint on behalf of female
sales professionals at the Company in 2013.

"This settlement represents far more than monetary compensation
for the women at Daiichi Sanyko who experienced gender
discrimination," said David Sanford.  "This outcome also provides
an excellent example of how women who don't just lean in, but push
back, can achieve far-reaching changes that improve the conditions
of employment for future generations of women.  Sanford Heisler
Kimpel will continue to fight for the elimination of gender
discrimination in all industries, including the global
pharmaceutical industry."

Sanford Heisler also enjoyed success against Forest
Pharmaceuticals, whose female employees reported similar workplace
discrimination based on their gender and pregnancy status.  The
Court recently granted Equal Pay Act certification.  The firm also
has a gender discrimination class matter pending against Merck.

The Daiichi settlement will result in major changes in Daiichi
Sankyo's treatment of the company's female sales professionals.
The company agreed to devote a proportion of the settlement funds
to providing ongoing training to managers about preventing gender
discrimination, harassment and retaliatory behavior.  In addition,
Daiichi Sankyo agreed to revise its merit increase pay policies
that disadvantaged employees who took medical leaves of absence,
including maternity leave.  It will also hire an expert HR
consultant recommended by Plaintiffs' counsel to revamp its
policies to ensure that women, working mothers, and pregnant sales
employees are provided with more equal employment opportunities
and necessary accommodations.  Sanford Heisler will monitor
Daiichi Sankyo's progress for two years.

"We always strive to include in settlements training and policy
changes to ensure the end of workplace discrimination," said
Felicia Medina.  "We are proud to help generate equal pay, fair
promotion opportunities, and a safe and fair environment for
pregnant employees."

                About Sanford Heisler Kimpel, LLP

Sanford Heisler Kimpel, LLP -- http://www.sanfordheisler.com-- is
a public interest class-action litigation law firm with offices in
New York, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco.  The Firm
specializes in civil rights and general public interest cases,
representing plaintiffs with employment discrimination, labor and
wage violations, predatory lending, whistleblower, consumer fraud,
and other claims.  Along with a focus on class actions, the firm
also represents individuals and has achieved particular success in
the representation of executives in employment disputes.


DELTA FUNDING: "Smith" Foreclosure Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge George Caram Steeh granted Defendants' motions to
dismiss in the case, FELICIA SMITH, individually and as the
Personal Representative of the Estate of Rena Johnson, a/k/a Renee
Johnson, dec'd & on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DELTA FUNDING CORP., WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., successor by merger to Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., as
Trustee f/k/a Northwest Bank Minnesota, N.A., as. Trustee for the
registered holders of Renaissance Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed
Certificates, Series 2004-1, Advantage Investors Mortgage
Corporation, WAYNE COUNTY, MI SHERIFF and WAYNE COUNTY, MI
REGISTER OF DEEDS, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-13387, (E.D. Mich.)

Plaintiff Felicia Smith  filed a three-count complaint in Wayne
County Circuit Court, phrased as follows: Count I  --  Complaint
To Set Aside Real Estate Mortgage Foreclosure Sale Against
Defendants Wells Fargo, Wayne County Sheriff & Wayne County
Register Of Deeds, Only; Count II  --  Individual & Class Action
Complaint For Damages For Violating The Federal Fair Housing Act,
The Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Michigan Consumer
Mortgage Protection Act And The Michigan Mortgage Brokers,
Lenders, And Servicers Licensing Act Against Defendants Delta
Funding, Advantage & Wells Fargo, Only and Count III  --
Complaint For Modification Of Real Estate Mortgage Against
Defendant Wells Fargo, Only.

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger to Wells
Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., as Trustee f/k/a Northwest Bank
Minnesota, N.A., as Trustee for the registered holders of
Renaissance Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series
2004-1, removed the action to the present court.

The Trustee and the Wayne County Defendants filed separate motions
to dismiss.

In his Order dated February 11, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/HRGynMfrom Leagle.com, Judge Steeh said Plaintiff
has not established, let alone alleged, that she would have been
able to pay off this entire balance if her name was included in
the notices. That she may have been able to make monthly payments
is irrelevant given that the entirety of the indebtedness was
accelerated.

An additional reason for dismissal of Count I against the Wayne
County Defendants is that the only allegation in the complaint
against them is that the Wayne County Register of Deeds recorded
the sheriff's deed after the foreclosure sale. This allegation
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against
the Wayne County Defendants. The Wayne County Defendants do not
claim any interest to the property, and, as such, are not proper
Defendants in seeking to set aside a foreclosure sale.

The Court also said Plaintiff's complaint fails to plead fraud
with particularity, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
9(b), against any of the Defendants. In addition, there are no
allegations that Plaintiff was diligent in attempting to discover
the alleged discriminatory conduct.

In Count III, Plaintiff asks the court for a modification of the
mortgage that was in place prior to the foreclosure sale.
Plaintiff makes clear that Count III is not a freestanding claim.
However, Judge Steeh said, Plaintiff is not entitled to the remedy
she seeks, i.e. a modification of the mortgage.

Herman J. Anderson, Esq. serves as counsel for Plaintiff Felicia
Smith, Individually and as the personal Representative of the
Estate of Rena Johnson, a/k/a Renee Johnson, dec'd & on behalf of
all other similarly persons situated

Robert H. Ellis, Esq. -- rellis@dykema.com -- Thomas M. Schehr,
Esq. -- tschehr@dykema.com -- and Thomas H. Trapnell, Esq. --
ttrapnell@dykema.com -- of Dykema Gossett PLLC serve as counsel
for Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


DIRECTV: Outlines Details of MLB "Extra Innings" Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pete Dougherty, writing for mySA, reports that in a letter sent to
subscribers, DirecTV has outlined details of a settlement of a
class-action lawsuit brought against with Major League Baseball
and its "Extra Innings" package.

The result is that DirecTV and Comcast customers will receive a
12.5 percent reduction in the "Extra Innings" price from 2015 for
both the 2016 and 2017 seasons.  The full-season cost of MLB.TV
will be reduced from $129.99 to $109.99, with a guarantee of a
maximum increase of no more than 3 percent (or the federal Cost of
Living Adjustment, if higher) per year through 2020.

The DirecTV letter explained that the lawsuit, brought forward by
consumers who purchased MLB.TV or purchased MLB Extra Innings from
Comcast or DIRECTV between May 9, 2008, and Jan. 18, 2016,
"alleges that the territorial allocation of broadcast rights
within MLB assigned to each of its member clubs and thereafter
sold to regional sports networks violated federal antitrust laws,
provides out-of-market consumers with fewer choices, and inflates
prices charged to view broadcasts of live professional baseball
games.

"Defendants dispute Plaintiffs' factual and legal claims and deny
any wrongdoing and liability, as well as any adverse effect on
consumer choices and that prices charged have been inflated.  The
parties have concluded that it is in their best interests to
settle the litigation to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and
uncertainty of litigation."

As a result of the settlement, MLB will now:

  -- offer single-team packages for out-of-market games through
MLB.TV for $84.99 for a full season in 2016. Comcast and DirecTV
are not obligated to offer such packages.

  -- allow MLB.TV purchasers who subscribe to Comcast, DirecTV or
certain other cable, satellite or other providers to purchase a
"Follow Your Team" option that will allow them to receive
telecasts of their favorite out-of-market team's broadcaster
without any blackouts, so long as the purchaser receives the
in-market team's programming through his or her television
service.  This product will cost no more than $10 more than a
standard MLB.TV package.

  -- seek to reach agreements with Comcast, Root Sports and Fox
regional sports networks to offer live in-market streaming of
their telecasts.

  -- offer live streaming of any in-market team's telecasts
produced by Comcast, Root Sports or Fox regional sports networks
to any customer who is unable to obtain multi-channel video
provider distributor service or virtual multi-channel video
provider distributor service at his or her residence.


EMC CORP: "Booth Family" Suit Challenges Sale Agreement with Dell
---------------------------------------------------------------
Booth Family Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Joseph M. Tucci, William D. Green, Jose E.
Almeida, Michael W. Brown, Donald J. Carty. Randolph L. Cowen,
James S. Distasio, John R. Egan, Edmund F. Kelly. Judith A.
Miscik, Paul Sagan, Laura J. Sen, Dell Inc., Denali Holding, Inc.
and Universal Acquisition Co., Case No. 1:16-cv-10114, (D. Mass.,
January 26, 2016), seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any
steps to consummate the sale of EMC Corp. to Dell, Inc., or, in
the event the merger is consummated, to recover damages resulting
from the Defendants' violation of their fiduciary duties of
loyalty, good faith, due care and full and fair disclosure.

The EMC Board had agreed to sell EMC to Dell who will acquire the
company at $24.05 per share against the current $33.15 per share.

EMC, a Massachusetts corporation, is a multinational corporation
that offers data storage, information security, virtualization,
analytics, cloud computing and other products and services that
enable businesses to store, manage, protect, and analyze data.

Joseph M. Tucci is EMC's Chairman of the Board.

William D. Green is EMC's Lead Independent Director.

Jose E. Almeida, Michael W. Brown, Donald J. Carty, Randolph L.
Cowen, James S. Distasio, John R. Egan, Edmund F. Kelly, Judith A.
Miscik, Paul Sagan and Laura J. Sen are the members the EMC Board
of Directors.

Dell, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with principal executive
offices at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas. It provides computer
and other related products and specializes in desktop, laptops,
tablets, mobile phones, monitors, projectors, electronic
accessories, printers, servers, storage, networking, and other
equipment.

Denali Holding Inc. and Universal Acquisition Co. are Delaware
corporations tasked with facilitating the merger.

The Plaintiff is an owner of EMC common stock.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
      MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
      18 Grove Street, Suite 5
      Wellesley, MA 02482
      Tel: (781) 453-0100
      Email: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com

          - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli
      Michael A. Rogovin
      Kelly C. Keenan
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025


ETHICON: Jury Hears Closing Arguments in Pelvic Mesh Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
during closing arguments in the latest pelvic mesh trial in
Philadelphia, plaintiffs attorney Shanin Specter --
Shanin.Specter@KlineSpecter.com -- called the conduct of the
defendant company heads "beyond reckless," saying it made him want
to throw his lectern out the courtroom window.

He asked the jurors to look beyond his client's injuries and
consider all the potential harm the device may have caused others,
before he asked the jury to send a message to the defendant,
Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon.

"I could feel the hair standing up on my neck," Mr. Specter
recently said about going over the evidence during his closing in
Carlino v. Ethicon.

That jury came back with a $13.5 million verdict, including $10
million in punitive damages.

Roughly two months before that verdict, when Thomas R. Kline, who,
along with Mr. Specter, heads Kline & Specter, had made his
closing argument in the same courtroom before the same judge in
the latest Risperdal-related trial, he similarly assailed a
Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, Janssen, over its conduct.

But Mr. Kline was prohibited from asking the jury to consider
other potential victims, or to send the company a message, because
the judge supervising the Risperdal mass tort previously barred
the plaintiffs from seeking punitive damages in those cases.

"I was only allowed to ask for compensation," Kline said.
The jury in that case, Stange v. Janssen, returned a $500,000
plaintiffs award.  According to attorneys, the punitive damages
issue in the two mass tort programs is one of the key factors that
have led the pelvic mesh litigation to two large plaintiffs'
victories, while the Risperdal litigation has resulted in more of
a mixed bag for plaintiffs.

"An early ruling that takes punitive damages out of the case is a
very large step for the court and the litigants, because it
removes a significant risk for the defendant, especially in the
face of conduct which is egregious," Mr. Kline said.

Both pelvic mesh cases have resulted in more than eight-figure
awards.  While the Carlino case resulted in $13.5 million, the
first case, Hammons v. Ethicon, ended with a $12.5 million
verdict, including $5.5 million in compensatory damages and $7
million in punitives.

Before the $500,000 award in Stange, the Risperdal cases resulted
in a $2.5 million and a $1.75 million award, as well as a
settlement.  A jury also handed up a defense verdict in the second
Risperdal case to go to trial, although it found Janssen negligent
in failing to warn about the potential risks of Risperdal.

Cozen O'Connor attorney James H. Heller -- jimheller@cozen.com --
said a ruling on the availability of punitive damages changes the
standard for introducing prior-incidents evidence.  Although it's
not supposed to, Mr. Heller said, this can potentially lead juries
to increase awards when considering liability and compensatory
damages.

"The thought and fear is that the jury will instead use it to
decide liability," Mr. Heller said.  "Pain and suffering is
subjective, and so being that it's so subjective, the jury has got
a lot of leeway.  If they get angry for lack of evidence on the
defense side, or the amount of evidence of misconduct on the other
side, the way they can show it is to use that subjectivity to
increase the amount of the verdict."

He said the significant split between the $3.5 million in
compensatory damages and the $10 million in punitives in the
Carlino case indicates that the jury got mad at Ethicon.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Class Cert. Bid in "Beeman" Case Not Yet Briefed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification has not been briefed to date in the
case, Jerry Beeman, et al. v. Caremark, et al. (United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Case
No.021327) (filed December 2002).

A complaint was filed against Express Scripts, Inc. -- ESI --
NextRX LLC f/k/a Anthem Prescription Management LLC, Medco Health
Solutions, Inc. and several other pharmacy benefit management
companies by several California pharmacies as a putative class
action, alleging rights to sue as a private attorney general under
California law. Plaintiffs allege ESI and the other defendants
failed to comply with statutory obligations under California Civil
Code Section 2527 to provide California clients with the results
of a bi-annual survey of retail drug prices, and seek money
damages.

In July 2004, the case was dismissed with prejudice due to lack of
standing. In June 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's opinion on standing
and remanded the case. The district court's denial of defendants'
motion to dismiss on first amendment constitutionality grounds was
appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs have also filed a motion
for class certification, but that motion has not been briefed to
date.

In July 2011, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
denial of defendants' motion to dismiss. In June 2012, the Ninth
Circuit en banc panel issued a decision certifying the question of
constitutionality of California Civil Code Section 2527 to the
California Supreme Court, requesting consideration of the issue
and a ruling. In December 2013, the California Supreme Court held
that California Civil Code Section 2527 does not infringe upon
state constitutional free speech protections.

In January 2014, the Ninth Circuit en banc panel issued a ruling
vacating the prior panel opinion and remanded the case to the
original Ninth Circuit three-judge panel to either consider the
federal constitutional issues or remand the case to the district
court.

In March 2014, the Ninth Circuit entered an order lifting the stay
and remanded the case to the district court for further
proceedings. Defendants' objections based on plaintiffs' lack of
standing and the unconstitutionality of the California law due to
defendants' first amendment rights have been rejected by the
courts and are not subject to further appeals.

Express Scripts is the largest stand-alone pharmacy benefit
management ("PBM") company in the United States, offering a full
range of services to our clients, which include managed care
organizations, health insurers, third-party administrators,
employers, union-sponsored benefit plans, workers' compensation
plans, government health programs, providers, clinics, hospitals
and others.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Motion for Decertify Class in "Brady" Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that ESI's motion to
decertify the class in the Brady Enterprises case is pending.

The following two remaining cases were transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation -- In re:
PBM Antitrust Litigation -- in August 2006:

      (i) Brady Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health
Solutions, Inc. (filed in August 2013 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania); and

     (ii) North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health
Solutions, Inc., et al. (United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama), consolidated with North Jackson
Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al. (United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama) (filed
in October 2003).

Following oral arguments on ESI's motion to decertify the class in
2007, the case remained dormant until April 2011, when it was
reassigned to a new judge who ordered supplemental briefing. Oral
argument of all the class certification motions was heard in
January 2012, and the court took ESI's motion under submission.
The Brady Enterprises case was filed against Merck & Co., Inc.
("Merck") and Medco. Plaintiffs moved for class certification to
represent a national class of retail pharmacies and allege that
Medco conspired with, acted as the common agent for, and used the
combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to restrain competition
in the market for the dispensing and sale of prescription drugs.
Plaintiffs allege that, through conspiracy, Medco has engaged in
various forms of anticompetitive conduct including, among other
things, setting artificially low pharmacy reimbursement rates.
Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Antitrust
Act and seek treble damages and injunctive relief. Currently,
ESI's motion to decertify the class in the Brady Enterprises case
is pending since oral arguments were held in January 2012.

The North Jackson Pharmacy case is a class action against ESI and
Medco on behalf of independent pharmacies within the United
States. The complaint alleges that certain of ESI's and Medco's
business practices violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiffs
seek unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages) and
injunctive relief. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
against ESI and Medco was granted in March 2006.

Express Scripts is the largest stand-alone pharmacy benefit
management ("PBM") company in the United States, offering a full
range of services to our clients, which include managed care
organizations, health insurers, third-party administrators,
employers, union-sponsored benefit plans, workers' compensation
plans, government health programs, providers, clinics, hospitals
and others.


FACEBOOK INC: Judge Dismisses Biometrics Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Emma Gallimore, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit against Facebook after
the California-based social media site claimed there was a lack of
personal jurisdiction in Illinois.

The plaintiff in the case, Fredrick William Gullen, filed the
complaint alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.  Mr. Gullen is not a Facebook user, but
he alleged that his image was uploaded to the site and that his
biometric identifiers and biometric information was collected,
stored and used by Facebook without his consent.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, implemented in
2008, regulates the collection, use, and storage of biometric
identifiers and biometric information such as scans of face or
hand geometry.  The act specifically excludes photographs,
demographic information, and physical descriptions.

The first known biometrics case in Illinois was also a class
action against an online company.  Shutterfly, a company that
allows users to upload and print photos or use them to personalize
items, moved to have the case against it dismissed on the grounds
that the Biometric Information Privacy Act does not apply to
photographs, but the judge disagreed and allowed the case to move
forward.

On Feb. 1, Shutterfly moved for reconsideration or, as an
alternative, that the case be certified for an interlocutory
appeal.  This would allow Shutterfly to appeal the decision
immediately rather than wait for a final court ruling.

In the Facebook case, no ruling has been made on whether the
information on Facebook counts as biometric identifiers and
biometric information under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act. Instead, the judge agreed with Facebook that the case
could not be tried in Illinois.

"They have to show personal jurisdiction in order to sue someone
in a particular jurisdiction," said Linn Freedman, partner at
Robinson & Cole.

"In this particular case, the judge found that Facebook was not
targeting specifically Illinois residents. He also found that they
did not have minimum contact with Illinois."

Facebook is a California-based company that operates a mobile
application and website used by people across the country and
around the world.  The people of Illinois, while certainly
included in that subset, are not sought out specifically by
Facebook to join its site.

However, the company is currently facing a proposed class action
in California relating to some of the same questions.

"The legal argument of personal jurisdiction will not be
applicable in California since that's where Facebook is located,"
Ms. Freedman said.

How the California class action will play out remains to be seen.
California does not yet have a clear policy on biometric privacy.

A bill pending in the state's legislature would extend the scope
of the data security law to include biometric data as well as
geophysical location, but it has not yet become law.

The question of privacy in regards to biometric information is one
that has garnered increasing attention in recent months.  On Feb.
4, the Biomterics Institute, an independent research and analysis
organization, released revised guidelines comprising 16 privacy
principles for companies that gather and use biometrics data.


FEDCHOICE FEDERAL: "Horton" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Horton, and all others similarly-situated v. FedChoice
Federal Credit Union and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:16-cv-00318
(E.D. Pa., January 26, 2016), seeks monetary damages, restitution
and injunctive relief arising from the Defendants' breach of
contract with customers for implementing an overdraft fee program.

The Defendant is a Maryland based credit union with approximately
$350 million in assets that provides banking services to over
25,000 members through branches in Pennsylvania, Washington D.C.,
New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
      Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
      Alison G. Gushue, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Tel: (610) 642-8500
      Fax: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: JGS@chimicles.com
              MDS@chimicles.com
              AGG@chimicles.com

          - and -

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      Tel: (909) 557-1250
      Fax: (909) 557-1275
      E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com

          - and -

      Taras Kick, Esq.
      THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
      201 Wilshire Boulevard
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Tel: (310) 395-2988
      Fax: (310) 395-2088
      E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com


FLINT, MI: Water Crisis Lawsuits to Cost Taxpayers Millions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Dixon, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that
Flint's water crisis has unleashed a tsunami of lawsuits that
could cost Michigan taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in
damages.

"The only deep pocket in the vicinity of Flint is the State of
Michigan," said Wayne State University law professor Peter
Henning, a former federal prosecutor.  "This could be a tax
liability on the citizens of Michigan.  This is the worst
nightmare when a bureaucracy goes completely off the rails and
makes decisions that cause widespread harm."

At least a dozen lawsuits have been filed in local, state and
federal courts on behalf of Flint residents who drank lead-tainted
water for nearly two years.  The complaints name a long list of
state and local agencies and officials, from Gov. Rick Snyder to
Flint city employees.

Some of the suits seek to hold Snyder and others personally liable
for damages. They could also face criminal charges as state and
federal prosecutors investigate how Flint's water was poisoned.

Lawyers in two cases say they're seeking multimillion-dollar
awards.  One seeks $100 million from a Flint hospital for victims
of Legionnaires' disease and the other seeks at least $500 million
from an engineering company Flint hired to put its water treatment
plant into operation using Flint River water.  The suit, which
states the company was aware the water would be dangerous without
proper anticorrosive treatment, seeks damages for diminished
property values.

The remaining suits seek everything from replacement of the pipes
that leached lead into Flint's water supply to long-term medical
monitoring and health care, a court-ordered monitor to oversee the
city's water operations, cancellation of all water bills since
April 2014, when lawyers argue Flint's water supply became unfit
to drink, and punitive damages against the state and other
defendants.

Noah Hall, a Wayne State law professor who specializes in
environmental law and is following the litigation closely, said
the best solution for the state would be to do what BP did after
the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in 2010: finance a victims'
compensation fund.

The largest oil spill in U.S. waters, the disaster in the Gulf of
Mexico killed 11 crew members, leaked millions of barrels of
crude, and coated hundreds of miles of shoreline with oil.

Like the businesses and people hurt by the oil spill, Mr. Hall
said Flint residents need help, too: Pay them damages, monitor
their health, cover their medical expenses.  From the state's
perspective, a fund could have the added benefit of keeping
damaging revelations from coming to light in a lengthy legal
fight, he said.

Washington-based attorney Kenneth Feinberg designed the BP fund
and during the 18 months he managed it, it paid out $6.5 billion
and processed $1.2 million in claims for economic damages from
businesses and individuals.  Mr. Feinberg also administered the
victims compensation fund Congress created after the Sept. 11,
2001, terrorist attacks.

According to Rich Henke, law professor at Western Michigan
University's Cooley Law School, 98% of those who were eligible
joined the fund and were compensated.  Awards in death cases
ranged from $250,000 to $7.1 million, while personal-injury claims
ranged from $500 to $8.6 million.

The original fund, which closed in 2004, paid more than $7 billion
to survivors of the dead and those who were injured in the attacks
or rescue efforts immediately after.  A second, $2.77-billion fund
was opened in 2011 to help additional individuals who were injured
or died as a result of the attacks.

"The state is better off accepting responsibility and moving the
focus to how are we going to fix this, compensate the victims and
prevent future damage from happening," Mr. Hall said.  "The worst
strategy is for the state to fight -- the state shouldn't be
spending its resources fighting residents who are seeking
compensation for the harm they suffered.  It should facilitate
them getting compensation."

Mr. Hall said victims' funds may not prevent all lawsuits but
could persuade some victims to drop suits, allowing them to avoid
lengthy litigation and be compensated more quickly.

"These are not frivolous lawsuits, they are well-plead suits,"
Hall said. "If the allegations in these lawsuits can be proved,
the defendants are going to be facing a world of liability."

Flint switched from water drawn from Lake Huron by the Detroit
Water and Sewerage Department to water drawn from the Flint River
in 2014 while it waited for the new Karegnondi Water Authority in
Genesee County to come online later this year.  The switch,
designed to save the city money, was done without adding corrosion
controls to the water, allowing lead to leach into residents' tap
water.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has said it made
a mistake: It believed federal rules allowed the city to complete
two rounds of testing for lead more than a year before deciding on
the need for corrosion controls.  The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency is also under fire for waiting months to get a
legal opinion on whether corrosion control was required, even when
it was aware of high lead levels in the city's water.

The crisis has been a magnet for high-profile personal-injury
lawyers such as Geoffrey Fieger and Ven Johnson, and prominent
civil rights lawyers Bill Goodman and Julie Hurwitz, whose team
includes Erin Brockovich, the consumer advocate who became famous
when Julia Roberts portrayed her in a movie about her legal fight
against a California utility over contaminated water.

The lawsuits claim Flint's water damaged property values and
household appliances; caused a variety of physical ailments,
including rashes and hair loss, and psychological problems such as
depression and chronic anxiety.

Some of the lawsuits seek to hold Gov. Snyder and other state and
local officials personally liable for damages.  While government
officials typically have immunity from damages, there are
exceptions, said Royal Oak lawyer Michael Pitt, who is working
with Goodman and Hurwitz on cases filed in federal, state and
Genesee County courts.

In each case, Mr. Pitt and his team, which includes more than 50
law students from Wayne State, University of Michigan and
University of Detroit Mercy, cite exceptions to governmental
immunity laws to hold state and local officials personally
responsible.

Mr. Pitt said some government officials can be sued in federal and
state courts for damages if there's been a constitutional
violation.  In his federal case, for example, the suit says state
and local officials violated Flint residents' rights under the
U.S. Constitution in that they deprived them of life, liberty and
property when they took from plaintiffs -- without due process of
law -- their "safe drinking water and replaced it with what they
knew to be a highly toxic alternative solely for fiscal purposes."

Mr. Pitt's suit against DEQ and City of Flint employees in Genesee
County Circuit Court says they are liable because they were
grossly negligent.  Mr. Pitt said employees could be considered
grossly negligent if they failed to require corrosion controls
when Flint switched water sources or if they knew there were no
corrosion controls in place and did nothing about it.

A Snyder spokesman, Dave Murray, said on Feb. 19 that "it would be
inappropriate for the governor's office to discuss pending
litigation."

Some of those named in the lawsuits could also face federal or
state criminal charges as the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Office in
Detroit and Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette are
investigating.

Mr. Henning said prosecutors could bring federal charges if
someone was part of a cover-up, such as covering up lead sampling
results, or made false statements to a federal agency such as the
EPA.

The state could charge state and local employees with misconduct
in office, a common-law crime that focuses on an official's
actions and decisions, Mr. Henning said.  For example, state or
local employees could be charged if they knew about lead in the
water and failed to act, or if they authorized the switch to the
Flint River water knowing the threat it posed without corrosion
controls.

"We don't know if the smoking gun will emerge," he said.

One lawsuit does not seek monetary damages.  The case filed in
U.S. District Court by Concerned Pastors for Social Action, a
group of Flint's religious leaders; Melissa Mays, a Flint mother;
the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and the Natural
Resources Defense Council asks the court instead to force the
owners and operators of Flint's water system to comply with the
Safe Drinking Water Act, said Dimple Chaudhary, senior attorney
with the NRDC and lead litigator in the case.

Ms. Chaudhary said the lawsuit seeks to get the system's operators
to "treat the water to minimize the amount of lead leaching from
its pipes; properly monitor for lead in household tap water by
targeting homes at the highest risk for lead contamination, to
notify residents of the results of tap water sampling conducted at
their homes, and to report the water system's activities to
monitor and control for lead to state and federal authorities."

The suit also wants the lead service lines in Flint to be
replaced.  The city has approximately 33,000 service line
connections, and at least 15,000 are lead service lines, according
to the suit.  Replacing those lines could cost as much as $60
million.

As part of his recent budget proposal, Gov. Snyder is asking the
Legislature to set aside $25 million to remove and replace pipes
in Flint. And he's signed a bill that sets aside $500,000 to
identify pipes that need replacing.

The NRDC lawsuit also seeks medical and health remedies to address
the impacts of lead exposure.

"We think they're very reasonable requests given the magnitude of
the harm that's been suffered here and given the nature of the
violations," Ms. Chaudhary said.  "What we're looking for here is
a remedy that will help everybody in the community, and hopefully
put other water systems on notice to clean up these practices."

Mays, a mother of three sons and a plaintiff in that case and
three others, said she hopes the lawsuits help her and other Flint
residents replace household appliances damaged by corrosive water,
including water heaters, dishwashers and washing machines; ensure
lifelong health care and medical monitoring; and provide therapy,
tutoring and other assistance.

She also wants to see those responsible for the crisis held
personally liable for damages.

"We've had to lose so much of our lives because of the actions and
inactions of those people. They were supposed to protect us and
they haven't and they still haven't.  Our suffering should stop
and they should be held accountable in every possible way."

She said she hopes that whatever money and help the lawsuits bring
her family, "we can ensure the rest of our lives are not as
miserable as we are now."


FLOYD COUNTY, IN: Inmates' Abuse Suit Gets Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Glowicki, writing for Courier-Journal, reports that a U.S.
District Court judge has granted class action status to a group of
former inmates suing the Floyd County Jail alleging they were held
in padded isolation cells in violation of their constitutional
rights.

The plaintiffs now represent all inmates in the jail since June
12, 2012 "who were not on a suicide watch, but were housed in a
padded cell where they were deprived of clothing, bedding, and
hygiene products," according to the order by U.S. District Court
Chief Judge Richard Young.

Former Floyd County Sheriff Darrell Mills, three others employed
as jail officers during the time of the suit and Jane/John Doe
officers are named as defendants in the suit, originally filed in
summer 2014 in the U.S. District Court in New Albany.

The federal suit includes six named defendants -- Tabitha Gentry,
Vincent Minton, Michael Herron, Adam Walker, Anna Chastain and
Janelle South.

According to the suit, jail officers forcibly removed the inmates'
clothes, left them naked for prolonged periods and subjected them
to excessive uses of force, all while the inmates did not pose a
security threat to warrant the treatment.

That suit alleged there exist many more former inmates held at the
jail who faced similar conditions.  Louisville-based attorney
Laura Landenwich is representing the plaintiffs.

Judge Young issued the order recently, finding the former inmates
met their burden to prove class action status.

Through their attorney R. Jeffrey Lowe, the defendants argued
Judge Young should not grant class action status because each
plaintiff's case should be examined individually to take into
account the circumstances of each situation and to assess specific
damages, according to court records.

Judge Young concluded it is more efficient to deal with the claims
collectively than through multiple individual suits, according to
his order.


FOX SEARCHLIGHT: 2nd Cir. Enters Revised Opinion in "Glatt"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Jan. 25, 2016,
revised a previous opinion originally issued on July 2, 2015, in
the appellate case, Eric GLATT, Alexander Footman, Eden M.
Antalik, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FOX SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES, INC., Fox
Entertainment Group, Inc., Defendants-Appellants, (2d Cir.)

Circuit Judge John M. Walker, Jr. vacated the District Court's
order granting partial summary judgment to Glatt and Footman,
vacated its order certifying Antalik's New York class, vacated its
order conditionally certifying Antalik's nationwide collective,
and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs, who were hired as unpaid interns, claim compensation
as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law. Plaintiffs Eric Glatt and Alexander Footman moved for partial
summary judgment on their employment status. Plaintiffs worked as
unpaid interns either on the Fox Searchlight-distributed film
Black Swan or at the Fox corporate offices in New York City. They
contend that the defendants, Fox Searchlight and Fox Entertainment
Group, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.
Sections 206-07, and New York Labor (NYLL), N.Y. Labor Law Section
652, by failing to pay them as employees during their internships
as required by the FLSA's and NYLL's minimum wage and overtime
provisions. Plaintiff Eden Antalik moved to certify a class of all
New York interns working at certain of defendants' divisions
between 2005 and 2010 and to conditionally certify a nationwide
collective of all interns working at those same divisions between
2008 and 2010. The District Court (William H. Pauley III, J.)
granted Glatt and Footman's motion for partial summary judgment,
certified Antalik's New York class, and conditionally certified
Antalik's nationwide collective.

Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal.

A copy of the Court's Decision dated July 2, 2015, and amended
Jan. 25, 2016, is available at http://is.gd/IoqykSfrom
Leagle.com.

On remand, the District Court may, in its discretion, permit the
parties to submit additional evidence relevant to the Plaintiffs'
employment status, such as evidence on Glatt's and Footman's
formal education.  The Court of Appeals expresses no opinion with
respect to the outcome of any renewed motions for summary judgment
the parties might make based on the primary beneficiary test.

Even if Antalik established that Fox had a policy of replacing
paid employees with unpaid interns, it would not necessarily mean
that every Fox intern was likely to prevail on her claim that she
was an FLSA employee under the primary beneficiary test, the most
important issue in each case. Thus, assuming some questions may be
answered with generalized proof, they are not more substantial
than the questions requiring individualized proof. The most
important question in this litigation cannot be answered with
generalized proof, the Court of Appeals vacates the District
Court's order certifying Antalik's proposed class and remand for
further proceedings.

Neal Kumar Katyal, Esq. -- neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com -- of
Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP -- Mary Helen Wimberly, Esq. --
maryhelen.wimberly@hoganlovells.com -- Frederick Liu, Esq. --
frederick.liu@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP --
Elise M. Bloom, Esq. -- ebloom@proskauer.com -- Mark D. Harris,
Esq. -- mharris@proskauer.com -- Chantel L. Febus, Esq. --
cfebus@proskauer.com -- Amy F. Melican, Esq. --
amelican@proskauer.com -- and Joshua S. Fox, Esq. --
jfox@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP serve as counsel for
Defendants-Appellants

Rachel Bien, Esq. -- rmb@outtengolden.com -- Adam T. Klein, Esq.
-- atk@outtengolden.com -- Juno Turner, Esq. --
jturner@outtengolden.com -- of Outten & Golden LLP serve as
counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees


FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: "Magro" Sues over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
Dean Magro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Freeport-Mcmoran Inc., Richard C. Adkerson
and Kathleen L. Quirk, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-00186-ESW (D.
Ariz., January 26, 2016), seeks damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs
and such other and further relief under Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Freeport is a natural resource company engaging in the exploration
of copper, gold, molybdenum, cobalt, silver and other metals, as
well as oil and gas. It is headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.

Freeport stock fell after reports surfaced alleging that it bribed
Indonesian government officials to extend its mining concession in
Indonesia.

Plaintiff acquired Freeport securities at artificially inflated
prices and lost substantially upon the revelation of the alleged
corrective disclosures.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Susan Martin, Esq.
      Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
      MARTIN & BONNETT, PLLC
      1850 N. Central Ave. Suite 2010
      Phoenix, AZ 85004
      Tel: (602) 240-6900
      Email: smartin@martinbonnett.com
             jkroll@martinbonnett.com

           - and -

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

           - and -

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


FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: March 28 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Feb. 22 announced the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who
purchased Freeport-McMoRan Inc. ("Freeport-McMoRan" or the
"Company") (NYSE: FCX) securities between February 27, 2015 and
January 15, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Injured
investors are encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM at 310-
201-9150 to discuss their legal rights.

On January 19, 2016, following an investigation concerning
allegations of corruption and bribery between the Company and
government officials to secure lucrative mining rights, the chief
executive officer of the Company's Indonesian unit,
Maroef Sjamsuddin, stepped down.  This news came less than a month
after the chairman of Freeport-McMoRan resigned allegedly due to
similar charges. Following these news reports, shares of the
Company's stock fell in value, thereby damaging investors.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Sjamsuddin had discussions with senior
officials in the Indonesian government about bribing Indonesian
government officials in return for an extension of Freeport-
McMoRan's right to operate in the country; (2) that Freeport-
McMoRan had violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA");
and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Freeport-McMoRan's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you purchased Freeport-McMoRan securities you have until
March 28, 2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.  If you have information or would like to learn more
about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.



GENERAL CHEMICAL: Mattoon Sues over Alum Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------
City of Mattoon, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Frank A. Reichl, General
Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC,
GenTek Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade Logistics
Inc., Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation, Chemtrade Chemicals US,
LLC; and John Doe Nos. 1-50, Case No. 2:16-cv-00319 (E.D. Penn.,
January 26, 2016), seeks damages, injunctive relief and other
relief for violation of Section 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act 15 U.S.C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
      Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
      1818 Market St., Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 496-0300
      Fax: (215) 496-6611
      Email: jkodroff@srkw-law.com
             jcorrigan@srkw-law.com

           - and -

      Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
      270 Madison Ave.
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 545-4600
      Fax: (212) 686-0114
      Email: burt@whafh.com

           - and -

      Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
      Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
      One South Dearborn St., Suite 2122
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 984-0000
      Fax: (312) 212-4496
      Email: tbell@whafh.com
             malmstrom@whafh.com

           - and -

      Janett S. Winter-Black, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF WINTER-BLACK AND BAKER
      201 N. Logan St.
      Mattoon, IL 61938
      Tel: (217) 235-3400
      Fax: (217) 235-3402


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Grand Marais Suit Alleges Alum Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
City of Grand Marais, Minnesota individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Frank A. Reichl, General
Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC,
GenTek Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade Logistics
Inc., Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation, Chemtrade Chemicals US,
LLC; and John Doe Nos. 1-50, Case No. 0:16-cv-00171 (D. Minn.
January 26, 2016), seeks damages, injunctive relief and other
relief for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act 15 U.S.C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
      Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
      REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
      E-1250 First National Bank Bldg.
      332 Minnesota St.
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Tel: (651) 287-2100
      Fax: (651) 287-2103
      E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
              r.yard@rwblawfirm.com

           - and -

      Christopher M. Hood, Esq.
      FLAHERTY & HOOD, P.A.
      525 Park Street, Suite 470
      St. Paul, MN 55103
      Tel: (651) 225-8840
      Fax: (651) 225-9088
      Email: cmhood@flaherty-hood.com
             dmmarx@flaherty-hood.com

           - and -

      Christian M. Sande (#026474X)
      CHRISTIAN SANDE LLC
      310 Clifton Avenue, Suite 300
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Tel: (612) 387-1430
      Fax: (612) 677-3078
      Email: christian@christiansande.com


HAIN CELESTIAL: 9th Cir. Reinstates "Balser" Mislabeling Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit breathed new life
into a putative class action lawsuit filed by Alessandra Balser
and Ruth Kresha against The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege that Hain's use of the word "Natural" on
some of its products' packaging is misleading because the products
contain synthetic ingredients. The district court dismissed the
case without leave to amend.

"We reverse and remand for further proceedings," a three-judge
panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled on Feb. 22.  A copy of their
Memorandum is available at http://goo.gl/L8ySRsfrom Leagle.com.

The Appeals Court held that Plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded how
they were harmed by the "natural" representation. Allegations that
one paid more than one otherwise would have because of a
misrepresentation sufficiently allege economic injury, the Appeals
Court said, citing their prior ruling in Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor
Co., 666 F.3d 581, 595 (9th Cir. 2012).

The Ninth Circuit also noted that, by minute order, the district
court deferred consideration of the Plaintiffs' motion for
precertification discovery to a date after the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification was due, thereby implicitly denying the
motion by rendering it moot.

"We vacate that decision and remand to the district court for
consideration of whether precertification discovery is necessary,
given Plaintiffs' particular document requests, updated requests,
and recent case law," the panel said.

The appellate case is, ALESSANDRA BALSER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; RUTH KRESHA, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant-Appellee,
No. 14-55074 (9th Cir.).


HOBOKEN, NJ: Residents Lose Appeal in Rent Ordinance Case
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Marianne Espinosa, Judge of the Appellate Division of the
New Jersey Superior Court, held that the City of Hoboken, N.J.,
and its agencies and officials are immune from a class action
lawsuit filed by residents who allegedly were victimized by the
defendants' failure to uniformly and constitutionally administer a
rent control ordinance (RCO).

The class action complaint, filed in February 2010, alleges the
plaintiff class was victimized by the defendants' failure to
uniformly and constitutionally administer the RCO and the 2006
retroactive change in procedures, in violation of:

     -- the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (CRA), N.J.S.A.
        10:6-1 to-2; 42 U.S.C.A. Sections 1983, 1988;

     -- the Hoboken RCO and regulations;

     -- the New Jersey Constitution; and

     -- the United States Constitution.

The complaint sought injunctive relief against the defendants,
"restraining and enjoining them from performing legal rent
calculations by applying the Ordinance requirements for periods
prior to 2007," the reversal of all rent calculations made by
retroactively applying the procedures adopted in 2006,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees.

"We affirm the trial court's decision that the class action
lawsuit was not a catalyst for the passage of Z-88. We also affirm
the ruling that the individual defendants are shielded by
qualified immunity and note that, in the absence of any claims for
money damages, qualified immunity is inapplicable to claims for
injunctive relief. Finally, we affirm the trial court's decision
to deny plaintiffs' motion to amend," Judge Espinosa said.

In 1996, a report by the Hoboken Task Force on Rent Control
Revision and Modernization described the deficiencies in
enforcement and recordkeeping that undermined the purpose of
Hoboken's rent control ordinance (RCO). Approximately 15 years
later, after two revisions to the RCO succumbed to defeats in
referenda, the City of Hoboken adopted an ordinance, Z-88, that
addressed inequities in the RCO and its enforcement affecting both
landlords and tenants.

The appellate case, GINA DENARDO, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated, and 611-613, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated corporate entities, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. THE CITY OF HOBOKEN, HOBOKEN RENT LEVELING AND
STABILIZATION BOARD, SUZANNE HETMAN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HOBOKEN,
CITY OF HOBOKEN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, Defendants-Respondents, and THE
CITIZENS FOR RETENTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN HOBOKEN,
Defendant/Intervenor-Respondent, No. A-0274-13T3, (N.J. Super.,
App. Div.), calls for the Court of Appeals to consider whether
Plaintiffs' class action lawsuit was a catalyst for the passage of
Z-88, thereby providing a basis for the award of counsel fees
under N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(f).  Plaintiffs contend the evidence of a
causal nexus between their lawsuit and the adoption of Z-88 was so
strong that the City was required to refute the existence of a
causal nexus. Plaintiffs argue further that the trial court
committed reversible error in finding the individual actors and
the municipality enjoyed qualified immunity on all claims.
Finally, Plaintiffs argue the trial court committed reversible
error in refusing to grant their motion for leave to amend the
complaint.

A copy of Judge Espinosa's Opinion dated February 3, 2016, is
available at http://is.gd/3gjg58from Leagle.com.

Charles X. Gormally, Esq. -- cgormally@bracheichler.com -- Sean A.
Smith, Esq. -- sasmith@bracheichler.com and Autumn M. McCourt,
Esq. -- amccourt@bracheichler.com of Brach Eichler L.L.C. serve as
counsel for Appellants

Victor A. Afanador, Esq. -- vafanador@litedepalma.com and Jeffrey
A. Shooman, Esq. of Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC serve as counsel
for Respondents


HSBC BANK USA: Court Trims Claims in "Schwartz" Credit Card Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted in part Defendant's
motion to dismiss in the case, BRUCE SCHWARTZ, Plaintiff, v. HSBC
BANK USA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 14 Civ. 9525 (KPF), (S.D.N.Y.)

For the second time in as many years, Bruce Schwartz has filed
suit against HSBC Bank, with which Schwartz holds an open end
consumer credit card account. This time, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant has violated, and continues to violate, certain
provisions of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. Sections
1601-1667f, and its implementing regulation, Regulation Z, 12
C.F.R. Part 1026.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant:

     (i) improperly imposed a late fee and finance charge on
         Plaintiff's timely payment, in violation of 15 U.S.C.
         Section 1637(o)(2) and the corresponding provisions of
         Regulation Z; and

    (ii) failed to disclose the penalty annual percentage rate
         (APR) applicable to Plaintiff's account, thereby
         violating 15 U.S.C. Section 1637(b)(12) and the
         corresponding provisions of Regulation Z.

In addition to his claims under TILA, Plaintiff asserts a claim
for state law breach of contract based on Defendant's imposition
of a late fee and finance charge.

In her Opinion and Order dated February 9, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/EB3PyCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Failla granted
Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for the
imposition of a late fee and interest charge in violation of TILA
and for breach of contract is converted to a motion for summary
judgment; its motion in the alternative to strike the start date
for proposed Classes A and B is therefore denied as moot.

Its motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for APR disclosure
violations under TILA is denied.

The parties were scheduled to appear for an initial pretrial
conference on February 23, 2016.  A proposed case management plan
and joint status letter was scheduled to be filed no later than
February 18, 2016, pursuant to the Court's Individual Rules of
Civil Practice.

Brian Lewis Bromberg, Esq. and Jonathan Robert Miller, Esq. of
Bromberg Law Office, P.C. -- Harley Jay Schnall, Esq. of Law
Office of Harley J. Schnall serve as counsel for Plaintiff Bruce
Schwartz

Aaron Van Nostrand, Esq. -- avannostrand@duanemorris.com -- of
Duane Morris, LLP and Louis Smith, Esq. -- smithlo@gtlaw.com -- of
Greenberg Traurig LLP serve as counsel for Defendant HSBC Bank
USA, N.A.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Bid to Dismiss Indirect Plaintiffs' Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 16, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the Company and the co-defendants' motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit by indirect plaintiffs is pending.

"We were named as a defendant in consolidated class action civil
antitrust suits filed on February 9 and 12, 2010 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that we and
our co-defendants and other alleged co-conspirators conspired to
fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between at least
March 1, 2002 and the present. The other defendants named in this
matter were DuPont, Kronos and Cristal (formerly Millennium)," the
Company said.

On August 28, 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all
U.S. customers who purchased titanium dioxide directly from the
defendants (the "Direct Purchasers") since February 1, 2003.

"On December 13, 2013, we and all other defendants settled the
Direct Purchasers litigation and the court approved the
settlement. We paid the settlement in an amount immaterial to our
consolidated financial statements," the Company said.

"On November 22, 2013, we were named as a defendant in a civil
antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota brought by a Direct Purchaser who opted out of the
Direct Purchasers class litigation (the "Opt-Out Litigation"). On
April 21, 2014, the court severed the claims against us from the
other defendants sued and ordered our case transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Subsequently,
Kronos, another defendant, was also severed from the Minnesota
case and claims against it were transferred and consolidated for
trial with our case in the Southern District of Texas. The trial
previously scheduled to begin February 22, 2016 has been
rescheduled to begin September 26, 2016. It is possible that
additional claims will be filed by other Direct Purchasers who
opted out of the class litigation.

"We were also named as a defendant in a class action civil
antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by the purchasers of
products made from titanium dioxide (the "Indirect Purchasers")
making essentially the same allegations as did the Direct
Purchasers. On October 14, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Class Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs
to those merchants and consumers of architectural coatings
containing titanium dioxide. On August 11, 2015, the court granted
our motion to dismiss the Indirect Purchasers litigation with
leave to amend the complaint. A Third Amended Class Action
Complaint was filed on September 29, 2015 further limiting the
class to consumers of architectural paints. Plaintiffs have raised
state antitrust claims under the laws of 15 states, consumer
protection claims under the laws of 9 states, and unjust
enrichment claims under the laws of 16 states. On November 4,
2015, we and our co-defendants filed another motion to dismiss,
which remains pending.

"The Opt-Out Litigation and Indirect Purchasers plaintiffs seek to
recover injunctive relief, treble damages or the maximum damages
allowed by state law, costs of suit and attorneys' fees. We are
not aware of any illegal conduct by us or any of our employees.
Nevertheless, we have incurred costs relating to these claims and
could incur additional costs in amounts which in the aggregate
could be material to us. Because of the overall complexity of
these cases, we are unable to reasonably estimate any possible
loss or range of loss associated with these claims and we have
made no accruals with respect to these claims."

Huntsman is a global manufacturer of differentiated organic
chemical products and of inorganic chemical products.


INDIANA: Judge Tosses Child Services Case Manager's Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge has dismissed a class-
action lawsuit in which an Indiana Department of Child Services
case manager claimed she had an excessive caseload that put
children at risk.

Marion Superior Court Judge Heather Welch issued an order on
Feb. 22 throwing out Mary Price's complaint that was filed last
July.  Judge Welch ruled Ms. Price has no right to bring the claim
under an Indiana law setting a maximum caseload at 17 and that
there's no grounds for the court to issue a mandate changing
caseloads.  Judge Welch says she should take her complaint to the
State Employee Appeals Commission.

Ms. Price said her caseload was 43 children.

The lawsuit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of
Indiana.  ACLU legal director Ken Falk says he's disappointed in
Welch's ruling and will appeal it.


JOURNAL MEDIA: MOU Reached in Merger Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------
Journal Media Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, that
the Current Report on Form 8-K is being filed pursuant to a
memorandum of understanding dated February 16, 2016 regarding the
settlement of certain litigation relating to the previously
announced Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 7,
2015 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Journal Media Group,
Inc., a Wisconsin corporation (the "Company" or "JMG"), Gannett
Co., Inc. ("Gannett") and Jupiter Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Gannett ("Merger Sub"), which provides for the
merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company, with the Company
surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Gannett (the
"Merger").

As disclosed on page 60 of the definitive proxy statement filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by the
Company on January 22, 2016 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement"),
members of the board of directors of the Company (the "Board"),
and the parties to the Merger Agreement, including JMG and
Gannett, are defendants in two class action lawsuits filed in the
Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin that have been
consolidated into a single lawsuit.  The first lawsuit, captioned
Seifert v. Aitken, et al., No. 2015-CV-009686, was filed by a
purported JMG shareholder on November 24, 2015, and the second
lawsuit, captioned Sabattini v. Aitken, et al., No. 2015-CV-
010003, was filed by a purported JMG shareholder on December 4,
2015.  The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action
captioned In re Journal Media Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
No. 15-CV-009686 (the "Consolidated Action").

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action allege that the
directors of JMG breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders in connection with the Merger contemplated by the
Merger Agreement and that Gannett and its affiliate aided and
abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  In particular,
the plaintiffs allege that the members of the Board breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, (i) engaging in a
deficient and unfair process leading up to the announcement of the
Merger Agreement, (ii) agreeing to enter into the Merger Agreement
for inadequate consideration, (iii) adopting an executive
severance and change in control plan, (iv) agreeing to certain
deal protection provisions, such as a termination fee, a "no
solicitation" provision, and a "matching rights" provision, and
(v) failing to disclose certain material information in the
preliminary proxy statement that JMG filed with the SEC on
November 4, 2015 (the "Preliminary Proxy Statement").

The plaintiffs also allege that the Board misleadingly set forth
new financial projections in the Preliminary Proxy Statement and
question various aspects of the financial analyses performed by
the Board's financial advisor in connection with its opinion.  The
plaintiffs seek, among other relief, declaratory and injunctive
relief enjoining the Merger, and rescissory damages in an
unspecified amount.

On December 18, 2015, JMG and the Board filed a motion to dismiss
and a motion to stay discovery and Gannett filed a motion to
dismiss, which have yet to be decided by the court.

On January 15, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for expedited
discovery and a motion for temporary injunction, which have yet to
be decided by the court.

On February 16, 2016, the parties to the Consolidated Action
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") providing
for the settlement of all claims in the Consolidated Action.
Under the MOU, and subject to court approval and definitive
documentation, the plaintiffs and the putative class members
settle and release, against the named defendants and certain
related parties, all claims in the Consolidated Action and any
pleadings or briefs filed in the same and any potential claim
related to, among other things, (i) the matters alleged in any
pleadings or briefs filed in the Consolidated Action; (ii) the
Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby,
including the Merger; (iii) the Preliminary Proxy Statement,
Definitive Proxy Statement, and any amendments, supplements, or
modifications to any of the foregoing, and any other public
disclosures made in connection with or regarding the Merger; (iv)
the statutory or fiduciary obligations (including any disclosure
obligations) of any of the defendants or certain related parties
in connection with the Merger Agreement, the Merger, the
Preliminary Proxy Statement, the Definitive Proxy Statement or any
amendments, supplements, or modifications to any of the foregoing,
and any other public disclosures made in connection with or
regarding the Merger; (v) the negotiations in connection with the
Merger Agreement and Merger; and (vi) any and all conduct by any
of the defendants and certain related parties arising out of or
relating in any way to the negotiation or execution of the MOU and
any subsequent stipulation.

The settlement will not affect the timing of the special meeting
of the shareholders of the Company, which is scheduled to be held
on March 1, 2016, or the amount of the consideration to be
received by the Company's shareholders in connection with the
Merger.  While the Company and the other defendants believe that
no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws, in
order to avoid the risk of the Consolidated Action delaying or
adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the expense of
defending the Consolidated Action, the Company and the other
defendants have agreed, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make
certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger,
all of which are set forth below.  The MOU contemplates that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement.  The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to the Company's
shareholders.  In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin will consider the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.  If the
settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and
release all claims in all actions that were or could have been
brought challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to shareholders prior to
final approval of the settlement.  In addition, in connection with
the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel
will file a petition in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County,
Wisconsin for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid
by the Company or its successor.  The settlement, including the
payment by the Company or any successor thereto of any such
attorneys' fees, is also contingent upon, among other things, the
Merger becoming effective under Wisconsin law.  There can be no
assurance that the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
will approve the settlement contemplated by the MOU.  In the event
that the settlement is not approved and such conditions are not
satisfied, the defendants will continue to vigorously defend
against the allegations in the Consolidated Action, which the
defendants believe are without merit.


KATINA POWELL: Hearing Set in UofL Student's Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
WLKY.com reports that a court hearing was set on Feb. 22 in the
civil lawsuit filed against author Katina Powell and her
publisher.

The lawsuit was filed by University of Louisville student
Kyle Hornback.

She claims Ms. Powell's book "Breaking Cardinal Rules," tarnished
the university and diminished the value of her education.

Mr. Hornback's lawyer wants the suit designated a class action on
behalf of all UofL students.

Mr. Hornback told WLKY she wants to prevent Ms. Powell from
profiting from her admitted criminal activity and hopes any
profits from the book's sales will be turned over to the
university.

Ms. Powell's attorneys and the book's publisher want the case
dismissed, calling it frivolous.

But attorneys handling the civil suit filed a motion refuting
those claims in January.

Both sides will face a judge at the end of March to explain their
reasons for whether or not the case should move forward.


KEURIG GREEN: 3 Additional Class Suits Filed Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, that
a putative class action lawsuit (Berger v. Keurig Green Mountain,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11815-CB) was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the members
of the board of directors of the Company (the "Company Board"),
Acorn Holdings B.V., a private limited liability company
incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands ("Parent"), Maple
Holdings Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly-
owned subsidiary of Parent ("Acquisition Sub"), JAB Holdings B.V.,
a private limited liability company incorporated under the laws of
the Netherlands ("JAB"), and JAB Holding Company S.a r.l., a
private limited liability company incorporated under the laws of
Luxembourg ("JAB Holding"), in connection with the transactions
contemplated by that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
as of December 6, 2015 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the
Company, Parent, Acquisition Sub and, solely for purposes of
Article IX of the Merger Agreement, JAB.

From December 21, 2015 through January 19, 2016, three additional
putative class action lawsuits (Kaufmann v. Keurig Green Mountain,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11826-CB, Restivo v. Keurig Green Mountain,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11840-CB and Chapel v. Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 11911-CB), were filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company,
the members of the Company Board, Parent, Acquisition Sub and JAB.

The parties to the Merger Agreement believe that no further
disclosure is required to supplement the Company's definitive
proxy statement filed with the SEC on January 12, 2016 (the "Proxy
Statement") under applicable laws.  However, to avoid the risk
that the Delaware litigation may delay or otherwise adversely
affect the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the
Merger Agreement, the Company made the supplemental disclosures to
the Proxy Statement.


KINDER MORGAN: Supreme Court to Hear Oral Argument on March 9
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Supreme Court will
hear oral argument on March 9, 2016, in the class action lawsuits
related to the merger litigation.

Kinder Morgan, Inc. Corporate Reorganization Litigation

On November 26, 2014, the Company completed its acquisition,
pursuant to three separate merger agreements, of all of the
outstanding common units of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
and El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. and all of the outstanding
shares of Kinder Morgan Management, LLC that the Company did not
already own. The transactions, valued at approximately $77
billion, are referred to collectively as the "Merger
Transactions."

Certain unitholders of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. and El
Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P., filed five putative class action
lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in
connection with the Merger Transactions, which the Court
consolidated under the caption In re Kinder Morgan, Inc. Corporate
Reorganization Litigation (Consolidated Case No. 10093-VCL). The
plaintiffs originally sought to enjoin one or more of the proposed
Merger Transactions, which relief the Court denied on November 5,
2014.

On December 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Verified Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which purports to
assert claims on behalf of both the former EPB unitholders and the
former KMP unitholders. The EPB plaintiff alleged that (i) El Paso
Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C. (EPGP), the general partner of EPB,
and the directors of EPGP breached duties under the EPB
partnership agreement, including the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, by entering into the EPB Transaction; (ii)
EPB, E Merger Sub LLC, KMI and individual defendants aided and
abetted such breaches; and (iii) EPB, E Merger Sub LLC, KMI, and
individual defendants tortiously interfered with the EPB
partnership agreement by causing EPGP to breach its duties under
the EPB partnership agreement.

The KMP plaintiffs allege that (i) Kinder Morgan Management, LLC
(KMR), Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. (KMGP), and individual defendants
breached duties under the KMP partnership agreement, including the
implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, by entering into the
KMP Transaction and by failing to adequately disclose material
facts related to the transaction; (ii) KMI aided and abetted such
breach; and (iii) KMI, KMP, KMR, P Merger Sub LLC, and individual
defendants tortiously interfered with the rights of the plaintiffs
and the putative class under the KMP partnership agreement by
causing KMGP to breach its duties under the KMP partnership
agreement. The complaint seeks declaratory relief that the
transactions were unlawful and unenforceable, reformation,
rescission, rescissory or compensatory damages, interest, and
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

On December 30, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint. On April 2, 2015, the EPB plaintiff and the defendants
submitted a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal, agreeing
to dismiss all claims brought by the EPB plaintiff with prejudice
as to the EPB lead plaintiff and without prejudice to all other
members of the putative EPB class. The Court entered such order on
April 2, 2015.

On August 24, 2015, the Court issued an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss the remaining counts of the
complaint for failure to state a claim.

On September 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, captioned Haynes Family
Trust et al. v. Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al. (Case No. 515).
The plaintiffs are only appealing the dismissal of claims brought
against defendants KMGP, Ted A. Gardner, Gary L. Hultquist, and
Perry M. Waughtal and not those asserted against KMI, P. Merger
Sub LLC, Richard D. Kinder, Steven J. Kean, KMP and KMR. The
Supreme Court will hear oral argument on March 9, 2016. The
defendants believe the allegations against them lack merit, and
they intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit.


KINDER MORGAN: Court Approved Settlement in Capex Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the court has approved
the settlement in the case, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
Capex Litigation.

Putative class action and derivative complaints were filed in the
Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against defendants
Kinder Morgan Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., and nominal
defendant Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. on February 5, 2014
and March 27, 2014 captioned Slotoroff v. Kinder Morgan, Inc.,
Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al (Case No. 9318) and Burns et al v.
Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al (Case No.
9479) respectively. The cases were consolidated on April 8, 2014
(Consolidated Case No. 9318).

The consolidated suit asserted claims both individually and on
behalf of a putative class consisting of all public holders of
KMEP units during the period of February 5, 2011 through the date
of the filing of the complaints. The suit alleged direct and
derivative causes of action for breach of the partnership
agreement, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
aiding and abetting, and tortious interference. Among other
things, the suit alleged that defendants made a bad faith
allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital
expenditures rather than maintenance capital expenditures for the
alleged purpose of "artificially" inflating KMEP's distributions
and growth rate. The suit alleged that hundreds of millions of
dollars were distributed improperly and sought disgorgement of any
distributions to KMGP, KMI and any related entities, beyond
amounts that would have been distributed in accordance with a
"good faith" allocation of maintenance capital expenses, together
with other unspecified monetary damages including punitive damages
and attorney fees.

On August 14, 2015, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement pursuant to which defendants paid $27.5
million (the "Settlement Fund") to a class of former holders of
KMEP common units, and all claims asserted in the consolidated
suit are released. Following notice to the putative class members,
on December 22, 2015, the Court approved the settlement which also
includes a release of all claims asserted in the Walker
litigation, and awarded attorneys' fees and litigation expenses to
Plaintiffs' counsel to be paid from the Settlement Fund. All of
the defendants believe they acted properly, in good faith, and in
a manner consistent with any and all legal, contractual and
equitable duties and obligations, including those contained in the
Limited Partnership Agreement.

"We entered into this settlement solely to avoid the substantial
burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued
litigation and to resolve each of the released claims," the
Company said.


KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiff in the
case, Walker v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et
al., has filed a Notice of Nonsuit, with prejudice, which the
Court subsequently granted, dismissing all claims in the action
with prejudice.

On March 6, 2014, a putative class action and derivative complaint
was filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (Case No.
2014-11872 in the 215th Judicial District) against Kinder Morgan
Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Kinder Morgan Management, LLC
(KMR), Richard D. Kinder, Steven J. Kean, Ted A. Gardner, Gary L.
Hultquist, Perry M. Waughtal and nominal defendant Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P. (KMEP).

The suit was filed by Kenneth Walker, a purported unit holder of
KMEP, and alleged derivative causes of action for alleged
violation of duties owed under the partnership agreement, breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, "abuse of
control" and "gross mismanagement" in connection with the
calculation of distributions and allocation of capital
expenditures to expansion capital expenditures and maintenance
capital expenditures. The suit sought unspecified money damages,
interest, punitive damages, attorney and expert fees, costs and
expenses, unspecified equitable relief, and demanded a trial by
jury.

On January 5, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Nonsuit, with
prejudice, which the Court subsequently granted, dismissing all
claims in the action with prejudice.


LIBERTY GLOBAL: Indemnity Does Not Cover Losses from Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Global plc said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that says the indemnity from
the former owners of OneLink does not cover any potential losses
resulting from a class action claim.

The Company said, "In November 2012, we completed a business
combination that resulted in, among other matters, the combination
of our then operating subsidiary in Puerto Rico with San Juan
Cable, LLC dba OneLink Communications (OneLink). In connection
with this transaction (the OneLink Acquisition), Liberty Puerto
Rico, as the surviving entity, became a party to certain claims
previously asserted by the incumbent telephone operator against
OneLink based on alleged conduct of OneLink that occurred prior to
the OneLink Acquisition (the PRTC Claim). The PRTC Claim includes
an allegation that OneLink acted in an anticompetitive manner in
connection with a series of legal and regulatory proceedings it
initiated against the incumbent telephone operator in Puerto Rico
beginning in 2009.

"In March 2014, a separate class action claim was filed in Puerto
Rico (the Class Action Claim) containing allegations substantially
similar to those asserted in the PRTC Claim, but alleging ongoing
injury on behalf of a consumer class (as opposed to harm to a
competitor). The former owners of OneLink have partially
indemnified us through November 27, 2016 for any losses we may
incur in connection with the PRTC Claim up to a specified maximum
amount. However, the indemnity does not cover any potential losses
resulting from the Class Action Claim.

"Liberty Puerto Rico has recorded a provision and a related
indemnification asset representing its best estimate of the net
loss that it may incur upon the ultimate resolution of the PRTC
Claim. While Liberty Puerto Rico expects that the net amount
required to satisfy these contingencies will not materially differ
from the estimated amount it has accrued, no assurance can be
given that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have
an adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows or
financial position in any given period."

Liberty Global plc (Liberty Global) is an international provider
of video, broadband internet, fixed-line telephony and mobile
services, serving 27.5 million customers across 14 countries at
December 31, 2015.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Dismissal Bids in "Brewton" Case Granted
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marc T. Treadwell granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss in the captioned case CHANDRA H. BREWTON Plaintiff, v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 5:14-CV-436(MTT), (M.D. Ga.).

Plaintiff Chandra Brewton seeks relief on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated for the Defendants' alleged refusal to
assess and pay damages for diminution in value when claims are
made under their homeowners' insurance policies. Brewton alleges
she "timely reported a claim for direct physical loss to her home
resulting from water damage," but "in violation of Georgia law and
in breach of their insurance contract" with Brewton, the
Defendants failed to assess and pay damages for diminution in
value of her property.

Brewton's insurance policy was issued by Defendant First Liberty
Insurance Corporation but Brewton seeks to hold Defendants Liberty
Mutual Group, Inc. (LMGI), Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (LMIC),
and LMHC liable based on an alter ego, agency, and/or joint
venture theory.

LMGI and LMIC moved to dismiss the claims against them for failure
to state a claim; and LMHC moved to dismiss the claims against it
for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, for failure
to state a claim.

In his Order dated February 2, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/pZiZf6from Leagle.com, Judge Treadwell granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  He
also granted Holding's motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim.

It may be that as Brewton investigates her claims against First
Liberty, Brewton can allege facts to support her alter ego theory.
But the allegations Brewton now makes are insufficient, according
to Judge Treadwell.  There are also no allegations about any
express agency agreement or other facts to suggest First Liberty
was LMIC's and/or LMGI's agent, beyond a conclusory allegation
that "at all relevant times herein, each Defendant acted in all
respects as agent, apparent agent, and alter ego for each other
Defendant and as agent, apparent agent, and alter ego of their
ultimate parent company, LMHC." Therefore, the Court concludes
Brewton has not sufficiently alleged an actual agency relationship
between First Liberty and either LMGI or LMIC.

Even if these allegations were sufficient to show LMIC and/or LMGI
held First Liberty out as its agent, they do not plausibly suggest
Brewton "justifiably relied on the care or skill of the alleged
agent based upon the alleged principal's representation,"
according to Judge Treadwell.  Though Brewton argues in her
response that she entered into a contract with First Liberty based
on "these representations," there is no such allegation in the
complaint.  Brewton has not alleged each party exercises mutual
control over any joint undertaking but has instead specifically
alleged LMIC and LMGI exercise control over First Liberty.

Adam P. Princenthal, Esq. -- adam@princemay.com -- and C Cooper
Knowles, Esq. of Law Office of C. Cooper Knowles, LLC; James C.
Bradley, Esq. -- jbradley@rpwb.com -- Matthew A. Nickles, Esq. --
mnickles@rpwb.com -- Michael J. Brickman, Esq. --
mbrickman@rpwb.com -- Nina Fields Britt, Esq. -- nfields@rpwb.com
-- of Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook and Brickman, LLC and Clinton
W. Sitton, Esq. and Richard Kopelman, Esq. serve as counsel for
Plaintiff Chandra H. Brewton

Bowen Reichert Shoemaker, Esq. -- bowen.shoemaker@alston.com --
Cari K. Dawson, Esq. -- cari.dawson@alston.com -- Daniel F.
Diffley, Esq. -- dan.diffley@alston.com -- and David B. Carpenter,
Esq. -- david.carpenter@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird serve as
counsel for Defendant Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc.


LIFE TIME FITNESS: Conditional Class Certification Bid Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification in the case, JARED STEGER,
DAVID RAMSEY, JOHN CHRISPENS, and MAI HENRY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LIFE TIME
FITNESS, INC., a Minnesota corporation, LTF CLUB MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and LTF CLUB
OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., a Minnesota corporation, and DOES 1 to
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-6056, (N.D. Ill.)

Plaintiffs Jared Steger, David Ramsey, John Chrispens, and Mai
Henry acting on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, filed an amended complaint against Defendants Life Time
Fitness, Inc., LTF Club Management Company, LLC, LTF Club
Operations Company, Inc., and ten unnamed individuals alleging
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California and
Illinois state law.

The Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of their
proposed class and judicial notice to the class pursuant to
section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). As the
factual nexus for this class, Plaintiffs allege both that (1) Life
Time had an uniform, unofficial policy of pressuring employees to
work off the clock and (2) Life Time uniformly misclassified the
class members as exempt from overtime compensation under 29 U.S.C.
Section 207(i).

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 21, 2016
available at http://is.gd/ZC9N4Efrom Leagle.com, Judge Coleman
said the evidence shows that the proposed class was impacted, not
by a uniform if unwritten corporate policy, but rather by the
individual actions of specific department heads acting contrary to
corporate policy, as moderated by each employee's individual
decisions. The pressure that each PT felt to work off the clock
depended on his or her location, his or her job title and
responsibilities, his or her department head at the particular
moment, his or her productivity, and his or her personal
decisions.  The putative Plaintiffs are not similarly situated
with respect to whether they misreported their hours, when they
did so, or how many hours they misreported. Moreover, the record
reflects that each Plaintiff's compensation would vary based on
the amount of commissioned hours they worked, their certification
level, the time period in which they worked, and whether or not
they were recouping previously earned draws. Thus, the application
of section 7(i) would require highly individualized inquiries into
each Plaintiff's hours and compensation that could not be
accomplished by common proof but would instead require "the
equivalent of mini-trials" for each Plaintiff. There is no
identifiable nexus that binds the potential claims of the putative
class such that hearing the claims collectively would promote
fairness and judicial efficiency. Rather, the highly
individualized inquiries which will be required would
substantially eliminate the judicial efficiency, and the resulting
benefit to the parties, traditionally attained through the
collective treatment of claims. Accordingly, conditional
certification of this lawsuit as a collective action is
unwarranted.

Jerusalem Beligan, Esq. -- jbeligan@bisnarchase.com -- of Bisnar
Chase, LLP; Michael Louis Fradin, Esq. -- mike@fradinlaw.com -- of
Michael L. Fradin, Attorney at Law; Branigan Andrew Robertson,
Esq. -- branigan@brobertsonlaw.com -- of Branigan Robertson, Inc.
serve as counsel for Plaintiff Jared Steger

Alison Blair Crane, Esq. -- alison.crane@jacksonlewis.com --
Cynthia J Emry, Esq. -- emryc@jacksonlewis.com -- Eric Russell
Magnus, Esq. -- Magnuse@jacksonlewis.com -- Monica Hersh
Khetarpal, Esq. -- monica.khetarpal@jacksonlewis.com -- Nicky
Jatana, Esq. -- jatanan@jacksonlewis.com -- and Paul DeCamp, Esq.
-- decampp@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis P.C. serve as
counsel for Defendant LTF Club Operations Company, Inc., Life Time
Fitness, Inc.


LTD FINANCIAL: "Vandemark" Suit Seeks Damages under TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------
Jason Vandemark, and all others similarly-situated v. LTD
Financial Services, LP, Case No. 7:16-cv-00589 (S.D.N.Y., January
26, 2016), seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages against
the Defendant's conduct of negligently, knowingly, and willfully
contacting Plaintiff and class members on their telephones using
an autodialer and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice without
their prior express written consent within the meaning of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

LTD Financial Services, LP is a debt collector. This is an attempt
to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for
that purpose.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (646) 837-7150
      Fax: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: jarisohn@bursor.com


LYFT INC: Balks at Uber Technologies' Data Breach "Witch Hunt"
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Ruiz, writing for Law.com, reports that Uber Technologies
Inc.'s push to hold someone accountable for a 2014 data breach has
focused heavily on an unnamed Lyft Inc. employee.  Now Lyft is
saying its market-leading rival has gone too far, launching a
discovery effort that amounts to a "witch hunt."

Lyft on Feb. 18 filed a motion for a protective order that would
prevent Uber from learning more about a Lyft employee, who is not
named in court papers but who has previously been named in the
press as a high-ranking executive.  Lawyers for Lyft said that
Uber has ulterior motives in its numerous subpoenas for
information that it filed to try to beat back a lawsuit by a
driver who says he was a victim of the data breach.

"Uber is abusing this court's discovery power to harass a third
party, X, and to uncover internal, confidential, trade-secret
information about Lyft -- X's employer and Uber's chief
competitor," wrote Lyft's lawyers at Keker & Van Nest, entering
their first appearance in the driver's lawsuit, in which the
company is neither plaintiff or defendant.  "The court must put a
stop to Uber's unbounded discovery campaign, which now includes at
least 11 third-party subpoenas targeting information from X and
Lyft."

Keker & Van Nest partner Rachael Meny -- rmeny@kvn.com -- who
signed the brief, did not return a phone call seeking comment.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Michael Li-Ming Wong --
mwong@gibsondunn.com -- who defends Uber in the suit by the
driver, declined to comment.

A Lyft spokesperson provided the following statement: "There is no
evidence that any Lyft employee downloaded the Uber driver
information or database, or had anything to do with Uber's May
2014 data breach."

The unnamed Lyft employee is the subject of the discovery even
though Lyft is not a party to the litigation because Uber is
attempting to find out the identity of those responsible for the
2014 breach that affected the information of up to 50,000 Uber
drivers.  Uber filed suit in federal court in San Francisco
against a John Doe defendant, seeking to find the identity of
anyone involved.  A Reuters report in October said Uber identified
its primary suspect as Lyft's chief technology officer, Chris
Lambert.  Lyft's attorneys only refer to the targeted worker as
"employee X."

Lyft says the broad-ranging, burdensome discovery" includes
inspection of the employee's electronic devices, Google searches
and communication between the employee and Lyft.  U.S. Magistrate
Judge Laurel Beeler approved the subpoenas in December, saying
that "the 'breadth' of material they ask for, the 'time period'
they cover, and the 'particularity' with which they describe the
target material -- are, for the most part, appropriately limited
to information related to the data breach that underlies the
plaintiff's case."

The active discovery efforts come even after Judge Beeler
dismissed the former driver's suit, with leave to amend.  In
March, 2015, Sasha Antman, sued the company, claiming the breach
allowed someone to fraudulently take out a credit card in his
name.  Uber's lawyers at Gibson Dunn argued that it was impossible
to put the blame on Uber, as only names and driver's license
numbers were compromised in the data breach.  Judge Beeler agreed,
saying that, "without a hack of information such as Social
Security numbers, account numbers, or credit card numbers, there
is no obvious, credible risk of identity theft that risks real,
immediate injury."

Judge Beeler said Mr. Antman could amend his complaint, but Uber
moved to delay the litigation, rare for a defendant in a case.

Keker & Van Nest attorneys called the tactic suspicious.

"Lyft has not found a single reported case in which a defendant
has won a motion to dismiss and then proceeded to stall dismissal
of the case to conduct its own discovery," the Keker lawyers
wrote.  "Clearly, Uber saw an opportunity to exploit this case for
its own purposes and proceeded to do so."

In asking Beeler to rein in the discovery, Keker's Meny blasted
Uber.

"Uber is using this case, this plaintiff and this court's subpoena
power to conduct its own witch-hunt, to distract attention from
its long and storied history of data breaches, to harass X, and to
dig into its competitor's internal, confidential and trade-secret
information," Ms. Meny wrote. "Enough is enough."

A hearing is set for March 24.


M-I L.L.C.: Judge Won't Push Back Briefing Schedule in "Syed"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SARMAD SYED, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, ASHLEY BALFOUR, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. M-I,
L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, doing business as M-
I SWACO; and, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:12-cv-01718-AWI-MJS (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Michael J.
Seng denied the parties' stipulation to again modify the briefing
schedule in the case.

The parties have agreed to a 60-day continuance of the schedule.
Specifically, they agreed that:

     (1) the deadline for filing a motion for class certification
and, if applicable, motion for collective certification be
continued from March 8, 2016 to May 6, 2016;

     (2) the deadline for Defendant's opposition to any motion for
class certification and, if applicable, motion for collective
certification be continued from May 11, 2016 to July 11, 2016;

     (3) the deadline for Plaintiffs to file any reply in support
of their motion for class certification and, if applicable, motion
for collective certification be continued from May 23, 2016 to
July 22, 2016; and

     (4) the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and, if applicable, collective certification be continued from
June 10, 2016 to August 12, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2016 Order is available at
http://goo.gl/K0bESbfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Sarmad Syed and Ashley Balfour are represented by:

     James Jason Hill, Esq.
     Michael D. Singer, Esq.
     Cohelan Khoury & Singer
     605 "C" Street, Suite 200
     San Diego, CA 92101-5305
     Tel: 888-808-8358
     Fax: 619-595-3000
     E-mail: jhill@ckslaw.com
             msinger@ckslaw.com

          - and -

     Jeff Holmes
     Jeff Holmes, Esq.
     3311 E Pico Blvd
     Los Angeles, CA 90023
     Tel: 310-396-9045

          - and -

     R Ira Spiro, Esq.
     Spiro Law Corp.
     11377 W Olympic Blvd # 5
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Tel: 310-235-2468

M-I, L.L.C., is represented by:

     Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
     Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
     400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Tel: 213-330-0802
     E-mail: alexander.chemers@ogletreedeakins.com

          - and -

     Jason S. Mills, Esq.
     Patricia S Riordan, Esq.
     Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
     300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
     Tel: 213-612-7387
     Fax: 213-612-2501
     E-mail: jmills@morganlewis.com
             priordan@morganlewis.com


M&G POLYMERS: 6th Cir. Remands "Tackett" Suit
---------------------------------------------
Chief Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. remanded to the district court the
case HOBERT FREEL TACKETT, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. M&G
POLYMERS USA, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants, No. 12-3329,
(6th Cir.)

"This case returns to us for the third time, this time on remand
from the Supreme Court, which abrogated the primary precedent on
which our prior decisions relied," Judge Cole said.  Those prior
decisions are: M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, 135 S.Ct. 926
(2015) (vacating Tackett v. M&G Polymers USA, LLC, 733 F.3d 589
(6th Cir. 2013) ("Tackett II"); abrogating Int'l Union, United
Auto., Aerospace, & Agric. Implement Workers of Am. (UAW) v. Yard-
Man, Inc., 716 F.2d 1476 (6th Cir. 1983)).

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Appeals Circuit was directed
to construe the parties' agreements using "ordinary principles of
contract law."

"Because prior factual determinations as to the parties'
agreements were made in the 'shadow of Yard-Man,' we remand to the
district court to make these determinations, in the first
instance, in light of the Supreme Court's holding," Judge Cole
said.

Plaintiffs-Appellees are Ohio residents, retirees, and spouses of
retirees (Retirees) from a plant owned by Defendant-Appellant M&G
Polymers USA, LLC (M&G). From 1991 to 2005, the Retirees entered
into several collective bargaining agreements (CBA) with M&G and
its predecessors, which included Pension and Insurance Agreements
(P&I) outlining retiree health care benefits. The P&Is provide
that the employer will make "a full Company contribution towards
the cost of [health care] benefits" for certain retirees.

In December 2006, M&G announced that Retirees would, for the first
time, be required to contribute to their health care costs or risk
being dropped from the plan. Retirees filed a class action suit
against M&G and its health care plans alleging that the Agreements
under which they retired granted a vested right to lifetime
contribution-free health care benefits. Defendants argued certain
side letters or "cap letters" established caps they would pay
towards Retirees' cost of benefits. Defendants further argued
Retirees had always been expected to contribute to the cost of
their health care benefits, but M&G never required them to do so
until 2006.

In his Opinion dated January 21, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/edshzqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Cole remanded to the
District Court to decide, among other things:

     (1) what documents make up the parties' Agreements;

     (2) whether reference to extrinsic evidence is appropriate;
         and

     (3) whether the Agreements, and any extrinsic evidence that
         may be considered, vests with Retirees lifetime
         contribution-free health care benefits.

The district court should use ordinary principles of contract law
to answer these questions, without a "thumb on the scale" in favor
of either party, Judge Cole added.

The Court of Appeals anticipates that the District Court will
consider any admissible evidence that is probative of the Supreme
Court's direction to construe the parties' Agreements under
"ordinary principles of contract law."  Judge Cole said Yard-Man
has been abrogated, additional evidence or arguments may be
relevant to an inquiry under ordinary contract principles.

Allyson N. Ho, Esq. -- aho@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP serve as counsel for Appellants

Julia Penny Clark, Esq. of Bredhoff & Kaiser, P.L.L.C. serve as
counsel for Appellees


MARATHON: Faces Class Action Over Refinery Pollution Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Matheny, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that
lawyers representing residents living next to the Marathon
refinery in southwest Detroit filed a class action in U.S.
District Court in Detroit on Feb. 22 alleging the refinery's fumes
and noise cause a perpetual nuisance harming their lives.

The lawsuit seeks in excess of $5 million, as well as a court
order that Marathon cease the release of all contaminants into
what it calls the "class area" -- residential neighborhoods within
blocks of the factory bounded by Pleasant Street to the north;
Schaefer Highway to the south; Bassett Street to the east and
Edsel and South Patricia streets to the west.  The lawsuit also
calls for Marathon to abate its noise and odors; and for it to
investigate, identify and remove all refinery contaminants from
class members' properties.

"This community has been one of the worst -- if not the worst --
polluted communities in the entire country, and has suffered as a
result of that for a long time now," said attorney Chris Nidel,
who is representing the Marathon neighbors.

A defense the lawsuit will likely have to surmount is proving that
the nuisances are coming from Marathon.  The area is rife with
steel factories, coal-fired power plants, and other polluting
industrial uses.  Marathon officials have maintained their
emissions account for less than 3% of total "criteria pollutants"
-- important pollutants tracked by the EPA -- in the area.

"While we realize that there are additional sources of pollution
within this general area, this community has been most directly
impacted by Marathon -- which sits directly across the street from
the majority of this community," Mr. Nidel said.

Community conditions changed for the worse following Marathon's
multi-billion-dollar expansion in recent years to process tar
sands oil, a sludgy oil that includes a combination of clay, sand,
water and bitumen, a heavy black viscous oil, Mr. Nidel said.
Processing tar sands oil is a more involved procedure than
processing more traditional heavy crude oil.

"At this time, Marathon not only wants to maintain its emissions;
it wants to increase them," he said.  "The time has come for
people to stand up for their clean air and their own health and
safety."

Marathon spokesman Jamal Kheiry said the company was unaware of a
lawsuit being filed against it, and that it does not comment on
pending litigation.

The lawsuit lists Gregory Cole, a resident of the class area, as
its lead plaintiff.

"As a result of Defendants' acts and/or omissions, Gregory Cole
has been subjected to noise, odors, vapors and fumes on his
property and surrounding environment, thereby causing Gregory Cole
to suffer damage to his property and personal finances, loss of
the use and enjoyment of his property; significant annoyance and
inconvenience; and destruction of his community," a portion of the
lawsuit states.

Another plaintiff in the class, Denise Taylor, 51, has lived on
Patricia Street her entire life.

"It's very, very bad living here," she said.  "There's constant
fumes, and the majority of the fumes are from 2 to 3 in the
morning. You're breathing it in your system.  You're tasting it in
your sleep. It wakes you up."

Ms. Taylor also described snow in her backyard topped with soot
last winter.  The refinery today is nothing like the much smaller
facility she remembers as a girl.

"Now it's like a city," she said.  "They keep adding and building
-- it's terrible."

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is considering a
permit to allow the Marathon refinery to increase its emissions of
at least eight air pollutants at the southwest Detroit facility,
as part of a project to prepare for a U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency mandate requiring lower-sulfur fuel.  The
increased air pollutants would include sulfur dioxide, a health-
harming contaminant that already exceeds EPA air quality standards
in the area.  Of the 22 additional tons of sulfur dioxide the
Marathon Detroit refinery plans to add to the area's air each
year, 16.5 tons are already allowed under its existing permit, and
require no additional approval or review, according to the DEQ.

The lawsuit's class now potentially involves about 1,000
residents, but could be expanded later, Mr. Nidel said.  "We
realize that the pollution from Marathon does not follow
neighborhood boundaries.  The definition of those class boundaries
may expand and change over time as the facts in this case
develop."

Ms. Taylor said she knows what she's hoping to get out of the
lawsuit.

"I'm hoping they can come up with some kind of solution to make it
livable here," she said.


MDL 1917: Court Approves Thomson Displays Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
In the CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No. CV-07-
5944-JST, MDL No. 1917, District Judge Jon S. Tigar approved a
settlement with defendants Technologies Displays Americas LLC
(formerly known as Thomson Displays Americas LLC) as set forth in
a Settlement Agreement dated February 6, 2015.

Judge Tigar issued a "FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
AS TO DEFENDANT TECHNOLOGIES DISPLAYS AMERICAS LLC (FORMERLY KNoWN
AS THOMSON DISPLAYS AMERICAS LLC)" dated Feb. 22, 2016, a copy of
which is available at http://goo.gl/rNMlxgfrom Leagle.com.


MDL 2580: Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss Payors' Amended Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE OPANA ER ANTRITRUST LITIGATION, MDL Docket No.
2580, Case No. 14 C 10150, (N.D. Ill.), District Judge Harry D.
Leinenweber:

     -- denied Defendants' motion to dismiss a first amended
        consolidated complaint filed by direct purchaser
        plaintiffs;

     -- denied, in part, and granted, in part, Defendants' motion
        to dismiss the end-payor plaintiffs' first amended
        consolidated complaint is granted in part and denied in
        part.

This lawsuit is one of many in the federal courts involving the
application of the Supreme Court's decision in FTC v. Actavis,
Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2223 (2013), to settlements between branded and
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. In this case, Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) brought claims under the Sherman Act,
and Indirect, or End-Payor Purchaser Plaintiffs (EPPs) brought
claims under state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust
enrichment laws.

The DPPs and EPPs (collectively, the Plaintiffs) allege that Endo
Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Penwest
Pharmaceuticals Co. (collectively, Endo), and Impax Laboratories,
Inc. (Impax) (collectively, the Defendants) delayed the entry of
generic versions of Opana ER to the Oxymorphone ER Market by
entering into an illegal reverse payment agreement to settle
ongoing patent infringement litigation between Endo and Impax.

The Endo-Impax Settlement consisted of two agreements entered into
simultaneously:

     (1) the Settlement and License Agreement ("SLA"), and
     (2) the Development and Co-Promotion Agreement ("DCA").

Under the SLA, Impax agreed to delay its launch of generic Opana
ER until the earlier of: (i) January 1, 2013, (ii) 30 days after a
non-appealable federal court decision finding that Endo's patents
were invalid or not infringed, or (iii) Endo's withdrawal of its
patents from the Orange Book.

Impax further agreed to refrain from challenging the validity or
enforceability of the '933 and '456 patents, as well as the '250
patent, which Endo had not even accused Impax of infringing.

In return, Endo covenanted not to sue Impax on, and granted Impax
a license as to, any then-existing or subsequently obtained
patents relating to Opana ER.  Additionally, Endo agreed to
refrain from launching an AG version of Opana ER during Impax's
180-day exclusivity period ("No-AG Agreement").

The Defendants filed two motions seek dismissal of DPPs' First
Amended Consolidated Complaint and EPPs' First Amended
Consolidated Complaint under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 10, 2016
available at http://is.gd/9IVAg5from Leagle.com, Judge
Leinenweber denied Defendants' motion to dismiss DPPS' first
amended consolidated complaint. Defendants' motion to dismiss
EPPs' first amended consolidated complaint is granted in part and
denied in part. EPPs' antitrust claims under the state laws of
Illinois, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Kansas, and Mississippi are
dismissed with prejudice. EPPs' antitrust claims under Utah state
law, and all of their consumer protection and unjust enrichment
claims are dismissed with leave to replead within 21 days from the
date of this memorandum opinion and order.

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that it is improper to view the
components of the Endo-Impax Settlement in isolation.  Plaintiffs
allege that Endo and Impax drafted a sophisticated agreement, and
acknowledging that the future was largely unpredictable, included
multiple contingencies to account for possible market changes and
ensure that Impax received payment for delaying the entry of its
generic into the market. Although the form and amount of that
payment were contingent on future occurrences, taking the
Plaintiffs' allegations as true, it was certain at the time of the
Endo-Impax Settlement that Impax would receive anywhere from $33
million to $49 million under the No AG-Agreement and an additional
$10 million under the DCA.

The Court also held that, although it may be true that Endo was
free to compete with Impax in other areas of the market, that does
not change the fact that the No-AG Agreement was a payment,
possibly of great monetary value to Impax as the first-filing
generic. Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the Endo-Impax
Settlement contained a reverse payment. The Court now considers
whether this reverse payment was large and unjustified. Although
not perfect, the Court cannot conclude simply from the absence of
precise figures that the pleadings represent formulaic recitations
of elements and allegations that fail to rise above the
speculative.

On the contrary, the complaints make specific allegations about
the terms of the settlement and their relative value that are
plausible on their face. Whether Plaintiffs can substantiate those
allegations may be an issue for summary judgment or trial, but for
purposes of the motions to dismiss, the allegations are
sufficient. Plaintiffs have met their prima facie burden, and
going forward, the burden shifts to Defendants to offer pro-
competitive justifications for the reverse payment. The Court
concludes that Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficiently that the
reverse payment was large and unjustified. The Court concludes
that Plaintiffs have stated a viable claim under Actavis. The
Court denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss DPPs' Complaint. The
Court also denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss EPPs' Complaint
for failure to state an antitrust cause of action under Actavis.

The Court now turns to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss EPPs' various
state law claims. The Court denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
EPPs' claims for lack of standing. The suitability of the named
Plaintiffs as representatives of the class will be addressed at
the class certification stage. The Court need not rule on the many
specific arguments Defendants make regarding the individual state
claims, because EPPS have not pleaded state law consumer
protection or unjust enrichment claims sufficient to satisfy Rule
8 under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007);
and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).  Therefore, the
Court dismisses EPPs' consumer protection and unjust enrichment
claims, and grants leave to replead in a non-conclusory fashion.

In Re, Opana ER Antitrust Litigation, represented by Lewis Scott
Joanen -- scott@joanenlaw.com -- and James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan
Law Firm, APLC.

Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Andrew C. Curley, Berger & Montague, P.c., Archana Tamoshunas,
Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLp, David F. Sorensen, Berger &
Montague, P.c., Joseph T. Lukens, Faruqi & Faruqi, Peter R. Kohn,
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP & Zachary David Caplan, Berger & Montague,
P.C..

Value Drug Company, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Gerstein,
Garwin, Bronzaft, Gerstein & Fisher, David C. Raphael, Smith
Segura & Raphael, LLP, Erin R Leger, Smith Segura & Raphael, Llp,
Jonathan M Gerstein, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher Llp, Jordan M.
Cramer, Law Offices of Jordan M. Cramer, PC, Joseph Opper, Garwin
Gerstein & Fisher Llp, Miranda Y Jones, Heim, Payne & Chorush,
Llp, Russell A Chorush, Heim, Payne & Chorush, Llp & Susan C
Segura, Smith Segura & Raphael, Llp.

Kim Mahaffay, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Joshua P. Davis, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.,
Lynne Marie Brennan, Krause, Kalfayan, Benink & Slavens, Llp,
Matthew S. Weiler, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Ralph B.
Kalfayan, Krause, Kalfayan, Benink & Slavens, LLP & Ryan J.
Mcewan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc..

Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20 Insurance Trust Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by Jayne Goldstein, Pomerantz Grossman
Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP & Michael Jerry Freed, Freed Kanner
London & Millen, LLC.

Massachusetts Bricklayers & Masons Health and Welfare Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP-
NY, Matthew J Perez, Labaton Sucharow Llp & Jay L Himes, Labaton
Sucharow LLP.

Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by Donald Lewis Sawyer, Freed Kanner London
& Millen LLC, Michael Jerry Freed, Freed Kanner London & Millen,
LLC, Robert J. Wozniak, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC & Steven
A Kanner, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC.

Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Michael Jerry Freed, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC.

Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented
by Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., John
Angelo Macoretta, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.c. & Michael
Jerry Freed, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC.

Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Company, Plaintiff,
represented by Michael Jerry Freed, Freed Kanner London & Millen,
LLC.

Meijer, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Meijer, Inc.

Walgreen Co, Plaintiff, represented by Anna T Neill, Kenny
Nachwalter P.A., David Lesht, Law Offices of Eugene M. Cummings,
P.C., Lauren C Ravkind, Kenny Nachwalter P.A. & Scott E Perwin,
Kenny, Nachwalter, Seymour, Arnold, Critchlow & Spector, P.A..

The Kroger Co., Plaintiff, represented by Anna T Neill, Kenny
Nachwalter P.A., David Lesht, Law Offices of Eugene M. Cummings,
P.C., Lauren C Ravkind, Kenny Nachwalter P.A. & Scott E Perwin,
Kenny, Nachwalter, Seymour, Arnold, Critchlow & Spector, P.A..

Safeway Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anna T Neill, Kenny
Nachwalter P.A., David Lesht, Law Offices of Eugene M. Cummings,
P.C., Lauren C Ravkind, Kenny Nachwalter P.A. & Scott E Perwin,
Kenny, Nachwalter, Seymour, Arnold, Critchlow & Spector, P.A..

HEB Grocery Company L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Anna T Neill,
Kenny Nachwalter P.A., David Lesht, Law Offices of Eugene M.
Cummings, P.C., Lauren C Ravkind, Kenny Nachwalter P.A. & Scott E
Perwin, Kenny, Nachwalter, Seymour, Arnold, Critchlow & Spector,
P.A..

Albertsons LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Anna T Neill, Kenny
Nachwalter P.A., David Lesht, Law Offices of Eugene M. Cummings,
P.C., Lauren C Ravkind, Kenny Nachwalter P.A., Scott E Perwin,
Kenny, Nachwalter, Seymour, Arnold, Critchlow & Spector, P.A.,
Anna T Neill, Kenny Nachwalter P.A., David Lesht, Law Offices of
Eugene M. Cummings, P.C., Lauren C Ravkind, Kenny Nachwalter P.A.
& Scott E Perwin, Kenny, Nachwalter, Seymour, Arnold, Critchlow &
Spector, P.A..

Rite Aid Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Bloom,
Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin Schiller, Barry L Refsin, Hangley
Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, David Lesht, Law Offices of
Eugene M. Cummings, P.C. & Rebuck L. Monica, Hangley Aronchick
Segal Pudlin & Schiller.

Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Barry L Refsin,
Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, David Lesht, Law
Offices of Eugene M. Cummings, P.C. & Rebuck L. Monica, Hangley
Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare
Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Jerry Freed, Freed Kanner
London & Millen, LLC.

Mary Davenport, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Jerry Freed,
Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC.

End-Payor Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Jennings F.
Durand, Dechert Llp.

Impax Laboratories, Inc., Defendant, represented by Danielle R
Foley, Venable Llp, James Douglas Baldridge, Venable Llp, Joanna
Rubin Travalini, Winston & Strawn Llp, Kevin Fitzgerald Wolff,
Winston & Strawn Llp, Lawrence R. Desideri, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Lisa Jose Fales, Venable Llp & Maureen L Rurka, Winston & Strawn
LLP.

Defendants Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
and Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., Defendant, represented by
Christine C Levin, Dechert LLP, George Gabriel Gordon, Dechert
Llp, Jennings F. Durand, Dechert Llp, Nathan E Hoffman, Dechert
LLP & Quinn Colleen Shean, Dechert LLP.


MDL 2672: 48 Class Suits v. Volkswagen et al. Transferred
---------------------------------------------------------
Forty-eight class action lawsuits against Volkswagen Group of
America Inc., et al., have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  The transfers are pursuant to
the Transfer Order entered in In re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel"
Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 2672, on Dec. 8, 2015.  The Hon. Charles R. Breyer oversees In
re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" MDL, Case No. 15-MD-2672-CRB (JSC)
(N.D. Calif.), and at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb/vwmdlthe
Court Clerk is making additional information about this proceeding
available to practitioners and the public.

   Cases Transferred to MDL No. 2672
   ---------------------------------
Downing-Moore, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06017 (N.D. Cal., December 23, 2015)
Case in other court: Oregon, 6:15-cv-01825

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Jennifer Lee Jonak, Esq.
               JONAK PUGH
               388 Market Street, Suite 1300
               San Francisco, CA 94111
               Telephone: (415) 335-4435
               Facsimile: (415) 360-2468
               E-mail: jenny@jonak.com

Romero v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06079 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: Illinois Northern, 1:15-cv-09109

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               David L. Poindexter, Esq.
               John Richard Schleiter, Esq.
               Mark Stephen Grotefeld, Esq.
               GROTEFELD, HOFFMANN, SCHLEITER, GORDON & OCHOA LLP
               311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
               Chicago, IL 60606
               Telephone: (312) 551-0200
               Facsimile: (312) 601-2402
               E-mail: DPoindexter@ghlaw-llp.com
                       jschleiter@ghlaw-llp.com
                       mgrotefeld@ghlaw-llp.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               James K. Toohey, Esq.
               Brian C. Langs, Esq.
               Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Esq.
               JOHNSON & BELL LTD.
               33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700
               Chicago, IL 60603
               Telephone: (312) 372-0770
               E-mail: toohey@jbltd.com
                       langs@jbltd.com
                       boehmg@jbltd.com

Belliveau, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06005 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: Ohio Northern, 1:15-cv-01973

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Edward W. Cochran, Esq.
               20030 Marchmont Road
               Shaker Heights, OH 44122
               Telephone: (216) 751-5546
               Facsimile: (216) 751-6630
               E-mail: edwardcochran@wowway.com

                              - and -

               Thomas John Connick, Esq.
               David Mullen, Esq.
               CONNICK LAW, LLC
               25550 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 101
               Cleveland, OH 44122
               Telephone: (216) 364-0512
               Facsimile: (216) 609-3446
               E-mail: tconnick@connicklawllc.com
                       dmullen@connicklawllc.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Hugh J. Bode, Esq.
               REMINGER & REMINGER CO LPA
               1400 Midland Building
               101 Prospect Avenue West
               Cleveland, OH 44115
               Telephone: (216) 687-1311
               E-mail: hbode@reminger.com

Steffensen, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06026 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:15-cv-01218

          Counsel to Plaintiffs Kirk Steffensen, Susan Tarrence,
          Terry Hight, Sarah Mutka, Mark Weber, David Winters,
          Alexander Valdes, David Mann, Joshua Miller, Susan
          Wall, Carl Johnson, Alexander Laskovski, Charles Hall,
          Rebecca Perlmutter, Joe Harrison, David Sibley, Matthew
          Heinly, Rachel Sullivan, Herb Yussim, Christopher
          Mitzak, Roberta Duboise, Jessica Alber and Laura
          Swenson:

               Gregory Yann Porter, Esq.
               BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
               910 17th Street NW, Suite 800
               Washington, DC 20006
               Telephone: (202) 543-0226
               Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
               E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com

                              - and -

               William David Dolan, III, Esq.
               WILLIAM D. DOLAN, III, PC
               8270 Greensboro Dr., Suite 700
               Tysons Corner, VA 22102
               Telephone: (703) 584-8377
               E-mail: wdolan@dolanlaw.net

                              - and -

               Steve W. Berman, Esq.
               Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
               HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
               1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
               Seattle, WA 98101
               Telephone: (206) 623-7292
               Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
               E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                       toml@hbsslaw.com

                              - and -

               Peter B. Fredman, Esq.
               LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN
               125 University Ave., Suite 102
               Berkeley, CA 94710
               Telephone: (510) 868-2626
               Facsimile: (510) 868-2627
               E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com

          Counsel to Plaintiffs Donald Varley, Snow Proudlove,
          Richard Evans, Benjamin Luckett, Bradley Gregory,
          Stephanie Nafus, Elizabeth Fisher, and Gerry Nemet:

               Blair Gerard Brown, Esq.
               Paul Bernard Hynes, Jr., Esq.
               ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
               1800 M Street NW, Suite 1000
               Washington, DC 20036
               Telephone: (202) 778-1829
               Facsimile: (202) 822-8106
               E-mail: bbrown@zuckerman.com
                       phynes@zuckerman.com

          Counsel to Plaintiff The George Leon Family Trust:

               Mark Hanna, Esq.
               MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC
               1701 K St. NW, Suite 210
               Washington, DC 20006
               Telephone: (202) 223-1057
               Facsimile: (202) 223-8651
               E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com

          Counsel to Plaintiffs Matthew Goldman, Michael Lessard
          and Abigail Nesbitt:

               Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
               CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
               763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
               Newport News, VA 23601
               Telephone: (757) 930-3660
               Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
               E-mail: srotkis@clalegal.com

          Counsel to Plaintiffs Mariah O'Brien, Charles Zehil,
          Sarah Collins, Cynthia Hurrle, Charlotte Kessy, Peter
          Brewitt, Amy M. Thomas, Ronald Sekul, Tom Assaf
          Abdalla, Cherie Shoquist and Khamsin Page:

               Daniel M. Cohen, Esq.
               CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
               211 North Union Street, Suite 100
               Alexandria, VA 22314
               Telephone: (202) 789-3960
               Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
               E-mail: danielc@cuneolaw.com

          Counsel to Plaintiffs Wendy Ligeti, Meaghan Webster,
          John Strause, Sean T. O'Brien, Steve Struck, H. Peter
          Fester, John Rinehart, Grace Fritz, Thomas Mullen,
          Robert Henry, Marisa Garcia and Travis Boothe:

               Stephen Earl Baril, Esq.
               KAPLAN VOEKLER CUNNINGHAM & FRANK PLC
               1401 East Cary Street
               Richmond, VA 23219
               Telephone: (804) 823-4003
               Facsimile: (804) 823-4099
               E-mail: sbaril@kv-legal.com

          Counsel to Plaintiffs Peter Brewitt, Amy M. Thomas,
          Ronald Sekul and Tom Assaf Abdalla:

               David Wallace Stanley, Esq.
               CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
               211 North Union Street, Suite 100
               Alexandria, VA 22314
               Telephone: (202) 789-3960
               Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
               E-mail: davids@cuneolaw.com

          Counsel to Plaintiff Peter Brewitt:

               Robert J. Cynkar, Esq.
               MCSWEENEY CYNKAR & KACHOUROFF PLLC
               3358 John Tree Hill Road
               Powhatan, VA 23139
               Telephone: (703) 621-3300
               Facsimile: (703) 759-3688
               E-mail: rcynkar@mck-lawyers.com

          Counsel to Plaintiffs Michael E. Johnson, Sr., Michael
          E. Johnson, Jr., Rebecca L. Myers, Benjamin D. Auchter,
          Jeffrey A. Gerritsen, Timothy J. Myers and Noel E.
          Eisenstat:

               Michael Weitzner, Esq.
               COOPER & KIRK PLLC
               1523 New Hampshire Avenue NW
               Washington, DC 20036
               Telephone: (202) 220-9600
               Facsimile: (202) 220-9601
               E-mail: mweitzner@cooperkirk.com

                              - and -

               William David Dolan, III, Esq.
               WILLIAM D. DOLAN, III, PC
               8270 Greensboro Dr., Suite 700
               Tysons Corner, VA 22102
               Telephone: (703) 584-8377
               E-mail: wdolan@dolanlaw.net

          Counsel to Consol Plaintiff City of St. Clair Shores
          Police and Fire Retirement System:

               Craig Crandall Reilly, Esq.
               RICHARDS MCGETTIGAN REILLY & WEST
               1725 Duke St., Suite 600
               Alexandria, VA 22314
               Telephone: (703) 549-5353
               E-mail: craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com

          Counsel to Consol Plaintiffs Daniel Kolomeets-Darovsky,
          Lioudmila Kolomeets, Boris Darovsky, Jennifer K. Green,
          Stephanie R. Heinatz and Rudolph B. Heinatz, III:

               Walter Dekalb Kelley, Jr., Esq.
               JONES DAY
               51 Louisiana Ave. NW
               Washington, DC 20001
               Telephone: (202) 879-3939
               Facsimile: (202) 626-1700
               E-mail: wdkelley@jonesday.com

                              - and -

               William Wesley Coleman Harty, Esq.
               PATTEN WORNOM HATTEN DIAMONSTEIN LC
               12350 Jefferson Ave., Suite 300
               Newport News, VA 23602
               Telephone: (757) 223-4500
               E-mail: wharty@pwhd.com

          Counsel to Consol Plaintiffs Gregory Shalov, Amanda
          Heidel and Peter Warren:

               Steven Jeffrey Toll, Esq.
               COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
               1100 New York Ave. NW
               Suite 500, West Tower
               Washington, DC 20005-3965
               Telephone: (202) 408-4600
               E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com

          Counsel to Consol Plaintiff Jeanine Butler:

               Edward Kyle McNew, Esq.
               John Gregory Webb, Esq.
               MICHIEHAMLETT PLLC
               500 Court Square, Suite 300
               P. O. Box 298
               Charlottesville, VA 22902
               Telephone: (434) 951-7200
               Facsimile: (434) 951-7218
               E-mail: kmcnew@michiehamlett.com
                       gwebb@michiehamlett.com

          Counsel to Consol Plaintiffs Becky Hensgens and Douglas
          Pennebaker:

               Andrew Mitchell Hendrick, Esq.
               SHUTTLEWORTH RULOFF SWAIN HADDAD & MORECOCK PC
               317 30th Street
               Virginia Beach, VA 23451
               Telephone: (757) 671-6012
               Facsimile: (757) 671-6004
               E-mail: ahendrick@srgslaw.com

          Counsel to Consol Plaintiffs Maria Bourn, David Watson,
          Mark Schumacher, Stephen Verner, Ericsson Broadbent and
          The Center for Auto Safety:

               Bernard Joseph DiMuro, Esq.
               Nina J. Ginsberg, Esq.
               DIMURO GINSBERG PC
               1101 King Street, Suite 610
               Alexandria, VA 22314-2956
               Telephone: (703) 684-4333
               Facsimile: (703) 548-3181
               E-mail: bdimuro@dimuro.com
                       nginsberg@dimuro.com

          Counsel to Consol Plaintiffs Mark Fiddler and China
          Terrell:

               Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
               CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
               12515 Warwick Boulevard, Suite 100
               Newport News, VA 23606
               Telephone: (757) 930-3660
               Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
               E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com

               - and -

               Matthew J. Erausquin, Esq.
               CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
               1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600
               Alexandria, VA 22314
               Telephone: (703) 273-7770
               Facsimile: (888) 892-3512
               E-mail: matt@clalegal.com

          Counsel to Consol Plaintiff David Whitcomb:

               James Wells Harrell, Esq.
               BOIES SCHILLER AND FLEXNER LLP
               5301 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 800
               Washington, DC 20015-2015
               Telephone: (202) 237-2727
               E-mail: wharrell@bsfllp.com

          Consol Plaintiffs Laura McNeil, Patrick Cutler, Amy
          Nelson, Alison Russo, Steven Weise, John Impeduglia and
          Arthur Thexton, and Movant Arkansas State Highway
          Employees Retirement System:

               Susan Rebbeca Podolsky, Esq.
               THE LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN R. PODOLSKY
               1800 Diagnal Road, Suite 600
               Alexandria, VA 22314
               Telephone: (571) 366-1702
               Facsimile: (703) 647-6009
               E-mail: spodolsky@podolskylaw.com

          Counsel to Consol Plaintiffs Patricia A. Bonney, Ryan
          Blitstein and Jonathan Goslin:

               Nathan Michael Cihlar, Esq.
               STRAUS AND BOIES LLP
               4041 University Dr., 5th Floor
               Fairfax, VA 22030
               Telephone: (703) 764-8700
               E-mail: ncihlar@straus-boies.com

          Counsel to Consol Plaintiff Sarah Bowlin:

               Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
               BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
               4023 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 4
               Fairfax, VA 22030
               Telephone: (602) 776-5903
               Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
               E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com

          Counsel to Consol Plaintiff Frederic Press:

               Robert Olin Wilson, Esq.
               WILSON LAW PLC
               2 South Main Street, Suite B
               Harrisonburg, VA 22802
               Telephone: (540) 430-0122
               E-mail: robert@thewilsonlaw.com

          Counsel to Consol Plaintiffs Cleveland University,
          formerly known as Cleveland Chiropractic College, and
          The Cleveland Chiropractic College Foundation, and
          Movant Volkswagen Investor Group:

               Joshua Seth Devore, Esq.
               COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
               1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500, West Tower
               Washington, DC 20005-3965
               Telephone: (202) 408-4600
               Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
               E-mail: jdevore@cohenmilstein.com

          Counsel to Consol Plaintiffs Bill O'Brien and Dan
          Maldonado:

               Peter Andrew Miller, Esq.
               Thomas Francis DellaFera, Jr., Esq.
               MILLER LEGAL LLC
               175 S Pantops Drive, Third Floor
               Charlottesville, VA 22911
               Telephone: (434) 529-6909
               E-mail: pmiller@millerlegalllc.com
                       tdellafera@millerlegalllc.com

          Counsel to Consol Plaintiffs Mark Pomerantz and Tiffany
          Ford:

               William Boyle Porter, Esq.
               BLANKINGSHIP & KEITH PC
               4020 University Dr., Suite 300
               Fairfax, VA 22030
               Telephone: (703) 691-1235
               E-mail: wporter@blankeith.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Casey Erin Lucier, Esq.
               Seth Abram Schaeffer, Esq.
               Christopher Edward Trible, Esq.
               Kenneth Abrams, Esq.
               Stanley Abbott Roberts, Esq.
               MCGUIREWOODS LLP
               Gateway Plaza
               800 East Canal Street
               Richmond, VA 23219
               Telephone: (804) 775-1000
               Facsimile: (804) 775-1061
               E-mail: clucier@mcguirewoods.com
                       sschaeffer@mcguirewoods.com
                       ctrible@mcguirewoods.com
                       kabrams@mcguirewoods.com
                       sroberts@mcguirewoods.com

                              - and -

               Howard Feller, Esq.
               MCGUIRE WOODS BATTLE & BOTHE LLP
               901 East Gary St.
               One James Center
               Richmond, VA 23219-4030
               Telephone: (804) 775-4393
               Facsimile: (804) 698-2051
               E-mail: hfeller@mcguirewoods.com

                              - and -

               Charles William McIntyre, Jr., Esq.
               MCGUIREWOODS LLP
               1750 Tysons Blvd., Suite 1800
               McLean, VA 22102-3915
               Telephone: (703) 712-5000
               Facsimile: (202) 828-2967
               E-mail: cmcintyre@mcguirewoods.com

          Counsel to Defendant Lynette Brady:

               David Michael Kopstein, Esq.
               KOPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES PC
               8633 Cross Chase Court
               Fairfax, VA 22039
               Telephone: (301) 552-3330
               Facsimile: (301) 552-2170
               E-mail: dkopstein@cox.net

          Counsel to Consol Defendant Michael Horn

               Lisa Manning, Esq.
               SCHERTLER AND ONORATO LLP
               575 7th Street NW, Suite 300 South
               Washington, DC 20004
               Telephone: (202) 628-4199
               Facsimile: (202) 628-4177
               E-mail: LManning@SchertlerLaw.com

          Counsel to Movants Chester County Employees Retirement
          Fund, Delaware County Employees Retirement System, and
          Charter Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement
          System:

               Craig Crandall Reilly, Esq.
               RICHARDS MCGETTIGAN REILLY & WEST
               1725 Duke St., Suite 600
               Alexandria, VA 22314
               Telephone: (703) 549-5353
               E-mail: craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com

Gary Arabian v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06128 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-09132

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Daniel Z. Srourian, Esq.
               SROURIAN LAW FIRM
               3440 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 915
               Los Angeles, CA 90010
               Telephone: (310) 601-3131
               Facsimile: (310) 388-8444
               E-mail: daniel@slfla.com

                              - and -

               Heleni Eugenia Suydam, Esq.
               1729 Lake St.
               Huntington Beach, CA 92648
               Telephone: (310) 617-3719
               Facsimile: (714) 536-1128
               E-mail: lenislaw@aol.com

                              - and -

               Kris Demirjian, Esq.
               SANDS AND ASSOCIATES
               232 North Canon Drive, 1st Floor
               Beverly Hills, CA 90210
               Telephone: (310) 859-6644
               Facsimile: (310) 492-0397
               E-mail: sandslaw@sandslaw.net

                              - and -

               Leonard S. Sands, Esq.
               9606 Santa Monica Blvd., Third Floor
               Beverly Hills, CA 90210
               Telephone: (310) 859-6644
               Facsimile: (310) 492-0397
               E-mail: sandslaw@gte.net

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Andrew Zachary Edelstein, Esq.
               John Nadolenco, Esq.
               Neil Michael Soltman, Esq.
               Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2500
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Telephone: (213) 229-9500
               Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: AEdelstein@mayerbrown.com
                       jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
                       nsoltman@mayerbrown.com
                       mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com

Flieger v. Volkswagon Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06015 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: Illinois Southern, 3:15-cv-01177

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Roger Denton, Esq.
               SCHLICHTER BOGARD AND DENTON, LLP
               100 South 4th Street
               St. Louis, MO 63102
               Telephone: (314) 621-6115
               E-mail: rdenton@uselaws.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               James K. Toohey, Esq.
               Brian C. Langs, Esq.
               Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Esq.
               JOHNSON & BELL LTD.
               33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700
               Chicago, IL 60603
               Telephone: (312) 372-0770
               E-mail: toohey@jbltd.com
                       langs@jbltd.com
                       boehmg@jbltd.com

Bryan, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06113 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: Illinois Northern, 1:15-cv-10541

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Alexis Garmey Chardon, Esq.
               Jacob Michael Hamann, Esq.
               Nathan P. Eimer, Esq.
               Vanessa G. Jacobsen, Esq.
               EIMER STAHL LLP
               224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100
               Chicago, IL 60604
               Telephone: (312) 660-7640
               Facsimile: (312) 692-1718
               E-mail: achardon@eimerstahl.com
                       jhamann@eimerstahl.com
                       neimer@eimerstahl.com
                       vjacobsen@eimerstahl.com

Bonney, et al. v. Volkswagen AG, et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06036 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:15-cv-01323

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Nathan Michael Cihlar, Esq.
               STRAUS & BOIES LLP
               4041 University Dr., 5th Floor
               Fairfax, VA 22030
               Telephone: (703) 764-8700
               E-mail: ncihlar@straus-boies.com

Howland v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06035 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: Massachusetts, 1:15-cv-13805

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               David Pastor, Esq.
               PASTOR LAW OFFICE LLP
               63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
               Boston, MA 02110
               Telephone: (617) 742-9700
               Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
               E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Andrew R. Levin, Esq.
               David A. Barry, Esq.
               SUGARMAN ROGERS BARSHAK & COHEN, PC
               101 Merrimac Street, 9th Floor
               Boston, MA 02114
               Telephone: (617) 227-3030
               Facsimile: (617) 523-4001
               E-mail: levin@srbc.com
                       barry@srbc.com

Anela Kelani De Britz, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06101 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-08815

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Kristen-Leigh Myles, Esq.
               Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
               KNAPP PETERSEN AND CLARKE
               550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
               Glendale, CA 91203
               Telephone: (818) 547-5000
               Facsimile: (818) 547-5329
               E-mail: klm@kpclegal.com
                       aej@kpclegal.com

               - and -

               Michael Hagop Boyamian, Esq.
               Armand Raffi Kizirian, Esq.
               LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
               550 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1500
               Glendale, CA 91203
               Telephone: (818) 547-5200
               Facsimile: (818) 500-9307
               E-mail: mike.falveylaw@gmail.com
                       armand.falveylaw@gmail.com

               - and -

               Thomas Walker Falvey, Esq.
               LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
               301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 800
               Pasadena, CA 91101
               Telephone: (626) 795-0205
               Facsimile: (626) 795-3096
               E-mail: thomaswfalvey@gmail.com

Johnson, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06016 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:15-cv-01225

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Michael Weitzner, Esq.
               COOPER & KIRK PLLC
               1523 New Hampshire Avenue NW
               Washington, DC 20036
               Telephone: (202) 220-9600
               Facsimile: (202) 220-9601
               E-mail: mweitzner@cooperkirk.com

               - and -

               William David Dolan, III, Esq.
               WILLIAM D. DOLAN, III, PC
               8270 Greensboro Dr., Suite 700
               Tysons Corner, VA 22102
               Telephone: (703) 584-8377
               E-mail: wdolan@dolanlaw.net

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Kenneth Abrams, Esq.
               MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
               Gateway Plaza
               800 East Canal Street
               Richmond, VA 23219
               Telephone: (804) 775-4771
               Facsimile: (757) 640-3950
               E-mail: kabrams@mcguirewoods.com

Cynthia Rios v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06100 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-08016

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Edrik Mehrabi, Esq.
               George S. Azadian, Esq.
               AZADIAN LAW GROUP PC
               790 East Colorado Boulevard, 9th Floor
               Pasadena, CA 91101
               Telephone: (626) 449-4944
               Facsimile: (626) 628-1722
               E-mail: edrik@azadianlawgroup.com
                       george@azadianlawgroup.com

Gentry v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06006 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: Tennessee Middle, 3:15-cv-01107

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Michael L. Russell, Esq.
               GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER PLC
               341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
               Franklin, TN 37067
               Telephone: (615) 354-1144
               E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com

               - and -

               Donald J. Cazayoux, Jr., Esq.
               CAZAYOUX EWING, LLC
               257 Maximilian Street
               Baton Rouge, LA 70802
               Telephone: (225) 650-7400
               Facsimile: (225) 650-7401
               E-mail: don@cazayouxewing.com

Kettley, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06089 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: Hawaii, 1:15-cv-00386

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Andrew James Lautenbach, Esq.
               Judith Ann Pavey, Esq.
               Sharon V. Lovejoy, Esq.
               Terence J. O'Toole, Esq.
               STARN O'TOOLE MARCUS AND FISHER
               733 Bishop Street, Suite 1900
               Honolulu, HI 96813
               Telephone: (808) 537-6100
               Facsimile: (808) 537-5434
               E-mail: alautenbach@starnlaw.com
                       jpavey@starnlaw.com
                       slovejoy@starnlaw.com
                       totoole@starnlaw.com

Stolz v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06091 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: Rhode Island, 1:15-cv-00407

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Jonathan D. Orent, Esq.
               Robert J. McConnell, Esq.
               Vincent L. Greene, IV, Esq.
               MOTLEY RICE LLC
               321 South Main St., Suite 200
               Providence, RI 02903
               Telephone: (401) 457-7700
               Facsimile: (401) 457-7708
               E-mail: jorent@motleyrice.com
                       bmcconnell@motleyrice.com
                       vgreene@motleyrice.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Stephen P. Cooney, Esq.
               Gerald C. DeMaria, Esq.
               HIGGINS, CAVANAGH & COONEY, LLP
               The Hay Building
               123 Dyer Street
               Providence, RI 02903
               Telephone: (401) 633-4388
               Facsimile: (401) 273-8780
               E-mail: scooney@hcc-law.com
                       gdemaria@hcc-law.com

Rory Stewart v. Volkswagen Group of America, et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06131 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 8:15-cv-01736

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Ashleigh E. Aitken, Esq.
               Darren OLeary Aitken, Esq.
               Wylie A. Aitken, Esq.
               AITKEN AITKEN COHN
               3 MacArthur Place, Suite 800
               Santa Ana, CA 92702
               Telephone: (714) 434-1424
               Facsimile: (714) 434-3600
               E-mail: ashleigh@aitkenlaw.com
                       darren@aitkenlaw.com
                       wylie@aitkenlaw.com

Midland Industries, Inc. vs. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06077 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: Illinois Northern, 1:15-cv-08610

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Alex Stepick, IV, Esq.
               STEPICK LAW, LLC
               2260 North Elston Avenue, 2nd Floor South
               Chicago, IL 60614
               Telephone: (773) 245-3884
               E-mail: alex@stepicklaw.com

                              - and -

               Adam Edward Urbanczyk, Esq.
               PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC
               1 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2255
               Chicago, IL 60654
               Telephone: (312) 787-2717
               E-mail: adam@progressivelaw.com

                              - and -

               Mark Anthony Bulgarelli, Esq.
               PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC
               140 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 315
               Chicago, IL 60603
               Telephone: (312) 787-2717
               E-mail: markb@progressivelaw.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               James K. Toohey, Esq.
               Brian C. Langs, Esq.
               Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Esq.
               JOHNSON & BELL LTD.
               33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700
               Chicago, IL 60603
               Telephone: (312) 372-0770
               E-mail: toohey@jbltd.com
                       langs@jbltd.com
                       boehmg@jbltd.com

Sun Jung, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06119 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-08300

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               John B. Quinn, Esq.
               Shon Morgan, Esq.
               QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
               865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
               Telephone: (213) 624-7707
               Facsimile: (213) 624-0643
               E-mail: johnquinn@quinnemanuel.com
                       shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com

                              - and -

               Karin Kramer, Esq.
               QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART AND SULLIVAN LLP
               50 California Street, 22nd Floor
               San Francisco, CA 94111
               Telephone: (415) 875-6600
               Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
               E-mail: karinkramer@quinnemanuel.com

                              - and -

               Jong Sun Ha, Esq.
               Chin Ahn Ha & Seo, 8th Floor
               1490-25 Seocho-Dong, Seocho
               Seoul 137-073
               South Korea
                              - and -

               Rieu Kim, Esq.
               Thomas Charles Villalon, Esq.
               BARUN LAW LLC
               92 Gil 7 Teheran-ro
               Gangnam-gu, Seoul
               South Korea
               E-mail: rieu.kim@barunlaw.com
                       tom.villalon@barunlaw.com

                              - and -

               Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
               HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
               1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
               Seattle, WA 98101
               Telephone: (206) 623-7292
               Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
               E-mail: toml@hbsslaw.com

Jason Miller, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06099 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07650

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               David Seabold Casey, Jr., Esq.
               Jeremy Keith Robinson, Esq.
               Wendy M. Behan, Esq.
               Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
               CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT &
               PENFIELD LLP
               110 Laurel Street
               San Diego, CA 92101-1486
               Telephone: (619) 238-1811
               Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
               E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
                       jrobinson@cglaw.com
                       wbehan@cglaw.com
                       gmb@cglaw.com

Edwards v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06080 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: South Carolina, 2:15-cv-04003

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Jodi W. Flowers, Esq.
               Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
               MOTLEY RICE LLC
               28 Bridgeside Boulevard
               Charleston, SC 29403
               Telephone: (843) 216-9000
               Facsimile: (843) 216-9027
               E-mail: jflowers@motleyrice.com
                       kdean@motleyrice.com

                              - and -

               Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
               28 Bridgeside Blvd.
               Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
               Telephone: (843) 216-9159
               E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Charles J. Baker, III, Esq.
               Dana Woodrum Lang, Esq.
               Henry Buist Smythe, Jr., Esq.
               WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE AND RICE
               PO Box 999
               Charleston, SC 29402
               Telephone: (843) 722-3400
               Facsimile: (843) 723-7398
               E-mail: cbaker@wcsr.com
                       dlang@wcsr.com
                       hsmythe@wcsr.com

Marc Federman v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06138 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07655

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Byron T. Ball, Esq.
               THE BALL LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
               10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
               Los Angeles, CA 90024
               Telephone: (310) 446-6148
               Facsimile: (310) 441-5386
               E-mail: btb@balllawllp.com

George Elder v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06081 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07716

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Alexandra T. Steele, Esq.
               Joseph Robert Finnerty, Esq.
               Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
               GIRARDI KEESE
               1126 Wilshire Blvd.
               Los Angeles, CA 90017
               Telephone: (213) 977-0211
               Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
               E-mail: asteele@girardikeese.com
                       jfinnerty@girardikeese.com
                       tgirardi@girardikeese.com

               - and -

               Douglas L. Johnson, Esq.
               Jordanna G. Thigpen, Esq.
               Neville Lawrence Johnson, Esq.
               JOHNSON AND JOHNSON LLP
               439 North Canon Drive, Suite 200
               Beverly Hills, CA 90210
               Telephone: (310) 975-1080
               Facsimile: (310) 975-1095
               E-mail: djohnson@jjllplaw.com
                       jthigpen@jjllplaw.com
                       njohnson@jjllplaw.com

Cash Yi v. Volkswagen AG, et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06097 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-08327

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Howard K. Alperin, Esq.
               Maxwell Michael Blecher, Esq.
               BLECHER COLLINS PEPPERMAN AND JOYE PC
               515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1750
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Telephone: (213) 622-4222
               Facsimile: (213) 622-1656
               E-mail: halperin@blechercollins.com
                       mblecher@blechercollins.com

Boisselle, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06078 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: Illinois Northern, 1:15-cv-09168

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Alexis Garmey Chardon, Esq.
               Jacob Michael Hamann, Esq.
               Nathan P. Eimer, Esq.
               Vanessa G. Jacobsen, Esq.
               EIMER STAHL LLP
               224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100
               Chicago, IL 60604
               Telephone: (312) 660-7640
               Facsimile: (312) 692-1718
               E-mail: achardon@eimerstahl.com
                       jhamann@eimerstahl.com
                       neimer@eimerstahl.com
                       vjacobsen@eimerstahl.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc. and Audi of
          America Inc.:

               James K. Toohey, Esq.
               Brian C. Langs, Esq.
               Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Esq.
               JOHNSON & BELL LTD.
               33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700
               Chicago, IL 60603
               Telephone: (312) 372-0770
               E-mail: toohey@jbltd.com
                       langs@jbltd.com
                       boehmg@jbltd.com

Allen Davis v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06102 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 8:15-cv-01571

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Michael I. Katz, Esq.
               Wayne R. Gross, Esq.
               Alan Greenberg, Esq.
               GREENBERG GROSS LLP
               650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1750
               Costa Mesa, CA 92626
               Telephone: (949) 383-2800
               Facsimile: (949) 383-2801
               E-mail: mkatz@ggtriallaw.com
                       wgross@ggtriallaw.com
                       agreenberg@ggtriallaw.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2500
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Telephone: (213) 229-9500
               Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com

Gregg A. Klein v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06121 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07570

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Allen Press, Esq.
               Joe D. Jacobson, Esq.
               Matthew B. Vianello, Esq.
               JACOBSON PRESS AND FIELDS P.C.
               168 N. Meramec Avenue, Suite 150
               Clayton, MO 63105
               Telephone: (314) 899-9789
               Facsimile: (314) 899-0282
               E-mail: Press@ArchCityLawyers.com
                       jacobson@archcitylawyers.com
                       Vianello@ArchCityLawyers.com

               - and -

               Jonathan A. Michaels, Esq.
               Kianna C. Parviz, Esq.
               Kathryn Jeanine Harvey, Esq.
               MLG AUTOMOTIVE LAW, APLC
               2801 W. Coast Highway, Suite 370
               Newport Beach, CA 92663
               Telephone: (949) 581-6900
               Facsimile: (949) 581-6908
               E-mail: jmichaels@mlgautomotivelaw.com
                       kparviz@mlgautomotivelaw.com
                       kharvey@mlgautomotivelaw.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2500
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Telephone: (213) 229-9500
               Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com

Nisa Aguilar, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06108 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07741

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Ari Nathan Cherniak, Esq.
               HAMMONDLAW, PC
               1829 Reisterstown Road, Suite 410
               Baltimore, MD 21208
               Telephone: (443) 739-5758
               Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
               E-mail: acherniak@hammondlawpc.com

                              - and -

               Julian Ari Hammond, Esq.
               HAMMONDLAW, PC
               1180 S. Beverly Dr., Suite 601
               Los Angeles, CA 90035
               Telephone: (310) 601-6766
               Facsimile: (310) 295-2835
               E-mail: JHammond@hammondlawpc.com

                              - and -

               Polina Pecherskaya, Esq.
               HAMMONDLAW, PC
               1633 East 31 Street
               Brooklyn, NY 11234
               Telephone: (718) 414-7094
               E-mail: ppecherskaya@hammondlawpc.com

Eve Turner, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06132 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 8:15-cv-01923

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
               NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
               2901 West Coast Hwy., Suite 350
               Newport Beach, CA 92663
               Telephone: (949) 263-5992
               Facsimile: (949) 209-1948
               E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

               - and -

               Ross Cornell, Esq.
               LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC
               111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 400
               Long Beach, CA 90802
               Telephone: (562) 612-1708
               Facsimile: (562) 394-9556
               E-mail: ross.law@me.com

Mark Corwin, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06124 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-08228

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Bruce A. Broillet, Esq.
               Scott H. Carr, Esq.
               GREENE BROILLET AND WHEELER LLP
               100 Wilshire Blvd., 21st Floor
               Santa Monica, CA 90401
               Telephone: (310) 576-1200
               Facsimile: (310) 576-1220
               E-mail:  bbroillet@greenebroillet.com
                        scarr@greene-broillet.com

Paul O. Leary, et al. v. Volkswagen AG, et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06127 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-09131

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Aron K. Liang, Esq.
               Sean Tamura-Sato, Esq.
               Jack W. Lee, Esq.
               MINAMI TAMAKI LLP
               360 Post Street, 8th Floor
               San Francisco, CA 94108
               Telephone: (415) 788-9000
               Facsimile: (415) 398-3887
               E-mail: aliang@minamitamaki.com
                       seant@minamitamaki.com
                       jlee@MinaniTamaki.com

                              - and -

               David M. McClain, Esq.
               Henry A. Steinberg, Esq.
               KAZAN MCCLAIN SATTERLEY AND GREENWOOD APC
               55 Harrison Street, Suite 400
               Oakland, CA 94607
               Telephone: (510) 302-1000
               Facsimile: (510) 835-4913
               E-mail: dmmcclain@kazanlaw.com
                       hsteinberg@kazanlaw.com

                              - and -

               Denise Abrams, Esq.
               KAZAN MCCLAIN EDISES ABRAMS
               171 Twelfth Street, Third Floor
               Oakland, CA 94607
               Telephone: (510) 465-7728
               Facsimile: (510) 835-4913
               E-mail: dabrams@kazanlaw.com

Kristen Marks v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06129 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 5:15-cv-02140

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Gregory H.D. Alumit, Esq.
               Vincent D. Howard, Esq.
               HOWARD LAW PC
               2099 S State College Blvd., Suite 600
               Anaheim, CA 92806
               Telephone: (800) 872-5925
               Facsimile: (888) 533-7310
               E-mail: galumit@howardlawpc.com
                       vhoward@howardlawpc.com

               - and -

               David M. Arbogast, Esq.
               ARBOGAST LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
               8117 W. Manchester Ave., Suite 530
               Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
               Telephone: (310) 477-7200
               Facsimile: (310) 943-0416
               E-mail: david@arbogastbowen.com

Mark S. Kornfeld, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06098 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 5:15-cv-02024

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Allan Steyer, Esq.
               D. Scott Macrae, Esq.
               Jill M. Manning, Esq.
               STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
               One California Street, Suite 300
               San Francisco, CA 94111
               Telephone: (415) 421-3400
               Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
               E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
                       smacrae@steyerlaw.com
                       jmanning@steyerlaw.com

                              - and -

               William Pettersen, Esq.
               PETTERSEN & BARK
               1620 Union Street
               San Diego, CA 92101
               Telephone: (619) 702-0123
               Facsimile: (619) 702-0127
               E-mail: pbattorneys@cox.net

Carly Studer, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06137 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07560

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Ivan Moe, Esq.
               Jean-Paul Le Clercq, Esq.
               Randi L. Thompson, Esq.
               Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
               MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES, APLC
               11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
               Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
               Telephone: (310) 312-0299
               Facsimile: (310) 312-0296
               E-mail: moe@law-rm.com
                       leclercq@law-rm.com
                       thompson@law-rm.com
                       makarem@law-rm.com

Christopher Rumpf v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06122 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07637

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               John H. Gomez, Esq.
               Kristen K. Barton, Esq.
               Deborah S. Dixon, Esq.
               GOMEZ IAGMIN TRIAL ATTORNEYS
               655 W Broadway, Suite 1700
               San Diego, CA 92101
               Telephone: (619) 237-3490
               Facsimile: (619) 237-3496
               E-mail: john@gomeztrialattorneys.com
                       kbarton@gomeztrialattorneys.com
                       Ddixon@gomeztrialattorneys.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2500
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Telephone: (213) 229-9500
               Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com

Milons v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06083 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: Illinois Northern, 1:15-cv-10271

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Todd Allen Smith, Esq.
               Carolyn Daley Scott, Esq.
               POWER ROGERS AND SMITH, PC
               70 W. Madison Street, 55th Floor
               Chicago, IL 60602
               Telephone: (312) 236-9381
               Facsimile: (312) 236-0920
               E-mail: tsmith@prslaw.com
                       cdaley@prslaw.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               James K. Toohey, Esq.
               Brian C. Langs, Esq.
               Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Esq.
               JOHNSON & BELL LTD.
               33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700
               Chicago, IL 60603
               Telephone: (312) 372-0770
               E-mail: toohey@jbltd.com
                       langs@jbltd.com
                       boehmg@jbltd.com

Williams, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06174 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07053

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               James E. Cecchi, Esq.
               CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
               5 Becker Farm Road
               Roseland, NJ 07068
               Telephone: (973) 994-1700
               Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
               E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

Ruth Jelkmann, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06103 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07566

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Martis A. Alex, Esq.
               LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
               140 Broadway
               New York, NY 10005
               Telephone: (212) 907-0870
               Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
               E-mail: malex@labaton.com

                              - and -

               Thomas David Haklar, Esq.
               LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D. HAKLAR
               2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 617
               San Diego, Ca 92103
               Telephone: (619) 952-8777
               Facsimile: (619) 232-7317
               E-mail: thaklar@haklarlaw.com

Jess Hill, et al. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06104 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07604

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
               Lee M. Gordon, Esq.
               HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPRIO LLP
               301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
               Pasadena, CA 91101
               Telephone: (213) 330-7150
               Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
               E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com
                       lee@hbsslaw.com

                              - and -

               Shon Morgan, Esq.
               QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
               865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
               Telephone: (213) 624-7707
               Facsimile: (213) 624-0643
               E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com

                              - and -

               Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
               HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
               1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
               Seattle, WA 98101
               Telephone: (206) 623-7292
               Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
               E-mail: toml@hbsslaw.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               John Nadolenco, Esq.
               Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
               Telephone: (213) 229-9500
               Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
                       mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com

Victoria Genin v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06107 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07688

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Joshua C. Ezrin, Esq.
               AUDET AND PARTNERS LLP
               221 Main Street Suite 1460
               San Francisco, CA 94105
               Telephone: (415) 568-2555
               Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
               E-mail: jezrin@audetlaw.com

                              - and -

               William M. Audet, Esq.
               AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
               711 Van Ness, Suite 500
               San Francisco, CA 94102-3229
               Telephone: (415) 568-2555
               Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
               E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
               Telephone: (213) 229-9500
               Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com

Zucker v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06084 (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015)
Case in other court: Missouri Eastern, 4:15-cv-01466

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Esq.
               HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN & SHERIDAN LLP
               112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
               New York, NY 10016-7416
               Telephone: (212) 784-6401
               Facsimile: (212) 784-6420
               E-mail: phanly@hanlyconroy.com

                              - and -

               Sarah S. Burns, Esq.
               SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
               One Court Street
               Alton, IL 62002
               Telephone: (618) 259-2222
               Facsimile: (618) 259-2251
               E-mail: sburns@simmonsfirm.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               David M. Eisenberg, Esq.
               John W. Cowden, Esq.
               BAKER, STERCHI, COWDEN & RICE, LLC
               2400 Pershing Road, Suite 500
               Kansas City, MO 64108-2504
               Telephone: (816) 448-9343
               Facsimile: (816) 472-0288
               E-mail: eisenberg@bscr-law.com
                       cowden@bscr-law.com

Chenggang Zhu, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06125 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-08720

          Counsel to Plaintiff Chenggang Zhu:

               Frank S. Carleo, Esq.
               508 West Hillsdale St.
               Inglewood, CA 90302
               Telephone: (310) 645-2519

                              - and -

               Shin-Pen Yang, Esq.
               110 W Las Tunas Dr., #F
               San Gabriel, CA 91776
               Telephone: (626) 451-0882

Hoffman, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06076 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Maryland, 1:15-cv-03157

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Athanasios Basdekis, Esq.
               BAILEY AND GLASSER LLP
               209 Capitol St.
               Charleston, WV 25301
               Telephone: (304) 340-2282
               Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
               E-mail: tbasdekis@baileyglasser.com

Rogers v. Volkswagen AG, et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-05986 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Tennessee Middle, 2:15-cv-00061

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Damien J. Marshall, Esq.
               BOIES, SCHILLER AND FLEXNER LLP
               575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor
               New York, NY 10022
               Telephone: (212) 909-7617
               Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
               E-mail: dmarshall@bsfllp.com

                              - and -

               David Boies, Esq.
               BOIES SCHILLER AND FLEXNER
               333 Main Street
               Armonk, NY 10504
               Telephone: (914) 749-8201
               Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
               E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

                              - and -

               Jonathan D. Schiller, Esq.
               BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
               575 Lexington Avenue
               New York, NY 10022
               Telephone: (212) 446-2300
               Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
               E-mail: jschiller@bsfllp.com

                              - and -

               Stephen N. Zack, Esq.
               BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
               100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 2800
               Miami, FL 33131
               Telephone: (305) 539-8400
               Facsimile: (305) 539-1307
               E-mail: szack@bsfllp.com

                              - and -

               Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
               ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
               655 W Broadway, Suite 1900
               San Diego, CA 92101
               Telephone: (619) 231-1058
               Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
               E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com

                              - and -

               Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
               Paul J. Geller, Esq.
               Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
               ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
               120 E Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
               Boca Raton, FL 33432
               Telephone: (561) 750-3000
               Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
               E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                       pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                       sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com

                              - and -

               David W. Garrison, Esq.
               Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
               BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
               Bank of America Plaza
               414 Union Street, Suite 900
               Nashville, TN 37219
               Telephone: (615) 244-2202
               Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
               E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                       jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

                              - and -

               Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
               Scott P. Tift, Esq.
               Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
               BARRETT JOHNSTON, LLC
               217 Second Avenue, N
               Nashville, TN 37201
               Telephone: (615) 244-2202
               Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
               E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
                       stift@barrettjohnston.com
                       tmiles@barrettjohnston.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen A.G. and Volkswagen Group of
          America Inc.:

               John Randolph Bibb, Jr., Esq.
               Ryan Nelson Clark, Esq.
               LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C.
               424 Church Street, Suite 2500
               Nashville, TN 37219
               Telephone: (615) 259-1366
               Facsimile: (615) 259-1389
               E-mail: rbibb@lewisthomason.com
                       rclark@lewisthomason.com

Amy Bergrud v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06106 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07629

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               David C. Wright, Esq.
               Jae Kook Kim, Esq.
               Richard D. McCune, Jr., Esq.
               MCCUNE WRIGHT LLP
               2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
               Redlands, CA 92374
               Telephone: (909) 557-1250
               Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
               E-mail: dcw@mccunewright.com
                       jkk@mccunewright.com
                       rdm@mccunewright.com

                              - and -

               Robert C. O'Brien, Esq.
               Stephen Gerard Larson, Esq.
               ARENT FOX LLP
               555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90013
               Telephone: (213) 629-7400
               Facsimile: (213) 629-7401
               E-mail: obrien.robert@arentfox.com
                       stephen.larson@arentfox.com

                              - and -

               Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
               Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
               CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
               361 West Lancaster Avenue
               Haverford, PA 19041
               Telephone: (610) 642-8500
               Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
               E-mail: JGS@chimicles.com
                       MDS@chimicles.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2500
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Telephone: (213) 229-9500
               Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com

Ari Kalan v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06120 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07563

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Behram Viraf Parekh, Esq.
               Heather Marie Baker Dobbs, Esq.
               Michael L. Kelly, Esq.
               KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
               2041 Rosecrans Ave., Third Floor
               El Segundo, CA 90245
               Telephone: (310) 536-1000
               Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
               E-mail: bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
                       hmb@kirtlandpackard.com
                       mlk@kirtlandpackard.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2500
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Telephone: (213) 229-9500
               Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com

Gastman v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06085 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Missouri Eastern, 4:15-cv-01515

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Cyrus C. Dashtaki, Esq.
               DASHTAKI LAW FIRM, LLC
               5205 Hampton Avenue
               St. Louis, MO 63109
               Telephone: (314) 932-7671
               E-mail: cyrus@dashtaki.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               David M. Eisenberg, Esq.
               John W. Cowden, Esq.
               BAKER, STERCHI, COWDEN & RICE, LLC
               2400 Pershing Road, Suite 500
               Kansas City, MO 64108-2504
               Telephone: (816) 448-9343
               Facsimile: (816) 472-0288
               E-mail: eisenberg@bscr-law.com
                       cowden@bscr-law.com

Young Kim, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06105 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07605

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Adam J. McNeile, Esq.
               Bryan Kemnitzer, Esq.
               KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG, LLP
               445 Bush St., 6th Floor
               San Francisco, CA 94108
               Telephone: (415) 632-1900
               Facsimile: (415) 632-1901
               E-mail: adam@kbklegal.com
                       bryan@kbklegal.com

                              - and -

               David Stellings, Esq.
               LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP
               250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
               New York, NY 10013
               Telephone: (212) 355-9500
               Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
               E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com

                              - and -

               Kevin R. Budner, Esq.
               Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen, Esq.
               Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
               Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Esq.
               LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN, LLP
               275 Battery St., 29th Floor
               San Francisco, CA 94111
               Telephone: (415) 956-1000
               Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
               E-mail: kbudner@lchb.com
                       pgnguyen@lchb.com
                       twalburg@lchb.com
                       ecabraser@lchb.com

                              - and -

               Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
               CHAVEZ AND GERTLER LLP
               42 Miller Avenue
               Mill Valley, CA 94941
               Telephone: (415) 381-5599
               Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
               E-mail: mark@chavezgertler.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN LLP
               350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2500
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Telephone: (213) 229-9500
               Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
               E-mail: mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com

Cleveland University-KC, et al. v. Volkswagen AG, et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06169 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:15-cv-01376

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
               Joshua Seth Devore, Esq.
               S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
               Elizabeth A. Aniskevich, Esq.
               COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
               1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500, West Tower
               Washington, DC 20005-3965
               Telephone: (202) 408-4600
               Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
               E-mail: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
                       jdevore@cohenmilstein.com
                       dbunch@cohenmilstein.com
                       eaniskevich@cohenmilstein.com

                              - and -

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

                              - and -

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


MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces Class Action Over BlueTEC Diesel Engines
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a class
action filed in federal court in Newark says Mercedes-Benz "Clean
Diesel" models are programmed to shut off pollution controls under
certain circumstances -- a claim reminiscent of the recent scandal
at Volkswagen that prompted hundreds of lawsuits.

Diesel-powered Mercedes-Benz vehicles have been found to emit
pollutants at a level 65 times higher than the Environmental
Protection Agency permits, according to the complaint in Lynevych
v. Mercedes Benz USA.  The company's diesel cars are programmed to
turn off pollution control devices when outside temperatures fall
below 50 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the complaint.

The suit concerns Mercedez-Benz's BlueTEC diesel engines, which
the company markets as "the world's cleanest and most advanced
diesel," with "ultra-low emissions, high fuel economy and
responsive performance" while producing up to 30 percent less
greenhouse gas emission than a gasoline car, the suit says.

"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 suit alleges.  "Mercedes
never disclosed that, when the temperature drops below 50 degrees,
it prioritizes engine power and profits over people."

The suit covers the ML320, ML350, GL320, E320, S350, R320, E
Class, GL Class, ML Class, R Class, S Class, GLK Class, GLE Class
and Sprinter models with BlueTEC engines.  More than 100,000
BlueTEC-equipped vehicles have been sold in the U.S., according to
a press release from by the firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in
Seattle, which filed the suit along with Carella, Byrne, Cecchi,
Olstein, Brody & Agnello of Roseland as co-counsel.  The suit is
brought on behalf of a nationwide class and subclasses for each of
the 49 states and the District of Columbia.

The suit brings a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
as well as state law claims for breach of contract and fraudulent
concealment.  The suit is seeking temporary and permanent
restraints against the practices in the complaint, as well as
injunctive relief in the form of a recall or free replacement
program, as well as restitution for overpayment and diminution in
value for the affected vehicles.  The suit also seeks punitive
damages, costs and disgorgement in an amount to be determined at
trial.

Similar allegations were made last year by the EPA against
Volkswagen, where nearly a half-million cars with diesel engines
were found to disengage elements of the vehicles' emission control
systems during normal operation.  The allegations concern roughly
482,000 cars, whose emissions levels are 10 to 40 times greater
than the law allows, the EPA said.

Volkswagen was hit with more than 400 suits over the diesel
emissions issue, and in December 2015 the Judicial Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation centralized those cases in the Northern
District of California.

Mercedes-Benz was sued in New Jersey Feb. 18 by Hagens Berman and
Carella Byrne. Hagens Berman filed a similar suit against
Mercedes-Benz Feb. 19 in the Northern District of California.,
Andary v. Mercedes-Benz USA. Hagens Berman was the lead counsel in
a class action against Toyota Motor Corp. over complaints of
unintended acceleration that settled for $1.1 billion in 2012.
Steve Berman, lead counsel for the class, was not available to
comment on the suit, his office said.

A Mercedes-Benz spokesman, Han Tjan, said in a statement: "We
believe that the complaint is without merit. We are currently
reviewing the documents and will defend ourselves."


MYLAN N.V.: Trial in Modafinil Class Action Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the trial of the class action
lawsuit by direct purchasers of the drug Modafinil is stayed and
the case has been placed in suspense.

Beginning in April 2006, Mylan and four other drug manufacturers
have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed in or
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by a variety of plaintiffs purportedly representing
direct and indirect purchasers of the drug modafinil and in a
lawsuit filed by Apotex, Inc., a manufacturer of generic drugs.
These actions allege violations of federal antitrust and state
laws in connection with the generic defendants' settlement of
patent litigation with Cephalon relating to modafinil. Discovery
has closed.

On June 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion for
partial summary judgment (and denied the corresponding plaintiffs'
motion) dismissing plaintiffs' claims that the defendants had
engaged in an overall conspiracy to restrain trade.

On January 28, 2015, the District Court denied the defendants'
summary judgment motions based on factors identified in the
Supreme Court's Actavis decision. On June 1, 2015, the District
Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a petition
for leave to appeal the certification decision, which was denied
by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on December 21,
2015.

On July 27, 2015, the District Court granted the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On October 9, 2015,
the Third Circuit granted Defendants' Petition for Leave to
Appeal.

On October 16, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to stay the
liability trial, which had been set to begin on February 2, 2016,
with the District Court pending the appeal of the decision to
certify the direct purchaser class; this motion was denied on
December 17, 2015.

On December 17, 2015, the District Court approved the form and
manner of notice to the certified class of direct purchasers;
notice subsequently issued to the class. On December 21, 2015, the
defendants filed a motion to stay with the Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, which was granted on January 25, 2016; the
trial is now stayed and the case has been placed in suspense.

On March 24, 2015, Mylan reached a settlement in principle with
the putative indirect purchasers and on November 20, 2015, Mylan
entered into a settlement agreement with the putative indirect
purchasers. Plaintiffs have not yet moved for preliminary approval
of that settlement. At December 31, 2015, the Company has accrued
approximately $16.0 million related to this settlement.

On June 29, 2015, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed suit
against the same parties named as defendants in litigation pending
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, including Mylan,
asserting state law claims based on the same underlying
allegations. All defendants, including Mylan, moved to dismiss the
suit on October 15, 2015. The motion is now fully briefed.

On July 10, 2015, the Louisiana Attorney General filed a petition
against Mylan and three other drug manufacturers asserting state
law claims based on the same underlying allegations as those made
in litigation pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Mylan's declinatory exception of no personal jurisdiction and
peremptory exceptions of no cause of action, no right of action
and prescription are pending. A hearing on the exception was
scheduled for January 19, 2016; however, the District Court
adjourned the hearing until May 16, 2016.


MYLAN N.V.: Indirect Purchasers File Opening Brief in Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the indirect purchasers of the drug
Pioglitazone have filed their opening brief in a class action
appeal.

Beginning in December 2013, Mylan, Takeda, and several other drug
manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York by plaintiffs which purport to represent indirect
purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R).
These actions allege violations of state and federal competition
laws in connection with the defendants' settlements of patent
litigation in 2010 relating to Actos and Actoplus Met(R).

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2014. Mylan
and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint on October 10, 2014.

Two additional complaints were subsequently filed by plaintiffs
purporting to represent classes of direct purchasers of branded or
generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R). On September 23, 2015, the
District Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the indirect
purchasers amended complaints with prejudice.

The indirect purchasers filed a notice of appeal on October 22,
2015. The indirect purchasers subsequently filed their opening
brief on February 4, 2016, which did not appeal the District
Court's dismissal of claims asserted against Mylan.

The putative direct purchaser class filed an amended complaint on
January 8, 2016. Defendants' motion to dismiss was filed on
January 28, 2016.


MYLAN N.V.: Briefing in Shareholders Class Action Completed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that briefing regarding three motions in
the shareholders class action has been completed.

On June 11, 2015, City of Riviera Beach General Employees
Retirement System and Doris Arnold (collectively, the "Riviera
Plaintiffs") filed a purported class action complaint against
Mylan and directors of Mylan Inc. (the "Directors") in the
Washington County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas (the
"Pennsylvania Court"), on behalf of certain former shareholders of
Mylan Inc. The complaint alleged both breach of fiduciary duty by
the Directors and breach of contract by Mylan and the Directors,
all relating to certain public disclosures made in connection with
the EPD Transaction and the creation of, and Call Option Agreement
with, the Foundation.

The Riviera Plaintiffs asked the Pennsylvania Court to: find that
the Directors breached their fiduciary duties and that Mylan and
the Directors breached the purported contract, rescind the vote of
Mylan Inc.'s former shareholders approving the EPD Transaction,
award compensatory damages and award Plaintiffs their costs
relating to the lawsuit.

On June 22, 2015, Mylan and the Directors removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the
"District Court"). The Riviera Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in the District Court on July 10, 2015, that included
the same basic causes of action and requested relief, dropped
allegations against some of the Directors named in the original
complaint and asserted the breach of contract claim not on behalf
of a purported class of former shareholders of Mylan Inc. but on
behalf of a purported subclass of such shareholders who held
shares of Mylan continuously for a specified period following
consummation of the EPD Transaction.

On July 21, 2015, a second purported class action complaint
against the same defendants, asserting the same basic claims and
requesting the same basic relief on behalf of the same purported
class and subclass, was filed by a different plaintiff in the
District Court. On August 28, 2015, the District Court
consolidated the two actions, and, on September 4, 2015, the
plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a consolidated amended
complaint (the "Consolidated Amended Complaint") against the same
defendants, asserting the same basic claims and requesting the
same basic relief on behalf of the same purported class and
subclass, but asserting the breach of contract claim against only
Mylan.

On September 30, 2015, two of the plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed a motion for partial summary judgment, on the breach
of contract claim against Mylan (the "Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment").

On October 23, 2015, the District Court approved the voluntary
dismissal of a third purported class action, commenced on August
28, 2015 against Mylan and the Directors, alleging federal
securities and breach of contract claims against all defendants
and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Directors, all
arising out of the same basic alleged facts and requesting the
same basic relief on behalf of certain former shareholders of
Mylan Inc.

On November 25, 2015, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint, and Mylan filed an Opposition to
the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and a Motion to Deny
Summary Judgment.

On December 21, 2015, the District Court consolidated the action
with a fourth purported class action, commenced November 24, 2015
by, among others, the plaintiff in the third action, against the
same defendants, alleging only breach of contract arising out of
the same basic alleged facts, and requesting the same basic relief
on behalf of certain former shareholders of Mylan Inc. In
consolidating the actions, the District Court ordered, among other
things, that the Consolidated Amended Complaint would remain the
operative complaint in the consolidated action and that the Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment, Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Deny
Summary Judgment were not disturbed by the consolidation. The
briefing regarding the three motions was completed on January 15,
2016.

"We believe that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and
intend to continue to defend against them vigorously," the Company
said.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Dismissal of Debt Collection Class Action Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Violations of state and local debt collection statutes are not per
se violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on Feb. 22.

The appeals court upheld the dismissal of a would-be class action,
saying a debt collector's failure to include a contact name with a
call-back number on a debt notice, as required by New York City,
does not automatically state a claim under the act (FDCPA) 15
U.S.C. Secs. 1692 et seq.

"There is no indication that Congress intended for Secs 1692e (10)
and 1692f to incorporate state- or local-law standards of
conduct," the circuit said in Gallego v. Northland Group,
15-1666-cv.  "On the contrary, the FDCPA expressly contemplates
the existence of state laws that offer protections to consumers
that go beyond the FDCPA itself."

Plaintiff Jeffrey Gallego had a debt with Macy's and, in 2014, he
received a debt collection letter from Northland Group, a
Minnesota-based collection agency.  The letter stated, "IT'S A NEW
YEAR WITH NEW OPPORTUNITIES!" and it gave Mr. Gallego a chance to
settle his account for $192.20 spread over four payments or
$171.18 spread over two payments.

He filed suit in the Southern District alleging the lack of a name
with the call-back number on the letter, which is required by the
New York City Administrative Code, violated the FDCPA.

Northland Group and Mr. Gallego worked quickly to settle the
matter on a class-wide basis, agreeing Mr. Gallego would be paid
$1,000, that $16,500 would be distributed to other class members
and that attorney fees would be capped at $35,000.

But Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied class certification and then,
on his own initiative, said the complaint appeared to allege no
more than a violation of city law.  He dismissed the case for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.

Mr. Gallego appealed to the Second Circuit, where Judges Debra Ann
Livingston and Gerard Lynch and Southern District Judge Jed
Rakoff, sitting by designation, heard the appeal on Dec. 7, 2015.

The panel disagreed that there was a lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, with Lynch writing that the U.S. Supreme Court has
outlined the "level of frivolity required for a federal claim to
fail to invoke federal subject-matter jurisdiction" by using terms
such as "essentially fictitious" and "wholly insubstantial."

"Unless a claim fails to clear even that low bar, the court
explained [in Shapiro v. McManus, 136 S.Ct. 450 (2015)], 'the
failure to state a proper cause of action calls for judgment on
the merits and not for a dismissal for want of jurisdiction.' That
is what the district court should have done here."

But the circuit agreed on Mr. Gallego's failure to state a claim,
which can be read as looking for relief on two theories.  The
first is that Northland ran afoul of the FDCPA because it used
"unfair or unconscionable means," and the second is that its
failure to include the call-back name itself is "deceptive" and
"unfair unconscionable" -- a phrase borrowed by the New York
Administrative Code.

Lynch said that state and local debt statute violations are not
per se violations of the FDCPA, failing the first theory.  The
second theory fails because not listing call-back information is
neither a "false representation" nor "deceptive means" under
Sec. 1692e (10) because it doesn't open up the collection letter
to more than one interpretation -- one of which is inaccurate.

"Instead, the omission simply withholds information that New York
City law has required debt agencies to supply, but that is not
necessary to enable a recipient to understand the rest of the
information contained in a typical debt collection letter," he
said.

And Mr. Gallego "has not even attempted to explain how the
provision of a call-back name is in any way essential to the
fairness of a debt collection practice, under any conception of
'fairness,'" nor how the omission shocks the conscience, Judge
Lynch noted.

Nonetheless, the circuit said neither theory presented by
Mr. Gallego raised a colorable federal question that would deprive
the court of subject-matter jurisdiction.  In fact, he said, Judge
Hellerstein seems to be the first judge to have been presented
with Mr. Gallego's second theory.


NOVATION COMPANIES: Still Defends Carpenters' Health Fund Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Novation Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend a purported class action case filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC"), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, and its individual directors, several
securitization trusts sponsored by the Company ("affiliated
defendants") and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit
rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage
loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by the
plaintiff and the purported class members.

On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011,
with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint on May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to
dismiss.

On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second
amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. The
plaintiff filed an appeal. On March 1, 2013, the appellate court
reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the
case.

Also, the appellate court vacated the judgment of the lower court
which had held that the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class
representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities in
which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court remanded
the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum with the
lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not
invested, and on February 5, 2015 the lower court granted
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier
dismissal.

Given the stage of the litigation, the Company cannot provide an
estimate of the range of any loss. The Company believes that the
affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses to the case and
expects them to defend the case vigorously.

As of December 31, 2015, the Company owned 100% of Corvisa LLC
("Corvisa"), a developer and seller of cloud-based communication
software under the CorvisaOne(R) brand, telecommunications
services, and implementation consulting services. On December 21,
2015, the Company entered into a Membership Interest Purchase
Agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") with Corvisa Services LLC
("Corvisa Services"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company,
and ShoreTel, Inc. ("ShoreTel"), pursuant to which ShoreTel agreed
to purchase all of the membership interests of Corvisa, subject to
the terms and conditions under the Purchase Agreement.


NYMOX PHARMACEUTICAL: "Sapir" Case Dismissed with Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jose L. Linares granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended class action complaint in the case, ROY SAPIR,
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. PAUL AVERBACK and NYMOX PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 14-7331 (JLL) (JAD), (D. N.J.)

In this action, Lead Plaintiffs Harry Lattanzio, PRS, Inc.,
Network Accreditation Services, Inc., Andrew Silverman, and Rock
49th Restaurant Group allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising from alleged
fraudulent misrepresentations about the design and conduct of two
Phase 3 studies of Nyrnox's drug NX-1207. The proposed Class
Period is from January 31, 2011 to November 2, 2014.

Lead Plaintiffs claim that enrollment of 1,000 men in the two
Phase 3 Studies was a "very slow and difficult process" and allege
that in order to "keep the market's interest in NX-1207 during the
lengthy enrollment process and to obfuscate the problems with
design and conduct of the two Phase 3 studies" Defendants "began a
campaign to disseminate as much positive information about NX-
1207, focusing on the two ongoing Phase 3 Studies and the results
of prior, smaller, shorter Phase 2 studies of NX-1207."

Lead Plaintiffs allege that the misrepresentations were made
"through the publication of News Releases and reporting on
positive presentations at meetings of the American Urological
Association made by 'friendly' doctors, as well as through SEC
filings." Lead Plaintiffs allege that the factual reasons given
for failure of the Phase 3 Studies by Averback on the November 3,
2014 conference call were all facts known to Defendants at the
beginning of, and throughout the Class Period.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action
complaint.

In his Opinion dated February 10, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/jdsbB0from Leagle.com, Judge Linares finds that,
when considered holistically, the Amended Complaint fails to give
rise to a strong inference that Defendants acted with scienter. In
essence, Lead Plaintiffs' theory is that Defendants knew all along
that the Phase 3 Studies were unlikely to succeed but concealed
this information in order to prolong the viability of the Company.
In contrast, Defendants suggest that the facts point to a more
benign explanation: that Defendants designed the Phase 3 Studies
with input from the FDA in a manner they thought was appropriate;
that they kept market abreast of the studies' progress through
press releases and other filings; and that Defendants immediately
revealed the disappointing results of the Phase 3 Studies when
they became available.

The Court finds that when comparing the competing inferences, the
opposing inference of non-fraudulent intent is more compelling
than an inference of scienter. In other words, when viewing all of
the facts collectively, a reasonable person would not deem the
inference of scienter cogent and at least as compelling as any
opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged.

In sum, when considering the Amended Complaint holistically and in
a light most favorable to Lead Plaintiffs, the Court concludes
that the competing inference of non-fraudulent is more compelling
than an inference of scienter.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Lead Plaintiffs have failed to
state a claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act. In light of the deficiencies identified by the Court
in this Opinion, the Court believes that amendment may well be
futile. However, in the interests of justice, if Lead Plaintiffs
believe that amending the complaint would not be futile, they
shall file a motion in accordance with the Local Rules for leave
to amend within 14 days of the date of this Opinion and Order.
That motion must set forth precisely what new allegations they
would include in a consolidated second amended complaint to cure
the deficiencies identified by the Court, and shall also include a
copy of a proposed second amended complaint that is blacklined
against the current Amended Complaint.

Gary S. Graifman, Esq. of Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, Esqs.
and Tina Moukoulis, Esq. -- tina@bernardmgross.com -- of Law
Office of Bernard M. Gross, PC serve as counsel for Plaintiff Roy
Sapir

Andrew B. Joseph, Esq. -- andrew.joseph@drinkerbiddle.com --
Stephen G. Stroup, Esq. -- stephen.stroup@drinkerbiddle.com -- and
Joshua M. Link, Esq. -- joshua.link@drinkerbiddle.com -- of
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Paul
Averback


OOMA INC: "Barnett" Sues over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------
Michael Barnett, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Ooma, Inc., Eric B. Stang, Ravi
Narula, James Wei, Alison Davis, Andrew H. Galligan, Peter J.
Goettner, Russell Mann, Sean N. Parker, William D. Pearce, Michael
Orsak, Worldview Capital IV, L.P., Worldview Equity I, L.L.C.,
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
& Smith Incorporated, JMP Securities LLC, William Blair & Company,
L.L.C., Wunderlich Securities, INC. and Does 1-25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case CIV536959 (Cal. Super., San Mateo County, January
14, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, interest, reasonable
counsel and expert fees, rescission, equitable and/or injunctive
or other relief as deemed appropriate for violation of Sec. 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Ooma provides cloud-based telephony and connected services.

Company sales to resellers were allegedly overstated prior to
their IPO despite of its lead generation business experiencing
technical problems resulting in lost data. Subscription revenue
growth and operating and pretax profit margins were both falling.
Ooma successfully raised $65 million in its IPO despite all of
these problems that caused the Company's subscription retention
rate to plummet and net losses to double in a year. Share prices
dropped after remedial corrective measures were enforced.

Barnett purchased Ooma common stock and lost substantially.

Eric B. Stang, Ravi Narula, James Wei, Alison Davis, Andrew H.
Galligan, Peter J. Goettner, Russell Mann, Sean N. Parker, William
D. Pearce are members of the Ooma Board.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
& Smith Incorporated, JMP Securities LLC, William Blair & Company,
L.L.C. and Wunderlich Securities, Inc. are investment banking
firms that acted as underwriters of the IPO.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP
      Post Montgomery Center
      One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel: (415) 288-4545
           (415) 288-4534

           - and -

      James I. Jaconette, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Tel: (619) 231-1058
           (619) 231-7423

           - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (6310 367-1173

           - and -

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      Shawn E. Fields, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 230-0063
      Fax: (619) 255-1856

           - and -

     Jack G. Fruciiter
     ABRAHAM, FRUCIITER & TWERSKY, LLP
     One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 2805
     New York, NY 10119
     Tel: (212) 279-5050
     Fax: (212) 279-3655


PETROBAS: Securities Case Wins Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the case In re: PETROBRAS SECURITIES LITIGATION,
No. 14-cv-9662 (JSR), (S.D.N.Y.)

Lead Plaintiff Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd. brings this
putative class action against Brazilian oil company Petroleo
Brasileiro S.A. -- Petrobras, two of Petrobras' wholly-owned
subsidiaries, Petrobras Global Finance, B.V. and Petrobras
America, Inc. various former officers and directors of Petrobras
and its subsidiaries, Petrobras' independent auditor,
PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores Independentes and the various
underwriters of Petrobras's debt offerings. Plaintiffs allege that
Petrobras was at the center of a multi-year, multi-billion dollar
bribery and kickback scheme, in connection with which Defendants
made false and misleading statements in violation of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs move to certify two classes, one for their Securities
Act claims and one for their Exchange Act claims.
In his Opinion and Order dated February 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/KXHvhUfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rakoff granted
Plaintiffs' request. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have
satisfied the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3).

The Exchange Act Class is defined as follows:

          "As to claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, all purchasers who, between
January 22, 2010 and July 28, 2015, inclusive (the Class Period)
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Petroleo
Brasileiro S. A. (Petrobras), including debt securities issued by
Petrobras International Finance Company S. A. (PifCo) and/or
Petrobras Global Finance B.V. (PGF) on the New York Stock Exchange
(the NYSE) or pursuant to other domestic transactions, and were
damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, current
or former officers and directors of Petrobras, members of their
immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or
had a controlling interest."

The Securities Act Class is defined as follows:

          "As to claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, all purchasers who purchased or otherwise acquired
debt securities issued by Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras),
Petrobras International Finance Company S.A. (PifCo), and/or
Petrobras Global Finance B.V. (PGF), in domestic transactions,
directly in, pursuant and/or traceable to a May 15, 2013 public
offering registered in the United States and/or a March 11, 2014
public offering registered in the United States before Petrobras
made generally available to its security holders an earnings
statement covering a period of at least twelve months beginning
after the effective date of the offerings, and were damaged
thereby.  As to claims under Sections 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act of 1933, all purchasers who purchased or otherwise acquired
debt securities issued by Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras),
Petrobras International Finance Company S.A. ( PifCo), and/or
Petrobras Global Finance B.V. (PGF), in domestic transactions,
directly in a May 15, 2013 public offering registered in the
United States and/or a March 11, 2014 public offering registered
in the United States before Petrobras made generally available to
its security holders an earnings statement covering a period of at
least twelve months beginning after the effective date of the
offerings, and were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are
Defendants, current or former officers and directors of Petrobras,
members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in
which Defendants have or had a controlling interest."

The Court appoints USS class representative for the Exchange Act
Class and North Carolina and Hawaii class representatives for the
Securities Act Class. The Court appoints Pomerantz LLP as class
counsel for both Classes. The Clerk of Court is directed to close
documents numbered 255 on the docket of this case.

Chet Barry Waldman, Esq. -- CWaldman@wolfpopper.com -- Fei-Lu
Qian, Esq. -- fqian@wolfpopper.com -- Lester L. Levy, Sr., Esq.
-- llevy@wolfpopper.com and Robert Craig Finkel, Esq. --
rfinkel@wolfpopper.com of Wolf Popper LLP serve as counsel for
Plaintiff Peter Kaltman

David L. Schwarz, Esq. -- dschwarz@khhte.com and Joshua D.
Branson, Esq. -- jbranson@khhte.com of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen,
Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C. -- Roger Allen Cooper, Esq. --
racooper@cgsh.com -- and Lewis J. Liman, Esq. -- lliman@cgsh.com
of Cleary Gottlieb serve as counsel for Defendant Petroleo
Brasileiro S.A.-Petrobras


PHILIP MORRIS: Smokers to Get $4.9MM in Marlboro Lights Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Janelle Lawrence, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
nearly 200,000 Marlboro Lights smokers will get $25 each, plus
interest -- a fraction of the $600 million the plaintiffs had
sought from Altria Group's Philip Morris USA -- after a
Massachusetts judge found they were duped into buying what they
thought was a safer cigarette.

Plaintiffs "paid too much for the misrepresented cigarette," but
their attorneys failed to prove they shared similar injuries
beyond overpaying, Superior Court Judge Edward P. Leibensperger
wrote in a 41-page decision released on Feb. 22, after 17 years of
litigation, ordering Philip Morris to pay $4.94 million plus
interest.

Although Marlboro Lights were as harmful as Marlboro Reds, the
judge wrote, "I have no evidential basis for quantifying the
actual damages of each class member."  The judge, who ruled after
a five-week bench trial held last year, rejected plaintiffs'
attempt to quantify the injury with a questionnaire asking smokers
what they would have paid for an imaginary cigarette that was
safer.


RADIANT LOGISTICS: Status Conference in "Barahona" Continued
------------------------------------------------------------
Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a status
conference has been continued until May 2016 in the case, Ingrid
Barahoma v. Accountabilities, Inc. d/b/a/ Accountabilities
Staffing, Inc., Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. and DBA
Distribution Services, Inc. (Ingrid Barahona California Class
Action)

Plaintiff recently admitted in a report to the Court that she is
unable to prosecute the case because the payroll and personnel
records she needs are in the possession of Tri-State and-or
Accountabilities, and the case has been stayed as to them pending
resolution of their chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

In January 2016, the court held a status conference, which has
since been continued until May 2016 so the parties can attempt to
obtain the necessary documents. The parties are in the process of
trying to obtain the records.

At this time, the Company is unable to express an opinion as to
the likely outcome of the matter.

Radiant Logistics, Inc. (the "Company") operates as a third party
logistics company, providing multi-modal transportation and
logistics services primarily in the United States and Canada. The
Company services a large and diversified account base consisting
of consumer goods, food and beverage, manufacturing and retail
customers which it supports from an extensive network of
approximately 150 operating locations across North America. The
Company provides these services through a multi-brand network
comprised of Company-owned offices and locations operated by its
strategic operating partners, as well as an integrated
international service partner network located in other key markets
around the globe.


RBC CAPITAL: "Luis" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
-------------------------------------------------
Gary and Caryl Luis, Stephanie Edwards and Murray MacLeod, Mary
Moravec, Judith and Delton Nack, and all others similarly-situated
v. RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Case No. 0:16-cv-00175 (D. Minn.,
January 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for common law
fraud, common law negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, violation
of the Minnesota Securities Act, breach of contract and fraudulent
concealment.

Financial Industry Regulatory Association uncovered the fact that
RBC marketed and sold complicated, structured securities during
the time period from 2008 to 2012 without having in place
supervisory systems and procedures that ensured compliance with
not only applicable securities laws and regulations, but with its
own internal guidelines.

Defendant RBC is a Minnesota limited liability company and a
Registered FINRA Member broker/dealer authorized to conduct
business in the State of Minnesota.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      David A. Goodwin, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South 6th Street, Ste 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 333-8844
      Fax: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com

          - and -

      Scott D. Hirsch, Esq.
      SCARLETT & HIRSCH, P.A.
      7777 Glades Road, Suite 200
      Boca Raton, FL 33434
      Tel: (561) 278-6707
      Fax: (561) 278-6244
      E-mail: scott@shlawfla.com


SQUAD SECURITY: "Tapper" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Tapper, Sandra Hernandez, and all others similarly-situated
v. Squad Security CA, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Case No.
BC607241 (Cal. Super., January 14, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendant offers a wide range of security and investigative
solutions to multinational clients.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Tel: (310) 322-2220
      Fax: (310) 322-2228
      E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com


ST. LOUIS, MO: "Furlow" Sues Cops Over Warrantless Arrests
----------------------------------------------------------
Dwayne Furlow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs v. Jon Belmar, The County of St. Louis,
Missouri, and St. Louis County Police Officer Walsh (Badge #4068),
Case No. 4:16-cv-00254-CEJ (E.D. Mo., February 24, 2016), seeks
compensatory damages for violation of constitutional rights.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants have arrested and
detained through the use of unlawful Wanteds, a procedure by which
the Defendants have violated the Plaintiff's and the purported
class members' Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by
unlawful seizing the Plaintiff and purported class members,
depriving the Plaintiff and purported class members of liberty
without due process of law by detention, and retaliating against
the Plaintiff for asserting his constitutional right to remain
silent.

Defendant St. Louis County, Missouri, is a political and
geographic subdivision of the State of Missouri existing pursuant
to Missouri Law.

Defendant Jon Belmar is the current Chief of Police for the St.
Louis County Police Department and sued in his official capacity
as the supervising and commanding officer of the St. Louis County
Police Department

Defendant Officer Walsh, Badge #4068, is a sworn peace officer
employed by the St. Louis County Police Department and sued in his
individual capacity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Blake A. Strode, Esq.
     Thomas B. Harvey, Esq.
     Edward J. Hall, Esq.
     Nathaniel R. Carroll, Esq.
     ARCHCITY DEFENDERS
     812 N. Collins St.
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Tel: 855-724-2489
     Local: 314-361-8834
     Fax: 314-925-1307
     E-mail: bstrode@archcitydefenders.org
             tharvey@archcitydefenders.org


STONEMAN FABRICATORS: "Marroquin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Marroquin, and all others similarly-situated v. Stoneman
Fabricators Corp. dba Renaissance Marble Works, Anthony Peppitone
and Tomaso Matinoa, Case No. 1:16-cv-00403 (E.D.N.Y., January 26,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay, spread of hours
premium and other monies pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants sell and install marble and other stone products
for its customers. Its corporate business is located in New Hyde
Park, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eli Z. Freedberg, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ELI FREEDBERG, P.C.
      370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2103
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (347) 651-0044
      Fax: (212) 214-0799


TRS RECOVERY: Settlement in Debt Collection Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge D. Brock Hornby granted Plaintiffs' motion for
class settlement certification in the case, N RE: TRS RECOVERY
SERVICES, INC. AND TELECHECK SERVICES, INC., FAIR DEBT COLLECTION
PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA) LITIGATION, Civil Docket No. 2:13-MD-2426-
DBH, (D. Me.)

This is a consumer class action brought under two federal
statutes, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, as well as Maine consumer protection laws.
The Plaintiffs complain that TRS Recovery Services, Inc. and
Telecheck Services, Inc. sent them a misleading form collection
letter, the "RECR3 letter," and improperly collected on disputed
or erroneous debts for purportedly returned checks.
Plaintiffs move for certification of class settlement.

In his Decision and Order dated February 10, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/2vGedpfrom Leagle.com, Judge Hornby granted
Plaintiffs' motion for class settlement certification. There is no
reasonable basis to believe that the Plaintiff classes can achieve
a higher settlement amount, and there are significant risks posed
by continued litigation -- including risks posed by summary
judgment. The Court finally certifies the classes, and approves
the settlement agreement and plan of distribution, including the
service awards to the two named Plaintiffs.

The certified classes are:

     Class One: All natural persons with an address in the State
of Maine to whom the defendant TRS sent its RECR3 letter between
March 11, 2010 and the present.

     Class Two: All natural persons with an address in the United
States and its Territories to whom the defendant TRS sent its
RECR3 letter between March 11, 2010, and the present, and from
whom one or both defendants collected in whole or in part, within
30 days of the RECR3 letter, the debt or returned check fee
referenced in that RECR3 letter.

     Class Three: All natural persons who have paid a returned
check fee of $25 to at least one of the defendants by way of a TRS
demand draft in connection with an underlying check transaction
that occurred in the State of Maine since March 11, 2005.

As a result of the settlement, the defendants will pay a total of
$3,430,000 that will be divided among the class, counsel fees,
incentive payments, and administrative costs. From the settlement
fund, approximately $1,864,000 has been earmarked for distribution
to the class members.

The Court approves $1,050,000 in attorney fees but holds that
payment of those fees will delayed pending the administration of
payments to the class members. The Court certifies the settlement
classes as proposed. The Court also concludes that the settlement
is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court finds that the
incentive awards are reasonable.

The Court approves payment of Garden City Group's January 20,
2016, invoice for notice and claims administration.  If there is
any increase in the expenses of notice and claims administration,
it will be subtracted from that $1,050,000, as the Plaintiffs'
counsel agreed at the hearing.

James A. Francis, Esq. -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- John
Soumilas, Esq. -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- and Erin A.
Novak, Esq. -- enovak@consumerlawfirm.com -- of Francis & Mailman,
PC serve as counsel for Plaintiff Dellarina M Stout

Benjamin W. Jenkins, Esq. -- bjenkins@pierceatwood.com -- Donald
R. Frederico, Esq. -- dfrederico@pierceatwood.com -- Kate R.
Isley, Esq. -- kisley@pierceatwood.com -- and Lucus A. Ritchie,
Esq. -- lritchie@pierceatwood.com -- of Pierce Atwood LLP --
Concepcion A. Montoya, Esq. -- cmontoya@hinshawlaw.com --
Elizabeth Kathryn Devine, Esq. -- edevine@hinshawlaw.com -- Renee
Choy Ohlendorf, Esq. -- rchoy@hinshawlaw.com -- of Hinshaw and
Culbertson LLP -- J. Nick Badgerow, Esq. --
nbadgerow@spencerfane.com -- of Spencer Fane Britt and Browne LLP
-- Jeffrey Dean Patton, Esq. -- jpatton@spilmanlaw.com -- and
Richard Scott Adams, Esq. -- sadams@spilmanlaw.com -- of Spilman
Thomas & Battle, PLLC serve as counsel for Defendants TRS Recovery
Services Inc. and Telecheck Services Inc.


UBER: Lyft Settlement Won't Impact Drivers' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
now-settled class action lawsuit brought by Lyft drivers in
California probably will have little bearing in the lawsuit
against another ride-hailing service, Uber, set to go to trial in
June, a Los Angeles attorney says.

However, the possible result of a trial in the Uber case would
impact Lyft and the way it classifies its drivers, she added.

Lyft, based in San Francisco, recently agreed to a $12.25 million
settlement of class action lawsuit, Cotter vs Lyft, Inc., filed
Sept. 3, 2013, in San Francisco federal court by California Lyft
drivers.  The drivers alleged they were employees and not
independent contractors and sought to have that designation
recognized by the court.

Lyft also agreed to change parts of its terms of service for new
drivers who sign up on its platform.

"The Lyft settlement is not likely to be considered as evidence by
a trier of fact in the Uber case," said Taylor Burras --
tburras@mrllp.com -- an associate in the Labor and Employment
Department of Michelman & Robinson in Los Angeles.

"There are also key differences between the two cases that may not
actually put them on the same footing, including the fact that
Lyft has an arbitration agreement with a class waiver in its
drivers' contracts that has previously been found enforceable by
the court where the Lyft case is pending.

"However, it's possible that the settlement would affect the
plaintiffs and/or Uber's valuation of the case in any pre-trial
settlement discussions," Ms. Burras said.

The Cotter case is one of several lawsuits scrutinizing shared
economy businesses that rely on independent contractors to provide
a variety of services, not just hailing rides.

Had plaintiffs prevailed in the Cotter case, Lyft drivers would
have been reclassified as employees, which likely would have
entitled them to the benefits of an employee.

The Uber case, O'Connor et al v. Uber Technologies, filed in the
same court in San Francisco and scheduled to begin trial June 20,
has attracted the most attention since it was filed Aug. 16, 2013.
The case was certified as class action in December.

In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied
Uber's request for a delay.

A court-ordered website -- www.uberlitigation.com -- follows the
Uber case.

While cases such as those against Lyft and Uber attract much
attention, particularly among workers rights advocates, there are
a number of reasons people are attracted in ride-hailing to make a
living, Ms. Burras said.

"Uber and Lyft are well-known for offering flexible work schedules
that let drivers 'be their own boss' and set their own hours," she
said.

"However, many of these types of services provide no training
while requiring drivers to maintain a minimum customer rating on
the app.  The drivers are also unable to set their own rates and,
in the case of Uber, actually discourage drivers from accepting
tips."

While classified as independent contractors, the drivers also are
not entitled to protections and benefits usually provided to
employees, such as minimum wage laws, unemployment insurance and
Workers' Compensation, Ms. Burras said.

In settled Lyft case, the court never got the opportunity to
consider the question of reclassifying Lyft drivers.

"Lyft settled early and to avoid protracted litigation over the
employee versus independent contractor classification issue," Ms.
Burras said.

"Unlike the Uber case, the court had not even reached the point of
certifying Lyft drivers as a class.  This is significant because
Lyft's business model may remain intact, at least for now."

However, while the Lyft case may have no bearing on the Uber case,
the Uber case could have significant bearing on Lyft and beyond,
Ms. Burras said.

"The outcome of the Uber case, should it proceed through trial,
could potentially impact the entire sharing economy depending on
the specific facts considered and their application to other
similar business models."

It still remains for the courts to decide whether ride-hailing
drivers and others who provide services in shared economy
businesses are properly classified as independent contractors, Ms.
Burras said.

Workers will have quite an uphill battle in any case that may
decide that, Ms. Burras said.

"Bringing a case as a class poses a lot of hurdles, which is why
most class actions rarely make it to trial," she said.

"By reaching a settlement, the parties were able to address the
key concerns of Lyft's drivers without having to address some of
these hurdles, including Lyft's arbitration agreement, which could
have precluded the drivers from proceeding with their claims on a
class basis."


UBER: Received Complaints of Kalamazoo Shooter's Erratic Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS reports that ride-hailing company Uber received a complaint
about erratic driving by Jason Dalton on Feb. 20, but says it
never could have predicted the violent acts Dalton allegedly
committed.

Mr. Dalton was charged on Feb. 22 with killing six people in
random shootings in Kalamazoo, Michigan, that began around
6:00 p.m. on Feb. 20 and ended nearly five hours later.

Uber passenger Matt Mellen said earlier on Feb. 22 that he called
police to report that Dalton was driving erratically more than an
hour before the shootings began.  Mr. Mellen also said he tried to
report Dalton to Uber.

Uber security chief Joe Sullivan said the company received
complaints about Dalton from several passengers on Feb. 20,
including one about dangerous and erratic driving.  Sullivan
wouldn't say whether that report came from Mr. Mellen.

Mr. Sullivan said Uber immediately suspends drivers who are
accused of violent acts.  But in the case of erratic driving, it
typically contacts the driver first to make sure it hears both
sides.  Mr. Sullivan wouldn't say whether Uber contacted Dalton on
the night of Feb. 20, referring questions about the timeline of
events to law enforcement.

Mr. Sullivan also stressed that until Feb. 20, Uber had no reason
to believe that anything was amiss.

The San Francisco-based ride-hailing service says Mr. Dalton
cleared a background check and was approved to be a driver on Jan.
25.  He had given slightly more than 100 rides and had a rating of
4.73 stars out of a possible five.

"I don't think that we will change our screening processes as a
result of this incident," Mr. Sullivan said.  "No background check
would have flagged and anticipated this situation."

Mr. Sullivan said he's satisfied with the company's response to
the tragedy.  Uber is working closely with law enforcement, he
said, and is providing GPS locations of Dalton's car and other
information to aid the investigation.

The company's driver vetting process has been a source of
criticism for the highly successful ride sharing service.

Earlier this month, Uber agreed to pay a $28.5 million settlement
to roughly 25 million riders in response to two class action
lawsuits over the company's collection of a questionable "safe
ride fee."

The class action lawsuits include Uber passengers who took a trip
in the U.S. between January 1, 2013 and January 31, 2016.

Uber officials sought approval from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California to settle two cases: Philliben
v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Mena v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

The lawsuits claim that despite the fee levied on riders, Uber has
not adequately screened its drivers.

In a statement released by Uber, the company states that "no means
of transportation can ever be 100 percent safe.  Accidents and
incidents do happen. That's why it's important to ensure that the
language we use to describe safety at Uber is clear and precise."

Uber is now waiting for the judge to approve or reject the
settlement.  If approved, members of the class action lawsuit will
be notified by email and can be paid either by credit card or to
their rider account.


UNION HOSPITAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Schneider" Labor Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson granted in part the Defendant's
motion for partial dismissal of the amended complaint and
certification of state law question in the case, AMY L. SCHNEIDER
and JANET E. BRENEMAN, Plaintiffs, v. UNION HOSPITAL, INC.
Defendant, No. 2:15-cv-00204-JMS-DKL, (S.D. Ind.)

This is a putative collective and class action brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Indiana Wage Payment Act
(IWPA).  Plaintiff Amy Schneider began working for Union at its
Terre Haute, Vigo County hospital in January 2008, and remained
employed there until May 1, 2015, when she voluntarily ended her
employment to accept a similar position with a contracting company
that performed work for Union. During her employment, Ms.
Schneider was paid on an hourly basis and treated as a non-exempt
employee. Plaintiff Janet Breneman began working for Union, also
at its Terre Haute, Vigo County hospital, in January 2006, and
remained employed there on a full time basis until Fall 2011, when
she retired. She was then rehired by Union in November 2012 on an
hourly basis, and continued to work there until May 19, 2015, when
she voluntarily resigned her employment. At all times during her
employment with Union, Ms. Breneman was paid wages on an hourly
basis and treated as a non-exempt employee.

Defendant moves for the partial dismissal of the amended complaint
and certification of state law question.

In her Order dated February 10, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/pKYMcifrom Leagle.com, Judge Magnus-Stinson granted
in part Union's motion to dismiss to the extent that it dismisses
Plaintiffs' FLSA minimum wage claims (both individually and on
behalf of the collective action class); and dismissed Plaintiffs'
breach of contract claims (both individually and on behalf of the
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class). The Court denies in part Union's Motion
to Dismiss, to the extent that it finds that Plaintiffs have
adequately alleged, at this stage of the litigation, that Union
willfully violated the FLSA in connection with their FLSA overtime
claims, and that Union acted in bad faith in connection with their
IWPA claims. The Court also denies in part Union's Motion to
Dismiss, to the extent that it denies Union's request to certify
to the Indiana Supreme Court the question of which version of the
IWPA applies to Plaintiffs' claims.

The following claims remain in this litigation:

     -- FLSA overtime violations, individually and on behalf of
        a collective action class; and

     -- IWPA violations, individually and on behalf of a putative
        Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class.

The Court notes that the parties have been in contact with the
Magistrate Judge regarding a schedule for the expeditious
resolution of issues regarding whether this matter is appropriate
for treatment as a combined class action and FLSA collective
action. The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge confer with
the parties to address any effects of this Order on that schedule.

Robert F. Hunt, Esq. -- hunt@huntlawfirm.net -- and Robert Peter
Kondras, Jr., Esq. of Hunt Hassler Lorenz & Kondras LLP serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Amy L. Schneider

Dana Eugene Stutzman, Esq. Nicholas Scott Johnston, Esq. and
Stephen W. Lyman, Esq. of Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman, PC
serve as counsel for Defendant Union Hospital, Inc.


UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Issues Revised Opinion in Veterans' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Jan. 26, 2016,
revised a previous opinion originally issued on June 30, 2015, in
the appellate case, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA; Swords to
Plowshares, Veterans Rights Organization; Tim Michael Josephs;
William Blazinski; Bruce Price; Franklin D. Rochelle; Larry
Meirow; Eric P. Muth; David C. Dufrane; Kathryn McMillan-Forrest,
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY; John Brennan, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency;
United States Department of Defense; Ashton Carter, Secretary of
Defense; United States Department of the Army; John M. McHugh,
Secretary of the Army; United States of America; United States
Department of Veteran Affairs; Robert A. McDonald, Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, Nos. 13-
17430, 14-15108, (9th Cir.)

A summary of the Jan. 26, 2016 Order and Amended Opinion provides
that the Ninth Circuit panel -- comprising J. Clifford Wallace,
Mary M. Schroeder, and William A. Fletcher, Circuit Judges --
affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's
judgment and injunction entered in an action brought by veterans
organizations and individuals who were subjects in chemical and
biological weapons experiments conducted by the United States
military, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against
federal agencies; denied the petition for panel rehearing; and
denied on behalf of the court the petition for rehearing en banc.

The panel also agreed with the district court that the Army had an
ongoing duty to provide medical care. The panel disagreed with the
district court's denial of relief on the ground that the
Department of Veterans Affairs provided medical care that to some
degree duplicated the care the Army was obligated to provide. The
panel held that the district court may not, in the absence of
mootness, categorically deny injunctive relief to former volunteer
subjects seeking necessarymedical care because some former
subjects may be entitled to receive medical care from another
government agency. The panel vacated the district court's summary
judgment for the government on this claim and remanded to the
district court.

Judge Wallace joined the majority in affirming the district
court's judgment and injunction compelling the Army to comply with
Army Regulation 70-25's clear regulatory mandate, but wrote
separately in concurrence because he did not join the majority's
analysis of regulatory history to support its textual analysis.
Judge Wallace dissented from the majority's conclusion that Army
Regulation 70-25 also contained a command that the Army provide
medical care to former research volunteers. He would affirm the
district court's summary judgment against plaintiffs on their
claims for medical care, but on the alternative ground that their
claim was not judicially enforceable under Sec. 706(1) of the
Administrative Procedure Act.

A copy of the Order and Amended Opinion (Filed June 30, 2015), as
Amended January 26, 2016, is available at http://is.gd/TmwgmEfrom
Leagle.com.

James Patrick Bennett, Esq. -- jbennett@mofo.com -- Eugene G.
Illovsky, Esq. -- eillovsky@mofo.com -- Benjamin F. Patterson,
Esq. -- bpatterson@mofo.com -- and Stacey Michelle Sprenkel, Esq.
-- bpatterson@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP serve as
counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees

Melinda L. Haag, Esq. of United States Attorney Stuart F. Delery,
Esq. of Assistant Attorney General Charles W. Scarborough, Esq.
Brigham John Bowen, Esq. Anthony Joseph Coppolino, Esq. and Mark
B. Stern, Esq. of Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States
Department of Justice serve as counsel for Defendants-Appellees-
Cross-Appellants


USS-POSCO INDUSTRIES: Attorney Fee Award in "Case" Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kathleen M. Banke affirmed the Trial Court's order granting
summary judgment, but reversed and remanded the attorney fees
award in the appeal captioned case USS-POSCO INDUSTRIES,
Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, and Respondent, v. FLOYD CASE,
Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and Appellant. USS-POSCO INDUSTRIES,
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FLOYD CASE, Defendant and Appellant,
Nos. A140457, A142145, (Cal. App.)

Floyd Case voluntarily enrolled in a three-year, employer-
sponsored educational program. He agreed in writing that if he
quit his job within 30 months of completing the program, he would
reimburse his employer, USS-POSCO Industries (UPI), a prorated
portion of program costs. Two months after completing the program,
Case went to work for another employer. When he refused to
reimburse UPI, the company sued for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment. Case cross-complained, asserting the reimbursement
agreement was unenforceable and UPI had violated the Labor Code
and other statutory provisions in seeking reimbursement.

The trial court granted UPI's motion for summary judgment on both
its complaint and Case's cross-complaint, and subsequently granted
UPI's motion for attorney fees for defeating Case's wage claims.
In granting the fee motion, the court applied the version of Labor
Code section 218.5 in effect at the time of the summary judgment
proceedings, rather than the version in effect at the time it
awarded fees, which permits fees to a prevailing employer only
when the employee's wage claims have been brought in "bad faith."

In his Opinion dated January 26, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/lMyNeofrom Leagle.com, Judge Banke affirmed the
summary judgment, but reverse and remand the attorney fees award
for the trial court to consider, if UPI makes a timely fee motion,
UPI's entitlement to fees under the current version of section
218.5. The parties shall bear their own costs on these appeals.

Robert L. Sallander, Jr., Esq. -- rsallander@gpsllp.com -- Kyle G.
Kunst, Esq. -- kgkunst@hotmail.com -- and Cory Stephen Anderson,
Esq. -- canderson@ussposco.com -- of Greenan, Peffer, Sallander &
Lally serve as counsel for Respondent

Jon Paul Webster, Esq. and James A. Arcellana, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Jon Webster serve as counsel for Appellant


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff Appeals Case Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiff
in the case, Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex
Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al., has appealed the dismissal
of the case.

The Company said, "On May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class
action Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex
Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming us
and certain of our current and former officers and directors as
defendants. The lawsuit alleged that we made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in our
disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through May 29,
2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The purported class consists of all persons (excluding defendants)
who purchased our common stock between May 7, 2012 and May 29,
2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, costs and
attorneys' fees as well as disgorgement of the proceeds from
certain individual defendants' sales of our stock."

"On October 8, 2014, the Court approved Local No. 8 IBEW
Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff, and Scott and Scott LLP as lead
counsel for the plaintiff and the putative class. We filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on December 8, 2014 and the
plaintiffs filed their opposition to our motion to dismiss on
January 22, 2015.

"On February 23, 2015, we filed a reply to the plaintiffs'
opposition to our motion to dismiss.  The court heard oral
argument on our motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015 and took the
motion under advisement. On September 30, 2015, the court granted
our motion to dismiss. On October 15, 2015, the plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal.

"We believe the claims to be without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the litigation."


VICTORIA'S SECRET: Faces "Hannegan" Suit Over TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hannegan, on behalf of himself and all others sim1larly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Victoria's Secret, Defendants, Case 8:16-
cv-00125-JLS-JCG (C.D. Cal., January 26, 2016), seeks an
injunction, statutory or actual damages and reasonable attorneys'
fees under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec.
227, et seq.

Defendant allegedly engaged in the transmission of unauthorized
text messages to promote its retail shops to consumers throughout
the country.

Victoria's Secret is an Ohio corporation with its principal place
of business located in Columbus, Ohio and is a developer, operator
and retailer of clothing and apparel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph R. Manning, Jr., Esq.
      Michael J. Manning, Esq.
      Phillip B. Nghiem, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH R. MANNING, JR.
      4667 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 150
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Tel: (949) 200-8755
      Fax: (866) 843-8308


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: VPC Defending Class Suit over Capacitors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Vishay Polytech
Co., Ltd. ("VPC"), a subsidiary of Vishay which was purchased from
Holy Stone Enterprises Co., Ltd. ("Holy Stone") in June 2014, is a
named defendant, among other manufacturers, in purported antitrust
class action complaints in the United States and Canada.  The
complaints allege restraints of trade in aluminum and tantalum
electrolytic capacitors, and in some cases, film capacitors, and
seek injunctive relief and unspecified joint and several treble
damages. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. is a party to similar cases
filed in Canada.

On December 9, 2015, the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission  ("TFTC")
announced a fine of approximately $1,000,000 against VPC and
concluded that VPC, along with other capacitor manufacturers,
participated in meetings and had bilateral communications in which
sensitive business information had been exchanged in violation of
applicable antitrust laws.  The TFTC subsequently notified VPC of
the TFTC's intent to grant VPC full immunity and reduce its fine
to zero based on VPC's cooperation and future commitment to
compliance. The conduct attributable to VPC occurred prior to the
acquisition of that entity by Vishay.

Holy Stone has agreed to indemnify Vishay and VPC for losses,
including penalties and expenses associated with the litigation
and investigation.  Notwithstanding this indemnity obligation, the
Company and VPC intend to defend vigorously against the civil
complaints.

Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. is a global manufacturer and supplier
of discrete semiconductors and passive components. Semiconductors
include MOSFETs, diodes, and optoelectronic components. Passive
components include resistive products, capacitors, and inductors.
Discrete semiconductors and passive components are essential
elements of virtually every type of electronic circuit. They
support the microprocessor chips and other integrated circuits
("ICs") that coordinate and control the functions of electronic
devices and equipment. We offer our customers "one-stop shop"
access to one of the most comprehensive electronic component
product lines of any manufacturer in the United States, Europe,
and Asia.


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Defending Class Action over Resistors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that since August
2015, the Company has been named as a defendant in purported
antitrust class action complaints in the United States and Canada
alleging restraints of trade in resistors by the Company and other
unaffiliated manufacturers, and seeking injunctive relief and
unspecified joint and several treble damages. The Company intends
to defend vigorously against the complaints.

Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. is a global manufacturer and supplier
of discrete semiconductors and passive components. Semiconductors
include MOSFETs, diodes, and optoelectronic components. Passive
components include resistive products, capacitors, and inductors.
Discrete semiconductors and passive components are essential
elements of virtually every type of electronic circuit. They
support the microprocessor chips and other integrated circuits
("ICs") that coordinate and control the functions of electronic
devices and equipment. We offer our customers "one-stop shop"
access to one of the most comprehensive electronic component
product lines of any manufacturer in the United States, Europe,
and Asia.


VIZIO INC: "Eddy" Sues over Illegal Data Gathering
--------------------------------------------------
Steven Eddy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Vizio Holdings, Inc., Vizio, Inc., Vizio
Inscape Services, LLC, Vizio Inscape Technologies, LLC and
Cognitive Media Networks, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
00167-EDL (N.D. Cal., January 11, 2016), seeks statutory and
punitive damages, litigation expenses and attorneys' fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and declaratory
relief in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1710, California Civil Code Sec. 1799.3, California Business
and Professions Code Sec. 17200, 17500 and 1750 et seq.

Plaintiff purchased Vizio Smart TV with model number E600 I-b3. It
is connected to the Internet and has been allegedly collecting and
selling viewing data without consent.

Vizio, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of California with its headquarters and
principal place of business located at 39 Tesla, Irvine,
California 92618.

Vizio Holdings, Inc., Vizio Inscape Services, LLC, Vizio Inscape
Technologies, LLC and Cognitive Media Networks, Inc. are Delaware
corporations with principal place of business located at 39 Tesla,
Irvine, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Parisi, Esq.
      Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
      PARISI & HAVENS LLP
      212 Marine Street, Suite 100
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Tel: (818) 990-1299
      Fax: (818) 501-7852
      Email: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
             shavens@parisihavens.com


WATTS WATER: Announced Settlement-in-Principle
----------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 16, 2016, that the Company announced a settlement-in-
principle on two class action lawsuits regarding legacy products
for $14 million, of which the Company expects to pay approximately
$4 million.

"We recorded a $3.5 million pre-tax charge in the fourth quarter
related to the settlement.  Separately, recorded a $2.5 million
pre-tax product liability charge related to the resolution of
certain legacy claims for other undifferentiated products which we
have exited," the Company said.

Watts Water Technologies, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is a
world leader in the manufacture of innovative products to control
the efficiency, safety, and quality of water within residential,
commercial, and institutional applications.


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Court Approves $120-Mil. Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Weatherford International public limited company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 16, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that a court has entered final judgment approving the settlement
in a shareholder class action lawsuit.

"On June 30, 2015, we signed a stipulation to settle a shareholder
securities class action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford
International Ltd., et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) for
$120 million subject to notice to the class and court approval,"
the Company said.  "The Freedman lawsuit had been filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in March
2012, and alleged that we and certain current and former officers
of Weatherford violated the federal securities laws in connection
with the restatements of the Company's historical financial
statements announced on February 21, 2012 and July 24, 2012."

"On November 4, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered a final judgment and an order
approving the settlement. Pursuant to the settlement, we were
required to pay $120 million, which was partially funded by
insurance proceeds. There was no admission of liability or fault
by an party in connection with the settlement.

"We are pursuing reimbursement from our insurance carriers and
recovered $15 million of the settlement amount in the fourth
quarter of 2015."

Weatherford International plc, an Irish public limited company,
together with its subsidiaries ("Weatherford," the "Company,"
"we," "us" and "our"), is a multinational oilfield service
company. Weatherford is one of the world's leading providers of
equipment and services used in the drilling, evaluation,
completion, production and intervention of oil and natural gas
wells.


WESTERN CULINARY: Order Denying Arbitration Bid Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Darleen Ortega of the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed a
trial court's order denying the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration of the subclass's claims in the appeal captioned case
Shannon GOZZI, et al., Plaintiffs, and Jennifer ADAMS, fka
Jennifer Schuster, and Nathan Surrett, individually and on behalf
of all similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v.
WESTERN CULINARY INSTITUTE, LTD; and Career Education Corporation,
Defendants-Appellants, No. A152137, (Or. App.)

Plaintiffs filed an action against defendants in March 2008,
alleging violations of Oregon's Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA).
In particular, plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to inform
prospective students that their programs do not provide any
material benefit because they prepare students only for low-paying
entry-level jobs that they could have obtained without a culinary
degree from Le Cordon Bleu.

In May 2012, when defendants filed the motion seeking to compel
the subclass to arbitrate their claims, over four years had
elapsed, plaintiffs had amended their complaint several times,
defendants had answered with affirmative defenses asserting a
right to mandatory arbitrate their claims and the parties had
engaged in extensive discovery and had filed numerous motions. The
parties agree that the subclass's arbitration agreements are
governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), that the enrollment
contracts and plaintiffs' claims implicate interstate commerce,
and that the arbitration agreements provide that the FAA governs
disputes within the agreement's scope.

Plaintiffs were students who attended defendants' culinary trade
school known as Le Cordon Bleu between March 1, 2006 and March 1,
2010, and have asserted claims for fraud and unfair trade
practices under the UTPA.  Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration concerns a subclass of about 1,060 of the roughly
2,500 class members who signed enrollment contracts that included
arbitration agreements governed by the FAA, 9 USC sections 1 to
16.

A copy of the Court's Opinion dated January 21, 2016, is available
at http://is.gd/RLtgHyfrom Leagle.com.

Jeff E. Scott, Esq. -- scottj@gtlaw.com -- Stephen F. English,
Esq. -- senglish@perkinscoie.com -- Thomas R. Johnson, Esq. -
tom.johnson@klgates.com  Misha Isaak, Esq. of Perkins Coie LLP --
Gregory Nylen, Esq. -- of Greenberg Traurig LLP serve as counsel
for Appellants Jeff E. Scott

David F. Sugerman, Esq. -- david@davidsugerman.com -- Brian S.
Campf, Esq. -- brian@bsclegal.com -- and Tim Quenelle, Esq. serve
as counsel for Respondents


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Settlement Pending in Defective Washers Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has
vigorously defended against numerous lawsuits pending in the
United States relating to certain of its front load washing
machines.

"We have reached preliminary agreement on a settlement that will
resolve all such class action lawsuits," the Company said.  "The
settlement has been accounted for in interest and sundry income
(expense) in the fourth quarter of 2015. The settlement requires
court approval in order to be finalized, and we are proceeding
through the court process to request such approval."

The Company also is currently vigorously defending a number of
other lawsuits in federal and state courts in the United States
related to the manufacturing and sale of the Company's products
which include class action allegations, and may become involved in
similar actions in other jurisdictions. These lawsuits allege
claims which include negligence, breach of contract, breach of
warranty, product liability and safety claims, fraud, and
violation of federal and state regulations, including consumer
protection acts.

"We do not have insurance coverage for class action lawsuits," the
Company said.

Whirlpool Corporation, the world's leading global manufacturer and
marketer of major home appliances, was incorporated in 1955 under
the laws of Delaware as the successor to a business that traces
its origin to 1898. Whirlpool manufactures products in 14
countries and markets products in nearly every country around the
world under brand names such as Whirlpool, KitchenAid, Maytag,
Consul, Brastemp, Amana, Bauknecht, Jenn-Air and Indesit.
Whirlpool's reportable segments consist of North America, EMEA
(Europe, Middle East and Africa), Latin America and Asia. As of
December 31, 2015, Whirlpool had approximately 97,000 employees.


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Lawyers Allocate Funds for Omega-3 Research
------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
lawyers involved in a false advertising class action settlement
with the makers of Silk and Horizon organic milk fortified with
DHA omega-3 didn't want to walk away as scientific research on the
fatty acid was developing.

So they came up with a novel approach: allocating some of the
settlement funds to pay an outside expert to review the latest
research and keeping both sides up to date on how DHA omega-3
affects health and development.

A Cornell University professor of human nutrition will make
recommendations to WhiteWave Foods Co. about what claims it should
be allowed to make in advertising for its DHA products, which
include nine types of Silk and Horizon Organic Milk.

"This is unique," said plaintiffs attorney Howard Bushman of Harke
Clasby & Bushman in Miami Shores.  "A lot of times people say that
the class action device itself is a deterrent from mislabeling a
product. . . . We think the substantiation program is a new way to
settle and to provide value to the consuming public on an ongoing
basis."

The program is part of a $1.3 million multidistrict litigation
settlement that U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard approved Jan. 29
in Miami.

Denver-based WhiteWave denied wrongdoing but agreed to change
advertising and packaging to remove claims that DHA omega-3
supports brain development and references to a study that
consumers alleged did not support WhiteWave's claims.  The company
also agreed not to market its products as a good source of DHA
omega-3 since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the
Institute of Medicine have not set a daily recommended intake for
the fatty acid.

Horizon Organic Milk and Silk products can still use packaging
that says DHA omega-3 supports brain, eye or heart health and that
the fatty acid is recognized by doctors and nutritionists as part
of a healthy diet.

The distinction between "brain development" and "brain health" is
important because the two phrases reach different consumers, said
Mr. Bushman, who worked with colleagues Lance Harke and Sarah
Clasby Engel as co-lead plaintiffs counsel on the case.  The firm
also represents plaintiffs in a California case that makes similar
allegations against the makers of Flintstones Vitamins.

"The vast majority of the marketing by WhiteWave in this case was
toward children and parents of children," Bushman said.

WhiteWave attorney Angela Agrusa of Liner in Los Angeles declined
to comment on the settlement.

Cases against WhiteWave started cropping up around the country in
2011 when research was released showing differences between omega-
3 from fish oil and DHA omega-3 from algae, Mr. Bushman said.

Consumers claimed they paid more for DHA-fortified milk because
cartons said "DHA Omega-3 Supports Brain Health," but no
scientific evidence showed the fatty acid did anything for brain
health.

For instance, the average half-gallon of Horizon Organic Milk Plus
DHA Omega-3 retailed for 20 to 50 cents more than Horizon Organic
Milk without the additive, according to the consolidated complaint
filed in the Southern District of Florida in 2012.

Claims against WhiteWave included deceptive practices, breach of
warranty and unjust enrichment.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Shareholders Challenge Merger
-------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016,
that certain putative class action lawsuits have been filed by
purported shareholders of The Williams Companies, Inc.
("Williams") challenging various aspects of the agreement and plan
of merger dated September 28, 2015, among Williams, Energy
Transfer Corp. LP ("ETC"), Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. ("ETE"),
and various other corporate affiliates of ETE.

The additional disclosures contained in this Current Report on
Form 8-K are being filed in response to certain developments in
that litigation. These additional disclosures supplement the
disclosures contained in the Amended Proxy and should be read in
conjunction with the disclosures contained in the Amended Proxy,
which in turn should be read in its entirety. To the extent that
information in this Current Report on Form 8-K differs from or
updates information contained in the Amended Proxy, the
information in this Current Report on Form 8-K shall supersede or
supplement the information in the Amended Proxy. Nothing in this
Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality of any of the disclosures set forth
herein. Capitalized terms used herein, but not otherwise defined,
shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Amended
Proxy.


WORLDWIDE TRANSPORTATION: "Esquenazi" Seeks to Recover OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josue Esquenazi and Abraham Esquenazi, and other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Worldwide Transportation
Services Inc. and Ali A. Malek, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-20307-UU
(S.D. Fla., January 26, 2016), seeks unpaid wages with interest,
double damages and liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs of suit and other and further relief for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.

Worldwide Transportation Services is a Florida corporation owned
by Ali A. Malek engaged in logistics, shipping and transport
services where Esquenazi was employed as a driver. He routinely
worked in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime premium.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Tel: (305) 503-5131
      Fax: (888) 270-5549


WYOMING, WI: Court Strikes Class Allegations in "Daniels" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan J. Dlott granted in part and denied in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case, Quincy C. Daniels, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
City of Wyoming, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-507, (S.D.
Ohio)

Plaintiff Daniels is an African-American resident of Butler
County, Ohio. Daniels was pulled over "for no reason" while
driving a 2014 Cadillac with dealer plates on Springfield Pike in
Wyoming, Ohio by Officer Tom Riggs of the Wyoming Police
Department (WPD). Before initiating the traffic stop, Officer
Riggs followed behind Daniels's vehicle for approximately one mile
"and then got on the passenger side of Daniels' vehicle whereby
looking to see who was inside of Daniels' vehicle." Officer Riggs
then pulled over Daniels's vehicle, questioned Daniels about the
vehicle and the dealer plates, and asked to see his driver's
license. Officer Riggs did not issue Daniels a citation "because
[he had] not committed a traffic offense." Daniels did not file a
complaint with the WPD regarding this traffic stop because of an
incident that had occurred approximately two weeks earlier on
December 15, 2013.

Daniels asserts that he had been assaulted by an unnamed person in
front of WPD Officer Mike World on an unspecified date, but that
Officer World would not permit him to file a complaint about the
assault against the assailant or Officer World himself. Daniels
telephoned WPD Chief Baldauf on the same date and left a message,
but he did not speak to Chief Baldauf. Daniels asserts that he
"has suffered psychological damage" and that "there is an
increased risk of future harm to him," apparently as a result of
these two incidents. Daniels also alleges that two other
individuals were subjected to racial profiling by WPD police
officers.

First, on February 28, 2015, Nico L. Jenkins, who is black, was
issued a citation "for menacing and [for an] unleashed dog" by
Officer Jeffrey Banker. She was threatened by Officer Banker that
she would be arrested if she did not go to the police station, but
was denied the opportunity "to tell her side of the story" at the
station. The menacing charge was dismissed. Damien Lee Johnson was
stopped while driving, but not issued a citation, by Officer Brian
Berigan "for no apparent reason other than race." Daniels alleges
that the WPD "issued a relatively high number of traffic citations
on a two mile stretch, to a relatively high number of non-whites
and have gained great wealth from non-whites as a result of these
citations."

Defendants move for dismissal of the amended class action
complaint.

In her Order dated February 10, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/fdmzHofrom Leagle.com, Judge Dlott granted in part
and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court
dismisses all claims against the City of Wyoming,6 the Wyoming
Police Department, City Manager Lynn Tetley, Chief Gary Baldauf,
Officer Mike World, Officer Brian Berigan, and Officer Jeffrey
Banker. The Court further dismisses the due process, equal
protection, and intentional infliction of emotional distress
claims against Officer Tom Riggs. Additionally, the Court strikes
the class allegations in the Amended Class Action Complaint.
However, the Court does not dismiss Daniels's claims against
Officer Tom Riggs for a violation of his rights under the Fourth
Amendment. Finally, for the sake of clarity, the Court orders that
Daniels file a Second Amended Complaint deleting the class
allegations and the dismissed claims within three weeks of the
date of the present Order.

Glenda A Smith, Esq. of Glenda A Smith LLC serves as counsel for
Plaintiff Quincy C. Daniels

Gary Edward Becker, Esq. -- gary.becker@dinsmore.com -- and Nathan
B Spencer, Esq. -- nathan.spencer@dinsmore.com -- of Dinsmore &
Shohl, LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Wyoming City


YUM! BRANDS: Trial in Taco Bell Wage & Hour Actions Began Feb. 22
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 26, 2015, that trial was set to begin
on February 22, 2016, in the case, Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions.

The Company and Taco Bell were named as defendants in a number of
putative class action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010
alleging violations of California labor laws including unpaid
overtime, failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to
pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of
meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business
expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and
unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California
Business & Professions Code Sec.17200. Some plaintiffs also seek
penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under
California's Private Attorneys General Act as well as statutory
"waiting time" penalties and allege violations of California's
Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a
California state-wide class of hourly employees.

These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is
styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action, leaving Taco
Bell as the sole defendant. Plaintiffs filed their motion for
class certification on the vacation and final pay claims in
December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the court issued its
order denying the certification of the vacation and final pay
claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and
rest break classes.

On January 2, 2013, the court rejected three of the proposed
classes but granted certification with respect to the late meal
break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list of putative
class members, and the class notice and opt out forms were mailed
on January 21, 2014.

Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to
strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the
second amended complaint.

On August 29, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment. On that same date, the court granted
Taco Bell's motion to dismiss all but one of the California
Private Attorney General Act claims. On October 29, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the operative complaint and a
motion to amend the class certification order. On December 16,
2014, the court partially granted both motions, rejecting
plaintiffs' proposed on-duty meal period class but certifying a
limited rest break class and certifying an underpaid meal premium
class, and allowing the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to
reflect those certifications. On December 30, 2014, plaintiffs
filed the third amended complaint.

On February 26, 2015, the court denied a motion by Taco Bell to
dismiss or strike the underpaid meal premium class. Class notice
was issued to the two recently-certified classes, and discovery
and expert discovery commenced. On October 5, 2015, Taco Bell
filed a motion to decertify the classes. The same day, Plaintiffs
filed a motion for summary judgment. In December, 2015, the court
denied both motions. All motion and discovery practice is complete
and trial was set to begin on February 22, 2016.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.

YUM has over 42,000 restaurants in more than 130 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell (the "Concepts"), the Company develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants which prepare, package and sell a menu of
competitively priced food items.  Units are operated by a Concept
or by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of
franchise or license agreements.  Franchisees can range in size
from individuals owning just one restaurant to large publicly-
traded companies.


YUM! BRANDS: Expects "Rodriguez" Suit to Be Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 26, 2015, that the Company expects the
case, Bernardina Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp., to be dismissed.

On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina
Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior
Court. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and
former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various
violations of California labor laws including failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay
all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in
violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec.17200.
This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage
and Hour Actions case. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court
and, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
to include a claim seeking penalties for alleged violations of
California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys
General Act. Taco Bell's motion to dismiss or stay the action in
light of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case was denied
on October 30, 2013.

In April 2014 the parties stipulated to address the sufficiency of
plaintiff's legal theory as to her discount meal break claim
before conducting full discovery. A hearing on the parties' cross-
summary judgment motions was held on October 22, 2014, and on
October 23, 2014, the court granted Taco Bell's motion for summary
judgment on the discount meal break claim and denied plaintiff's
motion. Plaintiff is no longer actively pursuing this matter, and
Taco Bell expects the matter to be dismissed.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.

YUM has over 42,000 restaurants in more than 130 countries and
territories.  Primarily through the three concepts of KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell (the "Concepts"), the Company develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants which prepare, package and sell a menu of
competitively priced food items.  Units are operated by a Concept
or by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of
franchise or license agreements.  Franchisees can range in size
from individuals owning just one restaurant to large publicly-
traded companies.


* Aerospace, Automotive Worst For Gender Equality, Report Shows
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clare O'Connor, writing for Forbes, reports that Silicon Valley
and Wall Street are often -- and rightly! -- the focus of scrutiny
when talk turns to gender inequality in the workplace. Women make
up just 22.5% of senior roles at large tech firms.  At the 22
largest banks and financial firms, women comprise 49% of middle
managers, but only 16.6% of senior managers.

Things aren't always rosy for the few who do make it to the top.
60% of women in Silicon Valley with a decade or more under their
belts report having been sexually harassed.  Class-action
discrimination suits at investment banks are a dime a dozen.

Still, according to data from women workers themselves, tech and
finance aren't the worst industries for gender inequality.

Fairygodboss, a Glassdoor-like online job review site for women,
analyzed some 4,800 reviews across 30 industries from over 20,000
user submissions.

"Essentially, we analyzed which industries were the ones women
thought were the most gender equitable to work in, and also looked
at average job satisfaction ratings across the employers in these
industries," said Fairygodboss cofounder Georgene Huang, who
launched the company in 2015 with fellow former Dow Jones
executive Romy Newman based on her own experience of job-hunting
while pregnant.

Based on answers to the question, "do you think men and women are
treated fairly and equally at your employer?", aerospace performed
dismally, with just 27% of women responding positively.

Also lagging: companies in the industrial sector, where 30% of
women workers said they feel they're treated like equals.  In the
historically male-dominated automotive industry, 38% of women
employees reported fair treatment.

Technology and finance were both ranked in the middle third, with
56% and 57% of respective respondents feeling their employers
treat them as they do men.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, traditionally female-dominated sectors
came out on top in this report.  At number one was public
relations, with 75% of women workers reporting equal treatment.
Cosmetics placed second with 71%.


* CFPB Director Attacks Consumer Agreement Arbitration Provisions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zane Gilmer, Esq. -- zane.gilmer@stinson.com -- of Stinson Leonard
Street, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor, reports that
on February 18, 2016, Director Richard Cordray of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) gave a speech at the American
Constitution Society, in which he repeatedly attacked arbitration
provisions found in consumer agreements and set the stage for CFPB
rulemaking that will likely greatly restrict the use of
arbitration provisions going forward.

The CFPB's Arbitration Study

Director Cordray's remarks largely summarized the CFPB's earlier
statements and consideration of proposed rules related to the
restriction of arbitration provisions in consumer agreements
related to financial products and services.  For instance, in
March 2015, pursuant to a mandate under The Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the CFPB released its
Arbitration Study: Report to Congress 2015, which is a report on a
study conducted by the CFPB to evaluate the impact of arbitration
provisions on consumers.

   -- Among other things, the study concluded that arbitration
clauses "restrict consumers' relief for disputes with financial
service providers by allowing companies to block group lawsuits;"

   -- most arbitration provisions include a prohibition against
consumers bringing class actions;

   -- very few consumers individually pursue relief against
businesses through arbitration or federal courts; and

   -- more than 75 percent of consumers in the credit card market
did not know if they had agreed to arbitration in their credit
card contract.

   -- As a result of the study, the CFPB began considering rule
proposals that would ban companies from including arbitration
clauses that block class action lawsuits in their consumer
contracts, unless and until the class certification is denied by
the court or class claims are dismissed by the court;

   -- require companies to that use arbitration clauses for
individual disputes to submit to the CFPB all arbitration claims
and awards (which the CFPB may publish on its website for the
public to view) so that the CFPB can ensure that the process is
fair to consumers and determine whether further restrictions on
arbitrations should be undertaken; and

   -- apply to nearly all consumer financial products and services
that the CFPB regulates, including credit cards, checking and
deposit accounts, prepaid cards, money transfer services, certain
auto loans, auto title loans, small dollar or payday loans,
private student loans, and installment loans.

Arbitration Rulemaking is Imminent

Director Cordray's latest comments make clear that restricting
arbitration provisions, including banning class action waivers in
arbitration provisions, is a key priority for the CFPB.  In fact,
Director Cordray stated that "after carefully reflecting on the
findings of our study, the Bureau has decided to launch a
rulemaking process to protect consumers."  The CFPB's next step in
that process is to "publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
seek public comment from all stakeholders prior to finalizing a
rule."

Companies should pay close attention to the rulemaking process as
it could have significant legal implications.  For example, if the
CFPB passes arbitration restrictions that include class action
waivers, companies that currently have such provisions in their
consumer contracts will need to reevaluate those provisions.  One
of the major considerations companies will face is whether to
eliminate arbitration provisions completely from their contracts
in order to preserve the right to maintain class action waivers.

The CFPB's Arbitration Study is Marred with Controversy

Despite the CFPB's reliance on its arbitration study to justify
its current rulemaking efforts to restrict arbitration clauses,
the study has been widely criticized as having relied on
insufficient data and ignoring other information that would lead
to conclusions not favorable to the CFPB's initiative to eliminate
class action waivers.  In other words, the CFPB is accused of
using flawed and insufficient data to reach its desired outcome of
restricting arbitration clauses and class action waivers.  One
such critique, titled The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's
Arbitration Study: A Summary and Critique, was issued by law
professors from the University of Virginia School of Law and
George Mason University School of Law.


* No End in Sight to NLRB Standoff Over Arbitration Agreements
--------------------------------------------------------------
William J. Emanuel, Esq. -- wemanuel@littler.com -- Elizabeth
Parry, Esq. -- mparry@littler.com -- Henry Lederman, Esq., and
Michael J. Lotito, Esq., of Littler Mendelson PC, in an article
for Lexology, report that there seems to be no end in sight to the
standoff between the National Labor Relations Board and at least a
majority of the federal courts over the legality of arbitration
agreements that require employees to waive the right to lead or
participate in class or collective actions.  The NLRB has issued a
barrage of cases in recent months reaffirming and expanding its
controversial theory that this requirement violates the National
Labor Relations Act, notwithstanding Supreme Court precedent
upholding such waivers under the Federal Arbitration Act in cases
involving other statutes.  In addition, despite losing twice on
this issue at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the NLRB has
continued to advocate its theory in that and other circuits.
Meanwhile, the appellate courts remain deluged with petitions to
review NLRB decisions invalidating class waivers and the
agreements in which they are contained.  These and related
developments are discussed below.

NLRB Decisions

In D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184 (2012), a 3-2 majority of
the NLRB decided that requiring employees to agree to a class and
collective action waiver in an arbitration agreement violates the
NLRA because it deprives employees of the right to engage in
protected concerted activity.  The Fifth Circuit reversed this
decision, however, in view of the Supreme Court precedent
upholding class and collective action waivers.  D.R. Horton, Inc.
v. NLRB, 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013) (enforcement of NLRB order
denied in relevant part).

The NLRB reaffirmed its D.R. Horton theory in a later case, Murphy
Oil USA, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 72 (2014).  Once again, the Fifth
Circuit rejected the NLRB's decision.  Murphy Oil USA, Inc.v.
NLRB, 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015) (enforcement of NLRB order
denied in relevant part).  However, the NLRB has announced that it
intends to petition the court for an en banc rehearing of this
case.

Relying on a policy of "nonacquiescence," the NLRB has refused to
defer to the rulings of the Fifth Circuit in D.R. Horton and
Murphy Oil, and it has continued to issue numerous decisions
reaffirming the principle established in those cases.  In doing
so, the NLRB has rejected numerous defenses raised by employers.
For example, the NLRB has held that:

The six-month statute of limitations in Section 10(b) of the NLRA
is ineffective in such cases, even if employees signed the
arbitration agreement more than six months before an unfair labor
practice charge was filed with the Board.  See PJ Cheese,Inc., 362
NLRB No. 177 (2015).

An opt-out provision in an arbitration agreement is also
ineffective and itself an additional burden on employees'
protected rights to pursue collective action.  See On Assignment
StaffingServices, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 189 (2015).  Note, however,
that the Ninth Circuit arguably has reached a contrary conclusion
in the Johnmohammadi decision discussed below.

Even if an arbitration agreement does not include an express
waiver of class and collective actions, it is unlawful if the
employer interprets the agreement to bar such actions by moving in
court to compel arbitration on an individual basis.  See Century
Fast Foods, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 97 (2016).

The fact that an arbitration agreement permits employees to file
claims with administrative agencies, which could then pursue a
judicial remedy on behalf of employees as a group, is not an
effective defense because access to administrative agencies is not
the equivalent of access to a judicial forum where employees
themselves may seek to litigate their claims on a collective
basis. See SolarCity Corporation, 363 NLRB No. 83 (2015).  Note,
however, that the Eighth Circuit has reached a contrary conclusion
in the Owen v.Bristol Care decision discussed below.

An arbitration agreement that precludes collective action in all
forums is unlawful even if entered into voluntarily.  See Ross
Stores, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 79 (2015).

The foregoing are only examples of the employer defenses rejected
by the NLRB in the numerous cases issued by that agency involving
the D.R. Horton theory.

Supreme Court Precedent

The NLRB's approach to this issue appears to be on a collision
course with a series of decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court on the
enforceability of class and collective action waivers under the
Federal Arbitration Act.  In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S.
333 (2011), the Court ruled that FAA enforcement of a class action
waiver in a standard form contract containing an arbitration
agreement overrides a state law prohibiting mandatory arbitration
and class action waivers as unconscionable.  Subsequently, the
Court ruled in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132 S.Ct. 665
(2012), that arbitration agreements should be enforced according
to their terms, even for claims under federal statutes, unless the
FAA's mandate has been overruled by a "contrary congressional
command."

In addition, the Supreme Court ruled in American Express Co. v.
Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S.Ct. 2304 (2013), that class
action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable under the
FAA, even if the plaintiff's cost of individually arbitrating a
federal statutory claim exceeds the potential recovery and
arbitration is economically unfeasible.  And in the most recent
decision, DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 136 S.Ct. 463 (2015), the
Court upheld a class action waiver in the arbitration provision of
a service agreement under the FAA, rejecting a claim that the
waiver could be invalidated by state law.

It appears likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately resolve
this apparent conflict between its precedent under the FAA and the
NLRB's theory under the NLRA.  At least until the recent passing
of Justice Scalia, it seemed unlikely that the Court would defer
to the NLRB in light of that precedent, although this assessment
could change if there is a shift in the control of the Supreme
Court.  But in several other contexts and over the course of many
years, the Supreme Court has reined in the NLRB when that agency's
remedial preferences trenched on other federal statutes. See
Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002) and
cases cited therein.

It should be noted, however, that a confrontation over this issue
might be avoided if a change occurs in the control of the NLRB. In
this regard, strong dissents by two Board members in numerous
cases upholding the D.R. Horton theory suggest that it could be
rejected if such a change in control occurs next year as a result
of the upcoming presidential election.

Pending D.R. Horton Appeals

At last count, at least 28 cases involving the D.R. Horton issue
were pending in the federal appellate courts on review from
decisions of the NLRB.  Under federal law, employers have three
appellate court options when seeking review of a decision of that
agency -- (1) the circuit where the unfair labor practice
allegedly took place; (2) any circuit in which the employer
transacts business; or (3) the D.C. Circuit. 29 U.S.C. Sec 160(f).
Not surprisingly, national companies have favored the Fifth
Circuit in view of that court's decisions in the D.R. Horton and
Murphy Oil cases.  As a result, at least 20 cases are pending in
that circuit.  The remaining cases are divided among four other
circuits -- the Ninth (four cases), the Eighth (two cases), the
Third (one case); and the D.C. Circuit (one case).  All of these
cases are pending on petitions for review filed by employers from
adverse decisions of the NLRB involving essentially the same
issue.

This appellate scene is highly unusual and might be unprecedented.
As a result of the sheer volume of appeals, the NLRB has recently
taken the unusual step of requesting the Fifth Circuit to hold in
abeyance many of the cases pending in that circuit until the
Board's petition for an en banc rehearing of the Murphy Oil
decision has been resolved.  So far, it appears the court is
complying with that request.

In a favorable development for employers, when oral argument was
recently held in one of the pending Eighth Circuit cases, that
court reportedly declined to hear argument on the D.R. Horton
issue in view of contrary circuit law. Cellular Sales of Missouri
v. NLRB, Case Nos. 15-1860, 15-1620 (8th Cir.).  It appears that
the contrary circuit law was established in a private party case,
Owen v. Bristol Care, discussed below.

Private Party Cases

The NLRB's D.R. Horton theory has also been rejected by federal
appellate courts in several cases involving employment-related
class or collective actions filed by private parties, typically in
the context of motions to compel arbitration.  For example:

The Second Circuit upheld a class action waiver in an arbitration
agreement and refused to defer to the NLRB's decision in D.R.
Horton. Sutherland v. Ernst & Young, 726 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2013).
The Eighth Circuit upheld a class action waiver in such an
agreement, stating it did not owe any deference to the NLRB's
reasoning in D.R. Horton.  Owen v. Bristol Care, Inc., 702 F.3d
1050 (8th Cir. 2013).

The Eleventh Circuit relied on the Fifth Circuit's decision
rejecting the D.R. Horton theory in finding that the FLSA does not
prohibit an employer from including a collective action waiver in
an arbitration agreement.  Walthour v. Chipio Windshield Repair,
LLC, 745 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2014).

The Ninth Circuit found that it was not necessary to rule on the
Board's D.R. Horton theory in granting an employer's motion to
compel arbitration of wage and hour claims, because the plaintiff
had failed to raise that argument before the district court.
However, the court noted in detail that the Eighth Circuit and
several federal district courts had refused to follow the Board's
theory. Richards v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 744 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.
2013).

Subsequently, a different Ninth Circuit panel issued two decisions
that raised the D.R. Horton theory but avoided deciding whether it
was valid or must otherwise be limited.  In Johnmohammadi v.
Bloomingdale's, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2014), the
court granted an employer's petition to compel arbitration of an
overtime claim because the employee could have chosen to opt out
of an arbitration agreement during a 30-day window period, but
chose not to do so.  The court stated that having freely elected
to arbitrate employment-related disputes on an individual basis,
the employee could not claim that enforcement of the agreement
violated the Norris-LaGuardia Act or the NLRA.  Thus, the court
distinguished D.R. Horton, which by its terms addressed only
mandatory pre-dispute agreements.  In the companion Davis
decision, 755 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2014), the court reversed a
federal district court's denial of an employer's motion to compel
arbitration and remanded the case, but declined to state an
opinion on whether a mandatory arbitration program would violate
the NLRA.

Until recently, the NLRB did not participate in private party
cases because they did not involve review of a decision of that
agency.  However, the NLRB has recently changed course by filing
amicus curiae briefs in such cases in support of its theory.  So
far, the Board has filed briefs in three of these cases, all of
which are still pending.  Morris v. Ernst & Young, Case No. 13-
16599 (NLRB Amicus Brief filed 11/6/2015, 9th Cir.); Lewis v. Epic
Systems Corp., Case No. 15-2997 (NLRB Amicus Brief filed 12/16/15,
Motion granted for NLRB to participate in oral argument 1/12/16,
7th Cir.); and Patterson v. Raymours Furniture Co., Case No. 15-
2820 (NLRB Amicus Brief filed on 12/23/15, 2d Cir.).

The Epic Systems case referred to above is unusual because the
federal district court had relied on the NLRB's D.R. Horton theory
to rule against the employer notwithstanding the Supreme Court
precedent described above.  In addition, a federal district court
in California recently reached a similar decision.  Totten v.
KelloggBrown & Root, LLC, Case No. ED CV 14-1766, 2016 WL 316019
(1/22/16 C.D. Cal.).

NLRB's Appellate Strategy

It is clear that the NLRB will not defer to the Fifth Circuit's
view of the law as set forth in the court's D.R. Horton and Murphy
Oil decisions.  Instead, the Board could seek to obtain a ruling
from the U.S. Supreme Court that the NLRA or Norris-LaGuardia Act
overrides the FAA on the issue of class and collective action
waivers.

In pursuing its strategy, the NLRB will follow its policy of
"nonacquiescence," which involves a refusal to defer to adverse
decisions of the federal appellate courts except as to "the law of
the case," while eventually attempting to advance the issue to the
Supreme Court's docket by filing a petition for certiorari with
that court.  In some other cases in the past, this process has
lasted for several years.  And, of course, an employer on the
losing end of a future circuit court of appeal ruling likewise
could then claim that the circuits were split on this issue
warranting Supreme Court review and settlement of the issue.

Under normal circumstances, the NLRB would be required to show a
"split in the circuits" before the Solicitor General will approve
filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.  That
split may emerge after decisions are announced in any of the
pending cases discussed above, and, as noted, a split would mean
that an employer that lost on the D.R.Horton issue could itself
seek review.  The NLRB's amicus appearances in private party cases
appear to be aimed at advancing the ball toward a split that it
hopes will develop.

Fifth Circuit's View of "Nonacquiescence"

One further complication for the NLRB involves a position asserted
by the Fifth Circuit in the Murphy Oil decision regarding the
policy of nonacquiecence described above.  In that case, the
employer argued that the court should hold the NLRB in contempt
for its "defiance" of the court's decision in D.R. Horton.  The
court declined to condemn the Board's nonacquiescence, but it
stated that an "administrative agency's need to acquiesce to an
earlier circuit court decision when deciding similar issues in
later cases will be affected by whether the new decision will be
reviewed in that same circuit."  In addition, the court added the
observation that the "Board may well not know which circuit's law
will be applied on a petition for review."

These statements by the Fifth Circuit suggest that an employer
involved in a D.R. Horton case might consider notifying the Board
during the administrative proceedings that it would seek appellate
review of an adverse decision in that circuit -- assuming it would
have that option.  As discussed above, this would include any
employer that transacts business in the Fifth Circuit, or an
employer involved in a case where the unfair labor practice
allegedly took place in that circuit.

NLRB Rulings on Related Issues

In addition to deciding that employees cannot be required to agree
to class and collective action waivers in an arbitration
agreement, the NLRB has issued several decisions involving two
related issues.

First, the Board has ruled in numerous cases that an arbitration
agreement was unlawful because complicated language might cause
employees to construe the agreement as prohibiting them from
filing unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB.  For example,
see Everglades College, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 73 (2015).  This is
essentially a drafting problem that employers should avoid because
it could complicate an appeal to the federal courts from an NLRB
decision on the issue of class and collective action waivers.  For
example, although the employer prevailed on the main issue in the
appeal of the D.R. Horton case as discussed above, the court also
found that the employer had violated the NLRA in that case because
employees would interpret the arbitration agreement as prohibiting
the filing of charges with the NLRB.

Second, the NLRB has decided that an employer could not require
employees to agree to a class and collective action waiver in a
personnel document that did not also include an agreement to
arbitrate employment-related claims.  For example, see Logisticare
Solutions, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 85 (2015).  Such language should be
avoided because the absence of an agreement to arbitrate claims
precludes reliance on the FAA, which is critical in the defense of
such cases.


* Private Class-Action Plaintiffs' Law Firms Eye Equal Pay Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott M. Pechaitis, Esq. -- Scott.Pechaitis@jacksonlewis.com -- of
Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article The National Law Review, reports
that on February 1st, the EEOC announced it would begin requiring
employers to submit information on employee wages and work hours
broken down by gender, race and EEO-1 category as part of its
annual EEO-1 reporting process.  For the first time, the EEOC (and
the OFCCP) will have nationwide data on employee pay to help
identify employers who may be unwittingly contributing to the wage
gap by paying women less than men for the same type of work
without a legitimate business reason for doing so, or by steering
women into lower paying positions.  There is no doubt this will
lead to an increase in class-based investigations by EEOC under
Title VII and the Equal Pay Act.

But the EEOC is not the only one looking closely at equal pay
issues. Indeed, the EEOC's announcement comes at a time when the
nation is experiencing a heightened awareness of equal pay issues.
National celebrities like Patricia Arquette are speaking out on
the issue sparking a public debate across social media -- when
Twitter is afire with equal pay discussions, it is safe to call it
a national conversation.

The private plaintiffs' bar has also been paying attention to
compensation issues, as the federal government and some states has
implemented new rules making it easier to establish claims of pay
discrimination. The strictest of these new laws, California's Fair
Pay Act, took effect on January 1.  Under this Act, employees in
California are no longer required to show they were paid less than
a member of the opposite sex for "equal" work in the same
establishment -- they can now make a prima facie case under state
law based on colleagues doing "substantially similar" work,
regardless of location.

New York also amended its equal pay laws in January, making it
easier for employees in that state to sue their employers for pay
discrimination.   In several other states, changes to equal pay
laws have recently been enacted or are currently being considered,
including Connecticut, Colorado,  Delaware, Illinois,
Massachusetts, North Dakota, Oregon, and Washington.

Adding fuel to the fire of employee awareness, many of these new
laws include "pay transparency" requirements that make it unlawful
to take adverse action against employees for asking about or
talking with colleagues about compensation.

The increased attention to equal pay has already resulted in an
uptick in complaints filed by private class-action plaintiffs' law
firms.  In many cases, pay discrimination may be an attractive
"tack on" claim for plaintiffs to include in a complaint alleging
another type of discrimination, or even in a class or collective
wage-and-hour action.

One thing that makes pay claims particularly attractive for
plaintiffs is the availability of data. All employers are required
to keep copious pay records.  To a private plaintiff law firm, for
every one person who walks in the door alleging pay
discrimination, there may be dozens or even hundreds of other
potential clients identifiable in the employer's data.

The EEOC may have just made the task of finding those other
potential claims easier. Now that (it appears) employers will be
required by EEOC to prepare annual reports on employee pay, they
should anticipate private plaintiffs' lawyers will be seeking to
obtain copies of those reports and analyzing them for class-based
claims of pay discrimination.

So, What Should Employers Do Now?

In the wake of the increased enforcement of equal pay laws on both
the federal and state level, all employers should be reviewing
their pay policies and practices to ensure they comply with
current law and are not creating risk for the company.

Employers should also periodically analyze their pay data with the
help of qualified statisticians or other experts. Moreover, it is
now more important than ever that these analyses be conducted
under the attorney-client privilege -- the EEOC and private
plaintiffs' lawyers are going to ask for copies of pay analyses,
and there is nothing worse than having the results of your own
analysis used against you.


* Scalia's Death May Impact Future of Class Action Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty and Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports
that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia penned three
majority opinions that shaped the class action landscape, but now
the court must grapple with key issues that linger.

What does the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
mean for the future of class action litigation?

In 2011 Justice Scalia authored the majority opinion in AT&T v.
Concepcion, which held that arbitration agreements that require
consumers to waive their class action rights are valid.  A few
months later, Justice Scalia wrote for the majority in Wal-Mart v.
Dukes, decertifying a nationwide employment class action alleging
gender bias across the country.  There Justice Scalia found that
the workers' individual claims overwhelmed common, classwide
issues.  In Comcast v. Behrendin 2013, Scalia instructed lower
courts to consider whether plaintiffs have a viable model to show
classwide damages before certifying a class action.

Summing up his impact on class actions, Donn Pickett of Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius called Justice Scalia "the architect of a dramatic
shift in class action standard."

Before Justice Scalia died, the justices heard Tyson Foods v.
Bouaphakeo, brought by employees seeking payment for time spent
donning and doffing protective gear.  That case asked the court to
weigh the standards for class certification where some class
members haven't suffered any damages.  The case also raises the
question of whether a case is suited for class status if the
plaintiffs lawyers intend to calculate damages though statistical
sampling. The court has not ruled.

Other class actions on the Supreme Court's current slate of cases
include two appeals from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  Spokeo v. Robins, which has drawn amicus curiae interest
from technology companies because of its potential implications
for privacy litigation, raises questions about standing for a
plaintiff who's suffered no concrete harm. Microsoft v. Baker asks
whether appeals courts can review a class certification ruling
after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their case.

Lawyers on both sides of the class action bar expressed doubt that
the Supreme Court would diverge significantly, at least in the
short run, from the principles Scalia laid out.

Jeremy Rosen -- jrosen@horvitzlevy.com -- an appellate specialist
at Horvitz & Levy, said that although there could be an end to the
string of defense-friendly decisions from the court, he doesn't
anticipate a "retrenchment" pulling away from Scalia's opinions of
the past five years.

"I think on some cases there could be a small shift.  But it's not
going to be nearly the shift that it will be on the big-ticket
social issues -- highly charged political cases," Levy said.

Joseph Sellers of plaintiffs firm Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll
agreed.  He said there would likely be an effort by some on the
court "to avoid dramatic changes in the jurisprudence in the class
action area and others."

"It's not going to result in radical changes over a brief period
of time," Mr. Sellers said.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Theodore Boutrous Jr., who successfully
represented Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and argued opposite Sellers in
Dukes, had a similar take. "[Scalia's] leadership on these issues
has set the court on a path where I do n't think there will be
many major diversions," Mr. Boutrous said.  "Through persistence
and excellent legal scholarship and persuasion . . . Justice
Scalia created a body of law."

Still, lawyers may start to feel the impact of Justice Scalia's
death as decisions come out in some of the session's big class
action cases, said Ben Feuer of the California Appellate Law
Group.

Mr. Feuer said that he could foresee the court issuing a decision
with a 4-4 split in a case like Tyson Foods -- one dealing
specifically with a narrow aspect of class action law.  That would
leave intact the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit and be a win for plaintiffs.

But Mr. Feuer said in a case such as Spokeo, where the justices
are dealing with "the outer limits" of Congress' power" to
establish a legal remedy by statute, there's more incentive to
wait until Scalia's replacement is on board.  "I could see,
perhaps, more of an institutional desire to have it decided by the
full court," he said.

Lawyers on both sides of the class action bar said Scalia's
rulings forced lower court judges and lawyers to focus on the
facts of cases at class certification.




                            *********

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  * * *